EZEKIEL

 

and YHWH’s

 

 Judgment

 

 

for the

 

Good News

 

PEOPLE

 

 

 

VOLUME XXVI

 

Law and Justice

 

 

EZEKIEL and YHWH’s

 

 

Judgment for the

 

 

 Good News People

 

 

 

 

Volume XXVI--Law and Justice

 

 

 

 

 

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 XXVI--Law and Justice

 

 

CHAPTER                                                                              PAGE

 

 

      -                  Cover Page                                                                                                         1

 

      -                  Title Page                                                                                                             2

 

      -                  Contents                                                                                                              3

 

      -                  Publisher’s Preface                                                                                           5

 

 

Part ZZZ--Christian Injustice 

 

      393             A Story from Yisrael                                                                                          6

 

      394             Christian Justice System                                                                                14

 

      395             More Christian Injustice                                                                                  19

 

      396             Lawyers                                                                                                              24

 

      397             Lack of Honor and Integrity in Justice                                                          37

 

 

Part AAAA--Government Corruption 

 

      398             The Unjust Justice Department                                                                     47

 

      399             The Justice-Media Link                                                                                   50

 

      400             More Government Corruption                                                                        55

 

      401             Federal Law Enforcement                                                                              63

 

 

Part BBBB--Christians Disobey Christian Laws 

 

      402             Christians and Their Own Laws I                                                                  68

 

      403             Christians and Their Own Laws II                                                                 79

 

      404             Christians and Their Own Laws III                                                                92

 

      405             Christians and Their Own Laws IV                                                               98

 

      406             Christians and Their Own Laws V                                                              110

 

      407             The Modern Philosophy of Law                                                                  123

 

 

Part CCCC--Christian Hypocrites 

 

      408             A Christian World of Hypocrisy I                                                                  133

 

      409             A Christian World of Hypocrisy II                                                                 145

 

      410             A Christian World of Hypocrisy III                                                                156

 

      411             Gross Ignorance                                                                                             161

SHEERIT YISRAEL

PO Box 473

Calder, Idaho 83808, USA

 

 

Publisher’s Preface

 

Greetings!  The following presentation is volume twenty-six 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 393--A Story from Yisrael

 

 

A Revisit to a Story From the House of Yisrael  

 

For an excellent illustration on the incredible confusion and rebellion in the generic classification and analysis of Israelites and the police state that they have now allowed to develop (as described in prior chapters), one of the most profound and serious mitzwah in the Scriptures says that one must never afflict a widow woman and/or orphan children (Ex 22:22; Deut 10:18; 14:29; 24:17-19; 26:12-13; 27:19; Jas 1:27). 

 

Truly, it is a very evil and wicked person who would dare hurt a widow woman and fatherless kids (Job 24:21). 

 

Also, the US Constitution outlines some laws which are relevant (as will be described in some detail in later chapters herein on the decision of Christians to ignore their own laws, as well as those of The ELOHIM)--like laws that say people are to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures; that people are not to be denied life, liberty and property without due process of law; that private property shall not be taken without just compensation; that persons in a suit at common law shall have a right to jury trial (with the jury trying all facts and the law); that an accused is entitled to a quick/speedy jury trial (before his peers); and that excessive bail shall not be required. 

 

So there was a couple named McGuckin with six kids, living in Garfield Bay, North Idaho (cited earlier).  Per a Jun 18, 2001, “Spotlight” (p. 3) story on “Federal Child Swiping a Profitable Endeavor” by Tony Blizzard, the tragedy of this family was cited. 

 

Michael, the 61 years old husband, was in poor health with multiple sclerosis.  He lost his sawmill business and faced troubled times.  Thereupon, he could not pay the excessive 1998 taxes of $8,700 on the family’s 40-acre farm and house (which just happened to be located in Bonner County, near Beaver Lake, and worth up to $500,000).  Accordingly, the county seized the property for the taxes on May 25, 1999. 

 

However, there was a provision in the law which allowed people like the McGuckins to pay the back taxes within three years and nullify the tax sale (evidently, by May 25, 2001).  In August 2000, the county sold the property for $50,000 to a fat cat in New Jersey with alleged local connections.  Obviously, in May 2001, there was pressure on to allow the chosen, privileged and connected buyer to take possession. 

 

 

The Man Died 

 

On May 12, 2001, the ill Michael McGuckin died of multiple sclerosis--leaving behind his 46 year-old widow JoAnn (who, herself, has a heart condition) and six children, ages eight to 16.  With Mike gone, JoAnn was faced with no money and a pile of debts. 

 

The family had been self reliant and actually home schooled their kids (which, of course, made them enemies of the state).  Thus, the widow was reluctant to go to the county for financial help (though she finally did so, in order to get her husband buried).  She and/or her husband earlier had contacted the county about the taxes due and offered to deed part of the land to the county in payment of the taxes. 

 

But the supposedly “loving, compassionate” county officials said “no” to this offer.  Being indigent and being opposed to taking welfare, the widow finally struggled to fill out the forms to have the man buried by the county.  Two weeks after the death of her husband, the funeral was set and Michael was buried. 

 

 

The Entrance of Conspiracy? 

 

In the meantime, the county prosecutor and child protection people entered into evidence of a prima facie conspiracy (possibly with other county officials, the NJ buyer and/or a local land developer/speculator, who was buying up much of the nearby land) to throw the widow in jail--so that her property could be more easily stolen. 

 

After all, it would have been a difficult process for this cabal of alleged conspirators to steal the property from a widow and six orphans and evict them two weeks after the husband/father died.  But with her in jail and past the three years deadline, the alleged conspirators could easily and quickly take possession and make a killing in profits. 

 

So these concerned county officials ordered the local Sheriff to arrest the woman on the day of the funeral.  The pretext for this arrest was that she was criminally negligent in taking care of her kids.  Apparently, an older girl had had a squabble with her parents and left home to enter the Navy earlier. 

 

Reportedly, this teen-age girl made some accusations against her father and mother when she left home (to the tune that the mother did not keep a clean house and that she did not properly attend to her kids.  Conversely, the mother was to later claim that she did the best she could with a dying husband, no money and many problems).   

 

 

Big Brother Moves In 

 

Consequently, the prosecutor and child protection people used these old allegations to support their prima facie conspiracy to place Mrs McGuckin in jail and her kids in a foster home.  This would allow the NJ people to take possession of the property with no further delay.  For sure, if the Sheriff tried to evict her and her orphaned kids two weeks after the death of her husband, it would have been a nasty process.  

 

In the meantime, the Sheriff refused to arrest her on the day of the funeral.  So he left her alone for another week before sending out deputies to arrest and jail her.  In order to make the arrest, the “concerned” law enforcement people enticed her to come out of her house--ostensibly, in order for them to help her fill out some forms so that she could get social security (from her dead husband and for the kids). 

 

Being a new widow and down and out, the poor woman came out of doors and was immediately arrested and whisked off to the county jail.  The local female magistrate ordered the woman held under a $100,000 bond. 

 

With the arrest of the woman, the Sheriff (per the arbitrary demands of the child protection people) tried to take the children in custody--so that they could be sent to foster homes.  However, the children refused to surrender and held out for five days.  Finally, intermediaries persuaded the kids to give up to the (loving/kind?) officers, while their mother was socked away in the county jail. 

 

The evil, controlled, national media picked upon the story and gave it some coverage--with a painted picture that the woman was evil, that the man died from malnutrition, that the kids had to eat soup made from pond lilies and that the kids actually had guns (which are still legal in the US) and some dogs (which many Americans own) to use against the “loving and compassionate” law enforcement people. 

 

The leftist Jun 11, 2001, “Newsweek” (p. 18-19) called the woman mentally ill and described her home as a bunker with guns and snarling hounds.  “Newsweek also called the Sheriff’s seizure of the kids a “rescue.”  The deceitful and evil Spokane “Spokesman-Review” of Jun 4, 2001 (p. 1), said that the standoff with the kids for five days was “marked by wild dogs, stockpiled weapons and hungry, frantic children.” 

 

The Rusty Humphrys’ “Saturday Night Live” program devoted its effort on Jun 2, 2001, to a report on this event.  Naturally, Humphrys reported the controlled media spin that the kids pulled a gun and turned the bad dogs loose on the “loving” Sheriff. 

 

 

Distortions and Lies 

 

The only problem with all of this hype, coming from the controlled media, is that it was almost all lies and deception.  There was virtually no truth in any of the reports.  They had twisted, lied, deceived and spun the true story into a story of hate--primarily against the widow.  And why would the controlled media (controlled by a handful of super rich plutocrats) be so anxious to paint a picture of lies and deception? 

 

The reason is obvious.  These big boys have an agenda for world government.  This agenda envisions a dictatorial, totalitarian state which completely controls all thoughts and thinking of all of its zombiized subjects (as envisioned in George Orwell’s “1984”).  Therefore, people now must be taught to never oppose the state in any of its undertakings.  We all must submit! 

 

Last, there is a plank in the Communist plan--calling for a division between children and their parents.  The goal of Socialists have for ages been the separation of children from parents and the placing of children under the state to be raised as zombiized subjects of the state.  This is one of the reasons for the focus upon outcome based education and child protection services, as discussed earlier. 

 

True, there were some dogs at the McGuckin house.  But most of them were pups from a female mother.  Also, in truth, the house did have two guns in it (which are perfectly legal by the US Constitution).  But never did any of the kids handle, display or brandish the guns at the arresting Sheriff, despite the controlled media lies. 

 

The children were taken to a local hospital and found to be well fed and in good health.  Even the dogs were found to be in good health.  There was food in the house--as the woman had been receiving some free food from the local county food distribution program.  The arrested kids were soon to become wards of the big Brother state and shipped off to a foster home. 

 

 

More Fall Out

 

The child protection thugs would get a new case to bolster their case load (so that they could get more state money and hire more employees).  The state would use taxpayer funds to pay for a foster home for the kids--which would allow the evil child protection people to come in and begin brainwashing the children on the evils of their mother. 

 

With the child protection lies (from the trained, professional, child protection psychologists and bureaucrats), the small children could be sufficiently brainwashed and deceived to come to hate their mother and preclude all possibilities of ever being reconciled and back together with her as a family. 

 

Many of these child protection people in the US states appear to be butch lesbians--which only goes on to add to the dilemma and sickness of the whole child kidnapping practice, as discussed in former chapters.  In this system, everybody in the know seems to be happy.  The only losers were/are the hurting widow and orphans. 

 

Days later, the (supposedly fair and impartial) judge said that she would release the poor widow from jail, if the widow would agree to stay away from her kids.  But the widow said no. 

 

So she stayed in jail (eventually, she gave in and agreed to the demands of Big Brother and was released.  As a side point, the demands and the agreement were all made as secret stipulations and have never been made public.  So no one knows for sure what the facts are). 

 

Per the media spin and the local Bonner County officials, there was never an issue over due process of law, indictment by a grand jury, trial by jury, excessive bail, justice, fair play, etc. 

 

 

Christian Preacher Barley, Revisited 

 

And by all means, no one gave a squat about the Torah and YHWH’s Words about afflicting widows and orphans.  In an injustice like this, one must ask where was the Bonner County Christian preachers?  Or did they care one way or the other?  Thus, the Scriptures were trodden upon by evil Christians (even including Dave Barley, the local Christian Identity preacher in Sandpoint). 

 

In his Sep-Oct 2001 “America’s Promise newsletter” (p. 7-8), Christian leader Barley gave an update on the case.  He said that he had talked to some private persons who knew the woman.  Allegedly, these gossipers told him that she maintained a “messy, polluted, unhealthy home,” to apparently include having a mouse problem and some bugs (Barley didn’t say what kind of bugs--cockroaches, flies, mosquitoes or what). 

 

He then added that she was a recluse who did not “allow family, friends, nor any church to be involved in any way in her or her families’ life because she was an overly paranoid schizophrenic, who did not trust hardly anyone... Biblically, an individual is not above the community/church.  The local body does have the right to intervene...” 

 

 

The Confused Barley 

 

Obviously, sun worship leader Barley simply does not understand the Word.  He is totally lost in trying to tell anyone anything--in terms of the Book.  After all, throughout the Word, YHWH is always the defender of widow women and fatherless children.  Too, there is the question of lashon hara (the evil tongue) in spreading gossip.  On judgment day, the evil Barley will have some tall explaining to do when he is judged. 

 

In all of his gossiping (lashon hara) and harsh judgment placed upon the helpless woman, sun worship leader Barley failed to mention that up until a few days before her arrest, the poor woman had had a husband at home (though he was extremely ill, he was the head of the household and in charge of her life).  How much blame should be placed upon him?  Or should it all be placed upon her? 

 

Actually, if the woman did act a little peculiar, she assuredly had a lot of reasons for it.  For years, her husband was sick and dying.  She had to take care of him and the house full of children.  Since he was not working, they had no income and it was up to her to try to feed and provide for the family.  The oldest girl could have helped her mother greatly.  Instead, she abandoned her family and joined the Navy. 

 

In the meantime, the excessive taxes were due on the property.  The county could have accepted the trade offer the family made.  Or for that matter, it was even in the county’s power to forgive the taxes.  But the county big shots were more interested in profits and gain and not in helping a sick, dying man and/or a poor helpless widow woman with a house-full of kids. 

 

To top it all off, the self reliant family was opposed to taking welfare.  Manifestly, that poor woman had her hands full.  And even if she did go to one of the sun worship churches, they would have done nothing for her.  With the death of her husband, any of the churches could have helped her.  But they didn’t!  She didn’t have to be a church member in order for them to give her some money, food or bury her husband. 

 

Surely, they could have contacted county officials and intervened on her behalf.  And where was the gossiping Barley when this family was sinking?  Did Barley help (or did he just come along later to gossip)?  Truly, if she had of went to some Christian Church for help, her plight on judgment day would be far worse.  She would have likely picked up a Christian demon and would have become even more peculiar (and in real sin). 

 

The point is that sun worshipper Barley simply knows not what he is talking about.  Or at least, he knows little or nothing about the Scriptures and truth.  With people like Barley running the Christian Identity movement, its future is clear.  It will go down the tubes.  And someday, the uninformed and gossiping Barley will meet his fate (punishment) from the same evil system that destroyed the McGuckin woman. 

 

Actually, this case was not unique in the US, as noted in prior chapters.  Oppressive, government crimes like this one routinely happen across America. 

 

 

YHWH Cares 

 

But the preachers and government and fat cat workers of evil should have awakened long enough to read what The ELOHIM says on this matter.  For example, in Exodus 22:22-24, YHWH declares that if that widow and those kids cry out to Him, He will hear and He will kill those men and turn their wives and children into widows and orphans.  He is The Avenger of widows and orphans (Ps 68:5; 146:9). 

 

The Dec 16, 2001, “Coeur d’Alene Press” paper (p. A7) had a follow-up story on Mrs McGuckin which noted that she lives in a small, single, motel room and spends her time praying, writing in her journal and meeting with her lawyers and doctors.  Apparently, she is a Roman Catholic as she gets to see her children at Sunday services at a local Roman Catholic Church. 

 

With this background, there is always a question about whether The MOST HIGH will hear and listen to the prayers and petitions of people who are in sin and transgressions.  In this vein, it’s hard to fathom that He would even listen to the prayers of a pagan Christian.  With her link to pagan sun worship, one must wonder whether her prayers to the sun god will accomplish anything immediately or not. 

 

This writer is suspicious that The MOST HIGH is not bound in His Word to hear her prayers and take prompt vengeance upon the evil people who have hurt her and her orphan children (though He is aware of the problem and may address it later in time). 

 

While He may or may not listen to her prayers, we can be sure that The HIGHEST has been upset with the gross sin and wickedness of the local sun worshipping Christians who perpetuated this evil upon a widow woman and orphan children.  Who this woman prays to and worships will not alter the fact that the local sun worshipping Christians treated her grossly wrong and very contrary to the Scriptures. 

 

Manifestly, YHWH is the defender of helpless widow women and orphan children.  While He may have no obligation, Scripturally, to immediately answer the prayers of this widow woman, surely He has taken note of everything that has happened to her.  At some point in time, He will very likely act against the evil people of Bonner County. 

 

In any case, whether YHWH acts at once or later, He will surely act in time and punish those evil Christian sun worshippers for how they have afflicted and hurt innocent widow women and children.  Those pagan sun worshipping Christians are simply not going to get away with this wickedness.  They will have a price to pay for their sins.  Sin always brings a pay-back! 

 

 

Some History 

 

Interestingly, in the ancient Houses of Yisrael and Yehudah, the evil people oppressed widows and orphans (Isa 1:17-23; 9:17; 10:2; Jer 7:6; 22:3).  And sure enough, YHWH was The Avenger who had those men killed and their widows and orphans shipped off into slavery and captivity.  In the age end, the same thing is prophesied for the House of Yisrael (Ezek 22:7, 25; Zech 7:10-14; Mal 3:5). 

 

Prophetically, in the age end, evil men will once more oppress helpless widows and orphaned children (as has happened in Idaho and really across modern America).  Will YHWH hear their cries?  Or will He execute judgment upon the sinning leaders (religious, political, etc) of the House of Yisrael.  For sure, these wretched injustices across Christian America invite a coming judgment--and soon! 

 

If this injustice happened to an Ultra Orthodox Jewish family in Israel (or even, in the US), the Ultra Orthodox Jews would assemble in mass to protest, raise “Hades” and demand restitution for the woman and children. They would never stand by and do nothing.  But apathetic, evil Christians simply don’t care and won’t do anything. 

 

The Word must have had US laws and enforcement and justice in mind when it said-- “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter... Who justify and acquit the guilty for a bribe, and take away the rights of the innocent...” (Isa 5:20-23, “Amplified Bible”). 

 

 

Some More History   

 

A former chapter discussed at some length the incredible apathy and don’t care problems in modern Ephraim America.  Of course, the dilemma with sun worshipping Christian Americans started from the very beginnings of this nation in 1788.  As outlined earlier, George Washington mistakenly allowed Amalekite bankers to have power (led by Alexander Hamilton or Levine). 

 

True, Andy Jackson came along in 1828 and ran them out of Washington.  But they were ever around, waiting for a comeback.  From Abraham Lincoln and on forward, Americans never bothered to exercise any control over immigration and naturalization of citizens.  Anybody and everybody came and they were welcomed with open arms (up until Warren Harding and the Quotas act of the early 1920s). 

 

In allowing Amalekites from Eastern Europe and Hamites from Southern Europe to come here, it was only a question of time until organized crime would take over.  And as the general society continued to miscegenate and amalgamate, everything was on a decline (with the reality that the entropy law was in full effect). 

 

Then the bankers were at last allowed to own the US currency and gold supply with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.  The incompetent and/or evil Woodrow Wilson quickly paid off his benefactors by signing the act into law.  Thus, the nation was for sure doomed to eventual world government when the Amalekites were given custody and control of America’s financial future. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 394--Christian Justice System

 

 

The Courts 

 

A few remarks are needed here on the idea of American justice.  Not only do many federal agents go out of their way to obstruct justice (as outlined earlier) and particularly if there is reason to believe that they have acted illegally or improperly, but there are continuing problems for any surviving persons facing a federal trial. 

 

In the first place, the previously cited Jack McLamb says that typically federal prosecutors use the FBI to conduct background checks on potential jurors.  With a background profile, the prosecutor is able to manipulate the courts to keep potential jurors off of the stand who might be inclined to side with the victims. 

 

With these background checks, politically incorrect people normally will never even appear on a jury list.  A politically incorrect, accused party is just not going to have any politically incorrect jurors.  Thus, whatever jury chosen will start off on the side of the government prosecutors. 

 

And most importantly, the judges themselves have been appointed by, are paid by and serve this system.  In other words, they are part and parcel of the problem.  Of course, some will be honest and try to dispense justice.  But too many judges are prostitute judges, just like the prostitute politicians who are only interested in self perpetuation. 

 

 

Some Examples 

 

In the case of the trial of Yuri Kahl (as described earlier), the fact that a marshal’s bullet was lodged in his gun was never even allowed to be discussed in court by the judge.  If this fact could have been brought out, and in the context that the marshals fired first without provocation (which is what Yuri claimed), it might be that Yuri could have had a better chance of defense. 

 

The trial of Montana Freeman LeRoy Schweitzer (also cited earlier) is also quite tragic.  It seems that Schweitzer has extensive education on law and legal procedures.  He objected to the court appointed attorney.  At his first trial in 1997 for tax evasion, he tried to read to the jury the statute which he was accused of violating and the judge would not allow it. 

 

He tried to raise some objections.  So the federal judge ordered him chained, bound and gagged during the trial.  Quite naturally, he was found guilty on Oct 23, 1997, and the Big Brother judge gave him the maximum sentence possible--27 months in prison, $112,683 in back taxes and $200,000 in fines (“Jubilee” paper, Nov-Dec 1997, p. 1, 5). 

 

Another federal trial of all of the freemen commenced in Montana in mid March 1998 for resisting arrest by federal agents.  Again, some of the accused tried to object to the court proceedings.  The judge ordered them removed from the courtroom--to be elsewhere bound and to watch the proceedings on closed circuit TV.  The (farce) trial went on without their presence. 

 

Naturally, all of them were found guilty and given harsh sentences from some 4 to 22 years (for passing bad checks).  This is modern American justice. 

 

At the opening of the unabomber trial in California, the court appointed defense lawyer decided that the accused Ted Kaczynski (similarly mentioned earlier) would be characterized as a nut--a paranoid schizophrenic.  Ted objected and wanted the lawyer removed (fired)--so that he could represent himself. 

 

Quite naturally, the judge ignored the defendant’s wishes and ordered the trial to proceed with the unwanted lawyer.  To back up the judge’s decision, the feds soon offered an allegation claiming that Kaczynski tried to commit suicide with his missing underwear--which they claimed was flushed down the toilet.  

 

Of course, this widely disseminated fed story was readily accepted by everyone.  It effectively proved that indeed Kaczynski was nuts.  Actually, this tactic of claiming that politically incorrect people are just nuts is one of the federal government’s practices in dealing with political enemies--as noted in preceding discussions. 

 

Hence, a dishonest judge and/or prosecutor can manipulate evidence and the court process so that even an honest jury may be deceived. 

 

 

The Jury 

 

And of extreme importance, there is the remaining problem that few juries are even told or allowed to understand that they decide “all issues,” including even the propriety and validity of the law which a person stands accused of. 

 

In this matter of trying the law, the 6th amendment to the US Constitution says that an accused is to have a jury trial in all criminal prosecutions.  Even the way this amendment is worded suggests that the jury can try the law or try a defendant for a lesser crime.  Apparently, this used to be the common practice in US Courts (Jul 17-Aug 6, 1998, “Trade N’ Save” newspaper, p. 2). 

 

In 1771, John Adams, the later second president of the US, stated that a juror should ignore a judge’s instructions on the law if it violates fundamental principles (Dec 10, 2001, “American Free Press,” p. 10).  

 

Lysander Spooner, in 1852, said “In short, if the jury have no right to judge of the justice of a law of the government, they can do nothing to protect the people; for there are no oppressions which the government may not authorize by law” (ibid, p. 11). 

 

 

Supreme Court Decisions 

 

Several Supreme Court decisions have upheld this right of the jury to try the law--such as those written by Chief Justice John Jay in 1789; by Justice Samuel Chase in 1796; by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1902; by Justice Harlan F. Stone in 1941; and repeated in the 1972 case involving US vs. Dougherty (Dec 1998 “Idaho Observer,” p. 20). 

 

The 1794 US Supreme Court said:  “It is presumed that the juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law.  But still both objects (facts and law) are within the (jury’s) power of decision” (Dec 10, 2001, “American Free Press,” p. 10-11). 

 

In a 1969 decision (US v. Moylan), the US Court of Appeals stated that “We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence... If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision” (ibid, p. 10). 

 

The 1972 above noted US Supreme Court case on US v. Dougherty said:  “The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions of the law given by the trial judge...jury lawlessness is the greatest corrective of law in its actual administration.  The will of the state at large imposed on a reluctant community, the will of a majority imposed on a vigorous and determined minority, find the same obstacle in the local jury that formerly kings and ministers faced” (ibid, p. 10). 

 

 

Trying the Law is Established 

 

Therefore, the jury has the right, duty and obligation to “try” the law as well as the accused in a free jury system, as allowed in the US Constitution (Art III and amendments V, VI, VII and IX).  Such a jury can ignore an immoral and unjust law and just not convict. 

 

Some twenty state constitutions in the United States have this right of the jury to judge both the law and the facts spelled out (like MD, IN, OR, etc).  Importantly, the Maine State Constitution (Art I, Sect 4) spells out this right.  The Georgia Constitution specifically says-- “In all criminal cases, the jury shall judge the law as well as the facts.”  This condition was a fact of life in the American colonies in the 18th century. 

 

The “Spotlight” paper of Mar 20, 2000, had an article by Tom Stahl on “Citizens Must Claim Rights:  Founders Gave Juries the Right to Determine the Law” (p. 16-17) which quoted legal historian Lawrence Friedman, who said:  “In American legal theory, jury power was enormous, and subject to few controls.  There was a maxim of law that the jury was judge both of law and of fact in criminal cases. 

 

“This idea was particularly strong in the first Revolutionary generation when memories of royal justice were fresh.”  Above all else, jury nullification is manifestly part and parcel of those rights retained by the people in the ninth amendment to the US Constitution.  While trial juries have enormous power in dispensing justice and deciding upon right and wrong, grand juries are even more powerful. 

 

Many people suppose that grand juries work for prosecutors.  But the truth is that grand juries are sovereign in their power.  They simply don’t have to indict accused people.  And by all means, they can indict government officials who obstruct justice and assume illegal powers.  If some grand juries started indicting federal judges, US attorneys and government leaders, things would quickly change.  

 

 

A Lost Reality 

 

Significantly, judges generally go out of their way to hide the truth of jury power, whenever they instruct and dictate to uninformed juries.  If the right of the jury to judge both facts and law is brought up, many judges become angry, wishing to reserve to themselves all questions over law. 

 

As Charles Key (previously quoted herein) outlines in his video on “Fraud and Corruption in American Courts,” most prosecutors and judges work hand in hand to keep people off of the jury who might be independent and judge the law. 

 

Key says that these forces work together by questioning potential jurors about their attitude toward the law (whether they will accept the law, as dictated by the judge, and apply it in all cases, notwithstanding their consciences and their feelings about the validity of the law).  Any juror who dares say that he will be independent and judge the law will be routinely dismissed by almost all judges/prosecutors. 

 

This subtle, deceitful and unconstitutional practice by judges and prosecutors works out to mean that the assembled jury will almost always be dedicated to accepting the right of the law and never exercising any power to judge the law, as is the basis of the whole jury system.  In these cases, if the law is bad, jurors will still convict. 

 

In his presentation of the historical development of the right of jurors to judge the law, Key cited an ancient case in England where a jury was held in detention by the King until it decided to rule in support of the law.  In the US, it used to be illegal to harbor a run-away slave.  But most US juries would never convict any person so charged--on the basis of conscience. 

 

While most judges and prosecutors are more than anxious to keep honest and informed jurors off of juries, an interesting “possible” contrasting position surfaced in a jury in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  The Oct 14, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) had a story about the attitude of local Judge David Buter, in a case involving a Grand Rapids police action. 

 

In the case before the court, a woman named Lori Blumke was called for jury duty.  In questioning, Lori honestly said that she could not be impartial in the case because she had been treated rudely by the local police in the past and she didn’t care for them.  The judge didn’t like her candor and ordered her to perform 24 hours of community service picking up trash, along with convicts. 

 

The point is that judges have great power to do about whatever they want to do in their courtrooms.  And if a potential juror speaks the wrong words, the juror could be in serious trouble with the judge.  Somehow, this perversion is just not right. 

 

 

A Basic Right 

 

Anyway, a jury has the right to determine the law as well as the facts in a case.  A good sample of how important this right could have been surfaced in the jury trial in October 1997 of an Au Pair British girl (nanny or baby-sitter) in Massachusetts, accused of killing a small child in her care (by shaking it). 

 

There was no evidence whatsoever of malice or premeditation involved suggesting that she intentionally wanted to hurt the child (even if she did carelessly shake it).  Nevertheless, the prosecutor chose to try her for murder with no option of manslaughter, as would logically apply, and while also withholding important evidence on the case, as will be established in later commentary herein. 

 

The jury brought in the murder verdict, evidently because it had no choice.  If the jury would have determined the law, they could have found the girl innocent of murder (but perhaps guilty of manslaughter, as was the option open to and exercised by the judge) to show the irresponsible action of the prosecutor and the inapplicability of the law involved. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 395--More Christian Injustice

 

 

Unequal Punishment 

 

One of the very sickening unjust processes of the American judicial system is the practice of courts to render different scales of punishment to different guilty parties--depending upon the wishes and discretion of the prosecutors and judges. 

 

The previously quoted Charles Key addressed this issue briefly in his video on “Fraud and Corruption in American Courts.”  Key made note of the fact that in American courts people who plead guilty receive less punishment than those who are convicted after pleading innocent.  Of course, this is not the Scriptural way.  In the Book, there is one prescribed punishment for one wrong and not different punishments for the same sin. 

 

Charles Key noted that the Congress (and obviously, some state legislatures) have, in some instances, attempted to standardize prescribed punishments for law violations.  But in those cases, the prosecutors still use discretionary powers by altering or modifying the chargers for the level of punishment the prosecutor wants imposed. 

 

Although not mentioned by Key, it is a fact that prosecutors and the courts will allow certain defendants to plea bargain and either beat a rap or receive little punishment if the defendant will squeal on the wrong-doing of some other party. 

 

It is very common to find that the courts will reduce sentences or even release people from jail if they will inform on other people (this practice was cited earlier and will be described in the following comments in the vein of how the courts coerce, force, induce and use people to spy upon or inform upon other people--often with the payment of monetary rewards or the alteration of justice). 

 

The deplorable reality of sentence enhancement will be addressed in a later chapter  herein (where judges merely enhance or increase a sentence upon a convicted party, based upon other unproven allegations).  This pathetic practice has now become a part of American justice. 

 

 

One More 

 

One more word on court trials is needed and particularly at the federal level.  There is supposed to be a prevailing attitude in court and among the judges and juries that a person is innocent until proven guilty. 

 

In other words, it is the prosecutor’s job to prove the guilt and not the task of the accused to prove his innocence.  Too often, courts are conducted on the premise that accused persons are guilty, unless they prove their innocence (as with Yuri Kahl and the Waco survivors). 

 

 

Another Common Practice 

 

Among the many practices followed in today’s Christian, sun worship society, perhaps one of the most evil practices of all surfaces when prosecutors (working for the government with all of its money and resources) bribe, payoff, intimidate, threaten, coerce and force people to testify against accused persons Big Brother wants to put away (as touched upon above and in previous commentary). 

 

In the context of sun worship justice, this has to be one of the most vile and corrupt practices to be a part and parcel of a so-called justice system.  What it amounts to is that if there are persons whom Big Brother opposes (usually politically incorrect people), government prosecutors will pull out all of the stops to obtain a witness against them. 

 

They are prepared to pay huge sums of money as bribes to get someone to come into court and testify against an accused individual.  Sometimes, they don’t have to make bribery payments because they can dig up something in various peoples’ lives to place them under threat of indictment and prosecution. 

 

Facing this open and powerful intimidation, many people will quickly agree to go into court and testify against their own close relatives and best friends, simply to avoid going to jail themselves. 

 

This whole practice in the modern, Christian, sun worship civilization has to be one of the most vile and despicable practices in the history of man’s supposed acts of justice and fair play.  This study assessed its prevalence in former chapters in the context of a brother testifying against a brother, as is now the common American justice mode (i.e. the Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh cases and others).  

 

The act of paying bribes to witnesses to testify against politically incorrect people was upheld by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.  It echoes the way dictatorial governments have historically paid or coerced witnesses to testify against enemies of the state.  It is inconceivable that this state of idiocy and perversion has reached the national acceptance level all across the United States.  But it has! 

 

 

It Is Routine Today 

 

Today, in the early 21st century, prosecutors willingly and regularly make pay-offs and bribes (either in money or other benefits) to get people to squeal or inform on others (usually relatives, friends and acquaintances). 

 

Many alleged criminals are captured, not because of expert police work; but rather, because of the promises of rewards, pay-offs and bribes.  Regularly, huge monetary rewards are offered for information, sometimes even in the millions of dollars (as noted in other comments herein, in terms of the Ted Kaczynski and Jay Merrill cases). 

 

And by all means, prosecutors regularly offer reduced sentences and/or early releases from prison to persons who will willingly squeal or give information (true or false) on cohorts.  This whole system represents a total perversion of justice. 

 

Why is it possible that a convicted criminal, guilty of a particular crime, be allowed to go free or beat the rap if he will simply testify against someone else (either in truth or in lies)?  Yet, the US justice system regularly follows this practice.  It will make pay-offs, bribes, benefits, etc to convicted criminals for testimony against someone else. 

 

Of course, such ideas of justice are simply unheard of in the Scriptures.  In the Book, the convicted person is never granted a reprieve if he will simply testify against someone else.  In the Book, there are no rewards or pay-offs for people who squeal on or provide information on other persons accused of wrong-doing.  In the Book, all convicted criminals pay the full price as established by law (in the Torah). 

 

Tragically, the perverted, warped, Christian society uses all kinds of dishonorable gadgets, gestures and methods of allowing some persons to get off scot-free for a certain law violation while someone else will pay the full penalty of the law.  Clearly, this practice is grossly unfair and discriminatory.  It is stupid, evil and wrong, per the sense of justice, honor and righteousness (certainly, per the Scriptures). 

 

As Paul Craig Roberts correctly wrote-- “Matthew Hale established the maxim that testimony purchased with reward has no standing in court” (Feb 1999 “Taking Aim,” p. 14). 

 

 

Secret Evidence? 

 

Another most tragic case of US justice was revealed in a short news report in the March 20, 2000, “Spotlight” (p. 2).  The US Bill of Rights promises accused people a fast and speedy trial and that accused persons can have a right of jury trial and the privilege of facing their accusers. 

 

It seems that one Dr Mazen al-Naijar, apparently an Arab American, has been incarcerated in Tampa, Florida now for over 1,000 days.  It appears that the doctor and some 20 other Arabs are in trouble with US authorities on the basis of secret evidence.  Many of these people are facing deportation based upon this secret evidence. 

 

As the story goes, there is a US law which allows the use of secret evidence.  The just outlined cases have caused a storm of protests in Washington.  There is even talk in Congress of repealing this secret evidence law (now coming out in HR 2121). 

 

Despite the concern over the allowance and use of secret evidence against accused people, the practice continues full blast and especially since September 11, 2001, and the New York and Washington, DC terrorist attacks. 

 

An April 1, 2002, report in the “American Free Press” (p. 15), by Christopher Bollyn, said that the US Justice Department had accumulated secret evidence against a local Muslim charity in Chicago.  Per Bollyn, this evidence will be used against the charity in a court case. 

 

The post 9-11 USA Patriot Act (“The Uniting and Strengthening of America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism,” to be discussed in a later chapter) “enables the FBI to spy on Americans for ‘intelligence’ purposes, as opposed to investigating criminal activity.  The authorities are not required to show probable cause to make arrests and with only a ‘preponderance of evidence’ can confiscate property.  Secret evidence can be used to do both” (ibid, p. 15). 

 

Actually, this idea of using secret evidence and secret witnesses is inconceivable, but it has become par for the course in America.  Other chapters herein have or will address the extent of such methods now in place from an executive order signed by GWB to allow US military tribunals to try captured Muslims over alleged terrorism. 

 

 

Acceptability of Perjury 

 

While it should not take much perception to understand that the American judicial system is in deep trouble, many sun worshipping Christians still seem to believe that everything is all right and that US citizens can get a fair shake in court.  But the 1998 Slick Clinton scandals were beginning to wake up a lot of otherwise lethargic and indifferent people that things were not exactly like they should be in modern America. 

 

Concern is now being expressed over the fact that Slick had been not only guilty of lying to the American public for years, but that he had assuredly committed perjury in a US court.  This is a most profound development that the President of the United States would actually commit perjury. 

 

Douglas Cox, a lawyer who worked in Ronald Reagan’s Office of Legal Counsel a few years ago, has come forward to offer some comments on the status of the US justice system with the continuing Clinton lies and courtroom perjury. 

 

Cox wrote “Some may argue that perjury prosecutions arising out of civil cases are comparatively rare, as indeed they are.  But the entire justice system is predicated on the theory that witnesses tell the truth.  Permitting a culture of lying to take root in the justice system would ultimately destroy the system” (“Wall Street Journal,” Feb 2,1998).  The perception by this lawyer is most revealing at the present time. 

 

Yes, the whole US court and justice system is now in jeopardy because the nation has closed its eyes and allowed its primary leader to commit perjury, lie, cheat, steal and possibly murder with no accountability or reckoning. 

 

 

Above the Law 

 

Like other federal officials, the US president is now above the law.  He is a monarch.  And federal agents, working in their jobs, can no longer be prosecuted for the assault or murder of innocent people. 

 

In these comments of the acceptability of perjury, some qualifications are in order.  This current, evil, sun worship society will gladly sit back and allow perjury to persist in “politically correct activities” and among “politically correct people” --like with Slick Clinton. 

 

But rest assured if a politically incorrect person or action was an issue, any instance of alleged perjury would be called one of the greatest of evils and would be fully prosecuted by the full resources of the state. 

 

In other words, hypocrisy is the order of the day in much of American justice.  This nation will not get away with this perversion much longer.  The ELOHIM’s justice and judgment for sin and wickedness is about to intervene and correct the wickedness, evil and injustice that the American people have allowed to persist. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 396--Lawyers

 

 

The Problem With Lawyers and the US Courts 

 

One of the serious problems in the United States, in terms of its laws and justice, is the matter of the legal profession and how it functions in legal trials and in American courts.  It is this system which often (but not always) interferes in the dispensation of justice.

 

Next to used car dealers, lawyers have some of the worse reputations of all in the American sun worship culture.  It’s not to say that all lawyers are automatically liars and crooks with no ethics or integrity at all.  There might be a few out there (maybe one or two), who are persons of honor.  But there aren’t many for sure.  Most are totally greedy, selfish and dishonest. 

 

Perhaps part of the lawyer problem is that many, many, evil Amalek-Edomites are lawyers.  And since the run of the mill Amalekites (maybe not all 100% of them, but certainly most of them) are totally depraved and desperately wicked, it stands to reason that they would flock to the legal profession to carry out their deceit. 

 

Next, there is an obvious presence of lawyers all over America.  For example, in Washington, DC, there was 1,000 lawyers in 1950, 11,000 in 1975 and 65,000 in the mid 1990s or over 10% of Washington’s 600,000 people (Dec 2000 “Philadelphia Trumpet,” p. 3). 

 

Not only are lawyers profusely all over America, but they have sowed up things so that their services are constantly required to do much of anything in the US.  In today’s modern American world, it is impossible to do almost anything involving the law or the local courthouse without a lawyer. 

 

 

The Sleeping Lawyer 

 

A really good illustration of lawyers in action surfaced in a late Oct 2000 case involving a man named Burdine in Houston, Texas (per a news report on Oct 28, 2000).  The man was tried and convicted of murder earlier and given the death sentence.  All of this sounds well and good except it turns out that his court appointed lawyer slept in court through much of the trial. 

 

While the presiding judge said nothing to the lawyer and allowed him to sleep, apparently the accused Burdine did nudge and try to wake him up several times.  After the conviction, time passed and the man got a new court appointed lawyer, who decided to appeal the case on the premise that the sleeping lawyer was like having no lawyer.  The appeal went to the US Appellate Court for a hearing. 

 

As incredible as it turned out to be, the appellate court ruled against a new trial for the reason cited.  Never mind that the judge and prosecutor (who are officers of the law, supposedly trying to dispense justice) refused to speak against the sleeping defense attorney during the trial, the appellate court found that the defendant, himself, should have spoken out and complained in court about his sleeping lawyer. 

 

It is unclear whether the accused man was a humble man and was afraid to speak out or not.  It could be that he indeed was afraid and certainly that he did not understand that ultimately the court would rule that it was his job to speak (and not the task of the judge and prosecuting attorney). 

 

But in retrospect, the case can be made that maybe the man feared that if he did speak out, it would make his sleeping lawyer mad at him and he would get even less of a defense.  After all, pride being what it is, there is a great chance that a person trying to embarrass his court appointed lawyer would ultimately be penalized in some manner by the lawyer. 

 

In other words, the case can be made that the defendant was in a catch 22 situation where he would lose whatever he did.  If he remained silent, he would lose.  And if he spoke out, he would lose.  Surely, the most guilty person of all in that courtroom was the useless judge.  Above all else, he had the power and duty to see justice dispensed.  He was in a position to criticize the sleeping lawyer. 

 

 

Lawyers and Paula Jones 

 

Besides the lawyer rip-offs in the tobacco lawsuits of recent years, broached in a previous chapter, recent 1998 news reports were ablaze with the Paula Jones’ lawsuit against President Slick, also mentioned earlier. 

