|
| Assata Shakur Main | Forum Portal | Arcade | Links/Downloads | TTDC Search | RBG Tube | Warrior Chat | Store | Free Email | Donate | News |
| ||||||||
| Judaic/Christian Discussions Centered Around Judaic/Christian Belief Systems |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
09-18-2009
| |||||
| |||||
| Mark of the Beast INHERIT THE KINGDOM, YAHUAH'S KINGDOM! MARK of the BEAST FREE Download ebook .pdf format. Audio of this page. Bible predictions have now become true. There is verifiable evidence that all these Bible predictions have become true: A second beast that came up out of the earth, while exercising the authority of the scarlet first beast who raised up out of the sea, upon whose heads is the name of blasphemy, has deceived you into worshiping (with a perjury oath) a substitute god to get a graven Mark, issued by a final world government, symbolically in your right hand and forehead, that you must use as a banking authorization number. This seems so straightforward to me, that I don't dare dismiss the evidence. Could the other elements of this prophecy also be true? Let's take a closer look. FOREWORD This ebook is published for Bible believers who suspect that we are in the end times, and would like more proof. If you are not a Bible believer, skip to the court decisions in Appendix G to prove for yourself that without a Social Security Number you would have kept your right to earn un-taxable wages. It is my Bible Believer duty to warn those who have an ear to hear. Do not be lulled into waiting for a one-man world leader to issue an implant in your right hand. The final moments of world history are unfolding before us. A Social Security Card has all the attributes of the Mark. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so I will present ample proof for you to consider. I'm confident that these verifiable proofs will withstand scrutiny. If you don't want to believe the evidence, then prove it wrong. Don't simply deny. A denial disproves nothing. Your Bible instructs you to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. Don't dismiss my message until you've read my Chapter "Answers to Skeptics." Satan has a counterfeit authority to obey. It is a very close imitation to legitimate authority. Obedience to counterfeit authority is mutiny against lawful authority. Disclaimer: If you want legal advice, consult your lawgiver. I don't claim to have any divine interpretation of Scriptures. I merely rely upon history to show that prophecy finally has come true. This is not a Manual on how to survive without a Mark. Those who refuse the Mark will not be able to sell their labor, buy housing or conduct business. But, you already knew this. You just didn't expect it so soon. You will end up jobless, homeless and without the means to survive. I don't want you to risk death avoiding the mark until you are well prepared for the consequences of your stand. On the other hand, I cannot advise you to compromise with evil just to save your life. While He was speaking of the end times, Christ Himself said: "Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it;" Luke 17:33. And, "the cowardly shall have their place in the Lake of Fire." Revelation 21:8. This is the second death. Narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. For those of you who decide to take a stand, may the Holy Spirit comfort you in your persecution. Introduction We are living in a time where nearly everyone in the world has been assigned a number. Every nation that has a national debt is required by their multinational creditors to track taxpayers' income. As you will soon find out, Treaties with multinational authorities require the U.S. government to issue Social Security numbers. During the Bible's end times, no one should be able to buy or sell without one of three things. Revelation 13:17 (King James Version): "And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." There are significant rewards for those who avoid the Mark-Name-Number of Revelation 13:17. Those who resist the mark will be given the Harps of God according to Revelation 15:2. And avoid God's wrath per Revelation 16:2. And reign with Christ if they die refusing the Mark, Revelation 20:4. There are also significant punishments associated with accepting this Mark. Those who receive the Mark will "be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb" according to Revelation 14:10. Why then, would anyone risk participating in this final Mark-Name-Number system? There is only one reason revealed: To qualify for buying and selling. NO OTHER REASON IS GIVEN. Since the risk is so great, it would be prudent to carefully study anything remotely resembling this mark or name or number. Especially anything authorizing you to buy or to sell. Shouldn't a number already authorizing your buying and selling be suspicious? Did you get a number so you could sell your labor? Is this also a banking authorization number? Is this number also needed to buy or rent housing, or buy medical care, or buy a license to travel? Do you need this number to buy government ID? Without ID you cannot cash a check. The Uniform Commercial Code, Section 3-110 requires ID of anyone cashing a check. Without an ID mark engraved by a government, your commerce is limited to the crimes of tax evasion and money laundering. How could you be so sure that you have avoided the dreaded mark, name or number of the Beast? What is a Mark? The word "Mark" in the book of Revelation is translated from the Greek "charagma" which means “etching” or “badge of servitude.” In ancient Rome slaves carried a “badge of servitude,” which was often just an imprint of the master’s family seal baked in clay. It protected the slave from unwarranted detention as he traveled on errands for his master. Transactions were conducted in the name of the master, and the master would be held liable for the acts of his servants. Even today: you could be detained if you cannot show ID, and merchants might not conduct commerce without proof that you have some master’s authority to exist. As today’s badge of servitude, the Social Security Card certainly serves this purpose. What is a Beast? DIVINE interpretation in Daniel 7:23 equates Daniel's final Beast with a final world kingdom, not a church, not a king, not a man, not an antichrist. The word "antichrist" does not appear in the book of Revelation. Throughout history, "Beasts" symbolize kingdoms. Even today, "The United States" is symbolized by an Eagle, England by a Lion, and Russia by a Bear. In Revelation 13, an endtime confederation of Daniel's Beasts (like unto a leopard-bear-lion with 7 heads and 10 horns) has been assimilated by Daniel's fourth