 

This case is a classic demonstration on how the modern, American, sun worship, legal profession functions and particularly in the political arena where many lawyers become politicians (like Slick and his wife). 

 

It seems that when Slick was Governor of Arkansas, he used to use the Arkansas State Police as his personal state pimp agency--with a duty to procure women for him on occasion (which seems to have been fairly often).  In a meeting with state employees in Little Rock, Slick saw Ms Jones (a state employee).  So he ordered a state trooper to bring her to see him in his hotel room.  The trooper obeyed. 

 

Slick was alone and when Paula entered, he told her to sit down.  He then approached her and dropped his pants to display his private part, which he fondled as he ordered her to perform oral sex on it.  She refused, but saw enough of his organ to recognize that there was something wrong with it with its distinctive abnormal bend.  He threatened her, as she immediately left the room. 

 

In time, medical specialists indicated that the bent, deformed description fits a particular disease that some men have called “Peyronie’s disease.”  Among his many other problems, it would seem that Bill has Peyronie’s disease.  No wonder he has always refused to allow his medical records to be made public! 

 

Later, Paula believed that she was discriminated against in her employment because of her refusal to Slick and because her name was ruined with reports from the state trooper of this supposed sex link to Clinton.  Thereupon, she sued Slick asking for an apology plus $700,000 in damages. 

 

Jones said that any money won from him would go to charity, after paying off her lawyers.  In other words, her only possible personal gain or benefit would be an apology to restore her damaged character.  Naturally, Slick tied the case up in court with his attorney Uncle Bob Bennett.  He claimed that he could not be sued like other people and the suit would have to wait until he finished his presidency. 

 

US District Court Judge Susan Wright ruled for Slick.  The issue had to go to the Supreme Court where it said that he could be sued.  After paying Bennett some $2 million in legal fees, Slick decided to offer to pay the Jones lawyers $700,000 in a non-publicized, secret settlement with no apology. 

 

 

The Jones’ Dilemma 

 

Since the Jones’ lawyers had already charged $800,000 to the case, they wanted Paula to settle without getting the apology she sought.  In other words, her lawyers would get their exorbitant fees and she would get nothing.  She refused.  So the lawyers quit the case and refused to do any more work on it. 

 

She found some other lawyers, who would take the case over with help from a third party--because she and her husband simply didn’t have any money.  Truly, they were little people.  But the old lawyers filed a lien on her case, allowing them to get the first $800,000 collected.  The new lawyers amended the lawsuit to ask for $2 million in order for them to get some money out of it as well. 

 

All along, Paula never wanted anything personally except the apology.  All of the money would go to the lawyers or charity.  Yet, the attack dog colleagues and hired agents working for Slick (like Bob Bennett, James Carville and others) went on national TV and hollered on and on about Paula Jones wanting money and slandered her to no end. 

 

True, big money was involved in the $2 million paid Slick’s lawyer and the proposed secret settlement of $700,000 to the Jones’ lawyers.  But money was no issue for Paula Jones.  All she wanted was to have her good name restored in the apology.  It was the lawyers on both sides who were to get the money. 

 

After the Supreme Court decision for the case to proceed, the IRS (under Slick) commenced an audit of Jones and her husband (as noted earlier), who evidently made something around $36,000 annually.  Slick and his paid agents tried to characterize her as trailer park trash (since she lived in a mobile home park) while the president was a great man of honor and integrity. 

 

By the way, this former practice of Slick, in using the Arkansas State Police as his personal pimp agency, seems to have continued while he was in the White House--although the pimps were then called “facilitators” by the media rather than pimps.  There was much evidence that Slick used Secret Service agents as facilitators after he became president.  Truly, he is totally corrupt and depraved. 

 

 

The Outcome 

 

With the green light from the US Supreme Court, the Jones case was supposedly ready to proceed in Arkansas in May 1998.  But it soon became apparent that legitimate questions could be raised about her honor, the judge. 

 

Very quickly, Judge Wright began issuing a series of judicial decisions, all of which favored Slick.  In the first instance, she ruled that what happened in Washington, DC with Monica Lewinsky and presumably others had no bearing on the case in Arkansas.  Wishing to show a pattern in Slick’s conduct, the Jones lawyers appealed this decision. 

 

However, before the appeal was even heard, the judge came forward with another pro Clinton decision by placing a gag order on all of the court proceedings.  This clamp meant that all of the derogatory information being dug up by the Jones people would be hid from the general public. 

 

Slick’s lawyers then went into court, claiming that the case should be thrown out as the allegations of facts (which were never disputed in court, but were assumed to be correct) did not constitute sexual harassment--thus, effectively meaning that the poor woman from the trailer park should be denied her day in court.  Consequently, Judge Susan threw the case out on Apr 1, 1998, as discussed beforehand. 

 

 

More on Wright 

 

This consistent series of favorable court rulings for Slick should make even the most stupid of observers be suspicious that something was wrong in the US District Court in Little Rock.  And on a closer examination, some amazing facts did surface. 

 

For example, Wright discusses cases with other people on occasion before making her decisions.  According to judicial ethics, this is unthinkable.  Yet, she does it and has even admitted it.  Moreover, in the Whitewater scandal involving then President Slick Clinton, Judge Wright discussed the Susan McDougal trial with former US Senator David Pryor, a close ally of Slick.

 

The Judge has also acknowledged that she discusses her cases with her husband.  It must be important to note that some weeks before her decision to throw the Jones case out, her husband told a reporter that she would not allow President Slick Clinton’s personal life to become a public issue. 

 

Obviously, in the event that the case went to trial, the Jones lawyers would bring up his personal life to show that he had had numerous encounters with women over the years while he has been in public life as Arkansas Attorney General and Governor and as President of the United States. 

 

While Slick was a law professor at the University of Arkansas, some years ago, Susan was one of his students and had had personal contact with him.  Though all of the ties never became public, there was an allegation that she cheated on a test, and he let her off the hook.  Another allegation floating around was that Slick lost one of her test papers and offered her a free grade B if she would not create any problems over it. 

 

With this prior contact and Clinton’s reputation for women, one can’t be sure of what links Susan has had with Slick (possibly even sexual).  From this background, one would have to wonder why Susan could even be sitting on the Bench in the Jones-Clinton case.  Judges are supposed to recluse themselves for a conflict of interest when they have had close ties with one of the litigants before the court. 

 

Yet, Wright stayed on the case and ultimately threw the case out of court, as just noted.  If the case had no legal basis, why did Susan allow it to go on and on for four years and a trip to the Supreme Court?  She could have saved Jones and the US a lot of pain by throwing the case out when it first came before her--without allowing it to drag on and on to make money for the lawyers. 

 

As late as July 1999, when Wright was forced into taking some action against Slick for his perjury in court, she levied the smallest fine possible of about $90,000 to cover the minimum amount of extra expenses by the Jones’ lawyers and herself.  Jones’ lawyers actually asked for something around $500,000 to cover their expenses.  Apparently, Slick’s lawyers argued for the lesser amount of $90,000.  So Wright ruled for Slick. 

 

Most of us committing perjury would have went to jail.  But not Slick. The $90,000 was nothing to him since fat cat contributors, like the Hollywood elite or the Chinese, would pay it.  Effectively, he was out nothing for committing perjury in a federal court. 

 

 

Paula Lost Out 

 

Hence, Paula Jones was denied any opportunity of having her good name restored.  Later, on Nov 13, 1998, Slick agreed to pay Jones $850,000--which was not even enough to pay her lawyers (and with no apology).  Rather than fight probable losing battles with the American judicial system, Jones agreed.  Thus, the Jones versus Slick Clinton case came to an end (and Jones effectively lost in the courts). 

 

Actually, this whole turn of events is quite logical because the US judicial system does not presently function to serve poor people or politically incorrect people in the generic sense.  Hence, scoundrels like Slick can get away with virtually everything. 

 

Of all people, the feminists backed Slick totally on this case while trying to disparage and cast discredit on Jones.  This has been very hypocritical.  Of course, it was the feminists of just a few years ago who destroyed Senator Bob Packwood of Oregon for flirting with women (other than his wife) and putting his hands on them.  Bob’s political career was destroyed.  Yet, Slick has gotten away with flagrant womanizing for years. 

 

The pathetic women’s feminist movement was so warped and patently hypocritical that it continued to support Slick Clinton all of the way through the period of Slick’s problems over his sodomy encounter with the young Monica Lewinsky.  Even as late as the December 1998 impeachment issue in the House, the feminists were busy supporting Slick and trying to defend him.  What gross hypocrites they are! 

 

Regardless of the slander which Slick and his attack dog agents have heaped upon Paula Jones and other poor people living in mobile home parks, the fact remains that she was a woman of integrity who refused to commit sodomy with the then Governor Slick Clinton.  Who is the better person--Paula Jones or the Sodomite Clinton? 

 

Who would you trust your daughter to go out with--Slick or unabomber Ted Kaczynski?  Who was the better man Slick or executed Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, in terms of trust with your daughter?  Who has character and integrity in the modern, Christian, sun worshipping America--abortion clinic bombers or Clinton? 

 

 

The Depraved American Legal Profession? 

 

Having just discussed the reality of a justice system built on the premise of making money for lawyers, as described in the above presentation, it would be well to note how the formal profession thinks and acts from an illustration in something which took place in early August 1999 in Atlanta, GA. 

 

The American Bar Association (ABA), the supposed national watch dog agency to monitor practices and ethics of lawyers, invited President Slick Clinton to be its keynote speaker at its annual convention in Atlanta.  In view of Clinton’s deplorable actions in the White House, many lawyers were upset and resigned from the ABA.  Clinton (hypocritically) spoke on the Constitution and the rule of law. 

 

“The Washington Times” of Aug 16-22, 1999 (p. 18), quoted some comments from the “Washington Post” of Aug 11th.  The Post said that the ABA “picked a lawyer (in Clinton) who had only recently gotten himself in considerable trouble by lying in a civil deposition in the presence of a federal judge and then lying again before a federal grand jury investigating his previous behavior. 

 

“It picked a lawyer who was held in contempt of court and fined by the judge whose case he had corrupted and who was then referred to his state bar for possible disciplinary action.  Even as he spoke to the ABA’s membership Monday evening, this lawyer faced possible disbarment for his lies.  Of all of the lawyers in the United States, the ABA decided to hear from President Bill Clinton.” 

 

Former FBI agent Gary Aldrich, who worked in the Clinton White House, said that notorious gangster John Gotti has more honor (than Clinton) and maybe more common sense.  Per Aldrich, Gotti has, at least, never sent his attack goons against federal law enforcement officers who were only trying to do their job. 

 

As Aldrich noted, Clinton has threatened, suspended, demoted, transferred, investigated and castigated a number of federal officers for showing disloyalty to Clinton, by seeking the truth in cases (Aug 16-22, 1999, “The Washington Times,” p. 6). 

 

Obviously, something is fundamentally wrong with America’s legal profession.  It has to be significant that YESHUA The MESSIAH offered some of His harshest criticism and complaints against lawyers (along with doctors and religious leaders). 

 

 

The Objective is to Win! 

 

As discussed elsewhere herein, the goal of lawyers, both prosecutors and defense attorneys, is always to win.  In the generic sense, justice is never an issue.  Since both prosecutors and defense lawyers are “officers of the court,” a student of the American judicial system would at first suppose that justice has to be the over-riding factor for all participating lawyers.  As noted above, it is not! 

 

In the Mar-Apr 2001 “Intelligence Newsletter” (p. 3), Earl F. Jones noted that many innocent people go to jail or sometimes to death because lawyers are more interested in winning the case than they are in dispensing justice.  Sometimes, lawyers who know the innocence of an accused will proceed to prosecute him fully and walk the extra mile to win (irrespective of the innocence of the accused). 

 

Earl Jones blamed this sick situation in modern American justice to “Talmudic socialists” (who have developed the modern US trial court system).  While Jones certainly had it right on the basic problem, he missed the point on who to blame.  Manifestly, the US justice system has nothing whatsoever to do with the Talmud (as described earlier). 

 

 

The Amalekites 

 

But tragically, the modern American justice system is heavily influenced and perhaps even somewhat controlled by the Amalekite lawyers and masters--who have been busy for ages, doing their best to destroy Yisrael and fleshly Israelites. 

 

For sure, these Amalekites are not religious (they don’t adhere to the Talmud, Judaism or anything else, as envisioned by Jones).  They are Satanists/Luciferians (yet, most of them even pretend to be atheists or agnostics). 

 

Though there is no denying the enormous power and influence of the Amalekite sons of Satan, in taking over and influencing the modern court system, one must also be fair and reasonable and lay some of the blame on the Christian sun worship culture, which allowed it all to take place.  Again, the US is supposedly a Christian nation.  The voters are Christians and indeed most US lawyers are Christians. 

 

Certainly, the Amalekites must be blamed.  But how about the Christian Churches, preachers, teachers, leaders, bosses, governors, presidents, senators, congressmen, and bar association leaders who have sat back and allowed the Amalekites to impose their evil on America?  Shouldn’t the Christians take some blame as well?  Why blame just the Amalekites?  Christian Identity people need to be fair about this issue. 

 

 

More on Lawyers 

 

The situation with the O. J. Simpson lawyers can be added to the above discussion on the Paula Jones case to bring home the point.  This case will be assessed in some detail in the next chapter.  Lawyers on both sides of the aisle (defense or prosecution) will go all out to lie, cheat and deceive in order to win. 

 

This writer has seen them in action.  It’s bad enough that they will lie, deceive, distort and twist truth any way possible to further their cause and win, but the judges sit on the bench and allow them to get away with it.  Lawyers are especially flagrant in lying and making deceptive opening and closing statements.  Effectively, they can say anything and they never seem to be challenged. 

 

Rest assured, if a defendant enters a courtroom to defend himself, pro se, the judge and the prosecution lawyers will raise all kinds of commotion and flack to prevent a defendant from making statements, except those that can be expressly proven.  Pro se defendants are never allowed the latitude that a lawyer is granted to make irresponsible, careless, deceptive and dishonest statements. 

 

A news report in the Jan 28, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) noted the situation with a 15-year old boy accused of drug possession in the state of Washington.  The boy fired his court appointed lawyer because the lawyer reportedly lied in court and did nothing to defend him.  The boy handled his own case and was acquitted. 

 

 

An Example

 

A friend of this writer living in North Idaho had a complaint against a local lawyer and sued him, pro se, in a local court.  He was served with the notification and the hearing date was set. 

 

My friend showed up on time and the lawyer was not there to answer before the judge.  The judge ordered a court recess.  Some 30 minutes later the lawyer showed up and went into a private meeting with the judge.  My friend saw him.  But the judge did not invite my friend into the meeting. 

 

The evidence is massive that the local judge probably knew the local lawyer in the suit.  When the court opened and the lawyer was not present, the judge ordered a recess and promptly called his friend and told him to come to court.  On arrival, the judge and the defendant lawyer had a private (secret) meeting in the judge’s chamber without the presence of my friend who was handling the case pro se. 

 

If the plaintiff in court was a lawyer, he would have complained vigorously about the way that this case was handled.  But what can a pro se litigant do?  Well, he can sue the system or bring the issue before the bar association.  However, all of the possible people in an oversight role are lawyers; and they will go out of their way to protect the judge and the defendant lawyer. 

 

 

Hiding Evidence 

 

The lawyers are also notorious about hiding evidence from their courtroom opponents.  Perhaps there is some logic to allow a rationalization as to why defense lawyers would hide evidence from prosecutors. 

 

But when prosecutors (who work for and represent the state with all of the money and resources available to the state to arrive at truth and justice) hide evidence from the defense, something is fundamentally wrong in the system. 

 

Other preceding chapters herein have focused on government oppression with many actual illustrations of where federal government police officials manipulated, hid and destroyed evidence--apparently, in collusion with US Attorney prosecutors. 

 

It would seem that if any of these people had an ounce of honor, integrity and character, they would speak out and not allow these despicable acts to take place.  Yet, no one seems to cry out for justice in the system. 

 

 

The Au Pair Case, Revisited 

 

Winning (to produce more money) is the name of the game and not truth and justice.  A good sample of this wickedness came to light in the October 1997 case involving the earlier mentioned au pair girl (named Louise Woodward) in Massachusetts.  It received some notoriety in the US press, as previously pointed out.   

 

Since her case was broached previously, all of the details will not be repeated at this time.  The case involved a young woman nanny who was caring for a child who she shook some to stop some crying.  She admitted the shaking.  The child died and the prosecutor tried her for murder. 

 

It turned out from an autopsy that the child had had a brain concussion and skull fracture two weeks earlier before Louise and the shaking incident.  This autopsy evidently did not definitely establish the cause of death.  Moreover, there was some serious evidence suggesting that the baby’s older, 2 1/2 year old brother may have hurt the infant (Dec 29, 1998, “Spokesman-Review,” p. A3).

 

The prosecutors knew and understood the medical fact of the prior injury, but went on to hide it from the defense.  Thus, poor Louise went into court on the premise that the child died from the shaking, whereas the truth was that there was real questions about why the child died, in view of the prior skull fracture and concussion.  Rather than Louise hurting the baby, it more likely was true that the baby’s brother was the villain. 

 

In any case, to win (without regard for truth or righteousness), poor Louise Woodward  was tried and found guilty of second degree murder which was later reduced to manslaughter by the judge.  She ended up serving 279 days in jail, before being released to go home to Britain. 

 

 

Oklahoma City, Revisited 

 

One of the great tragedies about the trial of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols for the Oklahoma City bombing (as discussed in prior chapters) was actions of the FBI and federal prosecutors to hide evidence from defense attorneys representing McVeigh and Nichols.  This condition was brought out in comments made in the Aug 23, 1999, “Spotlight” (p. 18-21). 

 

The first indication that something was wrong was remarks made by the jury forewoman in the Nichols case.  She said that the jury did not trust the FBI reports submitted in the trial. 

 

In a subsequent motion for a retrial by Nichols’ attorney, information was made public that the FBI and federal prosecutors, acting independently or in collusion, kept vital FBI investigative reports from the defense.  Sometimes, certain FBI reports were not even made available to the judge or the prosecutors.  By law, these reports are supposed to go to the judge, prosecutors and defense attorneys. 

 

Often, reports furnished the prosecutors simply never reached the defense attorneys.  In May 2001, the FBI finally acknowledged that they withheld over 4,000 pages of data on the OC bombing case which simply was never supplied to the defense attorneys (as was pointed out in a prior chapter herein).  This hidden information could well have led the way for some possible acquittals or reduced sentences. 

 

During the trial, McVeigh’s lawyer asked for some documents which were supposedly not available for McVeigh’s defense.  However now, they have surfaced from the FBI’s revelations.  Furthermore, the judge even sealed other requested data from another case on the grounds of national security (May 21, 2001, “US News & World Report,” p. 22). 

 

Question--when a man is on the line for his life, and his lawyer needs certain documents for his defense, how is it or why is it that a judge can merely seal them and refuse them to the defense on the premise of “national security” (and particularly, in the late 20th century when the US is supposedly at peace with other nations). 

 

Moreover, certain investigatory reports prepared by the Oklahoma City Police Department and other investigators were given to the prosecutors who purposely or otherwise did not share them with the defense.  The question must be asked--did McVeigh and Nichols receive a fair trial? 

 

There were so many irregularities and unfavorable rulings for the defense in the trial of McVeigh that the Oct 11, 1999, “Spotlight” listed a whole page of them in an article on “Many Simple Questions Remain in the OK Bombing” (p. 9).  At one time, “Spotlight” asked the question if US District Judge Richard Matsch was a part of a cover-up?  

 

 

1816 

 

In this writer’s family, an ancestor died intestate in 1816 in Fentress County, TN transferring some property to one grandson just before his death.  His eleven children (the uncles and aunts, who did not share in the distribution) sued trying to have the property declared a part of his estate to be divided among them.  The case went to court and ultimately the Tennessee Supreme Court. 

 

In the end, the lawyers got all of the property in legal fees, and none of the family got anything out of it.  Like The MESSIAH said, agree with your adversary before going to court.  In a court action, it is the lawyers who get all (or most all) of the money from one or both sides of a conflict. 

 

 

Lee Bellinger on Lawyers 

 

“American Sentinel Publisher and Editor Lee Bellinger briefly assessed the modern legal profession in a March 2002 letter he sent to his mailing list.  The purpose of his mailing was to announce a new publication he had written or was distributing.  He defined today’s lawyers as “sharks” and noted the motions now in progress across America which reveal the modern sickness. 

 

First, Lee said:  “The whole country has gone lawsuit crazy--and you’re the target!  Spurred by today’s greedy, lawyer-driven litigation industry, people are now suing each other at the drop of a hat.  Literally overnight you can become the target of a litigious neighbor, a spurned lover, an overzealous creditor, an ex-spouse, an angry co-worker, a spiteful employee, a bureaucratic agency, or even an unscrupulous attorney looking to take advantage of someone he thinks has ‘deep pockets.’ 

 

“You name it.  Today’s sue-happy public has come to see everybody--including you--as ‘fair game.’  Million dollar lawsuits are considered to be a one-way ticket to the easy life, at your expense.  And it’s happening every day.” 

 

In his second commentary, Lee added:  “Lawyers are insatiably greedy.  Not a little greedy.  But BIG-TIME greedy.  Today, lawyers are like errant cab drivers who always take you on the longest route to your destination so they can charge you $64 for what should have been a $12 ride. 

 

“They (lawyers) are absolutely hell bent on dragging out your case for as long as possible so they can run up your bill ten, twenty, or even thirty times higher than what you should reasonably be expected to pay.  Beware my friend.  This is not the exception.  It is the rule.  Exorbitant lawyer fees have ruined more people than the lawsuits themselves!  (Remember Rodney King?  He won $2.4 million.  But his lawyer’s bill was $3.2 million!).”

 

 

An Example of Legal Madness 

 

The April 12, 2002, “The Week” (p. 4) had a news report on Richard Espinosa of Escondido, California.  Espinosa has filed a lawsuit against the Escondido Public Library because he says that his dog was attacked by the library’s mascot cat.  Richard wants $1.5 million in damages for the “sudden and malicious” attack. 

 

In his lawsuit, the plaintiff went on to say that he is a person prone to depression and panic.  He adds that he suffers from “a hidden disability” and that he is a member of a protected class.  Richard summed up his case by saying that the government will have to pay. 

 

The filing of this lawsuit is beyond description.  Yet, it appears to be the real world out there.  If the judge had an ounce of integrity, he would dismiss this case and file a legal action against the lawyer involved for filing a frivolous lawsuit.  But nothing this drastic will happen.  Instead, the lawyer and his plaintiff may get some money out of the deal. 

 

 

The Modern Legal Profession

 

For sure, America’s legal profession has tied everything into a knot which demands the services of a lawyer.  Yes, in most states a man cannot even prepare a deed to transfer property or a last will to settle an estate without a lawyer.  This writer is a CPA and is familiar with how lawyers have conned the accounting profession to require periodic lectures from lawyers in order to maintain a professional license. 

 

The problem is essentially that state legislatures and the US Congress are made up of primarily lawyers (yes, both Slick and Hillary Clinton are lawyers).  These lawyers write bills and laws in ways to benefit the legal profession.  As a minimum, there should be some caps on damages in lawsuits, but such ideas are extremely unpopular among lawyers.  So they rarely happen. 

 

 

The Legal Profession Works for Lawyers

 

The sun worship legal system is designed and works for the lawyers.  It appears that historically the sun worship legal profession and justice system have always operated to make money for lawyers.  It’s been that way for thousands of years and hasn’t changed one iota in the Christian sun worship culture for the past 2,000 years (although it surely has grown worse in America in modern times). 

 

Obviously, the Scriptures have no provision for the historic sun worship legal and justice systems.  No wonder YESHUA was so much opposed to the lawyers (Matt 5:25; Lu 11:45-52; 12:58).  As pointed out earlier, doctors, lawyers and religious leaders are some of the biggest workers of evil in the Scriptures. 

 

Like YESHUA said, one should try to settle a legal problem out of court as quickly as possible.  Why--because it is often impossible to get any justice in court.  All that a person will likely achieve is a long drawn out legal battle which makes gobs of money for the lawyers on both sides of the issue. 

 

Remember, the judges themselves are lawyers and they certainly protect their own.  That’s why lawyers can get up in court and make all kinds of statements and never be challenged.  Yet, a pro se defendant must be extra careful of his words.  It is easy to presume that a person can merely go into court and tell his side of a conflict, along with the other party telling his side, and the judge or jury will decide the case. 

 

But that’s not the way the system works.  In fact, if a person tries to merely tell his side (in testimony), the opposing lawyer and judge will fight the person all of the way.  The opposing lawyer will raise all kinds of objections and the judge will usually go along with them.  The judges and other lawyers take care of each other.  What a tragedy and gross misapplication and miscarriage of justice. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 397--Lack of Honor and Integrity in Justice

 

 

Liberalism & Amalekites

 

There is another problem which will be next assessed.  Of course, there has been a supposition historically that American courts are run by people of honor, integrity, character, morality and honesty.  Though this presumption has historically been generally correct, a new twist has entered the arena in the last 70 years, since FDR came to power and introduced political liberalism nationally.  

 

As pointed out formerly, the typical liberal is often a person of little or no honor, integrity or character.  Many of them are really agnostics or atheists and believe in little or nothing, beyond the inherent good in man (thus, they are humanists as well).  In this context, they generally have little or no morality or honesty.  In short, they are depraved and evil people. 

 

Slick Clinton typifies these attributes in a true liberal.  Clinton manifestly shows no signs at all of having any integrity, honesty or character.  He seems to be totally evil--just like the genetic Amalekites, discussed previously (in fact, he could racially be part Amalekite, to be broached later). 

 

Obviously, the crafty Amalekites (who really call the shots) are totally depraved, deceitful and wicked since they are physically, mentally and spiritually children of Satan and are totally dedicated to serving the Adversary and destroying the White, Christian Israelites.  They are the epitome of evil and wickedness.  Since the Amalekites are fundamentally in charge of modern America, it is manifest that there are major problems in the United States. 

 

A former chapter discussed how the Amalekite bankers/masters can and have turned the entire Israelite school population of small children into being brainwashed, janissary robots (discussed previously, as meaning non-Amalekites who can be trained to adopt and blindly follow the Amalekite agenda with just as much dedication and commitment as any true, racial-ethnic Amalekite). 

 

When a politically incorrect person goes into court, he most likely will face a judge and jury with a decidedly heavy Amalekite presence or at least one with a presence of White Christian Americans who are largely janissaries and unconscious agents of the Amalekite power structure and agenda. 

 

When one assesses the incredible Amalekite presence and power over America, the problem of honor, integrity, character, morality and honesty is virtually out of the question in American courts since Amalekites have no sense of honor, character, integrity or morality at all. 

 

While there are many illustrations of how Amalekites abuse the whole court process, one of the most fascinating cases arose in early 2002 from a case involving the trial of four Blacks over the stabbing death of a Hasidic Jew in the 1991 Crown Heights, New York riots between the Jews and the Blacks. 

 

In today’s modern concept of justice, the Amalekites go out of their way to help Negroes and stack the deck against any Whites involved in a confrontation with Blacks.  However, the 1991 riots pitted Blacks against Jews.  And in this instance, even the Blacks were at a disadvantage. 

 

The Jan 21, 2002, “Time” magazine (p. 27) had a news report about the case.  The US judge in the original trial of the Negroes influenced the jury makeup by including more Jews (in the view that they would convict the Blacks, which is precisely what happened).  An appeal went to the US appellate court which ruled that indeed the judge did act improperly by packing the jury.  Thus, the case was overturned. 

 

 

The Latest Innovation 

 

With this backdrop, something is happening in modern America that was totally unperceived when the Constitution was written.  Very wicked people (like Clinton) have been appointing Amalekites or other liberals (Blacks or janissary Whites) to the federal courts.  These people are essentially like Clinton.  Most of them have no honor, character, integrity or morality. 

 

The result has been a move to very biased and prejudiced courts where politically incorrect people can never hope to obtain justice.  This reality has surfaced in two news reports in the “Washington Times” of Aug 9-15, 1999.  The first story (p. 23), by Jerry Seper, was on “Clinton appointees huddle privately, raise eyebrows.”  

 

The essence of this article was that the eight federal judges appointed by Clinton in the Washington, DC area have private, secret meetings each month for some unclear purpose (behind closed doors).  There seems to be no earthly reason whatsoever which would allow separate, federal court justices to be having secret meetings on a monthly basis. 

 

It is known that Clinton colleague, Judge Susan Wright (who was mentioned earlier), has private meetings with various parties (to include prominent Democrat friends of Clinton) to discuss cases (as noted earlier); so one must wonder if that is the purpose of the Washington meetings by Clinton appointed judges. 

 

 

Judge Johnson 

 

Along the same line, the “Times” of Aug 9-15, 1999, had another story also by Jerry Seper on “Judge defends action in Hubbell, Trie cases” (p. 1, 23) which noted that Washington, DC Chief Federal Judge Norma Holloway Johnson (a Black judge, appointed by Jimmy Carter) has been selectively assigning cases of friends of Clinton to judges appointed by Clinton (with their collusion and consent). 

 

“The Washington Times” (p. 7) of Feb 14-20, 2000, had another follow-up story by Seper on “New probe ordered for Clinton-related judicial assignments” which further assessed the practice of Black Judge Johnson to take care of her friend Bill Clinton. 

 

One article pointed out that four prosecutions of Clinton’s Chinese friends (accused of illegal campaign fund raising procedures for Clinton) and one tax evasion case (involving Clinton’s friend Webster Hubbel) received favorable judicial attention.  Apparently, non-Clinton related cases do not receive Judge Johnson’s special care and concern. 

 

The proper court method of assigning cases is on a rotational, random-selected, computer basis, without other delineating criteria.  But in all of the cases involving Slick, the judge intervened to pass them to “consenting” Clinton appointed judges. 

 

When a complaint was filed with Judge Johnson, she said that she was assigning the cases to “highly capable judges” and that “politics” played no part in her assignments (if one believes that statement, then he probably still believes in the tooth fairy business).

 

Later, Johnson was asked again about the favorable treatment to Clinton’s friends and she said that she was authorized to assign “protracted or complex criminal cases to consenting judges when circumstances warrant.”  As she sees it, any of these cases involved in Clinton scandals fit automatically into this classification, requiring special judicial attention.

 

A number of Clinton friends and Democrat colleagues accused of wrong doing have received these controversial Clinton appointed judges.  The decisions rendered by the courts have been equally controversial, making one wonder whether these liberal judges (without honor, integrity, character or morality) would actually be unfair while sitting on the bench. 

 

As Seper noted, Clinton appointed judges have the just discussed secret meetings on a monthly basis.  Do they discuss these cases of Clinton friends at these monthly meetings or what?

 

Per the outline of the article, this process could undermine the American political and judicial processes.  It is cause for concern, although it seems impossible to prove that the judges have conspired in a political matter to aid and assist Clinton and his liberal, Democrat cronies.   

 

The House Judiciary Committee and Judicial Watch is looking into Johnson’s practices of favoritism for Bill Clinton.  Of course, Johnson should be impeached.  But no action will be taken against her because she is “Black.”  For fear of being called racists, the American system is so warped and pathetically sick that Africans are often not going to be disciplined or corrected by the hypocrite White establishment. 

 

 

Impartial Judges? 

 

While most Americans stupidly suppose that when they go into court, at least the judge will be impartial and rule on the basis of facts, the law and truth and not otherwise.  But as demonstrated so far herein, many judges are not fair and impartial.  Like other so-called human beings, many judges, as a minimum, have their own prejudices, emotions, hate, beliefs and feelings which they sometimes do allow into their courts. 

 

The situation with federal Judge Susan Wright in Arkansas, discussed previously, clearly demonstrates how judges can be very biased in favor of one litigant before the court in contrast to the other litigant.  And when politically incorrect people go into court, they will inevitably run into judges like Wright. 

 

Years ago, this writer knew a man who had been a tax protester.  He was arrested and tried in a federal court, sentenced and served his term.  In later years, he mentioned some of the difficulties for a politically incorrect person to deal with when faced with a court action. 

 

As discussed above and in previous chapters, the judge in almost all cases will assuredly be a politically correct judge (because they are the kind of judges which politically correct governors and politically correct presidents appoint).  Also, as outlined in previous comments, one can be sure that the jury is also a politically correct jury (because, under the system, the prosecutor, judge, court clerk and so forth will all automatically act to keep politically incorrect people off of the jury). 

 

Furthermore, on the judge, it isn’t only a matter of the judge being politically correct, the judge is paid by the politically correct system.  He (or she) is a lawyer who came up from the profession to gain his judge position.  He has loyalties to the politically correct system and the legal profession which inevitably will influence him to some extent. 

 

The point of this is that the judge is not on the side of politically incorrect people from day one.  This is not to say that there aren’t any judges of personal honor and integrity who can overcome their biases and preconceived prejudices (in that the word prejudice means a preconceived opinion, position or belief attained without regard to objectivity, facts and reality).  Some few are persons of character.  

 

The problem with judges grows worse with the passing days, as was brought out by Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key’s article in the Oct 11, 1999, “Spotlight” (p. 3), previously quoted, in connection with the work of the US Justice Department. 

 

Key went on to quote a law professor who had a recent series of articles in the “Pittsburgh Post Gazette.”  The professor wrote:  “The courts used to be a buffer between prosecutors and defendants.  They are now a rubber stamp” (for the government prosecutors).  Truly, we have reached a pretty sorry place when judges cannot even be honest and fair. 

 

Beyond all of the implications of simply biased judges, there is still one more facet of this problem.  The April 22, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) had a news report on Cook County (Chicago) Circuit Judge Thomas J. Maloney, who was eventually found to be taking bribes from defendants.  Judge Maloney was said to be biased against defendants who would not make a pay off to him. 

 

This problem with Maloney blew up over his handling of the murder case conviction of William Bracy and Roger Collins in 1980.  The Judge sentenced the two men to death.  While on death row, the two men appealed their conviction on the grounds that Maloney was against them because they would not pay him off.  Their appeal went to the US Circuit Court of Appeals where their conviction was upheld in March 2002. 

 

 

Judges Protect Each Other  

 

This issue over Judge Maloney brings up a couple of points which most Westerners are utterly void on understanding.  Since the Western Christian nations will not prosecute crooks like Maloney or do anything about grossly incompetent and unfair judges (mentioned earlier herein), a person hurt by this corrupt system has almost no alternative for a remedy or resolution. 

 

One of the supposed realities is that a damaged person can sue the judges and other public officials who damaged him.  But this is no panacea because of two contingencies built into the system to protect primarily the judges and prosecutors but also other government bureaucrat workers of evil as well. 

 

First, a judge has great discretion on whether he will even allow a case to go forward in his court.  There are almost no statutory laws that address this theme but there are court decisions and rules which judges use to grant them great latitude on whether a case can proceed in court or not.  The essence of these rules hangs on the question of jurisdiction (jurisdiction over the subject involved and jurisdiction over the person). 

 

If a judge doesn’t want to handle a particular case, he almost always can dismiss it out of hand on the basis that there is a jurisdictional problem or something else (like questions of service of process or on the statement of the claim).  A pleader usually has no opportunities to go beyond the action of the judge involved (except an appeal to a higher court which usually sides with the lower court).  It’s a catch 22 situation. 

 

The second major issue involved is in trying to sue judges, prosecutors and other officials is that most of them are “immune” from civil lawsuits.  These are court decreed laws which are normally not supported by statutory or constitutional laws at all.  In other words, the courts have decreed a thing called judicial immunity.  Not only have they created judicial immunity, but they call it “absolute judicial immunity.” 

 

Hence, it is almost out of the question to sue a judge or prosecutor (though there are a few loopholes which a party might use for a suit; but such are usually doomed in court).  Obviously, since judges will decide all questions in a court case (except when a person can actually get a case before a jury; and even then, the judges control the evidence that will go to the jury), judges have their own personal interests and biases at stake to motivate them to protect other judges (and themselves as well since they too could one day be sued, and they will then want immunity for themselves). 

 

In terms of other government officials, the courts use something called “qualified immunity” which hangs on whether the officials involved acted reasonably and in good faith in compliance with the laws/rules of their offices.  This qualified immunity is not as broad as the absolute judicial immunity.  But it is still hard to sue a government official over his gross incompetence or illegal actions in dealing with a damaged person. 

 

The bottom line on this theme is that while a person can be hurt and damaged by judges, prosecutors and other government officials, it is a very hard task to sue them in a civil suit and expect to be able to see the suit to a successful conclusion.  The courts have made it almost impossible for a citizen to do anything about any injustice imposed on him by the courts or government officials. 

 

 

More Non-Justice in Washington, DC 

 

Another situation where American justice was seriously blocked involved the investigation into the sodomy charges against Slick Clinton.  In attempting to get a fair grand jury hearing on the case, independent prosecutor Ken Starr, mentioned earlier, was faced with a Black grand jury in Washington, DC. 

 

To most ignorant, sun worshipping Americans, this is no issue.  But in reality, it has meant an impossible condition to hope for in obtaining justice.  Most sun worshipping Whites have been raised and fed a constant diet in their culture of the brotherhood of man and that the different races are precisely the same.  Not understanding how the African mind works, stupid Whites actually suppose that Blacks think like Whites. 

 

The first big problem was that Slick himself is highly esteemed among Africans.  They have always been his primary bloc voters in his political campaigns.  Moreover, two of the other key players, who could have violated any number of laws, were Slick’s friend Vernon Jordan and Slick’s secretary Betty Curry.  Both Curry and Jordan are Negroes. 

 

As a minimum, the Black jury would be in no mood to indict either of the Blacks for anything.  Slick counted on getting a free pass from them as well.  It was rumored that Starr tried to move Curry and Jordan’s testimony over to a Virginia court in hopes of having a number of Whites on the jury, but it was not possible.  The bottom line was a built-in escape hatch for the main players in the investigation. 

 

In late March 1998, Slick took an extended tour of Black Africa and took Betty Curry along with him.  As much as possible, he apologized for Black slavery, alleged oppression of Blacks by White Europeans, and even attempted to blame the United States for African genocide by various Black tribes against other Black tribes (as has been on-going for centuries now). 

 

Moreover, both he and Hillary pledged new grants and gifts of US money to various Black African nations for different purposes.  In one instance, he was among some primitive Negroes in one nation (many of whom still live in grass huts) and pledged them millions of US dollars so that their school students could be on the Internet. 

 

Quite naturally, the liberal media and press went wild with enthusiasm and support for Slick and his humanitarian moves to help Black Africa (and to further destroy his own country by giving away money which the US simply didn’t have to give away).  The question must surely arise as to why Slick would go to Africa at that time and make all those apologies and pledges of money. 

 

The answer to that question is not so complicated after all.  Obviously, it should not take many brains above the moron level to figure out that Slick wanted to take the gullible American voters’ minds off of his White House sex scandal and the on-going grand jury deliberations in Washington. 

 

But there was other manifest reasons for the trip as well.  As limited as Rush Limbaugh’s perception often is on important issues, he usually has had it right on Slick.  He certainly zeroed in on the gist of this trip in his radio talk show program of March 26, 1998. 

 

As Limbaugh saw it, Slick’s trip was made to firm up the main block of Democrat voters (African Americans) and their Congressional Democrat representatives (which play to and appease them).  When Slick’s many womanizing scandals would reach the US Congress for removal action, Slick would need the full support of his Democrat allies. 

 

The popular radio talk show host went on to also point out that Slick was laying the groundwork for his sexual harassment trial with Paula Jones later.  Realizing that this trial would have taken place in Little Rock, Arkansas, with a significant number of Black jurors, Slick would obviously want to connect with these Blacks in advance. 

 

His African trip would have done just that; of course, though the need was nullified with Judge Wright’s decision to throw the case out and with the Jones settlement.  To these excellent observations by Limbaugh, this writer would add that Slick was still faced with a Black Washington, DC grand jury.  Certainly, he needed all of the bridges he could build with Africans in general.  His African trip did this. 

 

There is furthermore the question of possible future criminal or civil actions in Washington, DC, if Slick should ever leave political power (although this option was nullified later when he beat all of the raps against him).  In such a remote eventuality, any Washington criminal or civil trials would assuredly include an all Negro jury.  Slick’s trip to Black Africa helped in addressing this possibility, as well. 

 

Finally, Ken Starr and his grand jury was not through with testimony from Betty Curry.  Betty was scheduled to reappear before the jury.  While taking her with him did not eliminate this eventual testimony, it did shore up his relationship with her.  Clinton had already leaked data on his Paula Jones testimony.  So Curry knew what he had said and what she was supposed to say. 

 

Clearly, Slick needed Betty to back him up and say the same things.  Being his secretary and being Black, one could speculate that she would readily do so in any situation.  However, just in case she should waiver and not come through for him, as hoped, the free trip to Africa for Betty would certainly help in being sure that she would be on his side in all future testimony. 

 

Slick Willy is certainly not as stupid as some people may wish to suppose.  This man has spent his political life building bridges with the Black community (as elsewhere described) and he uses them and his connections fully since they bloc vote and since in a trial, they generally have little or no conception of justice--per the views of the Western White civilization. 

 

 

Black Justice  

 

Another classic example of African justice surfaced in late 1998 when Clinton’s former Secretary of Agriculture was tried for corruption and bribery (in taking $33,000 in gifts, trips, etc from businesses which were regulated by the Department of Agriculture).  While the trial involved some 30 counts, it must be acknowledged that this is all that the prosecutors could substantiate. 

 

There could have been far more gifts and gratuities involved.  Who knows what all Clinton friends in Arkansas gave Espy.  The big poultry producer, Tyson Foods, was involved.  So one has to wonder why they were giving gifts to Espy, unless they expected something back in return.  Businesses don’t shell out money without anticipating a payback. 

 

The problem for Espy was that there were laws that are supposed to limit government officials from accepting gifts from people or businesses they regulate and control.  In any case, the African-American Espy had it all on his side when he went into a Washington, DC federal court and jury controlled and run by Blacks. 

 

Since Blacks are just in no mood to convict a brother, the outcome was certain.  The verdict came in on Dec 2, 1998, and Espy was acquitted of all 30 charges, though both he and some of the accused businesses had admitted some of the gifts in prior public statements.  This is Black justice in operation. 

 

It was too bad that the Black crook Ron Brown was not allowed to have his day in court with an African jury.  Brown, another close Clinton aide, was the former Secretary of Commerce being investigated for a host of fraud and corruption charges.  Before he could be acquitted and set free by a Black jury, he died mysteriously in an airplane crash in Europe, as discussed before. 

 

Take the criminal case of the O. J. Simpson lawyers and jurors, previously cited.  Certainly, truth and justice were never an issue for any of them.  For the lawyers, money and victory in winning clearly were their considerations (the defense attorneys are supposed to be officers of the court as well as the prosecutors--both should be interested in justice and not just in winning their case, as noted earlier). 

 

And for almost all of the people associated with the O. J. Simpson case, the prospects of collaborating in the writing of a book or screen play was a primary focus that seemed to dominate much of their focus.  One must always remember that money (profits) is the name of the game in the entire Western, sun worship culture (which has been largely built on greed, get and selfishness). 

 

For the Negro jurors, their concern was to take care of their Black brother.  As just noted, Black juries are typically never in any mood to convict Black brothers who are in conflict with White people or the White society at large.  That’s why Betty Curry and Vernon Jordan had no problems in the Slick case, as outlined above. 

 

Occasionally, Black juries may convict a Black of wrong doing when the victim is another Black.  But if the victim is White, it’s just about out of the question.  Because of this condition in the real world, justice is generally not dispensed with African juries. 

 

A few years ago, a national magazine had an interesting survey of Americans with a question about what role the issue of race played in their decisions and actions.  It has to be significant to note that the matter of race plays no role in the decisions of most White Americans, while the matter of race plays a primary or central role in the decisions made by Blacks. 

 

Thus, when Blacks enter the polling booth or when they sit on juries, their decisions are predicated upon taking care of the Black brothers (and certainly, over Whites).  That factor alone accounts for the huge Black support of the liberal, permissive, give-away Democrats.  That is the reason that Negroes have massively supported Bill Clinton (who is known as the first Black president). 

 

The controlled media would have people believe the exact opposite.  The controlled media would like to convey the image that Black people are fair, just, honorable and people of integrity who do things on the basis of right and wrong and not on the basis of the color of people’s skin.  Actually, it is American Whites who demonstrate this profile and not Blacks. 

 

 

Back to OJ 

 

The Los Angeles District Attorney should have considered this reality when he chose to move the Simpson criminal trial from OJ’s neighborhood, where the crime took place and where affluent Whites lived (and would dominate the selected jury and convict, as they did in the later civil lawsuit), to a district where Negroes predominated and were certain to pack the jury. 

 

The reason for this improper transfer (from the district or area where the crime took place to a distant one) was that the DA and his prosecutors were evidently a little proud and cocky.  They thought they had an airtight case and plenty of evidence which would convince any jury--White or Black. 

 

Recognizing that if a White jury were to convict a Black for killing a White, then the Los Angeles Negroes would have went wild to destroy, loot and burn the city down.  To avoid the certain Black backlash, terrorism and anarchy, the DA chose to move the trial, hoping that the Africans would not burn Los Angeles down if OJ was convicted by a Black jury. 

 

How pathetic it is that the White society has to twist and subvert justice in order to play to and appease wild, uncontrollable Blacks.  But this stupidity is about what one can expect in the typical sun worship culture.  The achievement of truth and justice is not on the agenda in the modern, Western, sun worship civilization. 

 

African juries are effectively in no mood to convict fellow Africans (in any conflict with Whites), but Whites can be in trouble when appearing before Black or Hispanic juries and especially if the trial involves a White confrontation with Blacks and/or Hispanics in some manner.  Whitey is simply not going to get much justice from Black and Hispanic juries. 

 

A related problem was outlined in the Feb 7, 2000, “Spotlight” (p. 10), in an article by F. C. Blahut on “Court Puts Race, Language Before Your Civil Rights.”  The focus on Blahut’s story was upon some decisions of high courts--like one in New Mexico which mandated the inclusion of all persons in a jury pool. 

 

The goal of these decisions and the direction being chartered is the inclusion of Hispanics and other minorities (who cannot even speak English) in juries, trying a person in English.  “Spotlight” asked if this presence of non-English speaking peoples in a English speaking courtroom means a trial before your peers, as envisioned in the US Constitution. 

 

Blahut also noted another court process from the state of Maryland and a decision by the Maryland Supreme Court that attorneys may ask potential jurors in a criminal case if they harbor any racial or ethnic prejudices, regardless of the defendant’s race or if the case has racial overtures. 

 

If a juror says no and the court can prove that the juror once made a critical remark about Blacks or minorities or used the so-called “n” word, then that juror becomes a perjurer and can be prosecuted to the full force of law.  This means that juries will be packed with people who are pro racial amalgamation, integration and miscegenation.  No one can be on a jury who opposes these concepts. 

 

Therefore, if a person is charged with a hate crime or thought crime for speaking against or criticizing government protected minorities in any way, then that person will be tried before a jury--not of his peers; but rather, by his enemies.  This process means that a person accused of a hate crime (which now can just include speech with no presence of anything else) can easily be prosecuted and convicted. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 398--The Unjust Justice Department

 

 

A Corrupt US Department of Justice  

 

Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, got in on the justice problem in a “Washington Times” newspaper column for Sep 13-19, 1999 (p. 33).  He noted that virtually all US government departments had been corrupted under President Bill Clinton.  Going on, Levin added that the corruption was more acute in the Justice Department. 

 

Upon becoming Attorney General of the United States, Janet Reno promptly fired all 93 US Attorneys (while Levin did not mention the reason for this unprecedented move, it is apparent that Reno took this action for political reasons). 

 

While Waco and many other issues could be cited for the gross corruption in the US Department of Justice, Levin essentially focused upon the problem by saying that Reno had politicized the US justice system more than anyone else to protect a corrupt president and a lawless administration. 

 

Levin has it right.  The US Department of Justice had become a symbol of corruption and no justice in the last several years.  This reality makes it extremely hard and difficult for any Americans to get justice in US Courts if they are on the Administration’s list of enemies (like politically incorrect people are). 

 

As late as Oct 1999, Robert Novak, in his column, commented upon the role of the US Department of Justice in the FBI investigation into illegal campaign contributions to Slick Clinton (Oct 4-10, 1999, “Washington Times,” p. 31). 

 

In 1997, Clinton friend and contributor Charlie Trie was under investigation and his female assistant was busy destroying documents which had been subpoenaed by a US grand jury.  FBI agents were stopped by the Justice Department from searching her home. 

 

One FBI agent (Barbara Parker) submitted her personal notebook of campaign irregularities to the Justice Department.  It came back with 27 pages torn out and missing. 

 

 

Charles Key, Revisited 

 

The previously cited Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key had an article in the Oct 11, 1999, “Spotlight” (p. 1, 3) on “Waco Scandal Demands New Look at OKC Bombing.”  It was predicated upon a realization that the US Department of Justice (the prosecutors, who are addressed elsewhere herein) had repeatedly lied and obstructed justice in the Waco incident. 

 

Key said:  “The Justice Department has gotten so out of control that an increasing number of former prosecutors and judges are speaking out about the misconduct and regular violation of law.  Hiding facts from the court and defense, lying in court, promoting perjury and acts of retribution against those who raise question are becoming commonplace.” 

 

 

Zacharias Moussaoui

 

The Zacharias Moussaoui case will be addressed in some detail in a later chapter that discusses the Sep 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.  But there was at least one event associated with this case which deserves special mentioning here in discussing the corrupt and sorry US Justice Department, which is manifestly not interested in justice. 

 

Moussaoui was one of the Muslims arrested in the US based upon allegations that he played a role in the 9-11 attacks.  As it turned out, another Muslim, also in US custody, was a witness on the side of Zacharias who said that Moussaoui was not involved in the 9-11 case.  The US proceeded to try Moussaoui anyway, but denied him the ability to call upon this favorable witness held in US custody, outside the US. 

 

Zacharias Moussaoui went to court to try to gain access to the Muslim witness held by the US.  The US said that Zacharias Moussaoui could not call upon the witness on the grounds that the witness was outside the US and was unavailable (though in US confinement, evidently in Cuba).  Moussaoui contented that under the sixth amendment, he was entitled to this favorable witness. 

 

The issue went to the appellate court in early June 2003.  But the point in making this reference is to the reality that the US Justice Department is itself corrupt and sorry.  The one thing that the US Justice Department itself is not interested in--is justice.  When the chief prosecutor tries to deny an accused man (facing a death sentence) an opportunity to have a defense witness, something is wrong. 

 

And of course, something is fundamentally wrong--either in the US system or at least in the way it is being administered in modern times (with the new concepts of so-called US justice, truth and righteousness).  Actually, the problem is in the modern administration of justice--since the American justice reality has manifestly changed so dramatically in the last fifty years or so. 

 

 

More From Justice 

 

While many gullible and uninformed Americans thought that things would change at the US Department of Justice with the departure of Janet “Butch” Reno, and the arrival of a somewhat more honest John Ashcroft, such appears to not be totally the case.  While Ashcroft is hands down a more honorable person that the sodomites Slick Clinton and Janet Reno, there still remains many problems at Justice. 

 

For example, the US Justice Department has been accused in a Knight-Ridder story of inflating its terrorism case reports with routine criminal actions for years (Feb 11, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 2). 

 

While it is not totally clear why Justice would be involved in this skullduggery, it might be that there are at least two benefits.  First, the terrorism case load builds up the case for more draconian and repressive laws to further take away the Bill of Rights from the average John Doe citizen and helps to bring on world government (which is the plan and goal of the plutocrats who are calling the shots). 

 

And second, there is a certain sense of citizen paranoia associated with terrorism (in that it can affect the average person on the street).  This paranoia insures that the Congress will dole even more money out in future days to increase the number of people and actions going on in the Justice Department.  In other words, the Justice bureaucracy will grow and grow. 

 

Anyway, these allegations have prompted Representative Dan Burton to ask the General Accounting Office to audit the Justice Department’s reports on terrorism.  Again, as is always true in government, nothing will come of these efforts, one way or the other. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 399--The Justice-Media Link

 

 

Controlling the Spin 

 

The question of media spin has been commented upon in prior chapters.  In the normal context, the US Department of Justice and its army of prosecutors, federal agents, spies and oppressors of truth and justice have never had a problem with the media in modern times--that is, with the controlled national media. 

 

After all, the national media is owned and/or controlled by the same people who own and control America’s politicians and government leaders.  Manifestly, the people pulling the strings from behind the scenes are not going to sit back and allow the government and the national media to pursue hostile or contrary positions on anything of importance to the ruling plutocrats. 

 

In general, the question of media spin and hypocrisy is almost mute and non-existent.  Thus, there is no particular problem for the Justice Department to lie, spin, deceive and mislead the controlled national media (since both entities effectively take orders from the same ruling plutocrats). 

 

But just in case there is a problem or could be a problem, the Justice Department and its army of lawyers and federal agents and virtually unlimited funding does have important people who are experts and professionals at spinning and deceiving the worthless national media. 

 

Since almost everyone in the entire system is playing on the same team (owned/controlled by the ruling plutocrats), the national media never questions the government spin.  They close their eyes and look the other way.  So government spin artists get away it and are never really challenged. 

 

Well, they are almost never challenged. Actually, there have been a few isolated instances when some media rogues entered the arena to cast doubt upon the integrity, honesty and character of Janet Reno and her henchmen. 

 

 

The Davidians, Revisited 

 

The first incident worth mentioning happened in Waco during the government siege against the Branch Davidians, discussed earlier herein.  In order to control the event, the FBI had periodic press briefings in which the feds gave the spin and told how evil and wicked David Koresh was.  Since the feds were in charge of these briefings, no one ever heard Koresh’s side of the story.  It was all one sided. 

 

Naturally, the liberal press people from the controlled national media stood there like dupes and sucked in all of the lies, distortions and deceptions being spun by media manipulators from the FBI.  Every time a lie was told about how evil Koresh was, the media wrote it down and never questioned the charge.  They were all attentive listeners, eating up everything the feds said. 

 

However, by some fluke, the “Jubilee” paper of California (elsewhere quoted herein, from time to time) had a reporter present at these FBI briefings.  Instead of merely closing his eyes and saying yes to all of the lies, deceptions and spin, this reporter got bold and asked some difficult questions.  The FBI officials were totally unprepared for this turn of events. 

 

So they took the normal government use of sheer power and jack-boot strength to try to intimidate and silence this reporter who would dare question their spin.  He was manhandled and hustled out of doors and told that he could not come to the briefings; and if he interfered any further in them, he would be arrested (naturally, they could charge him with obstructing justice or something similar). 

 

 

R. Vincent Bertollini 

 

In the Dec 20, 1999, “11th Hour Remnant Messenger” (p. 1), R. Vincent Bertollini wrote about the government work and “injustice” for the Branch Davidians.  As Bertollini noted, the Davidians had some guns (which were supposedly protected under the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution).  But they advocated no insurrection, anarchy or sedition (or violence--ed).  They just wanted to be left alone and made that public. 

 

Nevertheless, per Bertollini, an illegal warrant was served, an illegal action was promulgated, an illegal siege was developed and an illegal mass murder occurred.  No one from the government side was indicted or made to stand trial. 

 

This writer would expand on Vincent’s words by noting that yes, government agents manufactured lies to get the warrant (which they did, as proven earlier herein).  Instead of just serving it, they launched an attack with an army of people in bullet proof vests, terror uniforms and guns blazing.  And ultimately, they murdered some 86 innocent men, women and children who had not violated any laws in the United States. 

 

Even after this exercise, the government people then went to work to tell lies, destroy and alter evidence, obstruct justice and do every thing possible to prevent justice and truth to ever be known. 

 

Then to top it off, they arrested the few Davidian survivors who were not murdered and promptly prosecuted them for various trumped up charges.  These innocent victims were found guilty and all sentenced to long terms in federal prison. 

 

With this mass murder of people and all of the other problems involved, one would think that, as a minimum, a grand jury would be convened to look into the matter; but no, not so, in US Christian justice circles (at least, not so, by 2003). 

 

After seven years of lies, distortions and manipulations, public outcries and the work of an independent film producer, the Justice Department was forced in 1999 to open a new inquiry (using John Danforth, a government loyalist, as noted earlier). 

 

 

The TWA Flight 800 Case, Revisited 

 

A second powerful demonstration of the US Department of Justice in operation surfaced over the TWA flight 800 crash, discussed earlier herein.  Many persons who had pulled their heads out of the sand (and refused to believe the lies, distortions and spin) believed that 800 was shot down--evidently, by a missile or two, as fired by the US Navy. 

 

One of the people interested in this scenario was an investigative reporter named James Sanders.  He went to work and dug up facts and data raising real questions about some of the conclusions of the federal agents.  In response to his efforts, he was arrested and charged with a federal criminal indictment. 

 

“Spotlight” of Feb 14, 2000, had his report in an article on “Journalist Faces Criminal Charges After Exposing TWA Cover Up” (p. 1, 3).  Sanders says that he interviewed people in 1996 on the crash and found an emerging picture of an “invisible hand straining to move the government inquiry onto a politically contrived path leading to a ‘mechanical’ conclusion.” 

 

Per Sanders, this invisible hand guiding the government inquiry was the same guiding hand that had dealt with criminal acts committed within the Clinton administration after 1993. 

 

Since 1996 was an election year, Clinton and his handlers would not have wanted any publicity that the Navy, under his watch, shot down a US airliner full of people.  One of the most damaging charges was that the Navy was involved in exercises in the area and that a drone was being used.  The conclusion was that these exercises went amiss. 

 

The August 2000 “Internet Vortex” (p. 11) had a related article on “New Photographs Show TWA 800 Cover-Up, Independent Prober Says” which detailed the work of Sanders.  Per this source, Sanders found photographs of crash investigators tampering with key evidence as they reassembled the plane’s carcass on Long Island (they were bending some of the metal down to make it look like an internal explosion).  

 

Somehow, in 1999, Sanders gained possession of the fabric from one of the plane’s seats.  He promptly had it analyzed by a California lab.  The laboratory concluded that the fabric had some strains of what appeared to be rocket fuel residue.  However, the government claimed that the residue was glue. 

 

 

Leaks 

 

Apparently, Sanders was getting fed information and documents from investigators inside the Department of Justice which indicated that the government was lying and deceiving the public about what all was going on in the investigation. 

 

Of course, the Justice Department was angry that inside people were feeding information to Sanders.  So they contacted him and demanded the names of all persons he was getting information from.  He refused.  The feds then followed up with one of their favorite tricks--which is to intimidate, threaten and coerce family members (wives, children, etc). 

 

Sanders was told that if he did not reveal his sources, his wife would be targeted and indicted in a criminal court.  He still refused.  So the feds hauled him in front of a federal grand jury and had him and his wife both indicted for conspiracy.  The trial was held and Sanders was quite naturally denied (by the federal judge) the privilege of the first amendment as a defense. 

 

Quite naturally, Justice had its way.  They were both found guilty and were sentenced.  Per the “Internet Vortex” article, Sanders and his wife Elizabeth are appealing their sentences. 

 

Of course, the controlled national media hid Sander’s story from the public.  The point is that no one can oppose the national media or the crooked politicians who rule in Washington.  They have all of the money and almost all of the resources, federal agents, judges and court officials on their side.  It’s very hard for a little man with no money to oppose this combine. 

 

 

A Summary 

 

In order to close out this discussion on US justice, this summary is needed of material largely covered heretofore.  While it might be allowed that justice and truth sometimes surface in court trials, this is not the function or reality of the US justice system, as it has developed over the last 215 years. 

 

There are always far more over-riding issues than justice.  Clearly, prosecutors could care less about justice and truth.  Their primary motive is getting a conviction in order to help their own pride, vanity and success in life.  The judges and courts have an over-riding motive of maintaining the system, status quo and vested interests. 

 

Finally, the jury (when an accused is blessed with a jury) has generally been hand-picked by the establishment to be sure that it is in support of the politically correct system.  For sure, the only hope of any certain justice is a jury.  But the US juries are so controlled and the jury members are so mesmerized and zombiized by the system that justice even evades them. 

 

With the tables stacked against many accused (and especially, politically incorrect ones), there is almost no way that truth and justice will emerge in a trial, legal process or judicial action.  It’s hard to fight this combine because defendants simply don’t have the money and resources to gain acquittals or establish truth and justice; whereas the government has unlimited funds, people and resources to protect the system. 

 

In order for the prosecutor to get his conviction and the judge to protect the system, the public must be made to believe that justice and truth did prevail.  So, without wasting any time or effort to pursue justice and truth, the government wants a quick explanation or fast conviction which will satisfy and pacify the gullible public.  Often, this involves a patsy or other inconsequential player or excuse. 

 

Thus Lee Oswald, Tim McVeigh, Randy Weaver, David Koresh, Linda Tripp and Paula Jones all took the blame.  The real guilty parties all escaped justice. 

 

In many instances, it is the feds or federal agents themselves who are to blame (as at Waco, Ruby Ridge and OC) or some prominent politician or fat cat (like Slick Clinton or the super rich).  The judge must be sure that all of these parties are fully protected--as they are part of the system.  

 

If there is no immediate fall guy or patsy to put the blame on, then the system demands that a suitable explanation be drafted to pacify and satisfy the gullible public.  That’s why the middle fuel tank on TWA 800 took the blame. 

 

In all cases, judges like Susan Wright (for Paula Jones) and Richard Matsch (on Tim McVeigh) have delivered for the system, as they were tasked to do.  These judges were not going to allow justice. 

 

 

No Truth or Justice 

 

Consequently, truth and justice were never on the agenda or at issue with the JFK killing (the bankers and Mob beat the rap), in the OC bombing (the conspirators or at least the ATF which had stored high explosives in the federal building escaped justice), with Paula Jones (the guilty Clinton skated free), in the TWA 800 case (Clinton and the Navy were protected) or at Waco or Ruby Ridge (where federal agents murdered people and got away with it). 

 

While this corrupt and sorry system may satisfy and appeal to the gullible Christians (who have allowed it to develop and persist), it is a far cry from what The ELOHIM demands in His Word.  Since it is so corrupt and evil, it is doomed to fall and one day be held accountable by The HIGHEST. 

 

Like YESHUA said, the very elect need to settle with their adversaries and avoid lawyers and court actions if at all possible because they will typically be hurt and oppressed since the system is stacked against them. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 400--More Government Corruption

 

 

US Justice, Revisited 

 

Former chapters herein have already discussed at some length the gross corruption and evil found in the US Justice Department and among various federal law enforcement and investigative agencies and people--particularly, in the FBI and the CIA. 

 

With this detailed coverage, there is no intent presently to begin to repeat those findings.  But the problem is far more profound than simply something in the US White House, the US Justice Department or the FBI.  It permeates throughout the entire United States government. 

 

While the case can be made that there used to be some honorable people in charge in government departments and operations, all of this has changed since WWII and especially since the arrival of the depraved law violator, crook and pervert Bill “Slick” Clinton in the early 1990s. 

 

Of course, much of the United States assumed that with the arrival of George W. Bush and a so-called Christian conservative Attorney General named John Ashcroft, things had to improve.  And probably, there is some improvement at the top level (not much, but “some”). 

 

Though the Bush family itself has had a dirty rap sheet for ages (and especially, with the presidency of George H. W. Bush), John Ashcroft certainly represents something better than what the nation had under Bill “Slick” Clinton and Janet “Butch” Reno.  Nevertheless, gross problems still remain and deserve some further commentary. 

 

 

Far More Than the Justice Department 

 

To pick upon and expand the remarks of the previously cited Mark R. Levin (that virtually all US government departments had been corrupted under Clinton), it is true that virtually all US executive branch departments had been corrupted at the top levels during the last ten years or at least have had misconduct charges and complaints filed (like with the secretaries or department heads). 

 

The list includes Agriculture, Transportation, Treasury, Interior, Energy, Health and Welfare, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Defense (especially the Department of the Army, when the Secretary manipulated burials at Arlington Cemetery on behalf of Clinton), Office of the Surgeon General, Office of the Counsel to the President and on and on.  Some of these incidents have already been mentioned. 

 

 

The Indians 

 

While both Treasury and Interior have had multiple accusations of wrong doing over the last several years, perhaps the most significant act of corruption involves a 1998-1999 case when both departments entered into an apparent conspiracy with the president himself or someone close to him in the White House to obstruct justice (which is a common Clinton tactic in dealing with the courts). 

 

It seems that some time ago, complaints were leveled against Interior and Treasury about an alleged mismanagement of Indian trust funds.  Per an audit report by the accounting firm of Arthur Anderson, there was some $2.4 billion of funds which could not be accounted for. 

 

Various Indian tribes hired lawyers and filed a class action lawsuit against Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin (the apparent Amalekite master who resigned and went to work as a co-chairman of Citigroup, as discussed heretofore). 

 

Rather than deal with the issue straight and forward, the Secretaries (evidently, in collusion with Clinton or someone else at the White House) decided that they would delay, stonewall, obfuscate, hide, cover up, distort, deceive and mislead all parties as to the facts in the case (either because the facts were politically damaging to Clinton or there were some thieves involved who had to be protected). 

 

In the beginning, the judge ordered the relevant documents turned over to the attorneys of the plaintiffs to determine what happened to the money.  The government alleged that the records could not be produced because of various reasons--like that some of them were stored in a warehouse in New Mexico which were covered with rodent droppings, thereby causing a potential health problem if they were disturbed.

 

On November 23, 1998, the judge was unhappy with the delays and excuses and ordered the documents produced.  The US government lawyers went into court and told the judge that certain microfilm records had been mistakenly destroyed, but that otherwise Treasury officials were right then busy taking all necessary action to locate the rest of the documents so that they could be turned over to the court. 

 

 

The Court Investigation 

 

There were more delays and nothing happened.  So the court appointed an investigator named Alan Balaran to find out why Interior and Treasury were not complying with the judge’s order. 

 

Per a story in the December 13-19, 1999, “Washington Times” (p. 1, 23), by Jerry Seper, on “Treasury officials lied about shredding records,” Balaran found that on the very day (Nov 23, 1998) that the judge ordered the documents produced and the US lawyers made more excuses, Treasury officials issued an order to destroy all of the documents. 

 

Thereupon, the US shredded some 162 boxes of documents associated with the case.  In a previous contempt of court citation from the judge (for the US delays, lies and distortions of truth), the US Departments of Treasury and Interior were ordered to pay a fine of $625,000 (which, of course, comes from the US taxpayers, so it was no issue for either Clinton, Babbitt or Rubin). 

 

With the Balaran revelations, US Justice Department lawyers have gone into court and said that the Balaran report should be hid from the public since it would cause potential severe and unfair damages to the reputations of seven Treasury Department lawyers involved in the shredding operation. 

 

 

The Same With Bush 

 

With the arrival of the Bush Administration in 2001, it would have seemed that the new Secretary of the Interior (Gale Norton) would clean up the acts of the old Clinton people.  But a news report in the Oct 28, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) said that Judge Lambert found Norton also in contempt of court for failing to abide by his court order of three years ago. 

 

This case is like so many others that has been in court in the last several years.  Nothing has been done or will be done.  There will be numerous court appearances of lawyers to file motions to delay and stonewall the truth.  And as is usually the situation, the various lawyers (on both sides) will make much, much money, as the confrontation drags on and on in the US courts. 

 

Finally, in the end, the parties will themselves agree or the judge will order the US taxpayers to make a pay-off of money to the Indians and their attorneys.  No one will be prosecuted, fired or face disciplinary action.  The controlled media has largely had a black out on this incident and it will soon be totally lost to history. 

 

 

The EPA 

 

A former chapter mentioned the situation with the Environmental Protection Agency in financing a number of left-wing causes to the tune of $2 billion from 1993 to 2001 under Bill Clinton’s guidance and direction (May 2002 “American Sentinel,” p. 3).  But there is still more to this story. 

 

The essence of this report was that this money was in the form of grants, some of which went to environmental groups to lobby Congress in support of the environmentalist agenda.  Apparently, the Land Mark Legal Foundation found out about these grants and sued the EPA in federal court because it is illegal under federal law to use grant funds for lobbying purposes. 

 

In January 2001, Federal Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the EPA to protect the documents involved on these grants which the Land Mark Legal Foundation were seeking to establish the propriety of the grants. 

 

Instead of protecting the documents, the EPA reportedly began a cover-up operation.  EPA officials erased computer hard drives and had back-up email tapes destroyed.  Accordingly, Land Mark is pushing the federal court to hold the former Clinton era people in contempt of court.  Will anything come of this effort?  Probably not! 

 

 

Another White House Cover-Up 

 

The Jan-Feb 2000 “Jubilee” (p. 5) had one more report of a major White House cover-up and obstruction of justice, as taken from an article by Jerry Seper and Andrew Cain in the Feb 15, 2000, “Washington Times.” 

 

Several Clinton cases have been before the courts involving fraud and corruption in the Executive Branch. 

 

Thousands of documents, (100,000) e-mails, etc on Filegate, Chinagate, campaign finance abuses, Monica Lewinsky, etc had been subpoenaed either by the courts or by the Congress in various lawsuits and/or Congressional investigations. 

 

Now, Sheryl L. Hall, chief of the White House computer operations, has come forward to say that all electronic messages under subpoena from August 1996 to November 1998 were given security classifications and were hid from investigators.  They were not turned over to the various subpoenas. 

 

Once Ms Hall made her comments, she was promptly fired from her job in the White House and transferred to a position in the Treasury Department.  The fall-out of this Clinton cover-up was zero.  There was no problem and he got away with it (as he gets away with about everything he does). 

 

 

The Theft of Earmarked Funds 

 

A most extraordinary story of Clinton depravity surfaced in a story by Mike Blair on “Clinton-Gore Pilfer Funds to Support Extremists,” which appeared in the Mar 6, 2000, “Spotlight” (p. 1, 3). 

 

Since 1937, the US has established by law a Pittman-Robertson Trust Fund to allocate all excise taxes raised from the sale of guns and ammunition to federal and state wildlife agencies for wildlife restoration projects, hunter safety training programs and firing range constructions.  Some $3.4 billion has been raised for these purposes. 

 

Congressman Don Young of Alaska was suspicious that something was going wrong in this program under Bill Clinton.  So he requested that the US General Accounting Office (GAO) audit it.  GAO did so. 

 

Per the GAO report, tens of millions of dollars from this fund have been illegally diverted by Clinton to finance other Clinton projects--like animal rights activists and funding for foreign trips by high ranking bureaucrats in the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  Congress held hearings on the issue and found more incredible reports of Clinton dishonesty, lying and cheating. 

 

One Fish and Wildlife employee said that he was ordered to use the money to fund animal rights groups which aggressively are involved in efforts to destroy hunting.  Another employee said that he was ordered to destroy computer records which could be used to reveal the abuse and misuse of these funds by the Clinton Administration. 

 

As always in cases like this, nothing has been done or will be done.  Assuredly, per the US Constitution, Slick Clinton and the other parties involved in this illegal endeavor should have been impeached and removed from office.  Of course, that option was not about to happen (as will be established in succeeding chapters herein). 

 

 

Global Crossing 

 

One of the giant telecommunications companies in America has been Global Crossing.  On January 28, 2002, Global Crossing filed for protection under federal bankruptcy laws.  There is now some concern that the Chinese Communist will acquire the technology of this company (May 20, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 7). 

 

While several things contributed to the demise of this company, the just cited “American Free Press” reported some on its background which allowed it to have success during Bill “Slick” Clinton’s tenure of office. 

 

The story involved said that the company made enormous payoffs to Clinton and his people.  For example, attorney Anne Bingaman (wife of Democrat Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico), former head of the Clinton Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, was put on Global’s payroll for six months at $2.5 million to do some lobbying work. 

 

Terry McAullife, head of the Democrat National Committee did some work for Global and received $100,000 in stock that was sold for $18 million.  Former Defense Secretary William Cohen received a $500,000 consulting fee from Global; and Clinton, himself, received $one million from Global for the Clinton library.

 

It is unclear how much money Global paid to the Republicans; but surely, they also got some of the company pie before bankruptcy was filed.  Otherwise, the huge payoffs by the crooked Enron Co to politicians of both parties were discussed in a prior chapter. 

 

 

Clinton Reaction 

 

The Jul-Aug 2000 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 32) quoted Lee Bellinger, editor of the American Sentinel, as saying that in fourteen instances, Clinton invoked executive privilege to conceal illegal activities from the public. 

 

Effectively, he obstructed justice in all 14 instances.  Per his view, it was his right as chief executive of the US to hide and conceal illegal activities. 

 

 

So-Called Independent Commissions or Investigators 

 

One of the shrewd maneuvers which the fat cats and their prostitute politicians have successfully used in their cover-up operations to deceive and delude the gullible, ignorant public has been the practice to appoint so-called independent commissions or investigators to make an inquiry or investigate some event or matter which holds public interest. 

 

Over the years, evil and deceitful presidents have learned that they can appoint these so-called commissions/investigators and have them become the official cover-up people.  The public is so credulous and gullible that these commissions or investigators can easily lie and deceive the public. 

 

Thus, America has had such farces as the Warren Commission with its crooked head Earl Warren, appointed by President Johnson. 

 

And now, the latest fraud is the Commission to investigate the 9-11 terrorist attacks--appointed by George W. Bush.  At first, Bush appointed the cover-up artist Henry Kissinger to head this Commission.  But complaints surfaced showing a Kissinger business conflict of interest, so he resigned. 

 

Another so-called independent investigator named John Danforth was appointed by Attorney General Janet Reno (obviously, with the approval of Bill Clinton) to investigate the murder of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas. 

 

Once someone in the executive branch (the president or whomever) appoints one of these entities, the gullible public is supposedly pacified.  It seems that no one can put two and two together and understand that when a president (or one of his lackeys) appoints someone to investigate the president, there is a pre-determined conclusion to come from this so-called independent inquiry. 

 

Obviously, the president or whomever will always appoint known commodities who will deliver as they are supposed to deliver (like with Earl Warren and John Danforth).  Since presidents and attorney generals are not independent, their appointments are typically not independent ether. 

 

The essence here is that these commissions and investigations are laid on by executive branch people precisely to cover-up and hide the truth so that it will never be known.  So, in a sense, why allow the president or one of his lackeys to even go through the investigatory  motion since it is such a waste of time? 

 

 

The Unwritten Code for Presidents

 

Sometimes, the public elects a successor to a former crooked president with some hope that the successor will investigate and prosecute his predecessor for crooked dealings in the White House.  An example of this ,precise thinking was in the minds of many Americans who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 with hopes that he would take action against the former culprit Slick Clinton. 

 

But any person naive and stupid enough to believe such possibilities should have stayed home and not voted.  The problem is that there is a code in the presidency that each new president acts to protect and insulate his predecessor from any fall out for wrong doing. 

 

The reason for this code is clear enough.  All incoming presidents realize that four years from now they could well be on the outside facing their most harsh opponent who may succeed them.  If a president starts prosecuting and hurting his predecessor, he well knows that his successor might turn the tables on him and prosecute him. 

Can one imagine what would happen if GWB started attacking Slick Clinton in 2001 after GWB assumed the White House?  Well, Bush knew the code and knew that in four or eight years Bush will be out and his successor could be Hillary Clinton.  Is it not obvious that if Bush hurt Bill, Hillary would retaliate and later hurt Bush? 

 

Therefore, the unwritten code comes into play.  The code simply says that once you are in the White House, you pledge to never do anything destructive or hurtful to your predecessor.  People like the Clintons and Bushes can slug it out on the campaign trail; but once the election is over and the president is chosen, he is duty bound to protect his predecessor.  It always works out that way--with no exceptions. 

 

Too, it must be recognized that the persons getting elected to the presidency are generally all members of the same secret loges and fraternities.  They are lodge brothers who are sworn to aiding and assisting each other.  Admittedly, during the campaign days, they are allowed to attack each other.  But they know that with the election their successor will end up helping and protecting his predecessor. 

 

Some observers alleged that when Bill “Slick” Clinton assumed the presidency in 1993, he gave a secret fraternity sign to George H. W. Bush during Slick’s inauguration.  Of course, they do belong to the same secret groups.  Slick and both Bushes are members of the Skull and Bones Society at Yale.  This condition tied them together in profound ways. 

 

Obviously, there was no way that Slick would hurt Bush Senior when he came to power in 1993.  And when Bush Junior came to the presidency, there was no possibility that he would take any action to damage his predecessor Slick.  Each succeeding president is duty bound to protect his predecessor.  And they always carry out their obligations on this matter. 

 

Many people have been fascinated with how Bush Junior was so hard on Slick (and Slick’s colleague Al Gore) during the 2000 presidential campaign.  Yet, once Bush Junior was in the White House, he and Bill Clinton became the best of buddies.  The same is true with Bush Senior and Clinton.  They called each other dirty dogs in 1992.  But once the election was over, they were the best of friends. 

 

It should be obvious to anyone with brains above the moron level that this tragic unwritten code exists among the presidents.  That’s why a succeeding president will never do anything to hurt his predecessor. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 401--Federal Law Enforcement

 

 

The FBI 

 

Corruption in the Justice Department’s Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has already been detailed in former chapters.  It is almost redundant to try to add anything further on the illegal activities and practices of the FBI.  Many of these practices started under J. Edgar Hoover and have only intensified since he died and left office.  Of course, it only grows worse over time. 

 

The Aug 2002 “News Max.Com” (formerly the “Internet Vortex”) had a report by Phil Brennan on “Freeh Gets Free Pass From Congress” which tells what has happened to the FBI in modern times.  Former FBI Director Louis Freeh, a very evident Amalekite, was appointed and served while Bill “Slick” Clinton was in the White House. 

 

Brennan says that under Freeh, the FBI became thoroughly politicized and took an active part in huge federal cover-ups in several of the illegal or shady Clinton undertakings--like the handling of the Waco affair, the downing of TWA flight 800, the death of Vince Foster and so forth.  Per Brennan, Freeh knows where the bodies are buried and the Clinton Democrats are the grave diggers. 

 

Yes, tragically, the FBI has become a political agency involved in crime and cover-up operations.  Certainly, Freeh was a willing participant in such pathetic illustrations emanating from the nation’s primary law enforcement agency.  Perhaps the Bush Director Robert Mueller will be a little better, but the die is cast and the trend for crime and corruption is in motion. 

 

 

More From the FBI 

 

Another most fascinating thing surfaced in early 2001 when US authorities discovered that a long-time counterintelligence agent with the FBI (named Robert Hanssen) had been spying for the Soviets and Russians since 1985.  The importance of this story is that Hanssen was one of the officials within the FBI itself who was tasked to catch foreign spies. 

 

Clearly, Robert Hanssen was in a critical position to have access to much highly classified information.  Apparently, he used his position to gather some of this crucial data and feed it to Russian agents for money.  Anyway, the discovery of Hanssen and his years of spying work caused quite an uproar in the Justice Department and the subordinate FBI offices. 

 

One of the things which was discussed in late February and early March 2001 was a plan that the FBI conduct periodic lie detector tests of employees to ascertain their continuing loyalties and whether they were involved in any illegal activities.  Reportedly, FBI Director Louis Freeh, himself, entertained this idea. 

 

In any case, the word was out within the agency that officials were seriously thinking about implementing the lie detector practice to try to halt any further disasters, as surfaced with the arrest of Robert Hanssen. 

 

 

FBI Agents Protested the Lie Detector Plans 

 

Once the federal employees learned that they might become subject to periodic lie detector tests, they collectively rose up in protest over the scheme.  Many of them and numbers of their various governmental organizations came out to protest the plan during the week of March 11, 2001. 

 

A news report on NPR on March 17, 2001, noted that these various protesting entities had written a series of memos, letters, etc to the FBI Director claiming that this lie detector plan would be a utter disaster for FBI employees.  They argued that for every lie detected in a test, some 50 to 100 innocent allegations about lying would surface.  Per their pitch, the lie detector process was too subject to error to be relied upon. 

 

Many of these protesting FBI agents claimed that the careers and whole futures of numbers of innocent people could become subjects of criminal allegations and investigations from erroneous lie detector information (which, per their position, would be grossly unfair). 

 

As the NPR reporter correctly noted, the FBI has been using lie detectors for years against people--both the innocent and the guilty.  There has never been a reported problem or concern from the agency and its agents heretofore over the use of lie detectors. 

 

 

FBI Deceptions 

 

Not only have FBI agents been notorious in using lie detector machines against various people, but one of their favorite tricks is to subject a suspect to a unique lie detector scheme designed to entrap a person. 

 

This practice comes into play if a suspect passes the lie detector examination.  Subsequently, an FBI agent interviews him and lies to him and tells him that he failed the test (in hopes of getting a confession or other information by hook or crook).  Wen Ho Lee, discussed earlier herein, was subjected to this FBI deception. 

 

Therefore, the history of the FBI and the present protests against the use of the lie detector tests points out one of the terrible features of the modern world--that of gross hypocrisy.  Yes, these role models and privileged high ranking big shots within the Big Brother government are classic hypocrites.  Tragically, hypocrisy is a common problem among Adamites and particularly today. 

 

 

The Latest Technology 

 

In the vein that the previously used lie detector tests did have inherent problems, scientists have been busy cooking up new methods of trying to determine the presence of lies or truth in the words of a person. 

 

The Mar-Apr 2002 “Prophecy Club” newsletter (p. 5) quoted a recent news report from NewMax.com on the Internet.  Per the story, an “experimental new lie detector that measures sudden flashes of heat from around the eyes may soon provide another line of defense against terrorism.” 

 

This new technology allows the question of lying to be detected without any contact with the subject whatsoever and instantaneous in real time.  Apparently, this device can be used in any place that watches or looks at people--airports, various checkpoints, offices, etc.  The article did not reflect on the practicality of using this technology in connection with video cameras, but this option will surely materialize. 