exceedingly dreadful (Dan 7:19) iron Beast, that was to take away the dominion of other Beast powers (Dan 7:12), consume and trample down the whole earth and break it to pieces (verse 23). This final Beast kingdom lets the two horned second Beast of Revelation 13:11 issue the dreaded Mark of the Beast. The 10-horned Beast does not issue the Mark. The two-horned second beast is the Beast that causes all to receive the "Mark of the Beast" in Revelation 13:16. The first Beast is often equated with the Roman Empire. This interpretation is consistent with Nebuchadnezzar's iron legs final world kingdom mentioned in Daniel 2:40. Do you have a Mark issued by the authority of a final world power that is a confederation of Daniel's Beast powers? The answer may surprise you. After the American Revolutionary War, England's King George III signed a Treaty that authorizes the U.S. to exist. In this Treaty, the king explicitly retained his title to the Roman Empire and the United States. There is overwhelming evidence that the Social Security Card has ALL the characteristics of the Mark of the Beast. I have found nothing in Scripture that rules out a Social Security Card. This ebook will give you references so that you can study the issues and make your own decision to reject this apocalyptic Mark. Since most of you won't believe the Bible's authority, I'll cite your laws, regulations and Supreme Court decisions as a higher authority. These are quoted for those of you who venerate man's law above God's law. They are quoted merely to help you understand the consequences of God's laws. The existence of these Treaties, court rulings, Statutes and regulations are merely proof that throughout history those who forget God's authority are taken into captivity. This ebook has three main themes: (1) your government has already been surrendered to multinational authorities, and (2) you waived all your rights by pledging Allegiance as a ward of your worldly master/provider/savior, and (3) a Bible believer will not worship this worldly lord. This ebook will give you enough verifiable references for you to prove to yourself that:
Most Americans have been systematically deceived bit by bit, precept upon precept, that they might fall backward and be snared into accepting a counterfeit government. By accepting small incremental compromises, America was transformed from a Holy nation into a nation that will receive the due penalty for its perversion. All the circumstances involving the mark are circumstances created in small incremental steps by deceived socialists who received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. Throughout the history of mankind, an unchanging God has seen fit to arrange for brutal pagans to take into captivity any nation that obeys a counterfeit authority. Conquering nations are instruments of His discipline (Isa 8:4-10, 10:5-6, 45:1-3; Jer 5:15-18, 20:4-5, 24:10; Eze 21:15-23, 30:24-26, 32:11-15). IS AMERICA GOING TO BE ANY DIFFERENT, OR DID GOD CHANGE? Many people cannot believe that God would punish them just for getting a silly number. They are under a strong delusion. It is not just a number. One premise of my message is that the term 'worship' can include swearing of a Perjury Oath on an Application Form. If your signature is not a type of worship, then I prove nothing. You can stop reading, and continue with your buying and selling. But first, go to any dictionary or encyclopedia and look up "oaths" and you will find that an oath is always a religious ceremony. Can you take the Mark of the Beast accidentally? There are many hints that the endtimes will be confusing. Revelation 20:4 says that those who receive the Mark will be deceived. Revelation 13:18 says that it takes wisdom to understand the number of the Beast. Verse 17 says that a name or a number or a Mark can authorize buying and selling. Daniel 12:9-10 says that in the endtimes the wicked shall not understand. Rev 13:9 "he who has an ear let him hear" indicates that you must be receptive to its message. Rev 17:9 says it takes wisdom to understand the beast's identity. 2nd Thessalonians 2:9-10 speaks of deceivableness and delusion in the end times. And in Rev 13:14 the two horned second Beast "deceiveth them that dwell on the earth" to cause them to worship the first Beast. And there is a false Prophet who will influence the kings of the earth. And men will turn to cleverly devised fables. YES, YOU CAN ACCIDENTALLY TAKE THE MARK. Falling for deception has grave consequences today, just as it did for Adam and Eve. The only real warning we are given (other than noticing that Prophecy became history) is that a mark, name or number will be presented as something that authorizes you to buy or sell. Shouldn't your banking authorization number and employment authorization number be suspicious? If you applied to a Confederation of Beast powers for permission to buy or sell, then you have created a host of saviors to regulate your life. These man made Idols will demand worship, provide protection, and insure you against God's cataclysms. The word "cataclysm" means "wash down." Americans have turned to a false image of god for protection from God's long overdue wash down. This false image of god will protect you if you voluntarily swear a perjury oath on a permanent irrevocable record, violate God's Ten Commandments against worshiping other Lords, take God's authority in vain, offer firstfruits (withholding) to this false image of god, and participate in the theft of Socialism. God's wrath will be poured out undiluted into the cup of His indignation, and the smoke of their torment shall rise forever, whosoever receives the Mark. These are harsh words, but they are in your Bible. But there is still hope. Nowhere does it say that a repentant Beast worshiper will be damned. Only the unpardonable sin must be damned (Matt 12:31 and Mark 3:29). You can still be rescued from the dominion of darkness and brought into the Kingdom of the Son in whom you have forgiveness. Colossians 1:13-14. God, not Congress, is the Christian's Lawgiver, James 4:12. Throughout the history of Christianity, there have been a brave few who refused to worship the state God. They refused to affirm that Caesar was Lord. They were fed to the lions. When Emperor Decius issued an edict commanding sacrifice to their gods, those who wanted to live were allowed to burn just a little incense. They were then issued a "Certificate of Compliance." They complied with federal law. However, those who refused to acknowledge this lordship went to their deaths. They stood. I'm sure these saints were told by many people that, as Christians, they were to obey their Government, and