 

Seemingly, this new device is substantially more accurate than the former lie detector tests that were used.  Too, the new approach doesn’t require the knowing participation of a given subject.  In other words, anyone can be evaluated at random with the device whenever desired. 

 

Actually, there already may be a new piece of technology on this subject in the hands of Big Brother (whether the just cited equipment or still something newer). 

 

The previously quoted May 2002 letter (p. 7) from Lee Bellinger, editor of the “American Sentinel,” says that federal agents now have a small device which can scan a face from fifty feet away to detect whether there are signs of lying.  People subjected to this scan will not even know that they are being checked. 

 

 

Nesher, Revisited 

 

In perhaps the most dangerous and deplorable reality in the United States government today is evidence submitted in an “American Free Press” (AFP) story in 2002 on the presence of a cell or clique of people known as “Nesher,” operating in the US law enforcement and investigative operations (like the FBI, CIA, ATF, IRS, etc).  This network of evil was discussed in former chapters. 

 

AFP suggests that this tightly-knit group has infiltrated US law enforcement to corrupt justice and truth.  Reportedly, it was this group which directed and supervised the US efforts to destroy Congressmen George Hansen and Jim Traficant.  Hansen was a Republican from Idaho and Traficant was a Democrat from Ohio. 

 

Who knows, the set-up, prosecution and conviction of Ku Klux Klansman David Duke and the fall of Richard Nixon both could have involved some portion of this secret Nesher network, operating internally within the United States government (reportedly, to serve the interests of the Amalekite Jew masters/plutocrats ruling America). 

 

Both Congressmen Hansen and Traficant were very independent people who would not march to the party tunes.  Both Hansen and Traficant seemed to have populist ties and concepts which immediately cast both of them at odds with the ruling plutocrats.  Any politician today who has any real care or concern for this nation, its people or its future will be opposed by the plutocrats ruling the US. 

 

The media and government powers (which today are exclusively in the hands of the Amalekite Jewish masters/plutocrats) will pull all of the strings possible to destroy any politician who does not march to the tune being piped by the people in power. 

 

Assuredly, it is this tragedy which insured that both Hansen and Traficant would be destroyed.  It was also this same situation which must have set-up Nixon and Duke for their downfalls, as discussed earlier herein. 

 

 

More on Nesher 

 

And in fact, it is even conceivable that the Nesher network had some role to play in the murder or cover-up of the John F. Kennedy assassination plus many or all of the various incidents in modern times which have set up the passage of very dictatorial laws to impede upon the United States Constitution and the rights of American citizens (like Ruby Ridge, Waco, TWA 800, Oklahoma City, the World Trade Canter bombing, 9-11, etc). 

 

In both the Traficant and Hansen cases (as well as in Waco, Oklahoma City, Ruby Ridge, etc), this Nesher group reportedly provided the impetus and fuel to corrupt much of the involvement of federal powers in the way things worked out (for sure, in the vein of government cover-up operations). 

 

Based on the AFP report, this inside clique of people, if in existence as claimed, undermine and control justice and truth in America to be sure that the politically approved position (of the Amalekite Jew plutocrat bankers/masters) prevails.  In other words, this clique uses hook or crook to insure that the objectives of the Amalekite Jew plutocrats always persist in US government law enforcement operations. 

 

Since much of the US investigative powers is diffused in a number of separate US agencies (like the FBI, CIA, ATF, IRS, etc), the Nesher conspiracy seems to be the tool or function which coordinates and controls the different agencies in pursing and accomplishing the wishes of the plutocrats in terms of the United States government operations. 

 

Actually, the conduct of the Nesher work is not as difficult as one may first suppose.  After all, all US presidents since Woodrow Wilson have answered to the ruling plutocrats (though some of them may not have fully comprehended how controlled and managed they were, like Reagan; and though some of them grew rebellious and had to be eliminated, like Kennedy and Nixon). 

 

Obviously, the internal Nesher entity in the US government and people at the White House are all working together on the same objectives. 

 

Perhaps the primary difference between the Nesher people and the White House personnel lies in the fact that people at the White House can change with each presidential election and new administration.  The Nesher people seem to be full time US employees who do not change with the administration changes.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 402--Christians and Their Own Laws I

 

 

But More Than Government 

 

While government’s willful and flagrant violations of its own laws is incredibly sick and pathetic, there is more to come on this subject. 

 

 

A Review of Reality 

 

All of the discussion in prior chapters on how bad the Christian sun worship people, government and society have proved to be (in the US, but correctly all over the Christian West) necessitates a look at some fantastic parallels on how Christendom approaches its own human, governmental, civil and criminal laws vis-à-vis on how she approaches the Scriptures. 

 

The American Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are two of the great documents prepared in history.  If the American sun worship society and culture would have taken to heart what those documents literally said, things would have been and would be far different today than they are in reality. 

 

To appreciate US law, one must recognize the situation that surrounded the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration was signed by free persons who were “representatives” of the thirteen different colonies. 

 

It was a declaration of the independence of those 13 colonies.  Thereafter, they each and every one became free, independent, sovereign states or nations.  The Revolutionary War and the following years recognized the sovereignty of those separate nations. 

 

This reality was ever in the background as those sovereign states chose to later enter into a unification agreement in the context of the US Constitution.  This document was a specific grant of limited power to the new United States government.  In other words, the ensuing US government had no power whatsoever, except as given up by the several sovereign states and/or the people. 

 

This surrendered power was specifically spelled out in the Constitution.  Thus, Article I, Section 1 grants all legislative power (law making authority) to the Congress and Article I, Section 8 specifies exactly what legislative power Congress has.  This is an expressed grant of power.  Hence, the Constitution was a limited grant of power to the new central government. 

 

 

A Limited Grant of Power 

 

To prove that it was only a specific grant of limited power, the tenth amendment says that the powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.  The ninth amendment adds that the people have “retained” rights, beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. 

 

In other words, any acts or actions by the US government must be specifically authorized in the Constitution.  The US government has no power apart from that specifically granted and allowed in the Constitution. 

 

 

Some Words 

 

James Madison, of Virginia, penned the Constitution.  His papers and acts (while he was fourth president of the United States) prove conclusively that he believed that the Constitution spelled out a limited government with very limited powers and prerogatives. 

 

While the Constitution itself is so precise in limiting the power of the federal government, it is significant that when FDR came to power in 1933, he changed the whole US system of law.  Today, no one cares much at all about what the Constitution actually says.  Instead of having legislation and laws addressing the few items allowed in Article I, Section 8, Congress now goes wild to pass all kinds of measures. 

 

A recent comment on the Rush Limbaugh radio talk show around November 1, 1998, noted that Congress passes some 6,000 laws a year.  Some of these (like the federal budget) run in the thousands of pages and are many inches thick when bound. 

 

Tragically, most people in Congress never even read the thousands of pages of data in the laws being passed.  One can bank on it that presidents don’t read them either as they are signed into law. 

 

In “Our Enemy, the State” (p. 1-1), previously cited, Albert Jay Nock wrote:  “It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own.  All of the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from (which) State power can be drawn. 

 

“Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never, nor can be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.”  Hence, however the state obtains power, she takes it away from the people.  The reader should keep this fact in mind when assessing the following remarks. 

 

 

American Reaction to the Truth 

 

Incidentally, there is another tragedy on the reality of a limited grant of power to the federal government.  If a senator, congressman or political leader was to stand up and quote the Constitution on this reality, he would be ignored or immediately criticized, ridiculed, laughed at, and made fun of across the nation in terms of the various power structures and centers of influence. 

 

The controlled national media would lead this assault because the US government has become an agency devoted to servicing the super rich plutocrats who own or control the national media.  These fat cats get enormous benefits and services out of a big, expansive federal government.  Not only do they receive huge grants directly, but federal agencies act on their behalf (like the police, the military, the CIA, etc). 

 

Beyond the super rich, there are a host of political action groups which likewise benefit enormously from a big, expansive, federal government.  Of course, labor unions and big corporations both generally are legitimatized and receive government support.  But this condition extends beyond this fact to all kinds of things. 

 

For example, foundations receive government blessings and are thus allowed to influence the educational institutions and many other activities on-going in America.  The teachers’ unions and the professional education bureaucrats are blessed with the huge spending of federal dollars in support of public education.  Can one imagine what would happen to most of these persons if they had to go get a real job? 

 

In other words, if an honest politician tried to reign in the unconstitutional use of power by people in the central government in Washington, much of the leadership in the entire American society would be in an uproar.  They would castigate and condemn any politician who would dare successfully suggest a limitation of government power. 

 

The famous Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948), known as the Mahatma (great soul) spiritual leader in India, told about his experience in opposing the British establishment in South Africa and India. 

 

He reportedly said that at first, they ignore you.  Then they ridicule you (by trying to oppose you with words, insults and accusations).  Next they try to stop you (by threats, intimidation, arrest, imprisonment, terror, murder and other forms of oppression).  And last, you win. 

 

In America, no politician speaking out about the abuse of power at the federal level will ever be allowed to reach the win state, as envisioned by Gandhi.  Yet, the leadership and power structure in America will follow much of the process suggested by Gandhi.  Initially, they try to ignore the perpetuator of trouble.  And if that doesn’t work, they turn to more serious methods of dealing with the non-conformist. 

 

 

More Perversion Enters the Arena 

 

Despite what the Constitution says and is, it is interesting that most Christian sun worship people and Christian sun worship politicians all act on the premise that the United States government has “all” power, unless the Constitution specifically limits that power.  What a paradox and miscarriage of justice. 

 

While the Constitution is fairly straight forward and simple to read and understand (much like YHWH’s Torah), real perversion was to eventually enter the picture.  It came about primarily because the Supreme Court became a willing tool or agency to begin writing US law through judicial interpretation. 

 

This process started in earnest in the 1930s with the philosophical shift of American governing ideology to the liberal, humanist, Sabbatian (which will be defined in a later chapter) positions. 

 

As discussed in prior chapters on Scriptural laws and change, the point was made that the US courts have chosen to follow an approach that the law is whatever they say it is.  Of course, no one can argue with the Supreme Court.  The court has the final say in all matters.  If there was a problem with the Constitution, surely it exists in the way that a dishonest nine member Supreme Court can completely rule the United States. 

 

If the court would merely read the Constitution literally and apply the law on the basis of exactly what the Constitution says, no problems would ensue.  But in the court’s prerogatives of judicial interpretation, it matters not one whit what the Constitution actually says (or what the Congress had in mind when the law in question was passed).  What matters is what the court chooses for it to say. 

 

A good illustration of how this process works was cited in the Feb 11, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 3), in an article by James P. Tucker Jr on “Stopping Judicial Misconduct, Abuse of Power.”  Tucker commented upon the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 

 

During Senate debate on the floor of the US Senate, Democrat leader Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) agreed to language to be inserted in the bill which would say that nothing in the bill should be construed as requiring the busing of school children to achieve a racial balance.  He added that if that would result, then he would “vote against” the bill himself. 

 

There was much floor debate that stressed that racial busing was not required.  Once the bill became law, the US federal courts promptly construed the act as requiring racial busing (never mind what it says or even what the legislators intended for it to say, what matters is what the courts want it to say). 

 

As some perceptive people have understood, the US judicial system serves a political agenda which is actually contrary to the very spirit of the Constitution that they are sworn to uphold.  What a bunch of hypocrites! 

 

 

The Role of Change 

 

Naturally, the judges can make the Constitution say whatever they want it to say, and they can even change their positions over and over on what it says.  Of course, this law making power of the court essentially surfaces when an issue comes before it in litigation. 

 

Too often, the President and the Congress improperly take actions and make laws which never even go before the court.  In either case, the people are short changed by an oppressive government, operating illegally by law. 

 

In 1823 (long after he had left the presidency), the famous American populist Thomas Jefferson wrote that there was no danger he dreaded so much as “the consolidation (centralization) of our government by the noiseless and therefore unalarming instrumentality of the Supreme Court” (“Our Enemy, the State,” p. 1-v).  Jefferson’s fears have come true. 

 

A former chapter on change noted that the US Supreme Court is an instrument of change in interpreting the US Constitution. 

 

One would, on the surface, suppose that the Constitution is a document which cannot be changed, except by the administrative process of a Constitutional amendment.  But no, this is not true because the Supreme Court has changed it significantly over the years, as noted above and in previous chapters. 

 

A prior discussion noted the liberal changing interpretations of former Chief Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Earl Warren.  As both of these Supreme Court officials declared, the Constitution is a document whose meaning is subject to social demands of the contemporary society which are ever evolving and changing.  In order to stay current with the evolving new thinking, the court must so interpret the Constitution. 

 

Consequently, the new judicial way of looking at things is not to read the law and accept it literally as it reads; but rather, to “interpret” it liberally and in accordance with new social thinking which is ever evolving in the contemporary society.  In this view, the Constitution does not say the same thing for--say George Washington with say Grover Cleveland or say with people today in the year 2003. 

 

 

Holy Rollers, Revisited 

 

This writer is acquainted with a group of Holy Roller Pentecostals and Charismatics in Northeast Washington (as discussed in a preceding chapter).  Like other Holy Rollers, in general, this Washington outfit routinely is heavily influenced by demonic messages transmitted to their conscious minds.  As is true with Holy Rollers, they identify these messages and ideas in the vein of coming from “the spirit.”

 

Because they are fairly shallow on Scriptural truth, they therefore readily accept these mental messages without question and regularly without checking them out, per the Book (I Jo 4:1-4).  In other words, if an idea comes into their heads, they automatically presume it must be from The RUACH HA KODESH and never allow that it could be from a demon spirit. 

 

In this context, if a person attempts to discuss a particular Scripture with most of them, they can come up with some far fetched and ridiculous interpretations (which logically are coming to them, via mental telepathy from demons). 

 

One of the more educated and intelligent men in this group is notorious for reading anything and everything into Scriptures which are as plain as the day.  Though he is above the other Holy Rollers in the area of intelligence, he, too, has problems in interpreting the Word. 

 

 

The Esoteric and/or Liberal Approach 

 

On the surface, it would be easy to just conclude that this man applies an esoteric or very liberal interpretation to any number of Scriptures (again, evidently as supplied to him by mental telepathy from a demon) which effectively make his ideas come out to say that the Scriptures mean whatever you want them to mean.   

 

If a person attempts to discuss the literal meaning of a given text with this man or most of the other Holy Rollers in the area, one meets a brick wall of resistance (this man also gets mad).  And the reason simply stated is that these persons refuse to read and accept the Scriptures literally.  They always look for some vague, incoherent, illogical explanation which will allow them to be disobedient. 

 

Actually, this writer has tried any number of times to discuss very plain Scriptures with these Holy Rollers and other persons like them.  Inevitably, they go off in a wrong direction or get mad (apparently, because of the demonic messages being implanted into their conscious minds). 

 

This writer has mentioned beards (in Lev 19:27) or women keeping silent in meetings and not publicly teaching men to a huge number of so-called Christians (Gen 3:16; I Cor 11:1-15; 14:34-35; Eph 5:24; I Tim 2:11-15).  Most demonized Christian people start rattling off much incoherent nonsense and refuse to deal with the Scriptural texts in a logical, sensible, literal interpretation. 

 

The Holy Rollers in Northeast Washington just about all shave and they regularly allow women preachers to come in and publicly teach them Holy Roller nonsense.  They cannot and will not accept the exact, literal words of the Scriptures.  

 

From the standpoint of interpretation, this writer always reads the Scriptures literally first.  If the literal meaning is impossible and completely wrong, then it is possible to look at some symbolism or an allegory in a text and see if there could be another interpretation.  In terms of the US Constitution, this writer reads it literally.  There is no other way to address it. 

 

 

Literal Is Out In Christian Thinking 

 

What a tragedy it is in terms of the importance first of the Scriptures and second of the Constitution in that people will not read and accept them literally.  Because people will not read and accept them literally, any number of confused and ridiculous ideas become accepted, believed and promoted as truth. 

 

Obviously, if people can make documents like these read whatever they want them to read, it is then possible to have as many interpretations as there are people who are doing the reading and interpreting. 

 

Thus, if all 280 million Americans are free to read the Scriptures and/or the Constitution and make them say whatever they want them to say, absolute pandemonium and confusion will result (as has happened in the 32,000 different Christian Churches and the US at large politically, though the government uses force to make the public obey the current thinking of the Supreme Court). 

 

Inevitably, people (and this includes justices of the US Supreme Court) allow demonic mental telepathy to enter their minds and implant esoteric and very liberal ideas which are far afield from the literal words involved. 

 

Incidentally, this seems to have been one of the problems of the early Catholic Gnostic Marcion (and perhaps Simon Magus, as well) who reworked the Greek New Testament to get rid of its Jewish teachings.  It was too bad for truth’s sake that Marcion pursued esoteric and liberal ideas (planted in his limited head by demons).  Yes, demons can affect both religious leaders and Supreme Court justices. 

 

 

Some More Constitutional Problems 

 

As broached above and in the former chapters, there has been a huge perversion of the US Constitution in that the American people have sat back and allowed its government and governmental leaders to flagrantly violate it at will for many years.  Some specific samples of this perversion will now be cited. 

 

For example, Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution says “All legislative powers herein shall be vested in a Congress...” and Article I, Section 8 says that Congress shall “make all laws.” 

 

Yet, the president (and the Supreme Court through judicial interpretation, as commented upon above) of this nation regularly legislates all kinds of laws (including criminal laws with criminal penalties for violations) on the basis of presidential directives, executive orders and publication in the Federal Register. 

 

The interesting thing about the surge in presidential use of executive orders, presidential decision directives and executive branch regulations is that none of these executive branch legislative actions are mentioned, described or authorized in the US Constitution.  They are illegal presidential inventions (since the writing of the Constitution some 215 years ago) which were sneaked into acceptance in the US. 

 

As noted before, presidents since JFK have issued orders which allow them to declare martial law and take over the government on almost any pretext (and don’t think this won’t happen and maybe soon). 

 

An earlier presentation was made herein on BLM regulations and rules established in the Federal Register.  The same is true with much of the IRS code.  They are established and become law by Executive Branch regulations.  In Bill Clinton’s last month in office, he issued over 100,000 pages of new regulations (all of which carry the force of law). 

 

Sometimes, the Congress acquiesces and gives up its power for these executive actions.  But otherwise, it matters not because the president unilaterally acts and his laws are either not challenged or if challenged they are upheld by a Supreme Court which doesn’t understand Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution. 

 

 

Some History 

 

While the argument can be made that other presidents before Slick Clinton have issued executive orders, there is some clarification here missed by most observers.  True, presidents since George Washington have issued executive orders.  But in the old days, presidents used executive orders to issue Constitutional instructions to the employees and departments of the US government under their supervision. 

 

These orders focused on authority which the president possessed in his role of chief executive officer and commander in chief of the armed forces.  For example, the president has clear authority and power to regulate uniforms and dress of the military.  The president could issue an executive order on this. 

 

For the executive branch, he could establish working hours, office hours and other incidentals.  Manifestly, no one would question the president’s power to issue an executive order on the work habits and practices of people under his supervision.  No one would fault the president with his authority to issue Constitutional orders to executive branch employees and entities he directly manages and supervises. 

 

The problem is that in modern times (since FDR and particularly so during Slick Clinton’s reign), the president has turned to using executive orders to issue instructions (laws) to the collective people of the United States.  In this context, his orders go to the nation and not just to the employees of the executive branch. 

 

 

Some Remarks On Clinton’s Power 

 

“The Washington Times” of Sep 13-19, 1999, had a story by Frank J. Murphy on “The president’s executive orders are sweeping, controversial” which noted that Clinton had issued some 301 executive orders in his six and one-half years of administration.  As Murphy noted, Clinton was writing his legacy in one controversial executive order after another. 

 

Slick used EOs to revamp civil service rules for workers with psychiatric disabilities, ban alleged discrimination against homosexuals in federal jobs and the military, halt dealings with federal contractors who use products made by foreign child labor, declassify vast stacks of old files, change contracting practices to give Asians and Pacific Islanders a bidding edge, revise food labeling, restrict smoking in government offices, revamp encryption export rules and intervene in strikes.  

 

 

“Prophecy Flash” 

 

The Nov-Dec 2000 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 10-11) offered some comments from William Dankenbring on “Our Elected Dictator” which quoted writer William Herman Gregg from the “New American” of Feb 14, 2000, on Bill Clinton’s use of “executive power” to rule the United States from the very beginnings of his administration. 

 

Gregg indicated that “President Clinton has wielded his executive power with abandon, threatening to destroy the very delicate checks and balances of our constitutional system.” 

 

Going on, Gregg said “The White House calls it ‘Project Podesta’ --a calculated strategy of circumventing Congress through the use of presidential directives and executive orders.  ‘There’s a pretty wide sweep of things we’re looking to do, and we’re going to be very aggressive in pursuing it,’ Chief of Staff John Podesta, the strategy’s namesake, told U.S. News and World Report.

 

“The administration’s newly aggressive approach to rule by decree can be seen in executive branch directives against the gun industry and tobacco companies, as well as the January 11th proclamation setting aside more than one million acres of land in the western United States as national monuments.  However, there is certainly nothing novel about Bill Clinton’s penchant for rule by decree. 

 

“‘It’s been the mark of the Clinton administration to rule by executive fiat, circumventing a hostile Congress by signing presidential orders that affect everything from patients’ rights to conservation to a war against Yugoslavia,’ observed the November 9, 1999, Christian Science Monitor.” 

 

To the above, Dankenbring added that Clinton “again and again demonstrated his love and fondness for the attributes of power--raw, visceral, unadulterated, undiminished, untrammeled power--all vested in the whim and caprice, the beck and call, of one human individual.” 

 

Clinton said, upon assuming the office of president, that he would rule by executive order.  Like Murphy’s article noted:  “Stroke of the pen, law of the land, Kind of cool.”  As the report concluded, the US courts generally support these presidential actions.  So there is virtually no recourse for anyone wanting to oppose their issuance. 

 

In other words, President Slick legislated orders, laws and rules upon the collective people of the US via the route of the executive order.  Conversely, per the Constitution, it is the job of Congress to pass legislation affecting the collective public and the United States at large.  Constitutionally, no president has authority to unilaterally and arbitrarily issue orders (laws) to the collective people. 

 

Even when Congress attempts to abrogate and give up its law making power and authority by passing a law and then allowing the Executive Branch to enforce it through instructions and regulations published in the federal register, it clearly is unconstitutional as well.  Congress has no authority to turn its legislative functions over to the president. 

 

 

Slick is “Slick” 

 

But the tragedy here is that regardless of whether Congress surrendered its power to the president or not, it didn’t particularly matter one iota because Slick Clinton over-rode even Congressional actions (of course, George W. Bush has been doing the same thing). 

 

An excellent presentation of how Slick Clinton ruled by being deceptive and “slick” surfaced in a late 1999 law passed by Congress and signed by Clinton which provided some one billion dollars to pay some of the back US dues owed to the United Nations. 

 

The bill had a provision in it that none of this US money could be used for abortions and family planning.  Now, the fact that the president signed it into US law would suggest that indeed the president accepted the action and would legally enforce it, as was his constitutional duty as chief law enforcement officer in the United States. 

 

However, there was another interesting side-light about this bill in the context of its background.  Clinton and the Republican Congress had been at odds over several features of the FY 2000 appropriation acts.  The issue of UN dues and abortions was only one topic which divided them. 

 

In order to cut down on the political conflict and confrontation, Republican Congressional leaders had meetings with Clinton and his aides and entered into a written agreement in advance on the FY 2000 spending plans.  One of the subjects agreed upon was the $1 billion for UN dues with the stipulation that it could not be used for family planning and abortions. 

 

Clinton signed off and agreed on this provision.  Congress then passed the bill, per the written agreement with Clinton.  Clinton signed the bill and it became US law (which ostensibly Clinton was duty bound to enforce).  Except with Clinton, he was not duty bound to do anything.  And above all else, he was not historically given the nickname Slick by accident or for no reason.  Slick was and is slick from start to finish. 

 

Clinton signed the bill in late November 1999, and one of his next major actions was to sign a waiver on the limitation built in on the UN dues to prohibit the expenditure of US moneys for abortions and family planning.  With the waiver, the UN was free to spend the money for abortions (which is what Slick wanted in the first place). 

 

The question must come up.  How could Clinton continue to subvert, disobey, ridicule and hold in contempt US law?  Well, he did that from day one of his administration.  Like he said, he would rule the US through executive orders (and actions).  So it mattered not one whit what Congress said in legislation.  Slick would do whatever he chose to do. 

 

 

Other Surrendered Powers 

 

As noted elsewhere, the president is approving treaties and forcing them upon the nation through executive action, even after they are disapproved by Congress.  Presidents since FDR have been routinely usurping the Constitutional power of Congress and no one in this nation seems to care (to include the courts which supposedly were established to oversee such things). 

 

Beyond what the president does unilaterally in terms of making laws and forcing them upon the people, there is also the reality that the Federal regulatory agencies (like the Civil Service Commission, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, etc) all issue regulations (laws) because Congress has surrendered its powers and no one seems to care. 

 

Since these independent agency people are all appointed by the president, it places the president effectively in the role of issuing all of their rulings and decisions as well.  Not only do these agencies prepare and promulgate rules and regulations, but they operate their own hearing or court system which renders binding decisions in matters under their purview. 

 

Article I, Section 2 and the 14th Amendment require that a census be conducted every ten years, involving an actual count or enumeration of the whole number of persons in the US. 

 

In early June 1998, President Slick announced and commenced a program stipulating that the US would use a partial count, coupled with “statistical sampling” methods in the 2000 census--supposedly, to be sure that all minorities are properly reported. 

 

This is absurd.  There is no way that any estimating method can be more accurate than an actual count.  Moreover, his deceitful scheme was unconstitutional.  In Jan 1999, the Supreme Court did declare that Slick could not use census estimates for congressional apportionment, but would have to take a count.  However, the Court did say that he could use estimates for doling out federal moneys and grants.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 403--Christians and Their Own Laws II

 

 

Specific Legislative Power 

 

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution contains an explicit statement of the precise legislative authority of Congress.  Clearly, Congress (not the president or the Supreme Court) has those powers and can make those laws as listed in Section 8.  But they have “no power” beyond Section 8 and the statements of legislative power to enforce certain of the amendments to the Constitution. 

 

The student of truth should take a few minutes and compare what Section 8 authorizes with what laws are actually passed by Congress.  All kinds of laws are passed regularly which are not even allowed in Section 8. 

 

On Jan 27, 1998, President Clinton gave his state of the union address to a joint session of the US Congress.  As has been true for many years, this message was much like the other ones of both Slick and many of his predecessors.  It was a 90 minute offering of a whole array of gifts, rewards, benefits and payoffs to a vast host of special interest groups across America. 

 

Slick outlined a hike in the minimum wage, more money for the International Monetary Fund (for give away purposes, to benefit the super rich), help to various countries around the world, a continued military presence in Bosnia to “protect the Bosnian children,” more policemen on the US streets, fast track authority on trade agreements and a guaranteed right of free medical care and surgical needs by the doctor of each American’s choice. 

 

Beyond this host of things briefly mentioned, Slick went into a long series of proposals to alter American education, even more profoundly.  He wanted 100,000 new teachers, a new school construction program and new government programs for children from 3 PM to 8 PM daily after school (plus midnight basketball). 

 

He suggested that he wanted the federal government in the teacher recruitment and accreditation business and new federal control of student testing.  Per his view, day care operations needed to come under more federal control and day care workers must have a federal background investigation, in the context of more federal intrusion and control over the population. 

 

In short, President Slick had enormous ambitions in pushing outcome based education (discussed formerly) to even more crazy heights.  The only certain thing about his plans was that there would be a further dumbing down of American children and a speed up in implementing the New World Order. 

 

Besides wanting Congress to pass at least 30 or more new kinds of programs to take over more of the affairs of American citizens and the states, Slick requested some $100 billion in new funding schemes to create a bigger and bigger government.  As politicians, the media and the gullible public typically respond, Clinton was cheered on for his great vision for the future. 

 

 

It Was Not Constitutional 

 

The only question about all of this hype, which was totally ignored by almost everyone, is the fact that almost none of it was constitutional, per Article I, Section 8.  However, when it comes time for a special interest group to get something from big government (like the teacher’s union with prospects for 100,000 new members), who cares what the Constitution says? 

 

The only remark this writer picked upon which would appear to be a constitutional duty of the federal government was a remark by Clinton about the need to supply the US military with the equipment and resources that it needs.  Since there is a constitutional duty to raise and support armies and provide for a navy, this comment might be proper. 

 

Finally, Slick uttered a verbal threat against Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis, previously discussed.  If he would have made this threat within the context of a request to the US Congress for a declaration of war, it would have been constitutional and would have been very appropriate for him to be making, since Article I, Section 8 says that Congress has the power to “declare war.” 

 

However, for decades now, US presidents have unilaterally declared war without any Congressional approval or declaration (Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, etc).  So it would seem that Slick’s comments about Iraq were in the sense of what he would do without a Congressional declaration of war. 

 

Correctly, every time the US attacks a foreign country, as routinely occurring now, the provocative act constitutes an act of war which, per the US Constitution, should follow a Congressional declaration of war. 

 

 

No One Cares! 

 

Yet, no one seems to care when the US invades North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.  Beyond formal military invasions, US presidents regularly attack, with missiles, bombs, airplanes and so forth, numerous countries around the world whenever they do not toe the line as the ruling plutocrats in the US dictate. 

 

American bombing attacks have included China in 1945-46, Korea in 1950-53, China in 1950-53, Guatemala in 1954, Indonesia in 1958, Cuba in 1959-60, Guatemala in 1960, Congo in 1964, Peru in 1965, Laos in 1964-73, Vietnam in 1961-73, Cambodia in 1969-70, Guatemala in 1967-69, Grenada in 1983, Libya in 1986, El Salvador in the 1980s, Nicaragua in the 1980s, Panama in 1989, Iraq 1991-99, Bosnia in 1995, Sudan in 1998, Afghanistan in 1998, and Yugoslavia in 1999--so many times that it is hard to keep track of them (May 1999, “Idaho Observer,” p. 19). 

 

If a foreign power was to launch a formal bomb attack on the United States, there would be enormous complaints and criticisms of that attack--as was true with Spain in the Spanish American War, Germany in WWI and Japan in WWII.  Yet, American presidents frequently initiate the same military attacks on foreign powers with impunity. 

 

While some person might argue that these attacks on foreign powers are necessary for US defense, surely they should be carried out in accordance with the US Constitution.  They are formal acts of war and aggression against a foreign power. 

 

Since they represent US military aggression and acts of war, surely the government of the US can obey the Constitution and provide a Congressional declaration of war.  In fact, Congress voted against war in the Balkans in April 1999.  But Slick continued it anyway. 

 

In terms of intent, it is also very questionable that the Constitution even allows the massive deployment of US troops worldwide in non US defense roles (as Slick outlined), without formal Congressional authorization. 

 

Therefore, one must question the US military’s use in the defense of Bosnian children (per his words) and the other 100 deployments of the US military that occurred in 1999 around the world for all kinds of roles except US defense.  In 1998 alone, Clinton deployed US troops to 144 countries, which is three-fourths of all of the nations on earth (Sep-Oct 1999 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 33). 

 

For sure, the people that wrote and signed the Constitution could never have conceived that a president would come along and authorize the conversion and transformation of US military forces into a foreign agency--like the United Nations (certainly not stated in the Constitutional grant of authority). 

 

Recently, a young American soldier named Michael New refused to wear the UN blue and was court marshaled and drummed out of the service. 

 

 

Expansive Ideas in Interstate Commerce

 

In mentioning Article I, Section 8, it should be noted that the liberal government, since the days of FDR, has used a few words in the first and third paragraphs, as so-called authority for almost all that has happened since 1933--in allowing the central government to become a Big Brother government (which has taken over almost all imaginable powers over the people). 

 

In the first place, the federal government has used the authority in Section 8 to “regulate” interstate commerce as authority to regulate everything conceivable on a national level, as well, since FDR took over and imposed his thinking on the nation.  This view is called an “expansive” interpretation of the commerce clause. 

 

For example, many of the US Civil Rights laws were passed on the premise that a restaurant, motel or gas station on a US highway may serve interstate travelers.  Therefore, the US government has total authority to dictate by law what those businesses can or cannot do.  Effectively, Washington outlawed the concept that we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. 

 

While Big Brother now uses this small reference in the Constitution to do all kinds of things, there is an interesting fact of reality which shows how incredible the hypocritical users of this clause are in the real world. 

 

The 20th century has seen an explosion in the oil and gas industry for energy purposes.  As a fall out of this motion, many oil and gas wells in one state provide output to other states where the resources are used or refined.  The huge interstate aspects of this business have created giant, underground pipelines all over America.  Many of these were buried long years ago. 

 

In mid August 2000, a group of people were on a camping trip and made the mistake of camping in the Carlsbad, New Mexico area over one of the natural gas lines owned by El Paso Natural Gas Company.  During the night, the line exploded where they were camping.  They were killed or injured. 

 

The explosion was enormous.  It caused a crater some 90 feet long, 20 feet deep and 40 feet wide.  Authorities were at a total loss on what caused this tragedy, although there was an admission that many of these old gas lines leak.  This particular line was laid some 50 years ago.  

 

In a later news commentary on the problem, the point was made that for some strange reason, the US government does not have any laws or regulations in place which govern these natural gas pipelines (presumably, none are in place either to regulate and control oil pipelines.  Perhaps the Rockefeller power has kept Big Brother out of the nation’s pipeline business). 

 

This is a real fluke of fantastic hypocrisy.  The US government has used the commerce clause to pass thousands of laws which the Supreme Court has closed its eyes upon and has willingly said that they were constitutional.  Yet, one of the few things which truly does represent interstate commerce (the natural gas pipeline business) has been totally ignored. 

 

The Congress has never bothered to pass any laws to regulate this business and these pipelines.  No presidential administration (not even Slick Clinton, who loved to write executive orders) has ever proposed any regulation or control over these lines.  If they leak, there is nothing in place to demand that their owners make periodic checks and initiate corrective action.  This condition is absolutely astounding. 

 

Incidentally, the previously discussed Enron Corporation was heavily involved in the natural gas pipeline business.  Now, it becomes clear as to why Enron made such a huge number of pay-offs to American political leaders (evidently, just to be sure that there would be no regulation of their operations, or at least no meaningful regulation or interference in their money making schemes). 

 

 

The Common Defense and General Welfare Ideas 

 

The other few words, now being misused, are that Congress shall have the power to provide for the “common defense (and/or defence) and general welfare of the United States.”  In fact, the Preamble of the Constitution uses these words in defining why the Constitution was ordained and established. 

 

But the Preamble is not the grant of legislative authority to the United States government.  One must look elsewhere in the document for this grant of power. 

 

For example, Article I Section 1 opens by saying that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States (as cited in the former chapter).  But this still does not define the specific powers involved. 

 

To further address these words and the actual grant of legislative power to the US government, it must be noted that Article I Section 8 contains a series of separate and explicit authorizations of the legislative power of Congress (thus, powers of the United States government).  Each authorization is separated and commented upon in separate paragraphs. 

 

Actually, these words on common defence and general welfare appear in an extension, addendum, clarification or footnote role in connection with the Congressional authorization to lay and collect taxes (thus, Congress can lay and collect taxes... “to pay the (US) debts and (to) provide for the common defence and general welfare...”). 

 

In other words, if the taxes being levied by Congress do not support the idea of paying of debts or of providing for the common defence or general welfare, they are illegal. 

 

Thus, Section 8 provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. 

 

The next paragraph in this section proceeds with the power of Congress to borrow money on the credit of the US. 

 

The third paragraph of this section says Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with Indian tribes.  And so it goes with the rest of the Congressional authorizations as listed in succeeding paragraphs. 

 

 

Please Note 

 

The student of truth should note here that the little remark on common defence and general welfare is not necessarily an explicit authorization for Congress to provide for the common defense or general welfare in any vague provision because these words are attached to the allowability of taxes. 

 

In other specific authorizations in Section 8, the Constitution lays out precisely what authorizations exist in order to pay debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare--like the authority to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, to establish post offices and post roads, etc. 

 

Thus, in raising an army and maintaining a navy, the Congress will be providing for the common defence.  In the establishment of post offices, the Congress will be providing for the general welfare.  The intent of Section 8 seems clear enough.  The first authorization in that overall section is an authorization for the Congress to lay and collect taxes. 

 

The following separate and specific authorizations seem to define and delineate specifically what debts and what specific measures of common defence and general welfare can be paid for by that authorized taxation. 

 

In other words, it would appear that there is no specific grant to “provide for the common defence and general welfare,” per se.  But there are grants of power to raise armies and maintain navies (obviously, in order to provide for the common defence) and grants to establish post offices and post roads (obviously, in order to provide for the general welfare). 

 

Manifestly, it would seem that the authority to provide for the common defence and general welfare are not specific authorizations.  But modern American political leaders never read Section 8 in this vein. 

 

 

Regardless 

 

Anyway, these few words have opened the door for all kinds of welfare schemes in recent years (however, if these words are accepted as separate authorizations, then their wording is still such that they must pertain to the whole of the nation or the nation’s collective people [the common] and not just some limited part of the nation or people). 

 

In 1790, a Congressman introduced a bill to aid some French refugees who were in desperate need.  James Madison was serving in Congress.  He said that there was no article in the Constitution that authorized such benevolent assistance to people.  As noted earlier, Madison was the man who wrote the Constitution.  Did he know and understand something different than Congressmen today? 

 

When Davy Crockett was a member of Congress, 1827-1835, Congress wanted to pass a bill to provide for the welfare of a Washington woman who was a widow of a war hero and who had been burned out of her home. 

 

Davy correctly pointed out that such a welfare grant would be unconstitutional, unless a similar money grant was being made across the board to each and every other citizen of the United States.  In view of the constitutional provision of “general welfare,” the grant to this woman would not have been “general” or common.  Rather, it would have been a specific, limited grant of welfare for a particular citizen. 

 

Crockett then challenged the members of Congress to collectively join him in giving personal money out of their own pockets to the woman in question.  But he added that it would be wrong to tax the American people to benefit the welfare of a single citizen or class of citizens. 

 

 

All and Not Just the Few 

 

Thus, during the first 150 years or so of American history, Congress lived under the perception that any welfare scheme would have to benefit “all” of the general population of the United States (and be allowable in the grants of power in Section 8) and that they could not pass bills to benefit limited, single or specific groups of US citizens.  FDR and his successors changed this whole approach. 

 

For instance, food stamps don’t benefit all people--just that group or category that qualifies, based upon their income and other factors.  The same is true for all of the US welfare and give away schemes.  Apparently, without exception, none of them are “general,” benefiting all Americans. 

 

They seem to have been passed to benefit and reward certain (voting) segments of the population.  Effectively, they are political payoffs for votes.  Yet, the federal government largely operates upon the premise that she can do anything she wants to do on the basis of this “general welfare” statement. 

 

Government officials/politicians argue that the giving of food stamps, hot meals and condoms to children in the public schools, aid to dependent children, etc all constitute “general” welfare of the American population and not just the specific people who qualify for and receive these gratuities. 

 

Obviously, the people who are supposed to read and obey the Constitution are now incapable of reading the word “general” and understanding that it must apply across the board to all Americans and not just the few in specific qualifying categories. 

 

 

More Congressional Powers 

 

Otherwise, Article I, Section 8 says that Congress shall have power to coin money and regulate the value thereof; while Article I, Section 10 says that no state (surely, including the United States?) shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.  Yet, the nation has turned to paper money and turned it over completely to the privately owned Federal Reserve banking system. 

 

Incidentally, the incredible corruption and misuse of power by the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank surfaces in another unique way in the context of Article I, Section 8 and its remarks about Congress having the power to coin money.  Evidently, some of the schemers were concerned over that text. 

 

To blatantly get around that reference, the US Treasury prints all Federal Reserve Bank Notes to be issued by the Fed.  They print the notes and “sell” them to the Fed for the price of the printing which is pennies on the dollars.  Thus, the Fed buys the notes from the Treasury and then issues them on its own behalf.  This is a fascinating and very profitable scam for the privately owned Fed. 

 

The legislative powers section has one more fantastic revelation of truth which is totally ignored by the US government and its components. 

 

This section grants legislative power over the seat of government (in the coming District of Columbia) and “to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.” 

 

What this amounts to is that the US government has legislative power over all so-called US lands housing government facilities provided that the US government purchases the land/facilities with the approval of the legislatures of the states involved.  This means that if the US government wishes to build a post office in a given city, the state legislature involved must approve the acquisition. 

 

The essence of this item is that all land in a given state belongs to that state unless the state relinquishes her power over that land in a formal act.  Of course, this provision brings into play fantastic questions over all of the so-called federal lands in all of the US states. 

 

In truth, this provision is virtually never complied with.  Generally, the US government merely seizes any property she wants (but does usually pay a purchase price to private owners).  No one seems to object to this illegal seizure of power since most private citizens involved end up with a sale of their property. 

 

 

More 

 

Article I, Section 8 places the power of taxation with legislative acts of the US Congress.  But Clinton was using various powers within the purview of certain agencies to impose taxes on the public by decree without Congressional approval.  For example, in May 1998, the Clinton team decided that it would lay “further” taxes on all telephone users in order to raise money to wire certain schools to the Internet. 

 

Article I, Section 9 stipulates that no money be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.  Yet, Slick Clinton sent some $20 billion in US dollars to bail the Mexico peso out and $6 billion for war in the Balkans without an appropriation in recent years.  Moreover, the Federal Reserve enters the financial markets and spends Federal Reserve notes without Congressional appropriations. 

 

The latest gimmick on foreign aid (which the US spends vast sums on annually--obviously, to benefit the plutocrats) is that there is a proposal in Congress to allow the Pentagon discretionary authority on how it will use military assistance program funds. 

 

The plan is to appropriate a block of money for military assistance and the Pentagon will be able to specify which countries get it and how much (Apr 29, 2002, “American free Press,” p. 2).  Again, this is a plan to by-pass congressional oversight on the appropriation of public funds. 

 

Article I, Section 9 provides that no ex-post-facto law can be passed.  Yet, many bills are passed regularly which are retroactive--especially tax laws and provisions.  Almost without exception, they are back dated.  The George W. Bush tax relief bill of 2001 was predicated upon a retroactive effective date to January 1, 2001. 

 

A preceding chapter discussed the situation with legislation in September 1996 which declared that any person involved in domestic violence in the historic past could no longer own a gun.  Not only did this stupid act violate the Second Amendment, but it assuredly violated Article I, Section 9. 

 

Article I Section 10 provides that no state can pass a bill of attainder (which is an act which infringes on individual rights).  Yet the whole US system of traffic enforcement involves threats, intimidation and coercion.  People caught violating a traffic law are faced with all kinds of threats and restrictions on their rights (to use the public roads) if they do not immediately pay up the stated fine and costs. 

 

This same Section 10, in its second clause, notes that no state shall lay on any duties on imports or exports without the consent of Congress--except for executing inspection laws.  The net of any such duties must be used by the Treasury of the US.  Numerous states have been imposing sales taxes on purchases made in other states.  This is now happening with Internet sales and big ticket items--like cars, furniture, etc. 

 

The third clause of this same Section 10 notes that the states cannot enter into any agreements among themselves without the consent of Congress.  All of the traffic enforcement laws used between the states violate this provision since Congress has never authorized them.  Any number of items are covered today by agreements among the states.  These are all illegal without the consent of Congress. 

 

 

And More Congressional Power 

 

Article II, Section 2 allows the president to make treaties, but specifies that they be approved by two-thirds of the Senate. 

 

As noted elsewhere herein, if Congress disapproved a treaty, President Slick merely put it into effect through executive action.  Otherwise, Congress has often considered and allowed the idea of turning over its treaty oversight authority to the president in the form of a “fast track” scheme on trade agreements--dispensing with legitimate Congressional oversight. 

 

Article II, Section 2 gives the Senate power to confirm all ambassadors and various public officials of the US.  Whenever the Senate refused to confirm a Clinton appointee (like the homosexual James Hormel, Ambassador to Luxembourg, and Bill Lann Lee, Assistant US Attorney General in charge of civil rights), Clinton proceeded to appoint them anyway as interim appointments (when Congress was not in session). 

 

Article II, Section 4 (in conjunction with Article I, Sections 2 and 3) places within the Congress the duty of impeaching and removing civil officers of the United States for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.  If there was ever a single individual most deserving of impeachment and removal, it was Clinton. 

 

Yet, Congress has abrogated its duties and responsibilities by largely doing nothing, although it finally did vote out a bill of impeachment on Dec 19, 1998, over a couple of the petty sex charges while ignoring Slick’s gross acts of criminal conduct, treason and violation of the Constitution otherwise for the long period of his entire presidency. 

 

It’s not to say that Slick should not have been impeached over the perjury and obstruction of justice.  He should have been impeached as he was.  It’s just that there were also a host of very serious matters which were far more deserving of impeachment than his sodomy with Monica Lewinsky. 

 

 

Even the Judicial is Limited 

 

Article III allows that federal judges shall hold their offices during good behavior.  When judges overstep their authority and begin legislating laws through the process of judicial interpretation, Congress has a duty to impeach and remove them. 

 

The same is true with a president who rules through executive order.  Executive orders for the collective American people are absolutely unconstitutional.  Any president trying this route should be impeached and removed. 

 

Congress has a duty and obligation to impeach and remove such people because presidents and federal court justices that ignore, bypass and disobey the US Constitution (which they are sworn to uphold) are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, as justifying impeachment and removal, per Article II, Section 4.  Truly, they are hypocritical law violators of the worst kind.  Yet, Congress does nothing. 

 

It would not take many impeachments of federal judges and the word would get out that the public, through their elected congressional representatives, are not going to sit back passively and allow federal judges to make laws through judicial interpretations. 

 

Federal judges, like Susan Wright, who refused to even allow Paula Jones to have her day in court against Slick Clinton, would be more careful about making outrageous, irresponsible and discriminatory judgments and particularly so when questions could be raised about her own possible conflict of interest and her unethical practice of discussing cases with outsiders (as formerly described). 

 

Presently, US District Court, Appellate Court and Supreme Court judges don’t answer to anyone--not even the people or the United States Constitution (that’s why they successfully created the concept of “absolute judicial immunity,” as noted earlier herein). 

 

The US Congress should exercise its oversight impeachment authority.  If some of the judges were impeached and removed for their illegal deeds, the others would get the word and start cleaning up their acts. 

 

 

The Jail Motion 

 

The previously quoted February 11, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 3) also had an article by Fred Lingel and Howard Carson on “Watchdog Group Wants Corrupt Judges in Jail.”  The essence of this article was a focus upon a new group or motion developing across parts of America which actually proposes “Jail for Judges.” 

 

From the gist of the report on JAIL, it would appear that the US Libertarian Party has been the primary organized effort behind the effort.  Apparently, there is now a national organization working to promote JAIL. 

 

This organized effort is attempting to promote the idea of holding judges accountable for their actions/decisions and trying to obtain an independent review of their unconstitutional activities.  Even now, when one tries to sue a judge or question a judge and his decision, the remedy is merely an action to go to another dishonest and corrupt court (which will normally side with the judicial system). 

 

Mary Lynn Day is national fundraising director for JAIL.  She says that modern judges and the judicial system follow a policy of “harass and collect, not serve and protect.” 

 

She added that millions of people have been processed by the US judicial system which acts as a revolving door whereby probation, parole and other so-called social and rehabilitation services are owned or managed by judges and lawyers (at taxpayer expense).  In her view, people are reduced to state-owned property. 

 

JAIL wants a reform of the system to be sure that the judicial system is reformed so that there will be honest, law-abiding judges who render fair, impartial and constitutional decisions. 

 

The interesting thing about the work of JAIL and other groups which have been concerned about the deterioration of the American judicial system is that there is already a remedial process to correct the problem.  The corrective action needed is for legislatures to start impeaching sorry judges.  If a few judges were impeached, the whole attitude in the judiciary would change. 

 

 

Lyndon Johnson and Earl Warren, Revisited 

 

As discussed in a former chapter, Lyndon Johnson needed a real crook and someone who had no morality, character or integrity at all to oversee the so-called investigation into the murder of President John F. Kennedy.  Johnson wisely selected the Chief Justice of the United States, Earl Warren (who had a reputation for lying and cheating for many days--per the FBI). 

 

Actually, if Eisenhower was doing his job, the crook Earl Warren would never have been nominated to be Chief Justice.  But then, Ike had made a promise of this payoff to Warren to get the Republican nomination for president.  Thus, Ike must have felt that he should deliver. 

 

Otherwise, the Senate should never have confirmed Earl Warren to be anything in the United States.  And even after confirmation, when Warren started legislating from the bench, the Congress should have stepped in and impeached the disgraceful, sorry crook.  Just a few impeachments and there would be no need for the JAIL concept. 

 

 

A Final Word on JAIL 

 

In the vein of what might be behind the JAIL motion, it would be well to note that the Libertarian Party has called for the de-criminalization of the question of drugs.  While some of these people are pot smokers and want the freedom to do their thing, the overall idea of de-criminalizing drugs has merit. 

 

As discussed in prior chapters, this present approach to drugs has been set up by the ruling Amalekites and their colleagues in the Mafia who are responsible for the whole drug problem.  The drug business is big business and the Amalekite bankers/masters are not going to sit back and allow this huge source of money to dry up and go away. 

 

Accordingly, the whole US system operates to continue the status quo and allow the Amalekites and their bribed lackeys (like Slick Clinton and public officials across the US) to continue to rake off billions of dollars annually.  Everybody in power likes the present arrangement and they are not about to let it end. 

 

Thus, in the present system, the police and government powers in the US are focused upon all small time operators who would dare try to oppose the ruling plutocrats and their operation of the drug pipeline from overseas bases.  This means that Big Brother will go after any person who tries to grow some pot locally or tries to horn in (in any way or manner) on the international drug trade. 

 

Of course, the judges and judiciary are a part of this crooked process.  JAIL apparently would like to concentrate upon the judiciary to change this sickness.  But like Gandhi said long ago--at first, they will just ignore you.  And that’s probably what will happen here initially.  JAIL and its efforts will just be ignored.  The American public is so gullible and ignorant that the ignoring action will probably suffice. 

 

 

The Bottom Line 

 

In terms of the successful seizure of power by the various presidents, and of course, the US Supreme Court, there is a piece of philosophy which pretty well tells the tale.  This idea was cited in the Jun 2, 2003, “Jerusalem Report” (p. 8), in connection with allegations of corruption made against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. 

 

It was in the form of a story by Hirsh Goodman on “Boss Sharon.”  The article had a cartoon of a fat, arrogant, evil Sharon wearing a large top hat and sitting in a chair with two of his lackeys directly behind him. 

 

The quote was:  “Those in power become more powerful and they can do whatever they want with impunity.”  While the writer of those words had Sharon in mind, they manifestly apply 100% to the Office of the US President and the US Supreme Court, both of which clearly do whatever they want essentially without restriction or limitation (especially the court). 

 

Of course, the people, in the context of their elected representatives (in the US Congress), can and should put some limitations and restrains on these offices and their unrestrained uses of powers which are simply not stated in the US Constitution (through impeachments and removals from office).  But no one cares.  So presidents and the courts do whatever they want to do. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 404--Christians and Their Own Laws III

 

 

First Amendment--General 

 

The first amendment in the Bill of Rights covers several things--freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, of the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  At an initial examination of this amendment, two things seem to stand out. 

 

First, the amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting” the several freedoms enumerated (as broached in a former chapter in the context of religion).  Capitalized Congress in the Constitution is defined in Article I, Section I of the Constitution as being the “Congress of the United States” --made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives. 

 

Per this wording, one must wonder about the actions of the states and especially in view of the 10th amendment.  Presumably, the first amendment does not apply to the various states.  Yet, the Supreme Court seems to have extended it to the states, as will be shortly shown on peaceable assembly. 

 

The second feature of this amendment and indeed in the whole Bill of Rights is that these rights pertain to natural, private, individual people and not to artificially created corporations or other entities by government.  Law dictionaries and Supreme Court rulings have recognized that the Bill of Rights pertain to natural individual persons and not to artificial persons--like corporations, as created by the state. 

 

This reality was discussed in a former chapter.  Note was also made that Thomas Jefferson’s words about the inalienable rights of a free man in the Declaration of Independence were also directed to individual, private, natural people and not to artificially created corporations.  

 

The point is that AOL-Time-Warner Corporation, ABC, NBC, CBS, General Electric, CNN, PACs, Labor Unions and so forth do not have any freedom of religion, speech or press.  And since the first amendment focuses upon “Congress,” surely the American states individually can rein in the power of these huge global corporations which are largely owned and/or controlled by evil Amalekite bankers/masters. 

 

 

First Amendment--Samples 

 

As just noted, the first amendment outlines freedom of religion--which was discussed in a previous chapter discussing the hypocritical media.  As outlined earlier, it is interesting that the leftist Amalekites and their janissary robot followers have successfully used this constitutional amendment to completely establish a theory in government of the separation of church and state. 

 

Whereas, in fact, the Constitution nowhere even suggests such a thing as the separation of church and state.  Yet, this has become the reality of the United States in the early 21st century through the work of the diabolical Amalekites and their control of the prostitute politicians and leftist media. 

 

The depraved Amalekites have completely removed all aspects of the Christian religion from government (which some persons would say is a good thing because Christendom does have many gross faults--as described herein), although they have hypocritically allowed one of their fellow Amalekite masters, Joseph Lieberman, to constantly talk about “God” and morality, as if he now is the symbol of those ideas. 

 

But there is still more on this amendment in terms of the former Clinton administration.  Despite the clear constitutional statement, the US Attorney General Janet Reno, herself, condemned “religious cults” and initiated the attack on the Davidian people at Waco (or at least, she ultimately took the blame for it; though surely, the Clintons made the actual decision). 

 

Many government leaders have spoken out against the so-called Christian Identity movement as being cultic.  And who defines a cult?  Well, the government tells the people which religious groups and faiths are “unacceptable” cults.  The people are expected to merely accept the government definition of right and wrong. 

 

 

The Early 2001 Fall Out 

 

Upon assuming the presidency on January 20, 2001, George W. Bush initiated action to implement a couple of things which he discussed in his campaign and things which his leftist opponents have questioned.  Bush wanted a new federal government relationship with organized religion.  He effectively said that the synagogues, churches  and mosques would be welcomed in his administration. 

 

Bush had a two pronged effort to allow a working relationship between organized religion and the federal government.  He specifically wanted to open the door to vouchers which could be used by parents in poor performing schools to transfer their children to private schools.  The vouchers would reimburse the private schools. 

 

Nothing was said by Bush about using vouchers for home schooling.  But logically, this option should be included (however, it will not be allowed, one can be sure of it). 

 

The second feature of the Bush plan was a new alliance between religious charities and the US welfare program.  According to the president’s plan, the US government would make funding grants to selected religious charities (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Moslem or whatever), which they could use to help fund their charity programs-- supposedly, to the poor and needy. 

 

On the surface, some of what Bush has had in mind has to be a good idea and at least deserving of discussion because the federal government itself is grossly incompetent and wasteful in administering the social welfare state (and constitutionally, it should be abolished since the programs are illegal).  The public schools are a total disgrace and should be closed down, as discussed in former chapters.  

 

So while the federal government is grossly sick, incompetent and acting illegally in running the schools and the welfare state, there must be some question marks about the Bush plan. 

 

 

The Problem 

 

The difficulty arises--because, with the implementation of the plan, the Big Brother state will step in and define what private schools and which religious charities qualify for the federal money.  True, most Reform Synagogues, Catholic Churches and Protestant Churches (of the historic mainline denominations--Episcopalian, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, etc) would all qualify for everything that can be given to them. 

 

Certainly, operators like Jesse Jackson (“the reverend” --father recently of a love child) and his “Operation Push” would clearly get many new federal dollars (they already get massive US funding for all kinds of things).  Even the Black Muslims may qualify--if they will just agree to tone their criticism down of the Jews (which they might do, if enough big bucks are promised). 

 

When this plan was first announced, Pat Robertson told his 700 Club TV audience that religious groups “will begin to be nurtured, if I can use that term, on federal money, and then they can’t get off of it;” and subsequently, he added that “It’ll be like a narcotic; they can’t then free themselves later on” (Oct 14, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 2). 

 

Sure enough, when the dole outs started from Washington, Robertson and his team got in line to get their share.  In the fall of 2002, he accepted $500,000 in taxpayers’ funds for his organization (ibid, p. 2).  Since Robertson is a big shot in the Republican party, this pay out was very logical.  And this is one of the most sickening aspects of the Bush plan.  It is designed to help supporters and the politically correct. 

 

 

Disqualified Groups! 

 

But all religious groups which do not qualify (in other words, groups which are not politically correct or are not on the two-party team) would be barred from getting anything from the state (except maybe having their members persecuted, arrested, tried, imprisoned and perhaps executed by the state). 

 

As noted in the above comments, the US government has been already exercising her powers in defining and classifying certain religious groups as “cults.”  In America, it happened with the Branch Davidians and even in the state of Israel, the Israeli government has been trying to put the Ultra Orthodox into that definition (and out of business). 

 

The FBI and other Big Brother authorities have recently gone on record to indict the militias, the Christian Identity movement and similar groups as “hate” organizations (which will be soon outlawed).  Certainly, they will get nothing (except a jail term).  Groups like the Aryan Nations are not going to be eligible for school vouchers or money to operate a welfare or charity program. 

 

Tragically, any entity which offers some semblance of true worship and particularly any group in truth (like the coming Philadelphia Congregation) will be in this outlawed category.  They, too, will get nothing, but jail time or perhaps death. 

 

For sure, any group or belief which disapproves of the new social gods in the politically correct society (interracial sex and racial amalgamation, homosexual acceptance and rights and open feminism) will never get anything from Big Brother (again, they may get arrested and go to jail, but they will not be granted any vouchers to operate a private school or money to perform a work of charity). 

 

Actually, this is precisely the situation which the Constitution prohibits under the first amendment.  The federal government is specifically prohibited from showing partiality and favoritism to one religious definition at the expense of another religious definition.  The tragedy here is that once the door opens on this thing, Big Brother will reserve the right to define those that are eligible and those that are not eligible to participate. 

 

Groups which are categorized as unacceptable (cults) will get nothing, while the politically correct ones will get everything.  If Big Brother could treat everybody equal and the same, this effort could have at least some merit for discussion.  But it’s not going to happen that way. 

 

 

Already 

 

As noted in prior comments, the IRS and other agencies of government already discriminate (again, ask the Aryan Nations about this).  For example, the IRS grants tax exemption status to politically approved groups, but deny this privilege to politically incorrect entities.  This is the precise type of discrimination/favoritism illegal under the first amendment. 

 

The Jul-Aug 2003 “Search the Scriptures” newsletter (p. 1) quoted Section 501 of the US Internal Revenue Code which authorizes tax exemptions to certain US organizations (many US churches are exempt under this law).  By law, a 501c3 church may not: preach politically incorrect sermons, influence legislation, participate in political action, endorse candidates, oppose candidates, or publish political positions. 

 

The editor of this “Search the Scriptures” noted that under this legislation it is now or will be soon illegal to preach against homosexuals or abortions.  Yes, that’s true.  It is even now more clear that under the IRS code, no tax exemption will be allowed for any group which espouses racial separation (that’s why the tax code was used to force Bob Jones University to integrate and allow interracial sexual activities). 

 

In other words, all religious activity in the United States is being forced and made by the government to conform to politically correct themes and teachings (in other words, all religious groups and activities are being made to support the state approved social gods--racial integration and amalgamation, homosexuality, abortion on demand, feminism, etc). 

 

 

The Essence 

 

The point is that this planned Bush program (to whatever extent it gets into law) is a very bad program which is specifically not allowed in the first amendment.  When the Constitution talks about freedom of religion, it means freedom of religion to believe whatever one chooses. 

 

If Big Brother allows and/or funds a certain belief and disallows and/or prohibits money to another belief, this is not freedom of religion.  It is religious tyranny!  And this is precisely what is happening right now in many or all areas of government control over the US population. 

 

The government is using her powers to show favoritism for politically approved groups and discrimination and persecution against politically incorrect groups.  This is precisely the very situation which the writers of the Constitution did not want to happen.  They wanted all groups to have equal standing before the government in all matters. 

 

 

Michael Savage, Revisited

 

On his radio talk show program, in late August 2002 (perhaps around Aug 26th), Michael Savage noted some remarks from a Catholic lawyer on TV’s C-Span program which addressed the first amendment.  Savage was impressed with the remarks and played them twice on his program. 

 

The lawyer said that the first amendment actually provides that Congress will pass no law that “inhibits” (or restricts) the practice of religion.  Therefore, the Congress and the courts can open and close sessions with prayer as they historically had done over the years in America. 

 

Even presidents and people in the Executive Branch have sometimes said prayers or expressed some form of religion in their official duties.  Yes, presidents and people testifying in US courts have in the past or do take oaths and swear upon the “Christian Bible.” 

 

The point is that in modern times, the new theories regulating the nation have come into play to do the very thing which the first amendment was specifically designed to prohibit, limit or restrict.  The idea was that Congress could pass no law that would interfere in the practice of religion. 

 

But now, the modern theory has gained status that people in any US government entity (from local school boards to the federal government in Washington) cannot practice any form of religion or give any status to the practice of religion (except in some approved instances for those religions and faiths which are politically correct, as is underway by George W. Bush and his dole-out of federal money to politically correct religious groups for their welfare and school activities). 

 

Is it possible that the courts have completely missed the point of the first amendment in the Bill of Rights? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 405--Christians and Their Own Laws IV

 

 

More on the Speech Issue 

 

As outlined in previous commentary, the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech and this certainly includes freedom of ideas and thoughts.  Yet, the US government is now focusing upon limitations in both speech and thoughts (with appropriate jail sentences) when she chooses to define so-called “hate” crimes (discussed at length earlier herein). 

 

Politically incorrect ideas, thoughts and speech are now unacceptable and Washington is imposing politically correct education on the public schools, prisons, etc.  People with politically incorrect views are not to be tolerated in the New World Order. 

 

In an appearance before the US Senate Appropriations Committee on May 13, 1997, Director of the FBI Louis Freeh said that America’s chief domestic enemies are those “individuals who espouse ideologies inconsistent with principles of federal government.”  This is quite a profound declaration from one of the chief law enforcement officers in the United States. 

 

And who will define those ideologies that are inconsistent with the (current) federal government?  Well, Big Brother will define such beliefs, and castigate and condemn those persons with such unacceptable beliefs (the government is already doing this very thing). 

 

In other words, a citizen can have freedom of speech, religion, etc, providing that it meets the politically correct criteria established by officials of the US government (obviously, as determined by the secret controllers of the prostitute governing politicians). 

 

If people come along and try to possess contrary beliefs to the politically approved positions, then they had better keep their mouths shut and maintain an extra-ordinary low profile (because Big Brother’s bureaucrats have big ears and they are not about to put up with contrary beliefs or thinking and certainly not speech). 

 

No wonder outcome based education is so popular today--to force politically correct thinking and opinion on little children. 

 

 

Free Speech and the “Social Gods” 

 

Incidentally, a motion has been under way for some years now following WWII to grossly alter the concept of freedom of speech.  Prior chapters mentioned some of the new social gods that are being defined for the New World Order.  Man is moving in the direction of persecuting, jailing and executing people who will not accept and give allegiance to these social gods. 

 

One of the most important social gods is racial integration, miscegenation and amalgamation (the goal and purpose of man to create a one race of man).  Anyone who will not subscribe to this god becomes an enemy of the state. 

 

Though the US has so-called freedom of speech, it has become virtually impossible even in the present society to say anything about race which can be construed to oppose racial integration, miscegenation and amalgamation. 

 

The questions of feminism, homosexuality, religious toleration and ecumenicalism, etc are not far behind the push over race.  Soon, we will reach the point that nothing can be spoken about any of these shibboleths which departs from the politically approved positions.  In orther words, one will soon be jailed and murdered if he speaks out against these social gods. 

 

As a demonstration of how fast this process is proceeding, at least on race, the Sep 23, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 2) had a news item on a recent US poll which said that 49% of modern Americans now say that the first amendment goes too far.  These people are in favor on limiting speech of people if that speech offends people of other faiths and races. 

 

This thinking will certainly affect discussions on race and homosexuality.  Some believe that such restrictions can also apply to newspaper reporters (and obviously, everyone else as well) who criticize government officials. 

 

 

Freedom Elsewhere 

 

Incidentally, a reader’s letter in the Jul 2, 2001, “Spotlight” (p. 19), from Adrian Salbuchi of Buenos Aires, Argentina, said that it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that only America has free speech.  Salbuchi, who lives in Argentina, was brought up in Europe and has lived in New York.  He says that there is more freedom of speech in countries like Chile and Argentina than in the US. 

 

He adds that the difference is that in America there is a huge level of brainwashing which starts with television and elementary school and goes on from cradle to grave. 

 

 

The Libraries, Revisited 

 

A former chapter discussed the on-going movement of Big Brother in Washington to take control of Internet services used by US libraries that receive federal funding (which is most of them in America).  While this focus has been upon Internet services in libraries, one can be absolutely sure that Washington will soon move against all uses of the Internet in the US. 

 

As pointed out earlier, this attention on the Internet is being fueled by the huge number of pornography, perverted sex and other vulgar activities on the Internet.  Of course, this trash is a problem.  Naturally, it should be removed and outlawed.  But the dilemma surfaces because this whole theme allows Big Brother to completely regulate and control the Internet. 

 

And in allowing Internet regulation, the door is immediately opened to the real goals and plans of Big Brother to regulate politically incorrect speech (plus thoughts and actions as well).  In other words, the humanists in Washington are not concerned over pornography or the vulgar Black speech heard in the ghettos.  But they are concerned with the Christian Identity, Ku Klux Klan and similar groups. 

 

As these lines are being written in early 2003, there is an enormous effort from Washington to take over first the Internet services provided to libraries, and next, to proceed across the broad front of Internet regulation.  Surely, this will be accomplished in the guise of stopping porno and sex operations over the Internet. 

 

As pointed out in the prior chapter on this subject, the porno and sex web sites on the Internet should not even be a question mark.  The reason is that this stuff automatically should be outlawed and restricted in the general society.  Any writer or publisher of this pathetic evil should be arrested and prosecuted by law. 

 

 

An Act 

 

Incidentally, Congress did finally act on the question of child pornography over the Internet in 1996 in the “Child Pornography Prevention Act.”  This law was designed to prevent the use of children in sex films (so-called kiddy porn) as shown via computer images/simulations (Apr 26, 2002, “The Week,” p. 17). 

 

But the issue went to the Supreme Court.  In April 2002, the court ruled that the law was too vague and would impede on freedom of speech.  Thus, everything was back to step one.  Actually, this court action and all of the hype from the hypocrite society really amounted to nothing (other than being a court decision in favor of pedophiles and their demented operations). 

 

No one in power in America cares one whit about pornography, vulgar speech (as perpetuated by Blacks and as is now common all over movies and TV) or morality.  But they are very much concerned about political correctness and whether the society is walking the right path in terms of the new social gods (as described above). 

 

The well known jurist Robert Bork (who was rejected a few years ago for a seat on the Supreme Court by a liberal Senate) said that this rationale from the court comes after years of pretending that smut, nude dancing and profanity deserve First Amendment protection. 

 

Bork added that “The First Amendment was intended to protect thought and political criticism, not images created to satisfy the cravings of pedophiles and other perverts.  By confusing the two, the court only serves to liberate the ‘worst in our natures’” (ibid, p. 17) 

 

Of course, Bork is right.  What a paradox it is that the court supports the most vile forms of evil.  Yet, in the US, there are things called hate speech and hate thoughts that address politically incorrect people and thinking.  These hate crimes and thoughts are totally illegal, per the US system (although they are precisely the issues involved in the context of protection in the first amendment). 

 

 

Legitimate Limitations 

 

Of course, we have and should have complete freedom of speech.  But this freedom does not allow anyone of us to go into a crowded theater and start hollering “fire!” 

 

The reason for this restriction is clear enough that a person hollering fire in a crowed theater could cause death and/or physical injury to any and all of the people in the theater.  Society must act to protect the collective public from persons who try to injure or kill (yes, laws are necessary to prevent people from killing or physically injuring other people). 

 

Obviously, society also has a right to protect itself from clear immoral and evil actions (such as the distribution of pornography) which will lead the way in the promotion of public sexual licentiousness and perversion (that will, in turn, bring on the total destruction--death or injury--of all of the society from within and/or via judgment from YHWH). 

 

Sexual licentiousness and perversion are very destructive practices which destroy individual people, families and eventually the whole of society.  The question of the public promotion of sexual licentiousness and perversion should not even be on the table for discussion. 

 

In suggesting this course of action, this writer is much in favor of free speech.  But free speech is virtually the same as free movement along the highways and freedom of action in the generic society.  We all have freedoms, but we don’t have freedom to bring physical hurt, injury and death on other people.  Pornography is evil and brings total destruction on a collective population.  Therefore, it should be outlawed. 

 

 

But the Prevailing Liberal Reaction 

 

However, once the door is opened to the issue of prohibiting open, raw pornography, the ruling liberals want restrictions on anything else in society which they are opposed to.  They want to limit all free speech (in criticizing the government or in any speech which may “offend” religious, ethnic and racial minorities).  On this, the concern is not over the words spoken; but rather, who speaks them.

 

Many Blacks call each other “Nigger” in a fraternal way.  Jesse Jackson referred to New York as “Hymie Town.”  Some Black Muslims have called Jews “Blood Suckers.” Most Negroes call the collective White population “Honkies” or “Crackers.”  Hispanics refer to Whites as “Gringos.”  Jews call the gullible White population cattle, pigs and dogs. 

 

Most all of this speech is constitutionally allowed and there is no problem with it (except when Blacks call Jews dirty names, which is unacceptable).  But the primary problem with these words is not the words themselves--but rather, who speaks them.  In today’s Christian world, it has become hate speech and hate thoughts if White people speak any words which might be offensive to one of the privileged groups. 

 

Scripturally illiterate Christians can never understand that the word “Niger” is a very Scriptural word found in the New Testament.  The NT MESSIAH regularly called certain Judeans vipers, sons of the Devil, murderers of the righteous, members of the synagogue of Satan, and so forth.  He even referred to Herod as “that fox.”  He and others of His day called various Colored peoples dogs and pigs. 

 

All of this NT speech is now out--at least, as far as White people.  Naturally, it is not out if used by Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other Coloreds (except when anyone of any color chooses to speak evil of Jews, which is manifestly out at all levels).  Anyway, the ruling Sabbatians (to be defined in a later chapter) are moving in the direction worldwide of prohibiting free speech to White people. 

 

 

Yes, New Thinking 

 

One of the things that they are coming down on hard is any of these catch words historically used to refer to various Colored peoples (before WWII, almost everyone in America [White, Black, Green, Purple or whatever] referred to Negroes as “Niggers” or “Coons”).  But this is now all out (except for Blacks and Edomite Hollywood producers). 

 

While these words may theoretically “offend” someone, they are manifestly in a far different ball park than hollering fire in a crowed theater or selling raw pornography (which brings on the total death, physical injury and destruction of a collective given population). 

 

So-called racial and ethnic slurs do no damage (beyond offending someone of a weak conscience and disposition).  Plus, as is the Scriptural proscription, many of these appellatives are actually true and correct (at least, in the eyes of the people using them--like YESHUA).  Does any one actually believe that The MESSIAH was wrong in speaking the words He spoke? 

 

As for personal attacks upon individual people with lies and falsehoods, there are already libel laws on the books which allow anyone to sue another person in a civil lawsuit if they have been offended with some wrong remark or word.  So, why must the first amendment be walked on and violated?  

 

Before leaving this particular discussion on the first amendment, there should be some recognition of what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they chose the free speech amendment in the 18th century. 

 

As some modern Constitutional scholars have noted (like the above quoted Robert Bork), the idea behind the first amendment was to protect political speech or comments from the general population regarding the government.  The original intent was not a focus upon the speech of individual persons about and/or toward other individual persons. 

 

The desire was to protect the right of the people to criticize the government and government leaders.  After all, in the previous governmental situation with Britain, the government (the crown) would not allow dissent.  Actually, this very situation has existed in almost all forms of human government throughout history.  Governments and their leaders all want to crush opposition in the form of speech from citizens. 

 

 

Still More? 

 

One of the more obvious fall outs of this motion to control speech and particularly speech over the Internet is an effort to get rid of and run various right wing groups out of business.  Big Brother wants to do this by controlling their free speech. 

 

But clearly, limiting the speech of religious efforts (like the Christian Identity movement and the Ku Klux Klan) are in an entirely different ball park than the cases where words spoken can bring physical injury and death to a given collective population. 

 

Only the most grossly sick and pathetic humanists would attempt to place these religious ideas into the same pot as raw pornography.  Yet, the planners and schemers ruling the US are in the process of doing this exact thing. 

 

They are going after free speech on the pretext that they are trying to stop pornography and other perversions emanating from pedophiles and other evil people reaching out to children.  The problem is that modern society simply has no conception of right and wrong.  The Christian preachers, who should be teaching their people Scriptural morality, simply are not doing it at all. 

 

 

Some Library Examples 

 

This whole thing brings up another point by this writer.  Some weeks earlier, this writer took a stack of “Biblical Archaeology Review” magazines to the local library in St Maries, Idaho to give them to the library as a gift.  This magazine is one of the best there is in terms of archaeology and it is inconceivable that any library would turn down some of these publications.  

 

Too, this writer had some books and excellent travel videos which i intended to also give this local library at a more convenient time for me to dig them out of some boxes.  However, with the magazines, the librarian started giving me a hard time about the fact that the library would not just accept any gift, but had to review the magazines (or books, videos or whatever) to see if the gift would qualify. 

 

What this amounts to is library censorship.  Librarians and the controlled US society will holler and complain to no end that the Nazis burned some books in Germany in the 1930s.  Yet, these clear hypocrites exercise the precise same censorship of US books. 

 

A news item in the May-Jun 2002 “Bible Light International JPM News & Prayer Requests” (p. 3) said that 300 copies of a donated translation of the Quron (Koran) were removed from school libraries in the Los Angeles area because they were alleged to be “anti-Semitic.”  Whomever the donor was, he lost much in his attempt to give some books to the libraries. 

 

Of course, most libraries would take a new translation of the Koran.  And surely, most all libraries would take an excellent publication like the “Biblical Archaeology Review.”  But you can bank on it that if the gift would have involved some religious writings on Islam, race or the Christian Identity viewpoint, it would be rejected outright (as ultimately happened with the Koran in Southern California). 

 

 

Yes, American Nazis 

 

In other words, the US libraries censor their books and holdings just like the Nazis censored their books in the 1930s.  Categorically, there is no difference whatsoever between the two operations at all. 

 

Obviously, it goes without saying that pornography should be censored out.  In fact, this was one of the targets of the Nazis back in the thirties.  Actually, as noted above, there should be no need to censor out porno writings because they should be totally outlawed.  Anytime, one of these writings is found, the publisher and writer should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. 

 

Incidentally, because of the stupid practice of this local St Maries’ library, this writer merely took the various books and videos to another library which was far more receptive to gifts from the public.  When someone is trying to give away something of value, it is inconceivable that the recipient would be snotty, arrogant and aloof about the gift. 

 

If it was porno, it could be burned, destroyed or returned to the donor.  But this should be a rare situation.  In fact, if the generic sun worship society functioned like it should function, there would be no issue over porno because it all automatically would be outlawed, as discussed above. 

 

 

More on the First Amendment 

 

A previous chapter on pride and vanity discussed the situation with a local radio announcer in Spokane, Washington who is not very swift and sometimes confuses truth and reality, though he is supposed to be a “conservative” on his daily talk show. 

 

Besides the ridiculous positions he has assumed on Slick’s leaks of court information and occult messages on a backward play of certain records, mentioned earlier, this Spokane radio man has went far afield on at least two occasions over the first amendment to the US Constitution. 

 

The Supreme Court has held that American citizens and groups can peaceably assemble, march, etc, in accordance with the first amendment.  While the court is usually wrong on everything, they perhaps have had the people in mind on this basic right.  Accordingly, groups can obtain local parade permits and march occasionally--all legal and proper and a basic right, per the US Supreme Court. 

 

 

More on Aryan Nations 

 

There is a reported sect in Hayden Lake, ID called “Aryan Nations” (cited earlier and headed for years by a man named Richard Butler, who was commented upon in prior chapters).  This writer is not familiar with all of the group’s teachings, but it appears that it is essentially Christian Identity, occultic and pro Nazi (strongly opposed to racial mixing). 

 

Being Christians, one can be sure that this Aryan Nations group also has the basic Christian hatred of Judaism and the Talmud. 

 

In effect, most of the philosophy of this man and his group has much in common with the philosophy of almost all Americans in the pre WWII environment, from the standpoint of hatred of Judaism and opposition to racial mixing.  In 1940, Richard Butler would have been like most all other Americans, except for perhaps his Identity beliefs. 

 

In early 1998, Butler applied for and received a parade permit for his group to march on April 18th in Coeur d’Alene, ID (supposedly, in honor of the Amalek-Edomite Adolf Schicklgruber’s birthday, whom Butler seems to regularly salute, worship and adore). 

 

In February and again on March 12th, the local Spokane radio station and its irrational talk show host devoted two complete programs (of three hours each) to attack and oppose Richard Butler and the Aryan Nations over the proposed march. 

 

This “conservative” talk show host hyped up his audience with a whole barrage of false allegations about the Aryan Nations and how un-American they are--because they do not teach racial amalgamation.  In other words, since they have not come into the politically correct thinking on race (since racial integration took over in the 1950s), they are now the most diabolically evil and wicked people on earth. 

 

 

The Calls 

 

Once the audience was hyped up, the calls started pouring in to complain about Butler and what should be done to keep him from having his march.  The tragedy about this is that almost all of the hype and comments were outright lies and distortions.  Even in conservative Spokane, Butler had few calls that even pretended to offer fair play. 

 

One day, a Jewish Defense League man, filled with passionate Amalekite hate, was on the phone with wild fanatical charges that his group was going to come by the thousands to Coeur d’Alene to confront the Aryan people and try to create a riot. 

 

Obviously, if the 25 Aryan marchers were confronted by 5,000 militant and hateful Amalekites and “human rights” activists who created a riot, the Aryans would be blamed for it in the media.  This is the normal method of US news reporting. 

 

Most callers moaned and whined about the need to close the businesses during the march, while others proposed plans to collect money for “human rights.”  The one thing that almost all of them wanted was to somehow prevent Butler and his crowd from marching; although a “few” recognized the Constitutional provision and suggested that Butler should be just ignored. 

 

In other words, for most, never mind the US Constitution and Butler’s constitutional rights, the local people must concentrate their attention upon plans, schemes and methods of nullifying those rights.  Of course, the stupid, ill informed radio host was leading the pack in this opposition to the US Constitution.  In any case, something prompted Butler to change his march to the summer. 

 

Since when in America is it that if a person tries to exercise his basic rights in accordance with the US Constitution, the whole community should be in an uproar and a quandary on trying to find some way that the individual can be denied those basic rights.  If it was a bunch of abortionists or queers wanting to march, one can be sure that there would have been no public outcry or opposition. 

 

 

More First Amendment Hypocrisy 

 

This free speech idea extends to all kinds of things--unless the issue involves political incorrectness (which is totally taboo in today’s controlled society).  In other words, some things are politically correct and authorized, while other similar things are not allowed since they are politically incorrect.  One could call this gross hypocrisy.  But the controlled US society doesn’t understand it that way. 

 

For instance, in modern America, there is an inconceivable effort to remove the word Confederate from the English language and American thinking.  To demonstrate how incredibly powerful this anti-Confederate position is in today’s America, one should take note of the once “Confederate Air Force.” 

 

For years, this group bought, maintained and preserved old airplanes (just as other groups treat old cars as a hobby).  But the word “confederate” has become unpopular.  So pressure was brought to bear and the group changed its name to “Commemorative Air Force” (Jan 21, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 2). 

 

In 2001, the state of Texas was forced to remove two plaques from the walls of the Texas Supreme Court building because the plaques included a memorial to the Confederacy and the words of General Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia (Feb 11, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 4). 

 

 

Confederate Flags Are Now Out 

 

Of course, the former Confederate Battle Flag (the stars and bars) has been under exceptional attack. 

 

The last several years has seen the US Supreme Court rule repeatedly that American citizens have a right to burn, defame, destroy, protest and ridicule the US flag, on the pretext that it is a constitutional right under the free speech clause of the first amendment. 

 

While the court has held it to be free speech when protesters burn American flags, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has held that it is unconstitutional for spectators at University of Mississippi sporting events to wave Confederate flags (Sep 4, 2000, “Spotlight,” p. 2) which has historically been their school symbol.  Yes, the state of South Carolina was forced to remove a Confederate flag from atop her state house. 

 

In 2001, a man named Randy Jones was a subcontractor on a job being done for the Orlando, Florida Utilities Commission.  Jones had a Confederate flag on his truck.  The Commission ordered him to remove it because it was a form of harassment (Jul 2001 “American Sentinel,” p. 11). 

 

And possibly one of the most disgraceful and sickening actions of our time occurred when a federal appeals court in 2001 ruled that the US Department of Veterans Affairs can ban the display of the Confederate flag at a Maryland cemetery where more than 3,000 Southern prisoners of war are buried (Jan 7-14, 2002, “American Free Press,” p. 2).  Now, any attempts to honor the dead must be regulated by political correctness. 