that Government is ordained by God, and that burning incense was not really worship, and that they would be martyrs without a cause if they persist in their silly beliefs. You too were asked to burn just a little incense. What was your response? You were asked to sign an Oath, under Penalty of Perjury, to your new Lord. Those who did received a Certificate that allows them to buy and sell. Did you worship, with your Oath, a mighty provider instead of the Yah? A Bible believer cannot serve a substitute god. This is the first and great Commandment. Matt 27:37, Mark 12:30, and Luke 10:27. Why would you bet your eternal salvation that you are not in any way forced to worship (with a Perjury Oath) a Beast in order to qualify for the privilege of buying and selling? Satan told Yahusha that he (Satan) had all the kingdoms of this world and he could give them to whomever he wants. Luke 4:6. Messiah did not dispute this. Chapter 1 HOW WILL WE RECOGNIZE THE MARK?Yah put prophecies in the Bible for someone who has an ear to hear. Yes, there has always been wild speculation about Bible prophecy. There have been many interpretations that cannot be supported by scripture. And there are many interpretations that agree with scripture that will turn out to be wrong. Only time will tell. If your very salvation is in jeopardy, a prudent person will not dismiss anything that agrees with prophecy. No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, 2nd Peter 1:20. The word "Revelation" (the Greek word is "Apocalypse") means "revealing." It is not a hiding. "Despise" not prophesyings, 1st Thessalonians 5:20. Revelation 13 has many points of identification that we may rely upon to recognize the Mark. We cannot add or subtract from Prophecy. Revelation 13: {1} "Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name." Comments: Verse 12 calls this beast "the first beast." A second beast introduced in verse 11 will cause all to receive the Mark in verse 16, whereas this first beast is not the beast associated with the Mark. According to DIVINE interpretation in Rev 17:15, the sea refers to people, multitudes, nations and tongues. According to DIVINE interpretation in Daniel 7:23 "beasts" symbolize kingdoms. John the revelator saw a ruling power rise up from the multitudes. According to DIVINE interpretation in Daniel 7:24, Daniel 8:20 and in Revelation 17:12 the 10 horns symbolize 10 kings that came out of the beast kingdom, possibly successive kings. It has been argued that horns can also symbolize dynasties or perhaps personified governments. Until we have further divine revelation we cannot know for sure who these kings are. Time will tell. On his head is a blasphemous name (the original Greek could be plural "names"). Blasphemy is "The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God." Since the "sea" refers to multitudes, nations and tongues, some have interpreted this as a beast coming from a densely populated Europe, or that this is a "universal" beast, or simply any ruling power that comes from a multitude. To avoid jumping to conclusions, we cannot dismiss any blasphemous democracy, even if we cannot yet identify ten specific horns. {2} "Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority." Comment: This is a composite of the most notable features of each beast mentioned in Daniel 7. DIVINE interpretation of Daniel 7:12&23 says that the ten horned beast will take away the dominion of, and devour the leopard, bear, lion kingdoms. Here in Revelation 13 this beast has assimilated all the nations of Daniel 7 into a confederacy of beast powers. Some people claim that this is the Roman Empire because divine interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's image of a fourth iron kingdom (Dan 2:40) fits chronologically with the Roman Empire. And indeed, history has shown that the Roman Empire took away the dominion of, and devoured other beast kingdoms. The second sentence of verse 2 states that the dragon gave him his power, throne and authority. Therefore the dragon cannot be the beast. Perhaps there is a connection to the red dragon of Revelation 12:3, which also has 7 heads and 10 horns, and will hunt down Christians (12:17), and seems to have influenced Herod to kill the Christ child. Shouldn't a democracy (ruling power rising from a multitude) that speaks blasphemy, and is now targeting Christians, be suspicious? Especially if it is patterned after Roman Civil Law? {3} "And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and followed the beast." Point of identification: Look for worship (per verse 12) of a confederation of beast powers that was once thought of as dead. There have been many speculations about this. UNTIL we have further divine revelation, ANYTHING in history that agrees with scripture cannot be ruled out. Some have claimed that the capture of the Pope by Napoleon's General Berthier in 1798 was the mortal wound. Some claim that the seventh head was wounded to death when the barbarians overran the Roman Empire in AD 476. As for me, the decline and fall of the Roman Empire is sufficient, and I marvel that the Treaty of Paris explicitly mentions that the "Arch Treasurer" and "Prince Elector" of the Holy Roman Empire gives the United States the authority to exist. Point of identification: Last sentence of verse 3, and in verse 7 we see that this first beast has world wide influence. Not necessarily a worldwide government. {4} "So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, 'Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?'" Comment: Again we see that this beast is not the dragon. Perhaps the dragon is the red dragon that is mentioned in Revelation 12. I want to suggest that this is the same type of today's government powers that wait to devour Christian children at birth as is indicated by Rev 12:17. The dragon is an associate, per Revelation 12:9, of a serpent devil, and Satan. Who can make war with the beast? This beast apparently has war powers. Let's briefly examine war powers. Daniel 7 used the term "exceedingly dreadful" in verse 19, and "shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces" verse 23. And take away the dominion of the other beasts per verse 12. Both Daniel 7:21 and Revelation 13:7 say the beast will make war with the saints, and Revelation 13:10 speaks of killing with a sword while saints remain patient. The Catholic Church has never had military power, but Roman Emperors certainly have. Point of identification: Look for worship of a confederation of military beast powers that was once thought of as dead. A salute is a form of worship, and a salute would also fit into the military flavor of this