 

The Oct 9, 2000, “Spotlight” (p. 2) had a news report about Central High School in Brooksville, FL where the school has a rule which does not allow students to wear any thing which depicts the Confederate Battle Flag in a favorable way (as on a T-shirt).  Any offending students are suspended (as happened with 16 year-old Joel Roberts--when he wore one on his shirt as a Confederate history buff). 

 

Conversely, the liberal, loving, caring school allows children to wear T-shirts and whatever else that shows Cuban and/or African flags (which are perfectly protected acts, under the first amendment).  It is only displays of the Confederate flag which are disallowed and unconstitutional. 

 

So, when discussing free speech, one must always go further and define the precise issue involved in the question.  Some things can be free speech (like waving a Black nationalist flag) while it is unconstitutional to wave a Confederate flag. 

 

The Feb 4, 2002, “American Free Press” paper (p. 2) had a story from St Paul, Minnesota about how the hypocritical Woodbury High School operates.  This school designates certain classrooms as “safe zones” for homosexual students by using marked posters, rainbow stickers and pink triangles. 

 

One student wore a T-shirt with the words “Straight Pride” (signifying that he was not a queer).  The school told him that he could not wear this marked T-shirt in school.  He sued and won his case in court. 

 

 

Clinton and the First Amendment 

 

In April 1999, Slick Clinton was making a speech in an American city (in Ohio) to drum up support for his war and attack on Yugoslavia.  A number of peaceful protesters were present, waving signs in opposition to his policies.  He bragged about freedoms in America that allowed political protests. 

 

What he didn’t say was that one can be sure that the FBI or other federal police were busy making photographs, using listening devices and taking down automobile license numbers of the protesters so that they could be identified and have their names placed in Big Brother’s computer files.  Is this intimidation or what? 

 

The same thing is true with the above mentioned Richard Butler’s parade and even his regular Sunday morning worship services. 

 

The federal alphabet police (plus the Amalekite hate groups--ADL/JDL/SPLC) have agents present at many (or perhaps all) of such events and Constitutionally authorized peaceful assemblies of right wing groups to use listening devices, make photographs and take down license plate numbers so that the participants can be identified and have their names placed in computer files for further investigation and monitoring. 

 

Therefore, does free speech exist when the Big Brother state is busy monitoring and spying on every word spoken or action taken in the general population for the purpose of compiling dossiers on the thinking of each person which can some day be referred to for follow-up action (like arresting, trying and perhaps even murdering the people involved who did speak out or attend a protest rally)? 

 

The stupid fools in the controlled United States may call this free speech.  But this writer must call it tyranny! 

 

 

Blackmail 

 

One of the first things Clinton did on assuming the presidency in 1993 was to obtain detailed FBI dossiers on over 900 of his political enemies.  Soon, the word was out that Clinton had these files which revealed the nitty-gritty stories of the mistakes, the evil, the adultery, the fornication, the secret sins and so forth of numbers of leading Republican people in Congress. 

 

Question--with the possibility that Slick would release these hushed items of indiscretion and crookedness to the media, is it possible that many Congressmen gave up their freedom of speech by being blackmailed and coerced into maintaining silence about him for fear that he would retaliate and release information on them? 

 

Well, he did release secret data on a number of them, as outlined in other comments heretofore.  And quite naturally, no one seemed to care.  So Slick got away with it, as he customarily gets away with anything and everything he does. 

 

And if that was not enough to scare the Senators and members of Congress and other Clinton opponents off, he craftily used the IRS to commence audits of his enemies--like Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, Elizabeth Gracen, Billy Dale and many others, mentioned earlier. 

 

Soon, the word was out.  Anyone wanting to speak evil of Clinton could expect to have an IRS and FBI investigation.  And if there was any skeletons in the closet, Slick would make sure that this information was leaked to the media. 

 

Is it possible to have freedom of speech when an all powerful president can use the full forces of government to intimidate, coerce, threaten, blackmail and punish his enemies, if they dare speak out? 

 

Are these examples of freedom of speech and assembly as allowed in the first amendment? 

 

 

The Bottom Line 

 

Surely, this nation has won its last war.  The next time a conflict comes (as it will very soon), there will be no one to go out to fight, as Yechezkel asserts (Ezek 7:14).  For sure, courageous and honorable people like Richard Butler and others will have no incentive to go and defend those Americans who have denied them their basic rights. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 406--Christians and Their Own Laws V

 

 

The Second Amendment 

 

The second amendment quite clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  For 70 years now, infringement has been repeatedly happening at particularly the federal level in addition to the state level.  Ask Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris and the Davidians about this “right” that they were supposed to possess? 

 

John Loeffler, in an article on “Three Threats to Freedom,” observed that there are now some 20,000 laws on the books in the United States which “infringe” upon the Second Amendment (Mar 1998 “Personal Update,” p. 9). 

 

Many of these Constitutional limitations have been elaborated upon in prior chapters and will not be repeated here.  The only thing that can be said about this sickness is that there are more laws coming--at all levels and particularly in Washington. 

 

Not only is the US Congress and the various US states, cities and other governmental jurisdictions all getting in on gun control legislation (infringements), but even the US President is “legislating” on guns as well.  On April 6, 1998, President Clinton issued an executive order banning the importation of certain semi-automatic rifles into the US. 

 

The background on this act was that Congress passed a “gun control” bill in 1994.  Slick signed it into law and said nothing about any loopholes or problems with the bill he signed.  In late March 1998, two small boys broke into a grandfather’s locked gun container and stole some deer rifles and proceeded to kill four classmates and a teacher at a nearby school in Jonesboro, AR, as outlined previously. 

 

 

Media Coverage 

 

Of course, this event (and the normal stupidity of the modern culture to fail to properly establish responsibility and punishment for this crime) caused an uproar and Slick had to get some media coverage for his care and concern over children.  Hence, he announced that he had found a loophole in the 1994 act and was acting unilaterally by executive action (dictatorial proclamation) to correct it. 

 

Naturally, there was an outcry of how good and wonderful Slick’s action was to keep these evil guns out of the hands of American children.  The paradox about this clear and patent violation of the United States Constitution was that not one media source or government leader of any stature came out to condemn Clinton. 

 

All either supported him or at least maintained a strict measure of silence.  Understandably, if a key member of Congress was to have condemned Slick, the controlled media would have assaulted the speaker to no end.  Perhaps it was this fear that made all of them cower in a corner, afraid to even open their mouths. 

 

The truth is that members of Congress should have immediately impeached and removed Slick for violating the US Constitution for legislating with executive orders and infringing upon the second amendment.  Slick had it wrong in both instances and virtually all Americans, as well, could have cared less. 

 

 

The Fourth Amendment 

 

The fourth amendment affirms the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures--which “shall not be violated.”  This has to be the classic right to privacy provision of the Constitution and particularly in conjunction with the first amendment. 

 

Again, ask Randy Weaver, the Davidians in Waco (those that weren’t murdered), people associated with Colonel William Gale (like Florence Wolf) a few years ago in Northern California, the little boy Elian Gonzalez (who was seized at gunpoint by heavily armed US marshals, wearing terror uniforms in the middle of the night), JoAnn McGuckin (as discussed in a former chapter) and many others about this one. 

 

The government units (at all levels) often violate this amendment and regularly seize people, papers and property; and then proceed to keep the seized papers and property from politically incorrect persons, without due process of law. 

 

The above mentioned John Loeffler asks what will happen when the government begins enforcing so-called hate crimes which will allow Big Brother to seize private property when some poor soul makes the mistake of uttering the wrong words (like the “n” word, prohibited to White people, but OK for Blacks and in Hollywood movies) and his property is arbitrarily seized (Mar 1998 “Personal Update,” p. 9). 

 

Never mind what the first and fourth amendments say when someone violates politically correct thinking and speaking laws.  Big Brother is going to arbitrarily and capriciously seize the property of politically incorrect people at will.  Not only will the government seize it, but she will keep it and nothing will be done to enforce the US Constitution--since federal agents are above the law for all purposes. 

 

In fact, local tax seizures are typically done without due process all across America.  Internal Revenue Service (IRS) seizures are generally never done by due process. 

 

For example, the IRS discovered in 2000 (under the Slick Clinton administration) that the Indianapolis Baptist Temple had not “properly” withheld social security and federal income taxes on the salaries and wages paid to church employees and had not remitted these taxes to the IRS. 

 

Accordingly, the IRS claimed that the Baptist Church owed the government some $6 million in back taxes, interest, penalties and other charges.  The church could not or would not pay the taxes.  So, on Nov 14, 2000, the IRS and US marshals under the leadership of President Slick Clinton raided the church property and seized the parsonage (Nov 27, 2000, “Spotlight,” p. 15). 

 

There was a storm of protests, so Big Brother backed off for awhile.  But then, as soon as George W. Bush and his new Attorney General John Ashcroft were on board, the decision was made to strike again.  On Feb 13, 2001, the IRS and US marshals launched a second attack upon the church (Feb 26, 2001, “Spotlight,” p. 1).  This time, they seized the church itself. 

 

The last several years has seen the Environmental Protection Agency enter the arena to also seize private property without due process for almost any reason it chooses.  In dealing with most of these agencies, the accused is automatically guilty and property will be seized without due process. 

 

 

More Seizures 

 

Recent years has also seen Big Brother began seizing property alleged to be used by drug dealers under the terms of the Drug Enforcement Act.  A classic illustration of this surfaced on March 14, 1998, when the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) seized a large Red Carpet Inn motel in Houston, Texas. 

 

Over the last few years, local police claimed that at least one drug sale actually happened in one of the motel rooms and two other incidents allegedly occurred in the motel parking lot.  None of these allegations involved the motel owners, managers or employees.  The allegations concerned motel guests, who certainly could not be monitored or controlled to prevent them from doing as they pleased. 

 

Nevertheless, these alleged drug sales were sufficient.  So DEA people rushed in and seized the motel under their freedom to arbitrarily seize the property of private citizens without due process of law. 

 

Actually, this was not the first DEA seizure of private property.  Over the last several years, DEA personnel seized a New York City hotel in 1994 and have often seized automobiles--since this is the first, usual, private property that  DEA agents come into contact with in their operations.  Obviously, if DEA agents stop an alleged drug dealer in an automobile, they can and usually do seize the car. 

 

An item in the Sep 2001 “American Sentinel” (p. 12) said that “Asset Forfeitures Remain a Government Growth Industry.”  Specifically, the report said that there are now over 400 federal offenses and thousands of state and local laws which allow authorities to seize a person’s car, cash, home, boat, bank account, etc.  All it takes is an accusation for a person to become a victim of these seizures. 

 

In fact, a news report in the Apr-May 1998 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 17) noted that federal statutes now allow the federal police forces to seize private property from individuals who are not even charged with a crime.  One billion dollars annually in property is being seized and most of it is never returned, regardless of the innocence or guilt of the victims. 

 

 

We Are The Target 

 

The Aug 2001 “Internet Vortex” (p. 16-17) had a story on “You are the target” which cited the thousands of new federal and state laws that allow police to seize and keep property on almost any pretext.  The article noted that when police can seize property without due process, and in the total absence of a chargeable crime to the owner of the property, it suggests government ownership of the property. 

 

One of the new fads is that if a property owner does not “abate crime” in his area, then his property can be arbitrarily seized.  For instance, police seized the property of 69-year old Gussie Mae Gantt in Montgomery, AL, after having videotaped a police informant buying drugs in her yard (although she had a no trespassing sign in her yard and after having previously complained to police about local drug dealers). 

 

Beyond these very overt acts, there is the larger aspect of federal spying on private citizens and the maintenance of dossiers and computer files on the American public, described previously.  Surely, all of these intrusive and spying activities fall under the purview of the fourth amendment. 

 

A citizen is not secure in his person, home, papers, etc when a Big Brother government is spying on him and using all kinds of entrapment agents, informers and sophisticated listening and viewing devices (and particularly, in the vein of the government’s Echelon and Carnivore programs, discussed earlier). 

 

With the flagrant federal spying on virtually all private citizens and the maintenance of numbers of dossiers and computer files, it is a fact that American citizens no longer have any rights of privacy, as envisioned in the fourth and first amendments (as discussed earlier).  While some persons can never understand it, but the practice of monitoring speech and spying upon Americans does violate the first amendment. 

 

Under the grant of free speech, it matters not one whit what a person says (in the absence of a definable true crime).  If it should matter, then does a person really have free speech?  With free speech, why is it or how is it that Big Brother is constantly monitoring and compiling data on the private words of the generic American people? 

 

 

Obtaining Warrants 

 

One more of the interesting features of the fourth amendment is the provision that the search of private property and/or seizures of people or property have to be supported by a warrant issued by legal authority upon an “oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” 

 

What this means is that law enforcement people simply cannot come in and arrest someone or seize his property without an appropriately executed warrant--based upon a legal oath or affirmation of facts--which is made to justify the issuance of the warrant.  All of this sounds well and good. 

 

But in practice, authorities (and particularly federal agents) do not follow this provision at all (as in the case of Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, discussed earlier).  The previously discussed child protection people seem to never have to get warrants to have people arbitrarily arrested and jailed and children seized. 

 

And even when Big Brother does go through the motion to get a legal warrant, federal agents have been known to tell lies and make up things to justify the warrant (this happened with the fraudulent warrant used on the Davidians at Waco, Texas, as discussed earlier herein).  This means that federal agents can go into court and make up any lie and get a warrant. 

 

When making an oath or affirmation, the individual involved executes a legal court document which is automatically covered by rules governing perjury.  Therefore, when a federal agent goes into court and tells some lies and manufactures some false allegations to get a warrant, there should be a legal fall-out of the surfacing perjury which the agent tells in order to get the warrant. 

 

Well, this sounds good.  But practically speaking, federal agents are simply never prosecuted for telling lies in court.  None of the federal liars at Waco were ever prosecuted for perjury (though perjury was clearly committed in getting the warrant). 

 

Perhaps the problem surfaces because federal people operate on the premise that they are above the law.  Being above the law, they do not have to answer for any illegal practices undertaken.  Hence, federal murderers like Lon Horiuchi at Ruby Ridge are simply going to be protected by the federal government and will never face justice in a court of law. 

 

Actually, this mentality started at the top level where former US President Bill “Slick” Clinton went into a federal court and committed open and known perjury.  Slick was never prosecuted.  In fact, he completely beat the rap as the nation and justice all looked the other way.  In other words, the problem starts at the top. 

 

 

Above the Law, By US Law  

 

On this reality that federal agents and authorities are above the law, it is important to note that under the provisions of the US National Security Act, signed into law in 1947 by President Harry Truman, both the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA) were specifically exempted by federal law from any criminal or civil action from the public (“The Elite Serial killers of Lincoln, JFK, RFK & MLK,” p. 205). 

 

Because of this act, these agents and people are totally above all US laws, civil or criminal.  They never have to answer for any of their deeds, whatever they are.  This was the very situation which promoted the literary efforts of Ian Fleming and his concept of a British agent, named James Bond, and secretly identified as 007.  These 00 numbers represented a license to kill with impunity. 

 

It was this Truman legislation which opened the door for the organization of the CIA assassination squads, discussed in previous chapters.  The CIA has been free to murder, steal, deal in drugs or do whatever CIA officials decide upon under the impunity of law.  Yes, by law, CIA people cannot be held accountable for their actions, however evil and wretched that they may seem to be. 

 

Certainly, the American public will never learn what all the CIA has been doing over the years (although it is not difficult to perceive that most of their actions have been designed to benefit the super rich plutocrats ruling America).  But it can easily be allowed that they did play a role in the murder of JFK, RFK, US Navy Lieutenant Commander Bruce Pitzer and so forth (as discussed in prior chapters). 

 

Surely, there is no constitutional basis for the organization of agencies like the CIA and NSA which operate with impunity around the world (or the FBI, the Federal Reserve and any number of other governmental or private agencies and activities that are totally above the law for all purposes). 

 

Yet, these evil operations are carried on daily and nothing can be done about it (or rather, the American public is so mesmerized and zombiized that it refuses to do anything about the injustice and evil emanating at the highest levels of government). 

 

 

The Fifth Amendment 

 

The fifth amendment says that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.  Infamous includes vile or odious and acts of infamy, dishonor, disgrace (Funk & Wagnalls’ “Standard Desk Dictionary,” p. 331). 

 

People appear to be tried in federal courts without a grand jury indictment on occasion.  Several states have no provision for grand jury indictments.  Though grand juries are used sometimes on capital crimes, they are almost never used for infamous acts (as in the case of JoAnn McGuckin, elsewhere discussed herein). 

 

The fifth amendment also reflects a double jeopardy clause which effectively says a person can only be tried or put in jeopardy one time for a crime.  Yet, Americans can be tried at the Federal level several times for all kinds of alleged violations, besides facing civil suits and complaints from a state court. 

 

For example, the previously discussed Kevin Harris was tried in federal court and found innocent of the murder of a US marshal.  The state of Idaho proceeded to charge him a second time.  This case was thrown out of the Idaho court. 

 

In Los Angeles, several LA policemen were tried in state court for assault on a Black criminal (named Rodney King) who tried to escape from them.  They were found innocent.  But the feds arrested the policeman involved and tried them in federal court for civil rights violations. They were found guilty.  Later, they were sued in a civil action suit. 

 

Next, this amendment has an interesting provision that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation.  Though this injunction is usually taken to apply to the seizure of property for the public good (like in the case of land taken to build a new road), the way it is worded it must logically apply to any property converted to the public good (as discussed in preceding comments). 

 

Therefore, when federal agents seize automobiles, motels and all kinds of other things (especially, in the context of drug and environmental laws and in the execution of seizure warrants, in general), as discussed above with the fourth amendment, the property is never returned to the accused and regardless of the outcome of any trial or legal action (in virtually all cases of federal seizures of property). 

 

In the case of drugs, many seized drugs are stolen by federal agents or at least destroyed.  Otherwise, property (like guns, automobiles, motels, etc) are often auctioned off and the receipts placed into the public coffers.  Once a police authority seizes property and auctions it off to raise money for some level of government, the result would seem to fully be covered under the fifth amendment. 

 

Finally, this is the classic due process amendment which stipulates that life, liberty and property cannot be taken by authorities without due process of law.  Of course, this is a joke since federal authorities particularly never do things by due process of law.  This issue will be further discussed below with the 14th amendment.   

 

 

The Sixth Amendment 

 

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in all criminal prosecutions.  In the past, this was supposed to mean that the jury has an option of establishing guilt and also how serious the crime was. 

 

Thus, a person charged with armed robbery might could be found innocent of that but guilty of unarmed robbery or larceny.  The previously discussed case of the October 1997 trial of the Au Pair British girl in Massachusetts demonstrated this situation, although the jury there was denied this opportunity.  They should have been allowed to adjust the charge down. 

 

But otherwise, under the US Sentencing Guidelines now in US Public Law (28 USC 994), this has all changed.  For example, instead of trying a person for say murder, the prosecutor can try him for drugs or conspiracy to be involved with drugs.  Once the government has a conviction on the drug charge the prosecutor can go to a judge and blame the defendant for a murder. 

 

Based upon the prosecutor’s allegation, the judge can unilaterally and arbitrarily find the defendant “responsible” for murder and sentence the accused for murder even though the accused was never charged with murder, never tried for murder and never convicted of murder.  Without a trial, the defendant never even has an option or privilege of facing his accusers in a court of law. 

 

 

More Cases 

 

On this subject, the “Trade N’ Saved” newspaper (p. 2) for Jul 17-Aug 6, 1998, had a story on “Acquittals Become Meaningless” which cited the case of Cheryl Putra.  A jury found her guilty of one drug charge and innocent of a second charge.  The judge sentenced her for the first drug conviction and then “enhanced” (increased) her sentence for her “relevant” conduct” in the second charge. 

 

In a case involving Vernon Watts, he was charged and tried for drugs and possessing a weapon.  The jury found him guilty on the drugs and innocent on the weapons charge.  But the judge sentenced him for the drugs and then “enhanced” (increased) his sentence for his relevant conduct on the weapons charge. 

 

These cases went to the US Supreme Court.  Obviously, the die was already cast and both defendants had no hope of justice.  Of course, the Supreme Court upheld the law and said that “we are convinced that a sentencing judge may consider conduct of which a defendant has been acquitted.” 

 

In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said it is difficult to square this explicit statutory command to impose incremental punishment for each of the “multiple offenses” of which a defendant is convicted with the conclusion that Congress intended incremental punishment for each offense of which the defendant has been acquitted (as well). 

 

 

More on Sentence Enhancement 

 

The bottom line on this process is that if the prosecutor charges a person with a series of criminal acts and if a jury finds the defendant guilty of any one of those charges, the judge has the right to enhance or increase the sentence for the defendant on the premise that he is guilty of all allegations and also anything else which the prosecutor may wish to sell the judge on. 

 

Beyond this method of sentence enhancement, there was another development in late June 2000 when an issue went before the Supreme Court on judges enhancing sentences in crimes which allegedly involved “hate.”  In other words, if a jury found a person guilty of murder or assault and the judge determined that “hate” was involved (because of race, gender or sexual preference), the judge could enhance the verdict. 

 

The Congress had passed a law which presumably would have allowed these types of enhancements.  So the issue went to the Supreme Court and the Court said “no” in this instance in allowing judges this power.  However, the court ruled that the jury could enhance a sentence if the jury believed that hate was involved. 

 

Surely, the whole concept of sentence enhancement completely deters from the words of the US Constitution.  While most Christian Americans could care less what the Scriptures say, it is fact that there is no such thing as sentence enhancement in the Word.  It is totally foreign to any concept of justice and righteousness.  Only a very warped and perverted society could dream up such evil and wretchedness. 

 

 

Byron De La Beckwith, Revisited 

 

The sixth amendment also guarantees an accused the right to a speedy and public trial in all criminal prosecutions by an impartial jury.  This right brings to mind the tragedy with Byron De La Beckwith (mentioned previously and now deceased) who certainly was deprived of a speedy trial. 

 

In June 1963, Black Civil Rights activist Medgar Evers was slain in Jackson, MS.  A rifle was found in some nearby woods which was assumed to be the murder weapon, although it was never established by ballistic tests as the bullet was not recovered.  The gun was traced by gun sale records to a man who had traded it to Beckwith.

 

Beckwith’s fingerprint was on the sight.  But he said it had been stolen from him earlier.  At this point, if Beckwith did do it, he would have been incredibly stupid.  Records have been maintained on gun purchasers for some time now and Beckwith clearly would have known that the gun would be ultimately traced to him.  Would he have stupidly left a traceable gun with his fingerprint on it at a murder scene? 

 

Moreover, Beckwith had two very credible witnesses (one a policeman) who put him 95 miles away at the time of the killing.  Nevertheless, he was tried twice for the murder.  Both trials ended with a hung jury.  Some 27 years was to pass and the local DA and one of his assistants saw the importance of gaining Black votes in Mississippi politics (per the video, “Ghosts of Mississippi”). 

 

With pressure on from Black voters and the Southern Poverty Law Center, the case was tried again for the third time in 1994--thirty-one years after the murder.  This time, the DA produced two known enemies of Beckwith (who also were both a little kooky) to make allegations that Beckwith had privately confessed the killing of Evers to them. 

 

Another third known enemy said that Beckwith told a group of Ku Klux Klansmen in 1965 that he “killed the nigger” without identifying Evers in name or in context.  This man was an FBI undercover agent working among the Klansmen.  He never even reported the allegation to the FBI or police authorities.  Later, he made the allegation in a book that he had written on the Klan; and of course, at Beckwith’s 1994 trial. 

 

However, with these so-called witnesses, surely Beckwith would not have openly confessed the killing of Evers to his obvious enemies.  If so, he would have had to be mentally at the moron level, and totally incompetent to be standing trial for murder or anything else.  Thus, these allegations were manifestly false and too stupid to be believed by anyone above the idiot level. 

 

In the 1994 trial, a largely Black jury (eight Blacks and four Whites) was packed in order to be sure that Beckwith was convicted.  And he was.  Question, is this a speedy trial?  Did Beckwith have an impartial jury?  Do Black juries make their decisions based on race?  

 

 

Negro Bias 

 

If you’re White and you think Black people make decisions without the determination being made on the basis of race, by all means you need to have a conflict with a Negro over something (civil or criminal) and go before a Black jury to see which way it will decide.  Blacks almost always side with “the brother” against honkies.  Ask O. J. Simpson about this--if you doubt it. 

 

As described previously, Blacks make almost all of their personal decisions based upon racial considerations.  Conversely, Whites largely ignore any racial factors in making their personal decisions.  This interesting contrast has been conclusively established in various recent American polls, as outlined in a number of news releases. 

 

Lawyers have finally figured out what to expect with a Black jury.  And when an up and coming White lawyer has political ambitions (as most of them do) in a state with almost 40% Negroes, guess what he will do to promote his political goals.  He will sell his White brothers out at the bat of eye and go and dig up a case of 30 years earlier to gain Black votes. 

 

 

Trying the Law, Revisited 

 

Finally, on the jury trial subject, the jury manifestly has the right and duty to try the law as well as trying the accused during the trial.  Since this issue was covered in prior commentary, there is nothing that needs to be further said here on the question, beyond acknowledging its reality. 

 

 

The Eight Amendment 

 

The eight amendment prohibits the imposition of excessive bail and fines and cruel and unusual punishment.   At the outset, it is obvious that this amendment has not reached any level of thinking in the establishment of fines and costs for traffic violations (these charges seem to go into the sky because the whole effort of traffic laws and the employment of highwaymen is to raise as much money as is possible). 

 

But otherwise, the feature of cruel and unusual punishment is profound in view of the modern use of torture tactics on prisoners (as described elsewhere herein) and also as outlined in previous discussions on the enormous problems in the now racially integrated prisons where ten to eighty percent (in different prisons) of committed young White men will be homosexually raped--usually, by gangs of Black predators. 

 

The depravity and social sickness in the modern American prisons surely constitute cruel and unusual punishment if there ever were such things.  It is simply wrong and evil to place young men into these pits of sickness and wretchedness where their manhood and honor can be trashed by a gang of homosexual predators (usually Black animals). 

 

Many times, these young men have done essentially little or nothing, except be caught smoking some pot or of having made the mistake of being politically incorrect in an evil hypocrite society which places almost all government attention upon making people conform to the society mold of political correctness, as determined by the Amalekite bankers/masters and as promoted by the Amalekite controlled media. 

 

Finally, on the matter of excessive bail, typically courts throw the book at politically incorrect people and demand huge, impossible bail costs. 

 

The case of JoAnn McGuckin was outlined and discussed at some length in a preceding chapter.  Idaho child protection people accused her of felony child neglect (three weeks after her husband died) and arrested her and put her under a $100,000 bail requirement--which she could never meet (Jun 4, 2001, Spokane “Spokesman-Review,” p. A6). 

 

 

Due Process 

 

The fifth, sixth, seventh, and fourteenth amendments prohibit the deprivation of the right of life, liberty and property to all citizens without due process of law--including a trial by jury (the due process issue was broached herein in preceding remarks and needs no particular explanation now). 

 

Yes, federal agents murder, maim and seize property right and left without due process of law, as described herein.  Tax seizures, in particular, are never subjected to due process.  Also, as outlined in previous comments, the IRS and EPA act arbitrarily in almost all cases.  Even local county tax seizures of property for non-payment of taxes never involve due process.  They are always arbitrary. 

 

 

The 10th Amendment 

 

In another matter--on the Supreme Court decisions on schools, racial integration and amalgamation, abortions, etc, the court has acted unilaterally to create new laws by focusing on things not even covered in the Constitution.  By the clear terms and intent of the 10th amendment, all of these issues are in the province of the states and should never have even been before the Supreme Court. 

 

At law, it’s not to say that abortions, of whatever type, are right or wrong.  It’s not to say that schools should or should not be racially integrated.  It is not to say that Blacks and Whites or queers have or have not the right to marry.  It is not to say that automobile speed limits should be at 55 MPH or not. 

 

But it is to say that all of these issues (plus thousands of others--like welfare programs, police power, Goals 2000, outcome based education, etc) are of no concern to the federal government; but belong to the individual states, per the 10th amendment. 

 

At the Democrat presidential nominating convention in 1948, the leftist Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Horatio Humphrey told the convention that “The time has arrived for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states’ rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights” (Dec 13, 2002, Spokane “Spokesman-Review”). 

 

And the nation has done this precise thing as envisioned by the leftist Humphrey who almost became the US president (he was vice-president under Lyndon Johnson).  With the abolishment of states’ rights (per the 10th amendment to the US Constitution, the Constitution became a dead document).  Along with the states loosing their Constitutional rights, the people also lost their rights. 

 

 

The Tax Protest Movement 

 

There is a growing body of people opposing the IRS and the federal income tax on the premise that it is illegal.  Actually, there are a host of laws and interpretations of laws which can be cited to support this motion.  One of the several groups opposing this system is the “We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.”  This group ran an ad in the Jul 7, 2000, “USA Today” (p. 11A), outlining its position. 

 

Without attempting to cover the subject here thoroughly (because of space constraints), a couple of the more important issues will be broached to demonstrate how pathetically warped the system is today--as researched by Gary Phillips and communicated by Pat Shannan, in an advertisement for the foundation. 

 

In connection with a discussion on the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments, the foundation unequivocally declares that all three of them were illegally adopted (as covered in the 71st Congress, senate document 240, 3rd session, miscellaneous section). 

 

In an example of the 14th amendment, this source noted that this amendment was ratified by the Southern states with the armed intimidation of federal troops, which were standing by at the conquered state capitols of the Confederacy.  These states were totally disenfranchised from the Union, and only would be allowed back into the union upon their approval of the 14th amendment.  Manifestly, this is illegal coercion! 

 

Even the Black Civil Rights leader and US Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall has publicly declared (in a speech before the Hawaii Bar Association) that the 14th amendment “had replaced the Constitution.” 

 

 

The Legal Status of the US 

 

A second major problem erupts when assessing the legal status of the United States.  For instance, the US ceased to function legally in 1861 when Lincoln took over.  The Senators and Representatives of the Southern states walked out of Congress and Congress adjourned “sine die” (i.e. with no set time to reconvene).  As the foundation maintains, this action legally terminated the United States as a legal government. 

 

Moreover, Lincoln suspended the Constitution, declared martial law and ordered the representatives of the Northern states to reassemble without a legal and lawful US Congress in session.  It became a government under Presidential edict, without Constitutional authority.  This event has never been legally resolved since 1861. 

 

It set the stage for the illegal 14th amendment in 1865 and the other, post-civil war constitutional amendments (that were ratified by military coercion and force upon a defeated and militarily occupied South). 

 

Either because the US no longer existed legally or something else, the Congress acted on Feb 21, 1871, to establish the United States of America as a corporation (US Code, Title 28, chapter 176, Section 3002 [15, a, b and c] found as Section 34 of the Acts of the Forty-First Congress, Session III, Chapters 61 and 62, entitled “An Act to Provide a Government for the District of Columbia). 

 

This act created the United States of America as a corporation and all of its departments as corporate departments.  The headquarters of this corporation is in the District of Columbia (per Title 18, USC, Section 5).  This background then means that the US is a federal corporation and that the Department of Justice is an agency for that corporation (Chapter 31, Section 501, USC 3002). 

 

 

More From Gary Phillips 

 

Gary Phillips then asked--who owns this (US) corporation and who provided the money to bring it into existence?  He then answered his concern by suggesting that the fat cat bankers acted in collusion with politicians (the president and the Congress) to bring it into existence and provided that it can operate illegally in a continuous state of bankruptcy (which technically, the US has been in since the Civil War). 

 

In a strange quirk of justice, Phillips notes that when a business goes into bankruptcy; legally, it is placed into the hands of receivers.  Will this be the future of the bankrupt US?  At the moment, the writer of this study thinks that it will be. 

 

This research effort and its findings prompted Phillips to become a tax protester.  He quit filing his federal income tax returns.  Thereupon, the federal government began an extensive investigation of him and made allegations of false charges against him. 

 

Through the freedom of information act, he learned that federal authorities had designated him a drug smuggler operating in the Caribbean area and also manufacturing hand guns (which liberals accept as being one of the greatest of criminal acts).  An advertising flyer of the foundation (prepared by Shannan) pointed out the dilemma of trying to bring this issue to the attention of federal authorities. 

 

He said that when you go to law enforcement people, they respond by saying “I do only as I’m told.  I just work here.”  Congressmen say that the issues are for the judiciary.  The judiciary says that its a matter for Congress.  And the executive branch blames both the Congress and the judiciary for the dilemma. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 407--The Modern Philosophy of Law

 

 

Another Perversion 

 

In the sense of promoting the common defense and general welfare of the United States (mentioned earlier), the US Coast Guard has developed over the years.  Manifestly, this agency seems to be an essential one for the country (although, in reality, the US Navy probably could provide the coast guard functions, just as the US Army might could patrol the US borders). 

 

In any case, if the Coast Guard or something like it (the Navy or whatever) is not constitutional (which conceivably could be possible upon a review of Article I, Section 8 and the 10th amendment), an amendment should have been prepared to authorize the function. 

 

One of the good services which the Coast Guard provides is to assist boats, ships and airplanes in danger in the coastal waters of the US.  In particular, the Coast Guard makes searches and provides much aid and assistance to water craft and aircraft in trouble off of the nation’s shores.  This seems like a good service for the collective people. 

 

But even something as theoretically good as this service is, it too has become perverted and abused in modern times.  Perhaps the best illustration of abuse and misuse of power surfaced when John F. Kennedy Jr’s light plane was lost at sea on a flight to Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts on July 16, 1999. 

 

As is normal for most other citizens in harm’s way at sea, the Coast Guard commenced a search at once.  In the context of what all the Coast Guard does in the generic sense for all citizens in need in the coastal waters, this was certainly good and proper.  But the emphasis must be made on the requirement for such aid and assistance always to be rendered fairly and indiscriminately to all citizens in need. 

 

Again, the “common” defense and “general” welfare comments are the key.  The thing that happened with JFK Jr is that the US president pulled out all of the stops and commenced an enormous air and sea search, and long after all hope was given up of finding Kennedy.  The US Navy was also called out and a special ship used for underwater exploration was sent from Norfolk, VA. 

 

The Clinton administration was determined to not only find the bodies of Kennedy and his companions and the crashed airplane, but also to provide a US destroyer and a flotilla of ships for a burial at sea--as if JFK Jr and his airplane were far more important than the dead bodies and crashed planes of thousands of others lost at sea. 

 

Since small planes are lost routinely and perhaps daily across America and since the US efforts to find survivors or the crash sites are limited, why was it that there was such a focus on the Kennedy crash?  In the context of the word “general,” the argument can be made that whatever the US does for one citizen should be done for all who undergo a loss at sea (per the wisdom of Davy Crockett). 

 

Put another way, if the US is to go to such enormous lengths to find Kennedy, his dead body and his crashed plane and to bury him, why doesn’t the US make similar efforts for all other losses of planes and boats at sea?  Well, the answer is that Kennedy received special treatment in comparison with what other Americans could expect in the same predicament. 

 

 

Other Special Treatments 

 

Beyond the search for Kennedy and his special burial at sea, there surely were some other prominent citizens who would also receive the same special treatment from the president.  In this context, the US president seems to be extremely discriminatory on how various US citizens are treated.  Some receive favored and privileged treatment from the government while others do not.  But this is not something new today. 

 

Following the land run into Oklahoma in the 1890s, people staking out land had to go to the federal land office and file their claims.  While most citizens were in long lines out front, waiting their turns to get into the office, local fat cats and friends of the land agent could come into the building from the rear and be waited upon immediately (as told by witnesses in historical records of the event). 

 

Surely, the founders of this nation did not intend for such a system to develop.  Actually, there are a whole host of government actions which are routinely and regularly undertaken on behalf of “some” citizens and special interest groups; instead of the general population, as is inherent in the Constitution. 

 

One sees this daily--especially, in the vein of the super-rich fat cats, discussed in former chapters.  In this sense, the US Constitution has become a document to benefit a certain class of citizens, rather than being a document to benefit all. 

 

This is especially true in the context of the present motion for political correctness where the benefits of the first amendment (respecting freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, protest, etc) today only belong to politically correct people and not to the politically incorrect (who well could be murdered or otherwise destroyed by Big Brother, if they attempt to exercise those alleged rights). 

 

The powers that be go out of their way to insure that all of the breaks come to the people and special interest groups which put up the money and elect the ruling politicians. 

 

That’s why Slick Clinton could send $20 billion to Mexico to help her economy (actually, this dispatch of money was not to help Mexico or the general population of the US.  It was to help Goldman Sachs who stood to lose billions if Mexico was not bailed out, as described in a prior chapter). 

 

As this nation was established and as its powers were very limited and as they were specifically designed to benefit the “common” and “general” good of the people, a tragedy has developed over the years.  In modern times, the powers of this government have been twisted, distorted and abused to now benefit special classes of privileged people. 

 

 

Change Laws for the Few 

 

For years now, Congress and the President have enacted laws for the general public which they, themselves, either were explicitly exempted from or have ignored (as in the case of Slick Clinton, who pretty well did whatever he wanted to do without regard to the law). 

 

However, there has been another feature of the question of law in America for many, many years now.  Frequently, Congress is induced to pass laws which precisely benefit a few fat cat plutocrats or key people of power.  If Congressmen refuse  to do as they have been bought and paid to do, then the president can always enact laws on his own by executive order. 

 

In any case, there are people in Washington with power ready to reward those who put them into power.  This reality has turned out to be one of the tragedies of the history of the United States. 

 

 

Robert Rubin, Revisited   

 

The “Spotlight” (p. 4) of Nov 29, 1999, had a story by Martin Mann on “Rubin Fixes Great Money Markets Merger” which focused upon the work of Bill Clinton and his former Secretary of the Treasurer (Robert Rubin) to aid and assist certain Amalekite plutocrats who had supported Bill and paid his way into power. 

 

Mann’s work addressed a couple of events which were specifically designed to benefit the elite.  One important point concerned the work of Rubin to work for the plutocrats, instead of for the American people. 

 

This story concerns multibillionaire Sanford Weill (this name sounds like and his picture looks like that he is an Amalekite).  Weill is a big-time, successful, corporate raider (like the apparent Amalekite Mike Milken, who stole huge sums of money from Americans, as a successful Wall Street junk bond dealer).  

 

Weill is also chairman of the Travelers Group, the largest US financial services conglomerate group.  In April 1998, Weill called his friend Rubin and asked for an urgent meeting.  Rubin quipped “Why?  Do you want to buy the government?”  Weill said “No, just the law.” 

 

What Weill actually wanted was a change to an existing law.  The issue was over the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which separated commercial banks from insurance and brokerage firms.  It seems that Weill and his friend John Reed, chairman of Citibank, had agreed to combine their empires into one giant financial operation.  To do this, the 1933 law had to be changed.  So Weill called the Washington fix-it man. 

 

With money from plutocrats and support form Rubin and the Clinton Administration, the law was changed and the merger could and did take place.  The foxy Amalekite Rubin was appropriately rewarded by being made a co-chairman of the new conglomerate, as pointed out in a former chapter. 

 

When Rubin’s old Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs got into trouble by investing $5 billion (or more) into Mexico and the Peso started falling, it was Rubin who prevailed upon Slick Clinton and the Federal Reserve to rescue Goldman Sachs, as discussed earlier herein. 

 

Rubin has had a reputation on Wall Street as having a “long and dirty” rap sheet of alleged dishonest actions.  Manifestly, he was a wheeler and dealer under Slick Clinton. 

 

“Spotlight” went on to quote Dr Dexter Weston from New York University who said:  “The 1990s (under Clinton) will be recalled by historians as the era when laws were bought and sold by Wall Street lobbyists, when congress served, not the national interests, but the feverish financial markers.”  Of course, Weston correctly nailed it.   

 

 

Federalize Crime 

 

Chief Justice William Rehnquist on Dec 31, 1998, took note of the modern motion to “federalize” many crimes (as outlined herein) which are already under the purview of the states (Jan 1, 1999, “Spokesman-Review,” p. A4).  He blamed the trend on pressures in Congress to “appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime.” 

 

The Chief Justice added that it “threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system.”  He said that the Federal courts were not created to handle local crimes and that matters that can be handled locally should be left to the states. 

 

Cited examples included the 1994 prosecution of many arson cases as federal crimes and three 1992 acts dealing with car-jackings, failure to pay child support for a child living in another state and an animal protection law, addressing people who travel interstate to disrupt a zoo or circus. 

 

 

Executive Order 13083 

 

On May 14, 1998, President Slick Clinton signed a new executive order to define his concept of a new “Federalism” (which was later temporarily put on hold, but will surely become law sometime by Yechezkel’s 31st year).  The Jun 19-Jul 2, 1998, “Trade N’ Save” newspaper (p. 2, 5) had an article by Bill Denham on “Federal Control of State and Local Governments” to address this new EO. 

 

Per Denham’s assessment, Clinton’s new Federalism involved a Russian view that would eradicate the protections contained in the Constitution.  Section 1 (b) of Slick’s order provided that US policies, which have federalism implications, refer to federal regulations, laws, policy statements or actions that affect the states or the distribution of power between the federal government and the states. 

 

After this new federal barrage, Denham asked what about the 10th Amendment to the Constitution?  Does it not already establish and define the distribution of powers between the federal government and the states?  Was it not plausible that Clinton’s order would mean a further erosion of the 10th Amendment and a new look on states rights--or rather, lack of rights, as usurped by Washington? 

 

Denham suggested that Sections 2 (b) and (c) prepared the reader’s mind to accept the supremacy of federal law (and regulations) which would open the door for federal violations of individual rights outlined in Section 2 (d). 

 

Section 2 (d) stated that “the people of the states are at liberty, subject only to the limitations in the Constitution or in federal law, to define the moral, political and legal character of their lives.”  Denham noted that federal law is placed on the level of the US Constitution therein. 

 

Going on, in terms of Section 2 (d), an honest person should stop and ponder on this issue of the federal government assuming a role of supremacy in the matter of defining the moral, political and legal character of the lives of the American people.  Did this mean further Big Brother erosion of the bill of rights and particularly in the context of thought and speech crimes? 

 

Section 3 (a) noted that (federal) agencies would closely examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any federal action that would limit the policy-making discretion of the states and local governments and should carefully assess the necessity for such action. 

 

In other words, there is further Washington monitoring of the actions of state and local governments to insure that local governments do only what they are authorized to do according to not just the Constitution; but also according to federal laws (and regulations).  Again, what happened to the 10th Amendment? 

 

Section 3 (c) referred to federal statutes and regulations administered by the states and local governments.  Denham asked where was the Constitutional authority for the states to be implementing and administering federal statutes and regulations?  Article I, Section 8 mentioned no such function by the states. 

 

Therefore, as Denham asked, what was the basis for federal oversight of the states and local governments?  Was Clinton going to force state and local governments to now administer unconstitutional federal statutes and regulations? 

 

Section 6 required independent regulatory agencies established by acts of Congress to comply with the provisions of this EO.  Section 7 (a) prevented the states and local governments from suing the federal government as a result of conflicts relating to federal regulations.  In other words, no one could question regulations issued by the federal government--not even in court. 

 

As Denham noted, there are only three US Executive Branch departments that are authorized in the Constitution (Treasury, Justice and State).  Yet, Washington now has twelve departments (and in 2002, thirteen departments with the new Homeland Security Department).  All of them and their sub-branches issue federal regulations. 

 

The Department of Agriculture alone has 28 agencies which prepare and issue federal regulations which carry the force of federal law.  Some of these regulations prescribe jail terms for violations.  All of these acts are done without regard to the Constitution and the acts of the Congress, as noted herein. 

 

Clinton’s bold new takeover plan was to take affect Aug 12, 1998.  But it created a storm of protests from many concerned conservatives.  This motion prompted President Slick to back off and “suspend” EO 13083 temporarily.  As the Sep 1998 “Idaho Observer” (p. 1) notes, suspension does not mean rescission.  Assuredly, this measure will be reinstated at some point in time by Big Brother. 

 

 

More on the After-Effects 

 

As of early 2003, Clinton’s EO to force all state and local governments into becoming subordinate enforcement agencies of federal law is still being held in abeyance by the Bush administration.  Surely, it will be put into effect at some point in time by either Bush or one of his successors. 

 

In the meantime, there is some evidence that the Congress and Bush are moving forward on different methods of introducing and legalizing the basic concepts involved in the Clinton plan. 

 

The best illustration of this slow encroachment upon the tenth amendment concerns a recent move reported in the May 13, 2002, “American Free Press” (p. 1, 5), in a story by James P. Tucker Jr on “Senators Plotting Secret Land Grab.” 

 

The essence of Tucker’s words was that the Senate is pushing a plan to impose federal standards on local zoning boards as a part of the national land-use laws.  What this means is that the federal government can take outright control of local zoning boards and require them to toe the federal line on the use of private property by private citizens. 

 

Per Tucker, it appears that the method of achieving this control is through the dispensing of federal cash.  In order for state and local jurisdictions to receive federal funding, they will have to submit to federal control. 

 

Actually, it has been a common practice to tie much of the usurpation of local laws into the distribution of federal funds.  If a state or local government accepts federal cash, it has to submit to federal laws, regulations and rules.  Most state and local jurisdictions have gladly succumbed in order to get federal money.  Thus, the tenth amendment has been easily overcome by Big Brother. 

 

 

Another Feature 

 

There is a remark needed here on this deceitful and evil federal practice of imposing laws on the nation through the granting of federal funds. 

 

While the concept of granting federal funds to the state and local government jurisdictions appears to be essentially illegal (per the Constitution--although it is probably true that the federal government could grant funds to anyone in order to accomplish her legal duties as outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution--i.e., Washington could grant funds to the states to build post offices which is a legal duty of the federal government), there is something on the subject never discussed. 

 

If the Constitution does not allow a federal law to usurp local authority in a given situation, then how is it and why is it possible that federal authority and law can come into play simply on the basis of an illegal grant of federal funds to the local government unit? 

 

For example, if the federal government lacks authority to regulate highway speeding laws (as is manifestly true, per the Constitution), how is it possible for the federal government to tax the public (in the form of gasoline taxes) and then grant this money to the states with a provision which allows the federal government to take illegal control of the highways to establish speed limits? 

 

Well, this very thing happens all of the time.  If it is illegal for the federal government to do something, Washington taxes the people and uses the tax money to fund an illegal operation and to impose illegal laws on the states and local government units (and ultimately, the people who are subjected to those illegal laws). 

 

The presumption has come to be that if Washington provides money to anyone on any pretext, it opens the door for the federal government to pass illegal laws.  Of course, this condition makes no sense whatsoever.  Surely, the Constitution writers never intended that the Constitution could be subverted in this fashion. 

 

If it is illegal for the federal government to do something, then it stands to reason that nothing can be done to make it legal (and this includes any clandestine or alternative effort to grant federal funds to some party on the premise that Washington is then granted power to violate the Constitution). 

 

Clearly, the federal funding practices to the states and local governments in themselves seem to be illegal. 

 

But even if these works were legal (on the premise of funding some function which is legal for the federal government, per the Constitution), it still would not open the door for Washington to come in and pass laws which are illegal by the Constitution.  In other words, it makes no sense that Washington can make an illegal act legal through some alternative method (whether the other method is legal or illegal). 

 

What this amounts to is that the federal government has been taxing the people in order to use the money to violate the Constitution.  This is inconceivable, but it is the truth.  Washington taxes the public and uses the money to usurp the Constitution and seize power illegally over the public--power which is simply not granted in the Constitution. 

 

Obviously, anyone above the idiot level should understand that this whole funding operation/concept is illegal.  Manifestly, it has to be illegal for Washington to fund an illegal operation or function.  If it is illegal for Washington to control speed laws, it is illegal for Washington to impose those speed laws in any manner--whether attached to funding grants or whatever or however. 

 

 

The Source of Rights? 

 

As outlined before, the ninth amendment asserts that in addition to the rights of the people, as stated in the Constitution, the people possess and retain other rights which were not stated.  The US government is not to deny or disparage those other rights. 

 

Too often today, the people have no rights, except as granted or allowed by government and often in the context of political correctness.  In other words, the American citizen has those rights as granted by the federal government. 

 

In terms of speech and thoughts, the American citizen has freedom of speech and thought, providing he speaks and thinks politically approved ideas.  If a citizen tries to think or speak words which are politically unapproved, then he no longer has the rights of the first amendment. 

 

The illustrations above and in the prior chapters are only a “few” of the many problems which surface because the president, the Congress and the Supreme Court are usually in no mood to read the Constitution literally and obey it as they swore to do. 

 

In an article on “Michael New & Supreme Court,” Daniel New wrote that “This government is moving perilously close to the position of declaring, in effect, that the Constitution does not apply because it has been rendered irrelevant by treaties, by an activist judiciary, and by a spineless Congress more interested in re-election than in doing what they took an oath to do” (Apr 17-30, 1998, “Trade N’ Save,” p. 6). 

 

 

Civil Rights’ Laws 

 

Despite the clear constitutional allowances that American citizens have inherent rights, the Congress, the courts and the presidents (via Executive Orders and regulatory actions) have initiated a host of new laws (mostly illegal) that have granted “special” rights and privileges to selected classes of citizens. 

 

In the contemporary United States, there are now all kinds of laws on the books which grant favors, privileges and benefits to racial and ethnic minorities.  In effect, these special privileges are granted to Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews and Coloreds of all types in general. 

 

The next big focus was placed upon women and eventually homosexuals, sexual deviants and perverts, transvestites, etc.  Supposedly, these various classes of people had to have special protection in US laws to have freedoms and access to the US Bill of Rights. 

 

Most of these privileges have come down the pike in the vein of “Civil Rights,” which has come to mean something that these selected minorities are entitled to and have been denied beforehand. 

 

A general letter to the Church of Jesus Christ Christian of Mar 8, 2001, quoted Mary Frances Berry, head of the US Commission on Civil Rights, who said:  “Civil Rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of White Men and do not apply to them.”  While this statement makes no sense at all in the context of the US Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, it is the real world in our time. 

 

Yes, all of the now protected minorities have extra privileges, rights and benefits.  The only people who do not have any rights in the modern USA are the White, majority males (and especially, if they are Protestants--WASPS). 

 

 

Some Interesting Background 

 

There is an interesting view on the Bill of Rights which seems to bypass most students of the US Constitution.  The apparent Amalek-Edomite Alexander Hamilton (named Levine in the West Indies), previously mentioned, tried to sow seeds of perversion in the developing early United States government. 

 

Hamilton or Levine was a promoter of a big, powerful, highly centralized government while many of the other early leaders (like Thomas Jefferson and Constitution author James Madison) were proponents of a very limited government.  Consequently, Hamilton was at odds with some of the patriots at the Constitutional Convention and during the Washington administration. 

 

Of course, the need for the Bill of Rights eventually came up as a point of some discussion.  Hamilton argued that such an addition was totally unnecessary since the US government (per the basic Constitution) never had any power to violate the rights of private citizens in the first place.  The whole issue was mute in the actual Constitution. 

 

Strangely enough, Hamilton was technically correct--according to the true language of the Constitution.  No guarantee of freedom of speech, religion etc was necessary since the basic Constitution gave no authority to the new federal government which would allow it to become oppressive in any way that could infringe on private speech, guns, property or religion. 

 

 

The Bill of Rights 

 

However, thanks to the wisdom and insight of some leaders, the Bill of Rights was deemed necessary and it became a reality of the Constitution.  Without the Bill of Rights, big government people like Hamilton would have imposed a dictatorship long, long ago, prohibiting any personal rights of the people. 

 

Even with the Bill of Rights, with its powerful, clear and unambiguous statements, personal rights are regularly violated and infringed upon as described herein.  Who pays any attention today to the Bill of Rights? 

 

Just look at what all has happened and is happening at the federal level over guns, speech, religion, property and on and on.  And since Christian, sun worshipping America sits backs and allows the violation of these very clearly stated rights, this nation is about to come to an end!  

 

By the way, another classic illustration of Hamilton’s thinking was his interpretation of the Constitutional authorization to provide for the common defense and general welfare, as outlined in Article I, Section 8.  He said that these references meant “to pass all laws which they (the Congress) shall judge necessary to the common defense and general welfare of the Union” (Jan-Feb 1998 “Intelligence Newsletter,” p. 5). 

 

The point of this Hamilton interpretation is that the federal government can pass all of the laws she “considers” necessary for the common defense and general welfare without limitation.  Thus, who could ever challenge the federal government on anything?  By this theory, she interprets and decides the definitions of the very words used in the Constitution--however she wants to and at her own discretion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 408--A Christian World of Hypocrisy I

 

 

The Parallel 

 

In respect to the Christian attitude on law, as outlined in the prior chapters, the sun worship, Christian Church’s response toward man-made laws is much like her response toward YHWH’s laws in the Torah.  The ELOHIM’s edicts and commandments are not complicated.  They are plain enough and can be read and followed by any person capable of reading and willing to literally accept what they say. 

 

Despite this reality, Christian preachers, teachers, leaders and the collective people all are willing to ignore the clear and unambiguous words of both the US Constitution and the Scriptures in the conduct of their lives (yet, they hypocritically claim to be law obedient--certainly of their own human laws and often even of YHWH’s laws). 

 

In other words, most Christian, sun worshipping Americans could care less what YHWH or the Constitution says.  This path of rebellion has pretty well dominated all of the Christian, sun worship societies and cultures for the last 2,000 years or so, although it has been more pronounced in America since the governing ideas of the Amalekite Franklin Roosevelt became established.  Truly, Christians are hypocrites! 

 

Is there a solution in either case--in terms of men governing themselves?  No, there isn’t.  Things will only change when YESHUA comes and imposes the theocracy on rebellious men.  Because of this precise condition, all believers are enjoined to pray daily that YHWH’s kingdom will come.  So-called humanity needs the theocracy and government of YHWH YESHUA. 

 

 

Christian Justice, Revisited 

 

Former chapters have addressed the modern justice system in the United States which is recognized and known as a Christian nation (as so ruled by the US Supreme Court in 1892, as discussed previously herein).  Manifestly, not only is this nation a Christian nation; but by far, most of its inhabitants are stated Christians. 

 

Despite these strong American links to Christianity, there are fundamental problems in the United States, as will now be addressed in the context of the enormous hypocrisy and double dealings by Americans in the so-called pursuit of justice and fair play. 

 

Based upon the findings presented heretofore, many people can begin to put two and two together and finally realize that things are wrong in America and indeed in the entire, civilized, Western world for the past 1,700 years (since the days of the early 4th century when Constantine took over the Roman Empire and effectively married church and state and imposed Christianity upon the world). 

 

Has the world gotten better since it became a Christian world almost 1,700 years ago?  It sure doesn’t look like it! 

 

History records the great sins of Western civilization of huge wars; the slaughter of millions (often for clear religious purposes, as elsewhere shown); the incredible greed, selfishness and oppressive measures of the ruling classes; and on and on in terms of what has happened and is happening in this desperately wicked (Christian) world we have lived in for long centuries. 

 

 

More Christian Wisdom 

 

The news broadcasts of May 5, 1997, mentioned the fact that some “released” child molester (previously arrested for child molesting, but quickly released on the gullible public) had raped and murdered a five year old girl in New Jersey.  The poor mother was crying about why her community wasn’t told about this man who was released to live in their neighborhood. 

 

Conversely, on the exact same day, Big Brother arrested the “Republic of Texas” separatists for “alleged conspiracy and criminal activities” (like passing bad checks).  The national news broadcasts said that if convicted, the Texas leader, his wife and his followers would each face over 700 years in jail and a $24 million fine for these “criminal activities” (whatever they were). 

 

Now, if a person gets technical, what did these Texas people do other than say that they wanted Texas independence from Washington and passed some alleged bad checks.  Blacks and Browns do this daily and they don’t face 700 years in jail. 

 

How about convicted child molesters?  Has any of them ever faced a 700 years jail term? 

 

How about the Christian Slick Meister himself?  Was there ever a bigger US crook, liar and immoral bum than him?  Yet, he gets away with everything (including committing perjury in court, selling the White House to the fat cats, sending secret missile technology to the Chinese, giving burial plots in Arlington Cemetery to friends, etc). 

 

 

A Maryland Case 

 

The Jan 10-16, 2000, “Washington Times” (p. 14) had a story by Ann Wagner on “Judge goes easy on molester of girl, 11, says ‘it takes two to tango’” from Montgomery County, MD on how Circuit Judge Durke G. Thompson treats child molesters.  Apparently, the judge places much of the blame upon the children other than the adult molester. 

 

In Jan 1998, Thompson sentenced the former Einstein High School coach to 17 years in prison for molesting five students; but then suspended all of it but six months.  Six months later, he found a 63 years old bus driver not guilty of molesting five special education (disadvantaged or handicapped) children. 

 

On Jan 3, 2000, he found a 24 year old, El Salvadoran man named Bonilla guilty of molesting an 11 year old girl whom he had contacted through the Internet.  He sentenced him to 18 months in prison and partly blamed the incident on the girl. 

 

Compare these sentences with the two life terms plus 64 years dished out to Jay Merrill, previously discussed, for bank robbery and bombing an abortion clinic and the leftist Spokane, WA newspaper, in which no one was hurt, injured or damaged, beyond some minor physical damage to two buildings.  Which is worse, bombing an unoccupied abortion clinic or molesting a child? 

 

 

Ronald Sikes 

 

On this line, an NPR news report on Apr 5, 2001, noted that one Ronald Sikes is being tried for rape and attempted murder in the city of Chicago.  The background was that Sikes raped a nine year girl in a Chicago housing project.  He decided that he did not want to run any risk of being caught and prosecuted.  So he poured a can of roach poison down her mouth--believing that the poison would destroy all DNA evidence. 

 

He then tried his best to beat her to death.  With her dead, she would never be able to testify against him.  Despite all of Ronald’s efforts to murder the girl and destroy any evidence of DNA remains, the girl lived and came to court to testify against the sex predator. 

 

It was too bad for the girl because she is now blind, cannot talk and a virtual vegetable--now living in bed or in a wheelchair.  But she was able to hear and understand the questions put to her in court.  She raised her hand in court to signify an affirmation that it was Sikes who attacked her. 

 

There are several features worth discussing on this case.  First, the races of the people were not discussed on the news report.  This non discussion is prima-facial evidence that the crime did not involve a White man and a Black girl.  In such a case, the races would be highlighted and belabored in the controlled media for days and days.  But White crime on Blacks is a very rare and uncommon situation. 

 

So the better option is that Sikes is a Negro and the poor girl is a White (which is often the racial composition in perpetrated crimes in the integrated society, as elaborated upon in prior comments).  The largely media silence and lack of an outcry over this case suggests that it probably was a Negro man and a White girl (which is a fairly common reality in the integrated society, although it is possible that she was Black). 

 

The outcome of this trial is still unknown by this writer at this time.  Even if this wretched animal gets convicted, we can be sure that his sentence will be a petty sentence of a few years in jail.  With good time and the willingness of authorities to release real criminals back onto the streets, Sikes will soon be back in business in Chicago or wherever. 

 

For sure, he will never be put away permanently, as happened with Jay Merrill and the Texas people who passed some bad checks.  If the current, warped, sun worship culture did what was right, Sikes, with a conviction, would be executed at the hands of the state.  With his righteous, proper and good execution, he would never be able to come back and inflict more hurt on innocent children. 

 

Moreover, if, by chance, Ronald is Black and his victim is White, which is a very plausible scenario, and if Ronald goes before a Black jury, there remains a high possibility that a good, lying, conniving lawyer can help Ronald completely beat the rap.  It is entirely possible that Ronald will walk free.  So, either way, Sikes will never pay much for this most despicable crime. 

 

 

Summer 2002 

 

In the summer of 2002, two very small, White girls were sexually abused and murdered by wretched pedophiles in California--Danielle van Dam and Samantha Runnion.  Little Samantha was five years old and was playing in her yard with a neighbor girl.  A man approached the girls and grabbed Samantha with her kicking and screaming. 

 

A few days later, a very Mexican named Alejandro Avila was arrested by the Orange County, CA Sheriff, who said that DNA and other evidence was conclusive that Avila was the murderer of Samantha (Aug 2, 2002, “The Week,” p. 5).  The thing about this Mexican half breed animal was that he had been arrested and released two years earlier for molesting two ten-year olds. 

 

Of course, this animal should be executed as quickly as possible.  But the loving Christian society will never approve of such harsh measures.  So Avila will probably end up in prison for a spell at the expense of the taxpayers.  Eventually, he should be out on the streets to prey upon and molest more small children.  But if he had just been politically incorrect, the book would be thrown at him. 

 

Another sick pedophile case was also in the news in the summer of 2002 (Sep 20, 2002, “The Week,” p. 7).  This one also involved a mixed-blooded, nokri pedophile who had been earlier convicted of molesting children.  The pedophile was a Hispanic named Ricky Chavis.  Somehow, he successfully moved in on the Terry King family in Pensacola, FL.  Terry King had two boys--Alex King, age 13 and Derek King, age 14. 

 

This situation was a gold mine for the faggot Chavis.  Soon, he was homosexually molesting both boys.  At some point in time, Chavis and the boys allegedly took a baseball bat and beat Terry to death (perhaps because Terry tried to stop the homosexual relationship Chavis had with the two young boys). 

 

The state tried the participants separately.  Chavis was tried first and found not guilty (evidently based upon lying testimony by the boys--Alex later said he lied because he loved the pervert Chavis). 

 

This case was interesting in that the evidence was that the faggot Chavis killed Terry with the help of the boys.  But since Chavis was found not guilty (because of favorable testimony from the boys), the state switched horses and claimed that the boys killed Terry at the urging of Chavis. The boys were then convicted.  The truth came out in their trial that Chavis killed Terry with the help of the boys (ibid, p. 7). 

 

If the state was following the Scriptural mandate, the queer Chavis would have been executed on his first conviction for molesting children.  If that simple Scriptural proscription was followed, Terry King would probably be alive today. 

 

 

Another Mexican Case 

 

The Apr 11, 2003, “The Week” (p. 5) had a tragic story from Guadalajara, Mexico on what can happen when gullible White people are thrust into the presence of nokri/nekar Mexican animals.  This report focused upon eleven-year-old Dana Pevia of North Carolina. 

 

In the late 1990s, Dana was violated by a Mexican man named Hector Majarro Frausto who was living and working in North Carolina (for sure, the pedophile Hector was brought into Carolina by some corporation or business person precisely because he represented cheap labor--and of course, the stupid Christian people of North Carolina allowed it to happen). 

 

Eleven-year-old Dana became pregnant so the animal Hector induced her to go to his hometown in Mexico with him.  Once there, his family kept her a captive and further abused her over the next four years.  In time, she had two Mexican children in Mexico (Sandra, now age 3, and Francisco, now age 3 months). 

 

In 2003, she turned up at the US Consulate in Guadalajara and told the story of her kidnapping and rape.  She was flown back to North Carolina to be reunited with her family.  In the meantime, the animal Hector was still working in North Carolina.  He was arrested and charged by North Carolina officials with kidnapping and statutory rape.  For sure, this pedophile animal will never be punished as he should be! 

 

So here, we have a classic case of what the stupid Christian desire for cheap labor and the ridiculous Christian theories about the brotherhood of man brings about.  Here, we have the life of an innocent small girl totally and completely destroyed by evil and stupid Christians.  The animal Hector should not have even been in North Carolina in the first place. 

 

 

An Idaho Case 

 

The Dec 21, 2002, Idaho “Spokesman-Review” (p. A2) had a local story from Coeur d’Alene, ID by Erica Curless on “Victim’s mother wants sex offenders publicized” which focused upon the Carissa Benway case.  Carissa was a 14-year-old girl living in Post Falls, Idaho.  In 2000, a convicted sex predator named David Merritt moved into her neighborhood. 

 

In October 2002, the predator Merritt raped, murdered and beheaded young Carissa (with some help or role from Merritt’s 16-year old son).  Eventually, Merritt and his son were identified, tried and convicted.  Merritt was given life imprisonment and the son was given six months (and possibly up to three years more) in detainment over his role in the crime. 

 

With this background, Carissa’s mother, Bonnie Heilander, is on a crusade to push for an Idaho law which will supposedly require that the name and face of convicted sex predators be publicized when they are released from prison.  Actually, there is now a law that requires sex predators to register with the local county sheriff when they move into a new county (to be cited below).  But this registration is not publicly released. 

 

Heilander believes that this type of information should be made available to the public so that people can be on their guard against such evil persons.  Of course, it is absolutely absurd to believe that criminals are going to comply with these stupid tyrannical laws (this is like trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Law abiding people may obey gun laws, but not criminals). 

 

Well again, we are back to step one in stupidity (that’s why we all need to pray daily that YESHUA’s kingdom will come soon).  The Scriptures have a simple process to deal with rapists, child molesters, etc.  They should be executed.  And this indictment pertains to both Merritt and his 16-year-old son.  With predators like this executed, there would be no need for tyrannical laws “trying” to keep track of evil persons. 

 

 

“The Week” 

 

The Feb 28, 2003, “The Week” (p. 18) had a pathetic news report which powerfully illustrates how stupid and wretched the Christian sun worship society is today over how pedophiles and sex molesters are addressed and handled. 

 

This report noted that some 100,000 sex offenders are missing under the Magen’s Law (which requires sex offenders to register with state and local authorities when they move to a new place--although even if this registration is done, it still solves almost nothing as indicated above in the Carissa Heilander case).  Apparently, this 100,000 represents one-half of the total sex offenders (which must be 200,000). 

 

Per the story, Black Washington, DC has even lost track of how many people the city has lost track of.  So Washington simply doesn’t know how many sex offenders it is supposed to be monitoring and how many of these are now missing or unaccounted for.  What a joke this whole pathetic mess has turned out to be. 

 

If the Scriptures were obeyed, all 200,000 of these animals would be executed and they would not have to be monitored.  The savings in money would be wonderful and future sex offenses and related murders would be largely stopped.  But Christendom is simply not interested in obeying the Book.  Sun worship humanism is always a bigger force in Christian justice and thinking. 

 

 

Paul Harvey 

 

The Jan-Mar 2002 “Petah Tikvah” magazine (p. 45-46) had some remarks from well known radio commentator Paul Harvey on “Conveniently Forgotten Facts.”  Harvey reminded his audience of some facts associated with an incident involving the Black Panther Negro revolutionaries back in 1969. 

 

Harvey’s focus was upon the Panther’s torture and murder of their fellow Black, Alex Rackley.  It seems that the Panthers suspected Rackley of being an informer or spy for the White establishment.  Accordingly, they decided to torture him for information. 

 

His friends and fellow Blacks tied him to a chair and tortured him for hours--sometimes, by pouring hot, boiling water on him.  When they got tired of torturing him, Black Panther member Warren Kimbro took him outside and shot him in the head.  A later police investigation and some tips blew the case apart.  Several Panthers were tried for the murder. 

 

The story from Paul Harvey was on the after-effects.  Eight years later, in 1977, only one of the killers was still in jail.  The others were all out. 

 

Kimbro, the shooter, managed to get a scholarship to Harvard and became a good friend there of Al Gore.  Kimbro subsequently became an Assistant Dean at Eastern Connecticut State College.  Erica Huggins, the woman who boiled the water to be poured on Rackley was elected to the California School Board. 

 

This case involving the Panthers prompted some support from so-called liberals at Yale one year.  Bill Lan Lee was one of the protesters, supporting the Panthers.  Bill Clinton would later appoint Lee to be the Assistant US Attorney for Civil Rights. 

 

Another Yale protester was a radical law student named Hillary Rodham.  She married Slick and became first lady of the United States and now a US Senator.  Harvey’s point was that these things could only happen in America.  Indeed, there is a certain sense of injustice and judicial confusion in the US system. 

 

 

Some Can Violate the Law With Impunity 

 

As pointed out elsewhere herein, there are tens of thousands of laws on the books which can send people to jail.  The multiplicity of laws is much like the situation with traffic cops.  There are so many laws, covering so many things, that inevitably a person can be in violation of some law, somewhere.  For highway travel, this means that a traffic cop has great latitude in deciding whether he wants to stop someone or not. 

 

The same situation prevails at the US government level, as well as in most states and other jurisdictions.  In other words, we all are almost always involved in violating some law or regulation somewhere.  The only question is whether Big Brother chooses to arrest and prosecute one of us for one of these violated laws.  Hence, the state has enormous latitude and discretion about enforcing its own laws. 

 

Thus, some people can violate laws, right and left, and never face any problems.  Yet, others can come along and violate the same laws and have the book thrown at them.  This reality creates a situation where virtually everybody becomes law violators, but the state has discretion about which violators she chooses to prosecute.  Instead of the issue being over the violation of a law or laws, it is a question of who you are. 

 

Thus, because of the success of the Amalekite control factor over the US, there is a classic illustration of hypocrisy and double dealing in the US government and justice system (as proven herein). 

 

 

Government Criminals 

 

For a classic example of this wretchedness, take the case of the Slick Meister, himself, and many of the key people in his former presidential administration (including the Vice Perpetrator, as Rush Limbaugh called Gore). 

 

These people were and are not only immoral, dishonest and pathological liars, but they were/are outright crooks who have violated all kinds of US laws and no one seems to care, much less consider prosecutions (when Slick left office in January 2001, he was effectively exonerated of all previous charges with no judicial difficulties.  He even beat the state of Arkansas’ plans to disbar him). 

 

Hence, government politicians and officials (to include the federal police power that murdered numbers of innocent people at Ruby Ridge [under George H. W. Bush] and Waco [under Clinton] and numerous other cabinet officials and bureaucrats) can regularly and willfully violate laws (such as treason, obstructing justice, drug running, conspiracy, murder, campaign laws, extortion, bribery, etc) with no fear of prosecution. 

 

Yet, Big Brother is not about to allow some of the little, politically incorrect people to violate any of its edicts, however petty they are or may appear to be.  Hence, if any of the typical American White people (particularly conservatives, right wingers and deeply religious or politically incorrect persons) violate a federal rule, be assured that the government will come down on that person with her full force and power. 

 

The book is typically thrown at true conservatives and right wingers, whenever possible.  However, this government vengeance does not equally come down on Blacks or on the just mentioned governmental officials and politicians--who seem to have great latitude in their illegal actions.  Hence, the favored or privileged classes can violate US laws with impunity and never face prosecution. 

 

So while the government courts and prosecutors regularly look the other way on the law violations of many Blacks and politically correct government officials, the fault really extends beyond them because the controlled media and even the general public at large seems to allow them to get away with it (Richard Nixon was an exception when the Amalekite controlled media turned against him). 

 

If the collective people were actually honest, they would rise up and demand justice about this hypocritical situation.  But as noted heretofore, the American people are basically evil and wicked. 

 

So Blacks, the FBI, the CIA, Ron Brown, John Huang, Janet Reno, Slick Clinton, Al Gore and on and on got away with about everything they have done wrong.  They were never called on the carpet for their illegal acts.  With the obvious apathy, indifference and gullibility of the people (proven when they elected and re-elected Slick), nothing would be done. 

 

 

Hypocrites! 

 

Truly, this Christian nation is pretty hypocritical and warped in terms of truth, justice and righteousness.  The earlier mentioned feminists are classic illustrations of this reality.  Convicted rapists, killers and child molesters seldom face the punishment they Scripturally deserve (death, as elsewhere described). 

 

Because the rebellious humanists and liberals will not follow YHWH’s laws and execute convicted murderers and rapists (including child molesters), these criminals are quickly released back into society to murder and rape again. 

 

Since these criminals generally strike again, and particularly since child molesters typically repeat their crimes, the liberal and humanist government has had to cook up some scheme to pacify the ignorant public when these villains are released to assault more children. 

 

Primarily, because of the above cited New Jersey case, the liberals decided that they would “notify” local communities of the release and presence in the community of molesters--so that innocent people can be on guard (as described above). 

 

But this liberal “solution” requires a vast Big Brother reporting network (which few criminals are going to comply with) that impedes on a free society, in addition to the criminals.  In short, it is unconstitutional, stupid and just won’t work.  If the hypocritical society would obey The MOST HIGH on this issue (by executing rapists), there would be no problem. 

 

NBC’s “Today” program of May 22, 1997, had some pro and con guests on to discuss this subject of reporting on released child molesters.  A liberal woman advocate present pleaded for the rights of the child molester, while her opponent argued the merits of the Big Brother reporting system. 

 

Both agreed that they had compassion, care and concern for the children.  But do they?  If they really cared about the children, the child molesters would be dead once they were convicted and they could not strike again.  And there would be no need for an unconstitutional Big Brother government with a vast spy and reporting network. 

 

 

Goodfellow 

 

In early 1998, the Spokane, Washington police arrested a homosexual pedophile named Goodfellow for several reports of molestations of small boys.  The 52 year old man had had former arrests and even convictions for child molestations.  As is always the case, these molesters are quickly released and put back out on the streets (so they can molest again and the cycle can repeat itself). 

 

Goodfellow plea bargained with the prosecutor and agreed to plead guilty for a 17-year sentence on April 1, 1998.  The way the state counts time and the way the parole system works, Goodfellow will be out of jail in three or four years.  Once out, he can return to his old life style--just as he has done before. 

 

Be assured, he will strike again since that is the way pedophiles operate.  They typically never stop.  Now, according to YHWH’s law, the convicted pedophile Goodfellow should be executed at the hands of the state.  If the state would obey YAH’s laws and do what is morally right, Goodfellow could not strike again because he would be dead. 

 

 

Melinda Knop 

 

In one of the most unbelievable cases of all time, the Feb 22, 2003, Idaho “Spokesman-Review” (p. B2) had a story by Kevin Turner on “Woman sentenced for sex with a minor.”  The report involved the case of a 20-year-old woman of Rathdrum, Idaho.  The woman, Melinda Knop, was tried in an Idaho court for having sex with three different girls, 14-15 years old. 

 

Of course, the essence of the problem was that Melinda was a lesbian pedophile out to violate young girls.  While Melinda should have been executed at the hands of the state, the loving judge sentenced her to 270 days in jail after being found guilty.  Melinda’s attorney actually argued for a sentence of 15 to 30 days.  With this Christian mentality, it is no wonder that Christian justice is all warped. 

 

 

John Sharpe 

 

A court convicted pornographer named John Robin Sharpe operates out of British Columbia, Canada.  Besides selling and/or distributing porno pictures (generally, as involving boys engaged in illegal sex acts), Sharpe is known as a big advocate of man-boy sexual relations.  Obviously, this pathetic Sharpe has to be a homosexual pedophile. 

 

Anyway, Sharpe is a writer of man-boy sexual episodes.  For example, in one story, he wrote about a young boy being kidnapped, tied up and raped while the boy (per Sharpe) liked it (Apr 5, 2002, “The Week,” p. 13).  In time, there was an attempt to prosecute Sharpe for his porno stories about children in the context of Canada’s laws banning child porn. 

 

As sickening as it turned out to be, Sharpe beat the rap on his short porno stories.  The court said that the way the laws are written, they do not ban works of fiction as long they have “artistic merit” (ibid, p. 13).   

 

This case went to the BC Supreme Court which found that while Sharpe’s stories “arguably glorify sex with children, they do not encourage it.”  The court went on to recognize the artistic merits because Sharpe’s stories used literary devices such as “characterization and irony” (ibid, p. 13).   

 

The very fact that the Canadian courts ruled in favor of this perverted pedophile and pornographer is just proof positive of why Canada is absolutely and irreversibly doomed to destruction, just as will be soon happening to America.  YHWH is not going to put up much more with the depravity of the House of Yisrael nations. 

 

Yet, if Sharpe would have questioned the so-called Holocaust (of the reported death of six million Jews at the hands of the Nazis), he would be thrown into jail and the key thrown away.  If Sharpe would have said anything about the need for racial segregation, he would also be immediately tried for a hate crime and sent to prison. 

 

Something is fundamentally wrong in Canada as well as in the United States.  Both of these nations are going to be righteously judged and punished by The Great ELOHIM--simply because they have no concept of right and wrong.  They manifestly cannot tell the difference. 

 

 

More--No Compassion for Politically Incorrect People 

 

While these Christian liberals and humanists cry and bemoan the fate of murderers, rapists and child molesters, they certainly don’t have any compassion for people like the earlier mentioned Texas separatists (who had been accused of unspecified and unclear “criminal activities,” whatever that is). 

 

Instead of compassion, care and concern, a fairly honorable and innocent person (like the Texas separatists) of any wrong doing (except wanting liberty and freedom from an oppressive government) will face 700 years in prison if Big Brother has its way and if not shot and killed by Big Brother in the arrest (as happened to some of them). 

 

Be assured that the “establishment” judge in the Texas case will throw the book at those separatists who survived the government assault.  They will never walk free or get off lightly like rapists, murderers and child molesters. 

 

What few people seem to realize is that America is (or rather was) a Christian nation (actually a Protestant Christian nation).  Britain and the White British Commonwealth are Christian nations.  Almost all European nations are Christian nations.  Christianity has ruled the roost in all of these European nations for almost the entire last 1,700 years, as well as effectively ruling much of the rest of the world. 

 

Christian people in America choose and elect Christian leaders and governors and have always done so since 1776.  Yes, the Slick Meister is a supposed Christian.  He goes to Christian sun worship religious services, perhaps every sun worship day or holiday (Sunday, Christmas, Easter, etc).  The same is true with almost all major American politicians with few, if any, exceptions. 

 

Not only do these Christian nations allow real criminals (violating both secular and Scriptural laws--like murder, larceny, etc) to get away with little or no punishment, the great wickedness and evil associated with child killings (like partial birth abortions), miscegenation, homosexuality, porno distributions, divorce and on and on are totally approved and accepted in these modern Christian nations without a whimper from most people. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 409--A Christian World of Hypocrisy II

 

 

Righteous Indignation?

 

The previous chapters have discussed the enormous perversion, filth, depravity and general social sickness that now completely dominate the Christian West.  The whole society has transformed itself into the most pathetic, vile and morally depraved presentation in perhaps all of history.  Truly, the Christian West is socially and morally sick. 

 

And if in righteous indignation, a person should rise up and blow up a queer bar or an abortion clinic, be assured that this Christian society and culture would come down on him/her with the full force of the law.

 

Years ago, the more honorable men in most American communities would have raised up in protest and destroyed any porno parlors, whorehouses or homosexual dens which tried to open and do business in most American towns.  But all of that has changed.  The mesmerized and zombiized Christian public now accepts this trash without a whimper. 

 

But while weak, sissy Christians have succumbed to the politically correct society and all its depravity, one does not find this weakness in the Jewish Ultra Orthodox communities. 

 

The December 7, 2001, “Jerusalem Post” (p. 19) had a story on the Ultra Orthodox Zol Po store, as discussed in a former chapter.  The writer Shoshana Kordova noted the attitude of the Ultra Orthodox who try to impose their religious wishes on the secular society. 

 

Kordova reported a former incident in Israel where a photography shop in a Ultra Orthodox area sold some pornographic videos.  The Ultra Orthodox rose up in protest and set fire to the store.  Simply stated, the Ultra Orthodox are not sissies and weaklings in trying to protect their families and children from the perversion, filth and social sickness now found in the Christian West and in secular Jewish areas. 

 

 

More on the Politically Incorrect

 

The Christian sun worship society will expend “all” of her money, time and effort to catch and prosecute persons who do not toe the line in acceptance of the new social gods (racial amalgamation, homosexuality, pornography, abortions, feminism, etc).  Politically incorrect people will not be allowed to get away with anything if they bother these new state gods in any way. 

 

Under government mandate and fiat, every person in the modern society must accept, tolerate and at least pay lip service to the new social gods of the New World Order or face the full wrath of the state and government power.  All non-conformists quickly become enemies of the state--where the politically incorrect victims will be crushed and destroyed by the state, if possible. 

 

The way that the present Christian government pursues politically incorrect people with vigor and determination brings to mind a remark by YESHUA to His true followers (who were and are politically incorrect--at least, in terms of beliefs and opinions in the modern Christian West).  Effectively, He said that they will not get away with anything in the secular state without having to pay the uttermost farthing (Matt 5:25-26). 

 

Yet, murderers, rapists, child molesters, sodomites, whorehouse owners, pimps, miscegenators, adulterers, thieves, drug dealers, con operators, gangsters and US presidents who commit perjury, carry out treason, obstruct justice, sexually assault women and violate United States political campaign laws can generally walk free with little or no concern over the US justice system--but not politically incorrect individuals. 

 

Even the so-called conservative G. Gordon Liddy (who seems to be a part Phoenician Edomite) has publicly sided with pornographers on his radio talk show in difference to right wing racialists.  His program of Oct 15, 1999, had him and one of his guests attacking the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nations and David Duke for their racial separation views.  Liddy said that this “stuff is worse than pornography.” 

 

 

The Big Brother Power 

 

The Dec 1998 “Idaho Observer” (p. 1, 11) offered a couple of comments which are most relevant in this discussion on the imprisonment of politically incorrect people in the US. 

 

First, the paper had this definition-- “Political Prisoner: Anybody who is kept incarcerated for any reason other than being truly guilty of a real crime.”  The second remark estimated that at least 15% of Americans currently in prison are victims of false prosecutions. 

 

If one doubts it, just ask the previously mentioned Jay Merrill who was found guilty in Spokane WA in 1997 for bank robbery and setting off small bombs at a local abortion clinic and the left wing Spokane newspaper--both of which reportedly caused minor damages and no personal injuries or deaths.  Merrill got two life sentences, plus something like 64 years. 

 

To show how Big Brother came down on him, he faced up to 20 years in jail for allegedly stealing a car and taking it across a state line.  The point must be made that Merrill’s alleged bombing efforts appeared to be symbolic only with no malice or intent to kill or injure anyone or really even destroy property.  Yet, the book was thrown at him. 