prophecy. {5} "And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to continue for forty-two months." The first beast, which is not the beast that will cause all to receive a mark, continues in power for 42 months. "Months" could be literal months. But there is another possibility. Year long days are used in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. In the next Chapter, I will show that the historical Protestant position is that the 42 months has already occurred. An alternate translation has this authority "to make war forty-two months." {6} "Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven." Point of identification: Look for worship of an authority of beast powers, once thought of as dead, that exercises worldwide military influence, speaking against Yahuah. {7} "It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation." Point of identification: Look for worship (caused by the second beast in verse 12) of an authority of beast powers once thought of as dead, that has military power, worldwide influence, speaks against Yah, rises up from the multitudes and overcomes saints. I don't think you need to look far. {8} "All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Comment: Bible believers will not worship (Greek proskuneo = prostrate oneself in homage to) the first Beast. Notice that the verb "worship" refers to a body motion, later I will show that the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that a "salute" is worship. It is the assuming of a body position, initiated by the inferior toward the superior. Even today, a courtroom Perjury Oath is given with the right hand raised. Do you worship a beast power when you sign a Perjury Oath on a government form? {9} "If anyone has an ear, let him hear." Comment: Verses 9 and 10 changed the subject. These two verses address you, the reader. If anyone has an ear, let him hear. The Revelation 13 message will be difficult to understand by those who do not want to understand. If you want to hear, then you cannot reject anything that agrees with prophecy. {10} "He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints." Comment: The NIV translation says "If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go." The original King James added a note that this referred to Matthew 26:52. "Sword" might refer to the military. "Sword" can also refer to the word of Yah as in Matt 10:34, Ephesians 6:17, Hebrews 4:12. Saints (that's you) will patiently endure this captivity. If "sword" is military, saints will endure the sword. If "sword" is spiritual, saints will kill and be killed spiritually. {11} "Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon." Comment: This second beast will cause all to receive a Mark in verse 16. "Out of the earth" is contrasted with the first beast's "rising up out of the sea" in verse 1. "Horns" symbolize kings according to DIVINE interpretation in Daniel 7:24 and in Revelation 17:12. [Although it can be argued that horns represent dynasties or kingdoms or personified governments]. As was my comment for verse 4, it is possible that the dragon can symbolize the control of the Roman Empire, as well as for Satan. "Speaking like a dragon" is not necessarily speaking blasphemy. "Speaking like a dragon," if the dragon is Satan, can mean speaking "deception," or promising, as Satan promised Eve, that you could be like Yahuah. {12} "And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed." Comment: The second beast appears as an agent of the first beast. There will be some form of worship of the first beast confederation, the one with military power, that speaks blasphemy and overcomes saints and was once thought of as dead. {13} "He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men." Comment: Fire from heaven is a capability of the second beast. We are living in a time where military can make fire come down from heaven in the sight of men. "In sight of" is used in the Bible more than 150 times. It can mean "on behalf of" as in verse 14, or it can mean "in defiance of" or "in the witness of." Until we have divine revelation, we can only speculate what this is. Time will tell. There is no hint, one way or another, as to whether people are influenced by fire from heaven to get the Mark. All the other indications of war lead me to believe that fire from heaven is military fire. But there is another possibility for you to consider. If you want to insist that fire from heaven cause people to get the Mark, you have to consider that brightness from heaven signifies Yah's glory. As in Luke 2:9, Acts 22:6, Acts 26:13, 2nd Corinthians 4:4 & 6, Hebrews 1:3, and in Revelation 21:23. Perhaps this performance of a great sign is referring to a counterfeit glory of a counterfeit God in the sight of men. Were you induced by the glory of a counterfeit god to get a number so you could sell your labor? If so, then you cannot dismiss this as a "great sign." {14} "And he deceives those who dwell on the earth by those signs which he was granted to do in the sight of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who was wounded by the sword and lived." Point of identification: Deception is involved. Beast #2 simply tells earthlings to make an image. There is no hint of force, only deception. Perhaps just a hidden agenda. These signs are different than those in verse 13; these are done in the sight of the Beast whereas verse 13 was in the sight of men. The two-horned second beast kingdom deceptively, perhaps even politely, asks the people of the earth to make an image (Greek icon = profile, representation, resemblance, depiction) to the first beast. Blasphemy is not mentioned as the authority. War is not mentioned. Until we have further divine revelation, anything that fits these prophecies cannot be flippantly dismissed. Even a coin has an image (the very same Greek word "icon"), as in Mark 12:16. Could a monument to Pharaoh on the Great Seal of The United States be dismissed? How about the Statue atop the Capitol Building? Do you salute the powers of bureaucracies that demand worship, provide for you and judge you? Another possibility was once articulately put to me, and I'll try to convey the meaning. You can control whatever you create. If we create a government to enforce Yahuah's laws, it is up to us to control it and keep it subservient to the lawful chain of command. Our civil servants did not like being subservient. They did not like the chain of command we created so they used "deception" to create, for their control, a false authority, a mirror image of the actual authority. Their chain of command is the mirror image that you salute. {15} "He was granted power to give breath to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak and cause as many as would not worship the image of the beast to be killed." Comment: The second beast kingdom breathes life into the image-icon-representation that we were asked to fabricate. The word translated as "killed" is the Greek word "apokteino" that can also be translated as "abolish." {16} "He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads," Comment: "Beasts" symbolize governments. "Horns" symbolize kings. The personal pronoun "he" in verses 11 through 16 refers to the two-horned beast, not a horn. Nowhere in the Bible do other references to "marks in the right hand and forehead" refer to physical marks. I have devoted an entire Chapter on this topic. If you want to insist that the mark can only be a physical mark, you should state a reason for bible believers to ignore the five other Bible references to tokens, signs and seals that are in both the hand and forehead. The original King James had a note that the words "to receive" could mean "to give." {17} "and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." Comment: It is the mark of the beast, just like it says. It is not the mark of an antichrist. Transactions are authorized by a mark, name, or number. Nowhere does it say that a number will be in an identically same format in all countries. As I will show in the next Chapter, it is the number of "its" name, not the number of "his" name. The deliberate mistranslation "his" is due to the influence of the Catholic Church on the King James translators during the Counter Reformation. More about this later. If you are a Protestant who was never told that you were protesting something, go to any Encyclopedia and look up "counter reformation." {18} "Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666." Comment: The phrase "Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding ..." certainly sounds as if the meaning is hidden. I don't claim to have this wisdom. As for the "number of a man" - I will show in the next Chapter that this translation mimics the official Catholic position on the AntiChrist that was fabricated to divert attention away from Martin Luther's accusations. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that the beast is a single man. Carelessly repeating anti-Protestant fables will not help you understand prophecy that is unfolding right in front of you. There has been much wild speculation on the number "666," but I'm not one who has the understanding to calculate it. Chapter 2 ANSWERS TO SKEPTICSThere are all manner of excuses by which people deny that the Mark is already here. I've heard them all. In order to have an ear to hear, we must explore the wide range of possibilities that agree with Scripture. In order for something to be the Mark of the Beast, it must agree with Scriptures. Too many of you are stuck on preconceptions that blind you to the truth. The number one most frequent excuse that a Social Security Card cannot be the Mark, is that the Mark is an actual physical non-symbolic Mark in the right hand or forehead, such as a tattoo or implant. Revelation 13:16 does indeed say that the Mark of the Beast is to be in the right hand or forehead, but in all other instances throughout the Bible, marks in hands and foreheads do not refer to physical marks. We will study all these in another Chapter. But first, let's examine some other preconceptions. The #2 most popular excuse is that Social Security Cards are only for Americans, and since the Mark is worldwide, it cannot be the Mark. I cannot understand this excuse. I cannot find any Scripture that would indicate that the final two horned Beast has to issue a numerical identifier in exactly the same format in all the different countries. And, IT'S ALREADY TOO LATE TO THINK OTHERWISE. Every country that has a national debt is required by their creditors to track their taxpayers' income. These multinational creditors are the same authorities who require you to be numbered. MULTINATIONAL TREATIES ALREADY REQUIRE THE US TO ISSUE SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS. Examples: There is a Treaty between Great Britain and the U.S. for the U.S. to administer Social Security. The GATT Treaty's "Uruguay Round Agreements" forced the U.S. Congress to make Social Security numbers mandatory for newborn children in order to be claimed as a dependent on a tax return (Section 742 of Public Law 103-465). Although SSNs have been issued for six decades, new federal regulations in U.S. Code, Title 20, Chapter 111, Subpart B 422.103(b)(2) now allow the Social Security Administration to enter into an agreement with the United Nations Headquarters District to establish "a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children." In my final Chapter, I provide many other proofs that the Social Security Card is already issued by multinational foreign powers. As you will soon learn, your future labor has been "hypothecated" as collateral for the national debt. This is legal because the Application for a Social Security Number meets all the requirements of a financing statement per Uniform Commercial Code, Section 9-302. You are the one that put your labor up as collateral for the national debt. If the U.S. ever defaults, (and it will), your foreign masters will resort to forced SLAVE labor to pay off the national debt. Your fair share is now $60,000 per taxpayer. The #3 most popular excuse that a Social Security Number cannot be the Mark, is that the Mark will be issued by a one man atheist world leader ruling from Jerusalem during a 3.5 year tribulation. These claims are based on the flimsiest of reasoning. I'll refute them all. Today's popular antichrist theory is just a prop fabricated to divert attention from Martin Luther's accusation (Luther's Works, Vol 2, page 281) that the Catholic Church gets away with blasphemy that no saint or heretic ever dared. The #4 most popular excuse is that taking the Mark is slapping Yah's face to "pledge allegiance" to the ruler of this world, and taking a Social Security Card cannot be equated to this. I'll address this issue in a separate Chapter. And yes, taking a Social Security Number is slapping God's face, for many reasons. The #5 most popular excuse is that a Social Security Number is not yet the Mark because we can still buy and sell some things without it, therefore this is absolute proof that the Mark is not yet here. They claim that prophecy requires a cashless society where absolutely ALL transactions are marked. Because they can still buy and sell some things for cash, this somehow proves that the Beast has not yet caused all, pursuant Revelation 13:16, to receive a mark to buy or sell. Let's take a closer look.