 

 

Randy Weaver, Revisited 

 

Otherwise, the case of Randy Weaver can be recalled.  He missed a court appearance date (which was wrong on the notification given him) on a petty charge which he actually was innocent of. 

 

He not only ultimately had to serve the full maximum sentence for missing the court appearance (as imposed by the establishment judge), but Big Brother sent an army of federal agents to surround his mountain cabin to murder his wife and small son. 

 

In the real world of the United States, a significant portion of accused criminals and law violators fail to meet court dates; and especially, for misdemeanors and minor things (like Weaver was accused of).  For the bulk of them (and particularly, if they are Black or Hispanic), nothing is ever done, unless and until they get into more trouble later and are picked up for something else. 

 

The outstanding citation is usually discovered on these later arrests.  Anybody wanting to dispute this statement should go down to their (un)friendly courthouse and ask authorities about how often they issue arrest warrants for people missing a date on a summons. 

 

In the case of Randy Weaver, they never even got around to issuing an arrest warrant.  A team of federal marshals went after him with no legal authority.  But remember, he was politically incorrect and would have to pay the last farthing! 

 

 

The John Ashcroft Case 

 

Other chapters herein have or will broach the four primary practices followed by the leftists in order to implement their agenda of destroying White Yisrael specifically and White Adam generally and the bringing in of the New World Order--tell lies repeatedly until they are believed, say that opponents are partisan, attack personalities rather than deal with facts, and the end justifies the means. 

 

In January 2001, the US Senate opened hearings on the government appointments of president-elect George W. Bush.  Essentially, the Bush appointees were Blacks, Asians, Hispanics and women.  This rainbow appearance is one of the things liberals and Socialists love.  So it was clear that these people generally faced no problems in receiving confirmation in the US Senate. 

 

With the exception of Linda Chavez (who voluntarily withdrew from Secretary of Labor, after it was discovered that she had once harbored an illegal alien in her home), the Bush choices looked like they would be approved. 

 

However, there was one fly in the ointment.  Bush had actually chosen one, conservative, White, Christian male for US Attorney General.  This was quite a fluke and particularly since the man, John Ashcroft, was a Protestant and apparently one with “some” (not much, but at least some) sense of integrity and character (if it is possible for a Christian to have some real integrity and character). 

 

 

Leftist Hypocrisy 

 

Politicians and the controlled media agreed that the biggest problem that the Bush designees would face would surface with the Ashcroft appointment.  Of all people to be evaluating a man with some character and integrity, it worked out that the evil and depraved Ted Kennedy (a man with no integrity or character, much like Slick Clinton) chaired the committee looking at Ashcroft. 

 

Daily, Kennedy and his leftist colleagues and allies blasted away at Ashcroft.  They found that Ashcroft (as a US Senator) had traditionally voted to limit abortions and that he actually had once opposed a Black politician for a judgeship (a truly unthinkable act).  In the leftists’ views, the acts of Ashcroft to vote his conscience in the US Senate were acts of evil which justified his rejection as US AG. 

 

One US Senator, Russ Feingold (surely an Amalekite), actually had the gall to compare Ashcroft with the few Clinton leftists rejected by the Republican Senate (like the homosexual fag James Hormel to be US Ambassador to Luxembourg, previously discussed)--precisely on the grounds of character, morality and integrity.  Per Feingold, the Senate should reject Ashcroft (to get even for Hormel’s rejection). 

 

The matter of rejecting a man for morality, integrity and honesty reasons is considerably different than rejecting a man because he voted against certain political interests in the US Senate.  The two issues are like comparing apples and oranges.  They are not the same at all. 

 

When a homosexual faggot was being promoted by a sodomite like Clinton to be the US Ambassador to another country, he should be rejected.  All people of morality, honor and integrity should publicly speak out and condemn homosexual faggots and the sodomite politicians who try to appoint them to high level jobs to represent the US. 

 

This whole subject can never be compared to a Senator who votes either for or against abortion or for or against a particular Black to be a courtroom judge (that is a vote against a liberal Black since it was all-right to vote against a conservative Black, like justice Thomas).  This whole confrontation over Ashcroft demonstrated the reality of the gross hypocrisy of the leftists and their mentality in doing business. 

 

The leftist politicians and controlled media powers have no problems if a man is a faggot queer, if he is a pedophile, if he commits sodomy, if he is a liar, if he commits treason, if he is a cheat, if he is a druggy, if he is a murderer, if he is totally and completely morally depraved and corrupt and so forth.  The leftists typically support such persons (especially, if liberals) and find no issue with them at all. 

 

Conversely, if the leftists have to face a man of “some” character and integrity (not a lot, but at least “some,” which is pretty rare in today’s Christian world) who has not supported the leftist agenda of evil, then they come out in full force to attack his judgments and actions which they politically and ideologically disapprove of. 

 

 

The Trent Lott Thing 

 

Trent Lott presents another case in point.  In the way of background on what happened to Senate Republican leader Trent Lott, it is necessary to review some history. 

 

When Franklin Roosevelt took the US presidency in 1932, he undertook the process of the Sabbatian leftists (to be defined in a later chapter) to completely destroy the United States through the various programs of the Sabbatians in promoting liberalism--like sexual licentiousness and perversion; Socialism; racial integration, miscegenation and amalgamation; etc. 

 

Since FDR was one of the primary Amalekite masters in America and a leader over the gullible, ignorant, goyim Christians, it was easy for him to succeed.  He set the ball rolling and nothing has happened since 1933 to stop the motion.  It has been like a freight train. 

 

If there ever was any hope of saving the United States, the election in 1932 of the depraved Amalekite Franklin Roosevelt undoubtedly saw its demise at that time.  As soon as FDR was in power, he began the systematic destruction of this nation.  Once he could get the US into WWII, his outreach for destruction and evil encompassed all of Europe.  Soon, the world believed in his approach. 

 

With the death of FDR, his successor Harry Truman continued the same process of evil and destruction for the United States (and as a matter of information, all of Harry’s successors have followed in the same steps--even Ronald Reagan bought into much of it, though he was not as dedicated to it as his immediate predecessors or successors). 

 

The segregated and conservative South didn’t like what had been happening under Roosevelt and Truman.  While the questions of racial integration, miscegenation and amalgamation were important to the Southerners, there was, in fact, the overriding issue of States’ Rights under the 10th amendment to the Constitution. 

 

In other words, all of the liberal and leftist insanity being pushed by Roosevelt, Truman and the other leftist politicians in the US Congress was wrong because it was unconstitutional.  Under the 10th amendment, all of these social issues were properly questions for each of the individual states and not for the federal government (yes, even the abortion thing belongs to the states and not Washington). 

 

 

Two Later Revolts 

 

With the unhappiness in the South over the political and social directions being chartered by the leftist leaders in America, many Southerners elected to bolt the political system in 1948 with a States’ Rights candidate. 

 

Traditionally, the South was strongly Democrat and the leftist Democrats counted upon this bloc of support in the national elections.  The Southerners apparently believed that their revolt would at least show the Democrats the error of their ways in promoting liberalism and leftism in contradiction to the US Constitution. 

 

The man the Southerners selected to run for president was US Senator Strom Thurman (a veteran of the 82d Airborne Division in WWII).  Thurman was a Southerner from South Carolina and a person committed to States’ Rights.  The primary focus of the Southerners was not so much over racial integration and amalgamation (although these factors were present); but rather, over States’ Rights. 

 

Thurman ran his campaign; but accomplished little, other than winning the electoral votes in a few Southern states (like Mississippi).  The evil and diabolical leftist Harry Truman won the election by defeating the Republican Thomas Dewey in most of the other states.  The States’ Rights party and indeed the idea of States’ Rights were effectively crushed in 1948. 

 

As a follow-up, Alabama’s George Corley Wallace had a moderately successful run for the president in 1968 on the Democrat ticket.  But a programmed assassin shot and crippled Wallace.  He was wiped out of the election.  Actually, there was so much water under the bridge that Wallace really had no chance at all.  But his message needed to get out and he tried to do his part to save America. 

 

George Wallace did establish a couple of one-liners which impressed some people.  First, he said that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.  Next, in a reference to the bureaucrats in Washington on the federal payroll, George said that he would throw their briefcases into the Potomac River.  No wonder poor Wallace was shot! 

 

 

All Over 

 

Certainly, with the efforts of Strom Thurman and George Corley Wallace, the game was manifestly all over in 1968.  The liberals and leftists had won and the programs of destruction set into place by Franklin Roosevelt could not be stopped. 

 

And while some informed observers could speculate that things could have been turned around in 1948 or 1968, this writer doubts it.  The evidence available to me suggests that the die was cast in 1932 with the election of FDR.  Subsequent efforts could not succeed because liberalism, the welfare state and the other programs of the Sabbatians were fully in place. 

 

Nevertheless, some persons have apparently continued to harbor thoughts that the election of Thurman or Wallace either could have turned things around (and truly, either of these elections would have put a profound dent into the leftist program of destruction.  It’s just that neither Thurman or Wallace could be elected with the Amalekite control of the US media). 

 

 

The Man Lott 

 

In any case, Trent Lott of Mississippi seems to have been a person who entertained the idea that the election of Strom Thurman would have been good for the United States.  And truly, many other people of Mississippi and the rest of the South maintained that thinking as well. 

 

Trent Lott’s political background started at the University of Mississippi back in the early 1960s when the evil John F. Kennedy declared war on the South and used bayonets and guns to integrate Old Miss.  Lott was one of the campus heroes and on the cheerleading team.  He probably was disappointed over the JFK moves against the people of Mississippi. 

 

The years passed and Lott went into politics.  With the Thurman loss in 1948, many Southern politicians abandoned the Democrat party (which was completely owned by the Amalekites) and converted to become Republicans. 

 

While the Republicans were forced to give lip service to the Blacks, it was never in the hearts of the Republicans--after all, the Negroes always bloc voted for the Democrats.  There was no political gain in promoting affirmative action and other programs to enhance racial integration, miscegenation and amalgamation. 

 

Of course, the Republicans had to talk about these themes--not to get Black votes, but to get White votes.  In America, the gullible, ignorant Whites have been so mesmerized and zombiized by the Amalekite controlled media that they have come to love racial integration, mixing and amalgamation.  Knowing this, the Republican political leaders always espouse the same nonsense. 

 

Like many of his Southern colleagues, Lott entered policies and obtained some success as a Republican.  Knowing the problems over promoting Negroes, Lott has surely known that he had to watch his mouth and words over the years (as is the routine problem facing all American politicians).  But Lott had some success and soon became Majority Leader of the US Senate. 

 

 

More on Thurman 

 

As was the trend in motion, Strom Thurman converted from the Democrats to the Republican party.  And he became highly successful in getting reelected.  The state of South Carolina continually sent him back to Washington.  By the year 2002, Thurman reached his 100th birthday and was still a member of the US Senate.  He served longer than any other Senator in US history. 

 

 

The Words 

 

Upon reaching age 100, Thurman decided to retire and turn his office over to a younger man.  So, on his birthday, on Dec 5, 2002, Lott and other Republicans came to pay the old man honors (as indeed, they should have done). 

 

Lott, the Senate’s Republican leader took the podium and said:  “When Strom Thurman ran for President, we (referring to the people of Mississippi) voted for him.  We’re proud of it.  And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either” (Dec 23, 2002, “Time,” p. 22). 

 

It was too bad for Trent Lott, but he had actually spoken the words of political suicide in today’s ultra liberal, leftist, politically-correct environment where the entire nation is so hoodwinked and mesmerized by the Sabbatian Amalekites with their control of the nation’s media powers.  There was a storm of protests from leading Americans all over the nation. 

 

President George W. Bush spoke out to prove his love for racial integration by saying that “Any suggestion that the segregated past was acceptable or positive is offensive, and it is wrong.  Recent comments by Senator Lott do not reflect the spirit of our country” (ibid, p. 25). 

 

 

The End 

 

Quite naturally, the surprised Lott had to backtrack and try to save his leadership in the US Senate.  He apologized at least five or more times and rejected his own very words and tried to show that he indeed loved the Blacks as much as the rest of White America. 

 

On Dec 13, 2002, poor Lott revealed what he thought would save his position.  In his hometown of Pascagoula, Mississippi, Lott said:  “I apologize for opening old wounds and hurting so many Americans... I can’t say (they were) prepared remarks.  As a matter of fact, I was winging it.  I was too much into the moment.”  He then begged for forgiveness (ibid, p. 23). 

 

But all of the begging and apologizing and bragging on the benefits or racial integration and amalgamation proved nothing.  The leftist media and its controlled lackeys in the American establishment went to work on totally destroying poor Lott. 

 

They actually went back through the files and dug out everything he had ever said or done which gave any indication of the benefits of segregation in the old South.  Since Lott had formerly supported segregation, there was a massive array of quotations which were coming back to haunt him in 2002. 

 

For example, in a 1980 speech introducing Strom Thurman (who was speaking in Mississippi for Ronald Reagan), Lott said:  “You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.”  The him was a reference to Thurman and not Reagan (ibid, p. 24). 

 

After his years of being a Southern segregationist, Lott renounced his former views in his 2002 talk in Pascagoula, Miss, as cited above.  This time, Lott noted:  “I’ve said things and done things on race-related issues that weren’t intended to be hurtful but that I now realize were hurtful” (ibid, p. 25). 

 

But after all of the apologies and begging for forgiveness, Lott finally was pressured to give up his leadership post or face a defeat from the Republicans.  He resigned and Senator Frist of Tennessee took over. 

 

 

The Christian Lott 

 

One of the things which Lott has bragged about is the fact that he and his family are conscientious Christians (it is unclear to this writer which denomination that the Lotts belong to).  While the media people were hounding him in mid December 2002, he tried to avoid making statements.  But he was accosted from time to time as he was on his way to church meetings. 

 

The leftist Jewish paper, the “Forward” of Dec 27, 2002, had a story on the “Fallen Lott Urged Christians to ‘Take Back’ U.S.” (p. 4).  Like the rest of the Amalekite controlled media, this issue blasted Lott even though Lott had already resigned. 

 

The main thing that the “Forward” seemed to have against Lott was that he was reportedly a “conservative Christian” which would have to be bad in the eyes of a left-wing paper like the “Forward.” 

 

One of the primary statements made by Lott, which really upset the “Forward,” was that in 1998 he said:  “Conservative, God-fearing, hard-working Christian people make a mistake by not being more aggressive... This is our country and it’s time we take it back.”  “Forward” compared his initial Senate campaign to a religious crusade. 

 

 

The Christian Hypocrite Lott 

 

Since almost all national political leaders in America are gross hypocrites and evil beyond description, it is almost ludicrous to say anything about Trent Lott.  For sure, Christian Lott is a better man in comparison with most of them in Washington. 

 

This is about the same thing as is true with Attorney General Ashcroft, as discussed above.  As evil as Ashcroft is, he still has more honor than most of the others.  But the reality of truth will not alter the fact that both Lott and Ashcroft are hypocrites and really men of evil (though their evil is not as gross and as bad as the evil found in most of the other national leaders). 

 

When Lott spoke out in his various statements in support of racial segregation and on the fact that the election of Strom Thurman in 1948 would been good for America, he spoke the truth. 

 

Balaam’s theology of destroying the age ending House of Yisrael through racial integration, miscegenation and amalgamation, as promoted by the Amalekite Sabbatians, has been and is a national disaster beyond description.  This coming destruction is worse than any conceivable destruction as might have occurred in war, disease epidemics, or any other logical catastrophe. 

 

Racial integration and amalgamation, formerly opposed by people like Lott and Strom Thurman, are spelling out the genocide of the White House of Yisrael people in America and indeed in the other White British Commonwealth states.  Truly, America would have been vastly better off to have elected Storm Thurman in 1948 (or even George Wallace in 1968). 

 

 

Apologize--For What? 

 

In any case, Lott spoke the truth.  While his statement was probably a slip of the tongue and made without thought, it was a good statement and one that no one should have to apologize over.  Since Lott was right, why is it that he tripped all over himself in apologizing and begging for forgiveness (from evil, gullible, ignorant persons). 

 

If Trent Lott would have stuck with his guns and his words, this writer would come out today and praise him as a man of intelligence, honor, character and integrity.  But his own efforts to backtrack and repudiate his own words show that he has significant problems in character and integrity--just like his colleagues in Washington (though admittedly, he probably is a better man than most of them, who are even more evil). 

 

This whole exercise in futility and stupidity shows that the conservative, right-wing, Christian Lott is actually a hypocrite and a fraud for pretending to be a religious man when, in fact, he is not. 

 

While he may go to Christian sun worship services on Sundays and perhaps probably even shows off his Christian “Bible” (as was and is true with the sodomite worker of evil, Slick Clinton), Lott is not an example of anything that a parent would want from his children.  Yes, he is a hypocrite. 

 

 

One Must Toe the Line for Success 

 

What this means is that there is a subtle motion underway that all persons in Congress, who expect to have a political or governmental future, had better toe the leftist line and vote for issues in Congress in conformity with the liberal ideology.  If a person in Congress votes his conscience and against the leftist agenda, the liberals will one day retaliate and destroy him if possible. 

 

Thus, all politicians must support the leftist agenda.  By all means, a White man who has ever taken a stand against the leftist agenda is in trouble if the liberals can muster an attack in any future forum.  They will inevitably haul out all of the resources possible to destroy such a person.  Of course, they employ the various tactics of liberals and Sabbatians, as cited above and in other presentations herein. 

 

The leftists will inevitably tell lies (over and over, until they are believed), claim that the man is partisan in his actions, attack him personally, and completely ignore any semblance of honesty and truthfulness in making their decisions about a White-majority, Christian male who does have some honor and integrity.  In other words, the means (of destroying a person) justifies the end (of promoting the leftist agenda). 

 

This gross hypocrisy completely underlines the whole story of the Sodomite Slick Clinton, and of the gross hypocrite, Joseph Lieberman, who claims to be an Orthodox Jew.  The same leftist hypocrites (who have attacked Ashcroft and Lott for their religions) are the same people who said nothing about the religion of the leftist Joseph Lieberman (who is a man of dishonesty and evil, as described in former chapters). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 410--A Christian World of Hypocrisy III

 

 

The Hypocrite Bush Too 

 

While it may seem easy to point out the great shame, evil, depravity and hypocrisy of the left-wing Democrat liberals in the US presidency and Congress, it must be noted that some of these descriptions apply to Republicans.  The leftist Democrats don’t have a monopoly on evil. 

 

For example, the week of May 13, 2002, saw ex-president Jimmy Carter in Cuba on a visit.  On May 14, 2002, Carter gave an uncensored speech in Spanish on Cuban television which was not approved in advance by the Bush State Department.  Some reporters felt that Carter was not as hard on Fidel Castro as George W. Bush.  They asked the president about it. 

 

Bush launched into an attack on Castro by saying that he was a dictator, that he should allow free elections, that he has an oppressive government, that he violates human rights, and on and on about the evils of Castro and Communist Cuba. 

 

In his dissertation, this writer immediately recognized the words that Bush was saying as being applicable to almost all so-called US allies all over the world.  Yes, the US allies that GWB’s father enlisted for the Gulf War in the early 1990s were almost all dictatorships.  Even GWB, himself, is in bed with oppressive dictatorships all over the world (i.e. Pakistan and most all of the US allies in the Bush wars on the Muslims). 

 

The famous nation of Kuwait has one of the most vile and oppressive dictatorships in the modern world today.  Yet, Kuwait has been one of the most important allies, friends, and bed partners of George H. W. Bush, Slick Clinton, and now George W. Bush. 

 

And one of the most prominent dictatorships exists right in GWB’s own country where a dictatorship of a hand-full of Amalekite plutocrats call almost all shots.  Certainly, US elections are totally controlled and the people never have a real choice.  The likes of Ruby Ridge, Waco, Gordon Kahl, and so forth are powerful illustrations of government oppression and murder of dissidents. 

 

What other nation in the world allows its national police forces (heavily armed with machine guns and wearing bullet proof vests and black terror uniforms with ski masks) to machine gun small boys in the back, shoot helpless women holding babies and gas to death a huge number of her own people--including women and children)? 

 

What other nation in the world now has placed complete dictatorial power into the hands of her chief executive?  What other nation in the world has a total police state and the compilation of detailed dossiers on all of its citizens--and contrary to the single document which supposedly is the guide for law and order, the Constitution? 

 

So, who is the hypocrite--Castro or George W. Bush?  Frankly, in fairness, Castro can never equal GWB for hypocrisy and lies.  By the way, young Bush says that he is a Christian and that his most admired person is “Jesus Christ.”  So, is it Christian to be a gross hypocrite?  Yes, of course! 

 

 

J. G. Hornberger 

 

The Jan-Feb 2003 “America’s Promise” newsletter (p. 2) had some remarks from a man named J. G. Hornberger (apparently, as reported in the Dec 2, 2002, “Christian News,” p. 7). 

 

Hornberger took note of the Iraqi Parliament’s rejection of the newly enacted UN resolution (which will be addressed in a later chapter).  According to the “New York Times,” Bush said that “The Iraqi Parliament is nothing but a rubber stamp for Saddam Hussein.  This guy’s a dictator, so we’ll have to wait and see what he says.” 

 

Actually, as it turned out, Saddam accepted the UN resolution and went against the advice of his own parliament.  Of course, Saddam had the ultimate power to decide, but it is relevant to note that the parliament was not simply just a rubber stamp for Saddam. 

 

Anyway, it was and had consistently been George W. Bush who said that he alone had the power to decide to go war or not to go to war against Iraq--notwithstanding what the Congress said or did.  Repeatedly, Bush said that he would decide the war question and no one else (which is what happened).  So, who was the dictator--Saddam or GWB?  So, who was the hypocrite--Saddam or GWB? 

 

 

North Korea 

 

Future chapters and Appendix D will discuss the Bush-Iraqi war in some detail.  There is no intent presently to begin to try to cover it.  But while on the theme of Christian hypocrisy, there is something that needs to be said here about the North Korean development, as occurring in 2002 and early 2003. 

 

As will be pointed out in the later comments, GWB started shaking his saber of war against Iraq in the fall of 2002.  And shortly after Bush started hollering about the need to go to war (ostensibly because Iraq “might possibly” have some nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction), North Korea comes out in the open and admits it has a full nuclear program under way. 

 

While UN inspectors had been combing over Iraq for weeks (and not finding anything), North Korea merely kicked all of its UN inspectors out.  The North Korean leader Kim Jong II effectively gave the US the finger and went about his plans of building up a super military force in Asia (the North Korean military is already number five in size in the world). 

 

So, how did Bush react to the North Korean situation--just as he simultaneously was hollering every day about the evils of Saddam and Iraq and how the US was going to war against Iraq (regardless of what the UN inspectors found)? 

 

Well, Bush and his people effectively said that the North Korean thing was no problem and that the US would deal with it diplomatically.  As will be cited later, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that North Korea was no crisis (presumably, in contrast to how things were in Iraq). 

 

The Jan 13, 2003, “Time” magazine had a picture of Kim on its front cover with the words-- “The Bigger Threat?  North Korea’s dictator is a nuclear menace.  Why he may be more dangerous than Saddam.” 

 

There is little more that can be said at this time on the North Korean situation (again, later chapters will cover it more fully).  But surely, any person with brains above the moron level must pause and ask questions about hypocrisy.  Is GWB a hypocrite on the question of going to war? 

 

 

More Hypocrites 

 

While there are many powerful illustrations of the modern Christian world of hypocrisy, one of the most stupid acts of all surfaced in a news report in January 2002. 

 

Per a story in the January 25, 2002, “The Week” (p. 16), a photographer caught the New York firefighters in an act of raising the American flag over the crushed site of the former World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 (something similar to the action of American Marines in raising the US flag over Iwo Jima in WWII). 

 

Three NY firefighters took part in this event.  With the nation’s new outburst of patriotism, this particular photograph created a lot of interest and support, not only in New York City, but around the nation. 

 

Anyway, the New York City Fire Department was so impressed with the photograph that it commissioned a statue to be made of the three firefighters as a memorial to the 343 firefighters who died that day trying to rescue people from the stricken World Trade Center.  But in making the preparations for the statue, a minor unforeseen problem developed. 

 

In surveying the picture, the hypocrites discovered that all three firefighters were White men.  Obviously, the hypocrite, politically correct society would never stand by for a memorial statue to be made of three White firefighters. 

 

Accordingly, the NY Fire Department reacted in the typical hypocrite, liberal manner by stipulating that one firefighter must be a Black, another one had to be a Hispanic and the third one could be a White.  The only thing left out of this agenda was the lack of a woman and/or a known homosexual, although the case could be made that one or all three of the firefighters could be considered to be homosexual. 

 

This statue question actually happened in early January 2002.  But then, the hypocrite, politically correct, NY Fire Department ran into a wall of resistance from a number of people (especially New York firefighters) who objected to the deliberate alteration of the photograph to play to and appease the stupid politically correct society that has evolved in the US in the last 50 years. 

 

Finally, the New York Fire Department backed down and allowed the statue to be made in accordance with the photograph--with three White firefighters.  Although not mentioned in the report, this surrender only meant that somewhere and somehow down the road, the Black and Hispanic firefighters would be equally rewarded in some manner.  We can be assured of it. 

 

 

The Most Vile of All 

 

While it is possible to write thousands of words, lines and indeed books on the many gross shortcomings of the present sun worship justice system in Christian sun worship America, there is one more particularly distressing condition which must be highlighted.  And this concerns the over-riding power and appreciation for so-called public policy. 

 

Historically, in the United States, any number of people have left wills, deeds, contracts and other legal documents containing restrictive clauses and provisions.  The first important surfacing of this reality has come about in wills where a dying man will leave a sum of money or grant to a person or institution with one of these clauses. 

 

For example, a man might leave a sum of money to a college or school on the premise that they use it to provide educational grants to “poor, White boys.”  For 350 years, this was perfectly legal and proper (from 1607 to around 1957).  In all cases, the society, culture and courts would agree upon the legality of that restriction. 

 

But then, in the 1954 racial integration decision of the Supreme Court, this was to change.  Quickly, these restrictive clauses were being forced into court to determine if they were valid. 

 

The courts essentially found a solution by deciding that any thing which was against “public policy” was illegal and not binding.  Any form of racial separatism (as envisioned by the dying wishes of a man in his last will and testament) limiting money to White people was against public policy and therefore illegal. 

 

Hence, a man dying in 1860 and leaving money for a city park for White people in a place, like perhaps Memphis, Tennessee, would have his will thrown out of court in the 1960s on the premise that it was against public policy.  In other words, the former White only city park, created by a man’s last will, would become an open, racially integrated park, because racial integration is now public policy. 

 

Today, in 2003, these formally binding and recognized restrictive clauses in old legal documents have all been effectively declared illegal.  It is hard to imagine that any US court today would uphold any of them--at least, and not for long, if they deal with racial, gender or sexual preference (homosexual) issues. 

 

It’s amazing that a hypocritical and depraved generation of people can come along and change a man’s last will and testament, but it now happens in modern America.  This is justice, per the modern Christian Israelite view. 

 

 

Historic Nigger Creek 

 

Finally, Southeastern Washington State has a creek which was historically named “Nigger Creek” over 100 years ago.  In recent times, since Brown versus the Board of Education Supreme Court decision in 1954, the historic English word “Nigger” became politically incorrect. 

 

Thus, the US government, silently and without local consultation, renamed the creek “Negro Creek” on all maps and in all legal references.  This lasted just exactly as long as the word “Negro” was allowable for use in the modern, Christian 20th century.  So, in the 1990s, even the word Negro became unallowable in the contemporary culture. 

 

Since the word “Negro” became out and is now no longer acceptable in the early 21st century, the same government planners have been busy trying to come up with another name which they can force down the people’s throats.  They are determined to get rid of the word Negro. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 411--Gross Ignorance

 

 

The Problem 

 

As the preceding chapters have demonstrated, there are some profoundly sick realties among collective man as he addressees the question of law and obedience.  In a word, man generally is a very “hypocrite” character.  He likes to say one thing and then do another thing. 

 

It is bad enough that men generally and Israelites particularly walk all over and ignore YHWH’s mitzwot in His Torah, but Israelites and men generally do the same thing with their own manmade laws.  It would seem to be impossible to make men obey any laws without some presence of rebellion and hypocrisy in their hearts. 

 

While there is no denying the real world out there in terms of YHWH’s mitzwot or manmade laws, there is some interesting understanding or explanation about why such a sick condition evolves.  The following presentation will attempt to zero in on the background and/or the why for this hypocrisy. 

 

 

Hosea 4:6 

 

One of the most extraordinary judgments placed upon Israelites (and indeed, upon all men in the collective sense) was penned by the prophet Hosea when he wrote that YHWH’s people (Yisrael) are destroyed for a lack of knowledge, and that they have rejected that knowledge in forgetting YHWH’s mitzwot (Hos 4:6). 

 

This Scripture has been cited throughout this publication.  Because the words are so fantastic in application, relevance and truth, this writer cannot possibly apologize for this redundancy.  Manifestly, Hosea 4:6 is one of the most important Scriptures in the Book with application to the age ending House of Yisrael.  Yisrael is going down the tubes in the age end and Hosea 4:6 gives the essence of the problem. 

 

Perhaps this condition in the real world of the House of Yisrael prompted the Apostle Shaul to render a New Testament mitzwah to study to show thyself approved (II Tim 2:15, as the KJV gives it).  The need for study has been stated in the Prologue of this production.  If people won’t study, how in the world can they possibly avoid destruction. 

 

There is no question about it.  Modern House of Yisrael Israelites do not and will not study.  Assuredly, these Israelites will come under YHWH’s judgment as outlined in Hosea 4:6.  They will be destroyed for a lack of knowledge. 

 

 

More on the Focus   

 

This work at hand communicates a number of examples of how Hosea 4:6 indicts the modern American Israelite society.  This is a very clear problem in politics, economics, sociology, human deportment, government, religion, and on and on.  Israelites will simply not study to acquire the knowledge they need (of YHWH’s Torah). 

 

Of course, it goes without saying that the primary focus of the comments in Hosea 4:6 is upon the Torah and righteousness as The ELOHIM defines it.  And this writer cannot and will not try to deter from this condition.  But there is still more to it that may not immediately connect when first reading the admonition. 

 

However, in thinking about this text and its application today in the modern House of Yisrael nations, the words of Hosea can extend to cover quiet an array of facts, information and so forth as are developing in contemporary times.  Thus, the injunction reported by Hosea does extend to all kinds of things beyond just a study of the Scriptures. 

 

 

The Broad Need 

 

Plainly, the idea of study must start with the Book (first the Torah, then the prophets, then the OT writings and then the NT).  But it must go further. 

 

Accordingly, one must study and determine the mitzwot of The MOST HIGH and understand them and how they are to be applied in the lives of men--especially in the lives of Israelites since Yisrael is the real focus of the book of Hosea. 

 

But once the student of truth comes to some comprehension and appreciation of YHWH’s mitzwot, the next thing to do is to look at the modern House of Yisrael society and ascertain to what extent that it is in obedience to or conformity with The ELOHIM’s mitzwot. 

 

And that is the essence of what Hosea and the other Old Testament prophets all did.  They knew and understood the Torah and its mitzwot.  They then took this knowledge of truth and righteousness and evaluated the contemporary Israelite society of their day. 

 

All of us readily know what they found.  They found that the contemporary Israelite society was in stark rebellion and disobedience of the Torah and its righteousness.  Thereupon, the OT prophets were inspired by The MOST HIGH to write out their condemnations for the Israelite people of those ancient times as well as all of the Israelite people subsequently. 

 

And effectively, that’s part of what the Tanakh prophets did in fulfilling their commissions.  Naturally, they also rendered prophecies for the future of Yisrael.  But interestingly, many of these prophecies are couched in the language and environment of ancient Yisrael. 

 

 

Thus 

 

In other words, the prophets were defining and pointing out the sins of the people of their day.  But moreover, the condemnations of the people back then applied just as much to succeeding Israelites as with ancient Israelites.  And since the ultimate fulfillment of the OT prophecies is a thing for the age end, it is clear that the prophetic aspects of those prophecies must zero in on the age ending Israelites. 

 

In other words, Hosea 4:6 describes the Israelite people of the age end--obviously, the age end in the vein of the early 21st century, as will be firmly established in succeeding chapters herein.  Therefore, Hosea was writing and condemning the House of Yisrael people of his day as well as all succeeding House of Yisrael generations (to particularly include the age ending House of Yisrael). 

 

The condemnation includes first an understanding and realization of what The ELOHIM’s mitzwot say in the Torah; and second, an understanding and realization of how the people are violating those mitzwot of EL SHADDAI. 

 

In attempting to address this prophecy and comprehend it, the modern Israelites (like their Israelite ancestor of thousands of years ago) must study, learn, and understand the Torah and its mitzwot.  Next, the modern Israelites must focus upon the contemporary society and ascertain its compliance with the Words of The MOST HIGH. 

 

It goes without saying that in making this study and analysis, the Israelite follower of YHWH YESHUA must start with himself.  Yes, the student of truth must always ask himself how obedient he is in terms of the Torah.  This self evaluation, self criticism and self correction (in repenting) should open the door to avoid the condemnation associated with the evils of hypocrisy. 

 

Therefore, one should study, learn, know and understand YHWH’s mitzwot in YHWH’s Torah.  One should next apply that knowledge to one’s self and be corrected by it.  And one should finally apply that knowledge and understanding to the whole of society to determine and ascertain the prophetic aspects of the prophecies outlined by the Tanakh prophets. 

 

 

A Recent Example 

 

Previous commentary and subsequent chapters have or will discuss the Bush administration’s war against Saddam Hussein and Iraq.  The way this thing developed in early 2003 communicated that it was destined to prove to be one of the most profound events to ever affect Ephraim Yisrael. 

 

Anyway, Bush began pushing for an Iraqi war in the late summer and early fall of 2002.  There were a multitude of reasons on why Bush and his ruling Amalekite plutocrats in North America wanted this war.  These reasons will be addressed in some detail in the succeeding chapters.  Hence, there is no need to try to cover them now. 

 

Perhaps in mid February 2003, CBS news anchor Dan Rather went to Iraq to interview Saddam Hussein.  He completed his one on one interview and CBS decided to air it as a part of the popular CBS program called “Sixty Minutes.”  The program date was set for Feb 26, 2003.  Accordingly, CBS advertised the coming program extensively over the prior week in order to try to build up its viewing audience. 

 

 

The Talk Shows 

 

The writer of this study at hand listens to various radio talk shows from time to time.  While much of the commentary over these programs is utter nonsense and stupidity, sometimes, something really valuable surfaces.  But in general, one must be struck with the incredible stupidity, misinformation and gross ignorance of several of the callers. 

 

Though some the callers can be real simpletons and often of the idiot class with IQs in the single digits, most of the talk show hosts do have some brains and capabilities to put their messages over with some display of common sense and intelligence. 

 

But the talk show hosts are not exactly lily-white in their work.  They have their own biases and prejudices which inevitably surface.  And in the case of many of the radio talk shows, the show hosts are very much pro George W. Bush and pro Republican.  While the TV networks belong to the Democrats, the radio talk shows are the domain of the Republicans. 

 

In granting that the talk show hosts do have some brains and intelligence (and they do), it is indeed sickening to sometimes hear them spout out their nonsense and stupidity in support of Bush (either because of their own prejudices or because the format of their shows is pointed in the direction of Bush supporters and Republicans). 

 

 

The Feb 14th Shows 

 

On the evening and night of Feb 14, 2003, this writer listened for several minutes to at least three of the radio talk shows--the Michael Savage show, the Rusty Humphreys show and another late night one out of Seattle, Washington.  Perhaps because of the huge publicity that CBS expended over the Saddam Hussein interview, two of the talk shows heard by me focused somewhat on this interview. 

 

The comments being made now in this chapter would not even be necessary or worthy of presentation were it not for the fact that most or all of the callers this writer heard were absolutely stupid or ignorant (whichever the case) in attempting to discuss Dan Rather and the Bush war against Saddam and Iraq. 

 

Manifestly, these radio talk shows are pro Bush and anti-Saddam.  It is automatically to be expected that most callers (not all of them, but assuredly most of them) would support Bush and oppose Saddam in their calls. 

 

So it was no surprise to me to hear this thinking and mentality expressed in the callers (although on Feb 14, 2003, this writer heard no one call in who had a kind word for Saddam or a criticism for George W Bush as sometimes happens on rare occasions.  In other words, they all followed the prescription of the program--pro Bush and anti Saddam and Iraq). 

 

 

But One Surprise 

 

Despite the pro Bush and anti Saddam sentiment, there was one surprise of sorts (actually, it probably should not be labeled a surprise because what happened could be anticipated in view of the IQ levels of the callers). 

 

In any case, almost all of the callers this writer heard that evening and night were actually angry and upset at Dan Rather--more so than their usual hatred and opposition to Saddam Hussein.  The pro Bush people really poured forth their venom at Dan Rather for daring to interview Saddam. 

 

This writer did not see the Rather interview on Sixty Minutes.  Several news reports were heard which gave some of the comments made by Saddam.  There was no indication that Dan Rather was either pro or anti Saddam in the interview (although it is a fact that Dan Rather has never been a supporter of the Bushes, per se).  The commentary heard by me was all in the vein of comments from Saddam. 

 

But with this barrage of telephone calls from pro Bush and anti Saddam people, there was somewhat an element of surprise in that the callers were so infuriated with Dan Rather over the whole incident. 

 

 

The Essence of the Calls 

 

While the many complaints and much hatred spewed forth (upon the leftist liberal Dan Rather) covered a range of thoughts and ideas, there was one primary direction or focus from the callers. 

 

Many of them recounted the evils of Dan Rather and went on to express their view that poor Dan had committed treason and/or sedition against the United States for daring to interview Saddam.  Many were angry and very demanding that Rather be arrested and tried for crimes against the nation. 

 

In the context of treason, most of the callers would inevitably start in with a tirade of words about the United States being at war against Saddam, and that being in a state of war, Rather was giving aid and comfort to America’s enemy.  Supposedly, this state of war would lay the groundwork for poor Rather to be arrested and tried for treason and/or sedition. 

 

On one of the programs, the caller was so vehement, upset and angry that he poured forth this nonsense in a stream of words.  He kept hollering about the state of war, and he would not let go of the idea.  He went on to charge that the US entered a state of war against Iraq in 1991 and that that war has continued on until the day of Rather’s interview. 

 

In this instance, the radio talk show host finally did intervene to say well that there was not a technical state of war since Congress had never declared war.  But even here, the talk show host was on the side of Bush and against Saddam.  So these remarks on Congress were not really emphasized. 

 

The caller then responded with the former Congressional resolutions which allowed George H. W. Bush to have his Gulf War against Saddam in 1991, and George W. Bush to have his war against Saddam and Iraq in 2003.  The caller equated these resolutions to a state of war between Iraq and the US.  The host did not refute or take exception to this connection. 

 

 

The Truth Is 

 

As demonstrated in the preceding chapters, the US Constitution does in fact specify that the US Congress alone has the power to declare war against some foreign nation.  The last time that there was a US Congressional declaration of war happened in December 1941 when the US declared war on Japan and Germany. 

 

True, since 1941, there have been a number of US military actions and wars.  But all of these wars (all the way from Korea in 1950 to the George W. Bush war on terrorism in 2001-2003) have been presidentially declared wars.  Congress has sometimes passed resolutions in support of the presidential actions.  But these Congressional actions have never constituted declarations of war. 

 

Since the US was not in a state of a declared war in February 2003, why is it and how is it possible that Dan Rather could be guilty of treason and/or sedition?  Of course, the answer is that it is not possible for these charges to be made.  Therefore, all of the anti Rather callers on the talk show programs heard by me that day simply didn’t know what they were talking about. 

 

One could easily make the case that they were certainly ignorant and perhaps even stupid.  For sure, they had never read or understood the US Constitution and Article I, Section 8 which lays out precisely the legislative powers of Congress.  The ability to declare war is an exclusive power of Congress and not a power of the president (though presidents have been declaring war for ages now). 

 

 

The Fall Out 

 

Assuredly, the vast host of American people have no conception of even what the Constitution says or doesn’t say.  For sure, there have been very few people in the American society and nation who have even read the US Constitution.  Therefore, it is clear that they do not have the foggiest notion of what it says.  Of the few who have read it, surely some of them have never understood it. 

 

Actually, the same reasoning applies to the governing politicians and other leaders in Ephraim America.  It is very doubtful that many of these people have ever read the Constitution.  And of the few who have read it, they either don’t understand it or certainly they will not obey it. 

 

In thinking about the commentary pouring forth from the callers and hosts on the radio talk shows on Feb 14, 2003, the words of Hosea 4:6 came to this writer.  Surely, any condemnation of the American people must include the reality that they don’t read, study or know anything about YHWH’s righteousness; nor do they read, study, or know anything about their own human laws. 

 

The bottom line here is that it is easy to see why and how the modern House of Yisrael Israelites will be destroyed for a lack of knowledge.  Yes, judgment is waiting in the wings.