Where does it say that ALL transactions require a Mark? There are several alternative interpretations of verse 17. (1) "Buying and selling" in verse 17 could very well refer only to government monitored commerce:
The #6 most popular excuse that a Social Security Number cannot be the Mark is because Christians must obey authority and SSNs are required by authority. They insist that Social Security Numbers cannot be the Mark because everyone is forced to get them. (Their logic has something to do with the Mark being voluntary worship of the Beast, and since they were forced to get a SSN, it cannot be the Mark). They are wrong. There is no law that requires you to get a Social Security Number. No one in the government told you to get a number. ONLY THE BEAST REQUIRES A NUMBER. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO GET A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. The "Red Dragon" has a counterfeit authority for you to obey. It is a very close counterfeit to the legitimate authority. This "obey authority" excuse is used so often that I need to address it in more detail. It does not refer to obeying false authority. If you obey false authority you are rebelling against legitimate authority. My Appendix A contains my comments about obedience to false authority. Some people insist that Solomon's Temple must be rebuilt before the Mark is issued. As I said before, carelessly repeating anti-Protestant fables will not help you understand prophecy that is unfolding right in front of you. When Martin Luther accused the Pope of being the Son of Perdition, he added his understanding of the Temple: "What is the temple of Yah? Is it stones and wood? Did not Paul say, 'The Temple of Yah is holy, which Temple ye are?'" (Luther's Works,Vol 2, page 281). Some people want proof that the Saints were overcome (per Rev 13:7, Dan 7:21&25). This is a power of the ten-horned first Beast - NOT the two-horned second Beast that issues the Mark. One answer is that Saints without a mark must refrain from commerce. Another answer is that Saints are overcome when they are forced to participate in the theft of Socialism and swear Perjury Oaths to the state god. Another answer is that obeying the Commandments was punishable by death for 42 months. Before I introduce the 42-month topic, let's take a closer look at the Catholic attempt to dismiss the Protestant claim that the Pope is the Antichrist. The Dark Ages ended when millions of people read the Bible for themselves. All over Europe, the Pope was called the Antichrist. The historical Protestant position is that the 42-month period of Revelation 13:5 was a period of year long days, and that it had already been fulfilled. Year long days are used in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. Martin Luther called the Pope "the Son of Perdition." 2nd Thessalonians 2. In 1590, Jesuit Francisco Ribera published an opposing view, titled "In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij." Then in 1593, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine published "Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time." These became the official Catholic position on the Antichrist. They claim: 1) that the Antichrist was to be one man, not a dynasty, 2) he would be an atheist 3) he would not be revealed until 7 years before the end of time and does not exist in the present 4) he will rule for 3 and one half literal years 5) he would sit in a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem and make a covenant with Jews 6) he would call himself "God" 7) he will deny Yahusha and be received by the Jews Later, in the 1830's, they added the thought that Christians were to be secretly raptured to Heaven before his appearance. There is plenty of information available on the Internet to show that the Catholic Antichrist position is contrary to historical Protestant thought. Just search the Internet for combinations of the words "antichrist" or "futurism" with the name "Ribera." Those who carelessly repeat these Catholic fables insist that a Social Security Card cannot be the Mark because the Mark must be issued by an Anti-Christ Atheist world leader during a 42-month Tribulation. My Bible says that the two-horned second Beast issues the Mark, whereas the 10 horned brutal first Beast is the one that continues in power for forty-two months. Some people claim that 42 months of Revelation 13:5 is the very same 1260 days of Revelation 12:6, (which must somehow also be the 1260 days of Revelation 11:3). Although it is not an important issue, I have a problem with this. Forty two months does not equal 1260 days. Not in the Roman Calendar, not in the Jewish Calendar, and not in Yah's Solar system. Those who equate these two time spans say that a 30-day month is a "prophetic month," but their only proof is that these two time spans must somehow be equal. Only a great deceiver would think to change times and laws (Dan 7:25). If "months" are determined by the phases of the moon, as in Numbers 28, (also see 2 Kings 4:23, Psalm 81:3, Colossians 2:16, etc) then forty-two Jewish lunar months is equal to 1240 days, not 1260. Some people claim that the 42 months of Revelation 13:5 is the very same 3.5 year time span in both Revelation 12:14 and in Daniel 7:25. In Revelation 12:14, the persecuted Church is in hiding for a time, and times and half a time. In Daniel 7:25 the ten horned Beast, continues for a time, times and the dividing (fraction) of time. Those who use the "prophetic months" say that these are 1260-day periods of three and a half years. But God put 365.256 days in a year, not 360. Three and a half years are 1278 days, not 1260. Three and a half years are 43 lunar months, not 42. The time span is an important issue; I mention this to show the extent to which people will equate things. I have come to the conclusion that in the middle of the 7 year reign of the beast there will be a celestial event that will cause the earth to move closer to the sun by 5 and a quarter days and will also cause the moon to slow to 30 lunar days instead of 29 and half lunar days. This event is described in Rev 6:12-14 when the sixth seal is opened and the great earthquake happens, this will be the 3.5 year tribulation and reign of terror of any confederation of Beast powers with worldwide military influence, that speaks blasphemy, at anytime past, present or future. Also other events of this nature will happen, Rev 8:7thru Rev 9:2 (look at these verses to see if this is the event that I am speaking of). The first theory is something like this, but it seems to support the 3½ year hiding of the persecuted Church in Revelation 12:14 and the 42 months of Revelation 13:5:
Some people say that the Social Security Card cannot be the Mark because the Mark is associated with "the number of his name" in verse 17 which refers to the number of one individual man. And it is "the number of a man" in verse 18, which is the number of one individual man. This is another Catholic interpretation that was fabricated for the Counter-Reformation and is easily refuted. Let's take a closer look:
"(13) Procedures requiring that the social security number of - " "(A) any applicant for a professional license, driver's license, occupational license, or marriage license be recorded on the application ..." etc., etc., etc. ... There are many who expect me to know the exact identities of the end time characters. They say my message is all wrong because I cannot, with certainty, identify all the end time characters. Some even want to equate all the evil characters. They insist that the ten-horned Beast is the two-horned Beast, is Daniel's "king of the north," is the "son of perdition," is "the little horn," is "the antichrist," is "the man of sin," is "the false prophet," is "mystery Babylon," is the man personified as "the King of Tyre," and is "the harlot" on the Beast, and is the "white horseman." If these AntiChrist equivalents are essential doctrines of your faith, then study them and make your own conclusions. If you need to be deprogrammed from these theories, I recommend the books "Forcing God's Hand" by Grace Halsell and "The Incredible Scofield and His Book" by Joseph Canfield, and Hal Lindsey's "Prophetic Jigsaw Puzzle" by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi. Here are some things to consider:
Some people think that the Social Security Card is not yet the "Mark of the Beast" because people are not yet executed for refusing it (as is supposedly required by verse 15). Here is my paraphrase of Revelation 13:15: "life has been given to an image of [= fabrication created by] a Beast, that the image should cause as many protesters as would not worship the Beast [to qualify for credentials to buy and sell] should be abolished [Greek apokteino = destroy, abolish or kill]." I know that without jobs, homes, and cash - that those who don't have credentials to buy and sell can die of starvation. Being cut off from (apokteino) commerce is an effective method of causing all to worship (with a Perjury Oath) Beast powers. Eventually this will involve execution according to Revelation 20:4. History is about to repeat itself. Americans have been conquered, vanquished, and subdued by a Beast power. The same Beast power that inquisitioned and massacred millions of your Protestant ancestry and thousands of their ancestors back in the fourth century. They stood. Most people today refuse to take a stand. Concerning the counterfeit miracles, signs, and lying wonders of Rev 13:13-14 and 2nd Thess 2:9, and the sorceries that deceived Nations in Rev 18:23. I cannot prove a connection, but "Endtime" magazine (Vol 10, No. 3) reports that tour guides at the Vatican state that the word "Vatican" means "the hill of the magicians and the soothsayers." Many Sabbath keepers insist that "Sunday Laws" are the Mark because they will prohibit buying and selling, albeit on Sundays only. One Sabbath keeper wrote to me to say "The issue is loyalty to Satan or loyalty to Yah and THEN buying and selling to save your life." At first, I dismissed this because it seemed to me that Revelation 13:17 has those with a mark, name or number as qualified to buy or sell. Another point to consider is that the first Angel's message in Revelation 14:7 tells us to worship him that made the heavens, earth and sea. These are the same words used in the Sabbath commandment. Verse 12 then contrasts those who keep the Commandments with those who receive the Mark. Other excuses: Many people claim that the "Mark of the Beast" can only occur when there appears a revived Roman Empire, or a cashless society, or a new temple on the Temple Mount after the sacrifice of Red cows, or a rebuilt Babylon, or an 18 digit international number. It seems to me that there already is a revived Roman Empire, and a world anti-Christ power (as defined by 1John4), and a rebuilt Babylon, and a cashless society (without the gold or silver cash required by your Constitution), and there already are international numbers. And there already is a red cow in Israel. It seems to me that the leaves are on the fig tree. Deuteronomy 8:19-20 "And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the Yahuah thy Father, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which the Yahuah destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of Yahuah your Father." Chapter 3 Daniel 7:3 speaks of four Beasts coming up from the sea with a total of seven heads and ten horns. Daniel 7:23 defines a "Beast" as a Kingdom, whereas horns are kings. Daniel's fourth Beast kingdom absorbs the other Beasts to become the confederacy (like unto a leopard-bear-lion with seven heads and ten horns) that appears in Revelation 13 and carries a whore in Revelation 17. The whore is easily identified:
If you have a worker authorization number and live in a nation that has already adapted all planks of the Communist Manifesto, and where more than 50% of the Gross National Product is spent by local, state and federal governments, then you are enslaved to support an endless line of socialists. If you spend more on federal, state and local taxes then you do for your own food, shelter, clothing and medical care, then you either accept Communism by doing nothing, or you do not accept it. The second Beast of Revelation 13 is more difficult to identify. We know that a two-horned second Beast that comes up from the land exercises the authority of the red ten-horned first Beast that came up from the sea and uses a Mark-Name-Number system to monitor buying and selling. In verse 12; it has worldwide influence. We know that military power is involved because of verses 4b, 7, 13 & 14, as well as trampling and crushing the whole earth per Dan 7:24. It can use military power on behalf of the first Beast in order to deceive many. Military power is involved somehow, even if it is behind the scenes Marital Law or a foreign takeover of some government functions, or even if it was the brutality of the now ancient Roman Empire. [Aside: Although we are living in a time when the military can make fire come down from heaven in the sight of men, this might not mean much to you, because you don't understand the threat. The IMF has imposed austerity programs on nations delinquent on their debt payments. Governments have been forced by Treaty to number their citizens. Here in America, the GATT Treaty requires your Government to issue Social Security Numbers to newborns. The United States is the world's largest debtor nation. Your national debt is more than you are worth. Is it too far fetched to suppose the creditors could enforce their collection with military force?] I have avoided identifying specific Beast powers because I don't have proof. But since I get so much mail on the topic, I'll disclose my thoughts: The two-horned Beast (Rev 13:11) issues the Mark to those who worship the seven headed ten horned Beast. "Beasts" symbolize Kingdoms (Dan 7:23,18,22,24 and Rev 17:17). "Horns" symbolize Kings, Dynasties, or perhaps personified governments (Daniel 7:24, 8:20 and Revelation 17:12). The two-horned second Beast that issues the Mark speaks as a Dragon. One horn is probably the Department of the Treasury (which is not a part of the US government. The Treaty of Paris, kept the treasury authority within the Holy Roman Empire)the (International Monetary Fund) The Department of the Treasury, not the Social Security Administration, issues SSNs to authorize you to buy or sell. This will eventually be backed up by an international military authority to enforce the collection of their collateral. The other horn is, or will become, the EEC, which has already, through the GATT Treaty, forced the U.S. Congress to require SSNs at birth. Notice that both these powers rose up from the earth to regulate commerce, both get their power from Rome, and both are involved in issuing Social Security Numbers. As I said, I don't have proof of the identity of the two-horned second Beast. I've heard many well-researched claims involving the U.N., the United States (sometimes symbolized by a two-horned Buffalo), Britain, Prince Charles, Islamic banking, the Knights Templar, and the Tribe of Dan. Some people insist that the two lamb-like horns prove that it must be a Church. All these claims have merit. There is no proof who it is. If beast powers, such as the Department of the Treasury or the EEC, or the U.N., or the IMF or their creditors, are requiring you to be numbered and are related to a two horned military power, then the time is at hand. Let's take a closer look. Here are a few hints about deceptive worldwide military authority that has deceived many and involves red (socialistic) confederation of Beast powers:
The second Beast demands worship. The worship is very subtle, but it is indeed worship prohibited by Yah in His first and second Commandments. "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them." Much like the ancient Roman requirement to burn incense to their gods, the modern requirement for oaths (either in court or a perjury oath on federal forms) is nevertheless worship of a counterfeit god, contrary to the first Commandment. As we shall see, it is nearly impossible for a Bible Believer to avoid worshiping the Beast and still have a right to buy and sell. QUIZ "We must extirpate all forms of ... religious exclusiveness." Mikhail Gorbachev in his book "Perestroika," 1987. OR "No one comes to the Father except through me" Yahusha the Messhia, John 14:6 And, "there is no other name (Greek "onoma") under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12 Chapter 4 RIGHT HAND AND FOREHEADMany people insist that the Mark has to be an implant in the skin. Although the Greek word `stigma' can mean prick (as well as a reference to a mark of ownership) and although the Greek word `charagma' can mean etching (or a badge of servitude), this is not necessarily proof that the Mark has to be an implant. The King James Version translated the Greek word "epi" to the English word "in" or "upon" for the following marks:
Many people claim that the Mark will be a physical mark because the English word "Mark" refers to a physical mark. Although it refers to a physical mark, it can refer to physical marks that are also designations of ownership, as in a rancher branding his cattle, or an artist signing his work. Later, I will show that a Social Security Card is indeed a certificate of ownership. The English word "Mark" can also mean a scar, as in Galatians 6:17: "... I bear in my body the marks of the Yahusha Messiah." This is translated from the Greek word `stigma', which is not the word "Mark" used in Revelation. "Stigma" in Strong's Concordance is defined as "a mark incised or punched for recognition of ownership, i.e. scar of service:-mark." Notice that its primary meaning of this "stigma" physical mark is as a designation of ownership. More about the word "stigma," later. The Greek word for "Mark" in the eight occurrences in Revelation, is the Greek word `charagma' (Strong's G5480) which means an etching or a badge of servitude. The extent of Yah's wrath leads us to believe that this is something extraordinary. But grammatically, there is no reason to suspect that this is anything more than advanced than a badge, or an ID card. The Mark might eventually involve an etching of the skin, as a tattoo or an implant, but I don't see where Scripture requires it. A Social Security Card already fits this prophecy. A number issued by a foreign power already qualifies you to buy and sell, and as we shall see, none of the other Biblical Marks in the right hand or forehead refer to a tattoo or scar or implant. The only other occurrence of the word `charagma' in the Bible is translated into the word `graven' in Acts 17:29. Let's take a closer look at Revelation 13:16-17 so that you will never be lulled into waiting for a tattoo or implant. Revelation 13:16,17 (KJV) "And he causeth (Greek "poiei" = agree, appoint, cause, commit, provide) all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive (Greek "didomi"= give, bestow, bring forth, grant, have power) a mark in their right hand (Greek "cheir"= grasping, a means of power), or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." I don't claim any great insight into these literal phrases. It might be as simple as making a Mark available for all to grab. We have parallel examples in our own culture: one who is appointed (poiei) to office receives power (didomi) after he raises his right hand (cheir) during the oath of office. Even today's English Dictionaries define: "a right hand man" as one who is reliable in performing his delegated duties. When you signed the Application for a SS Number, with a Perjury Oath (right hand), you received power (didomi) to buy or sell. I find it curious that the word for "give" (didomi) is translated "receive." Rather than speculate on the literal, let's study the symbolic and let the Bible interpret itself as much as possible. Keep in mind that John the Revelator would be familiar with all of the other Biblical references to signs, words, tokens, law, and seals upon your right hand and forehead. The terminology "A mark in your forehead" symbolically means "to serve." And so it is to this very day; a Uniform's cap has an engraved metallic mark etched at the forehead. The terminology "In your right hand" symbolizes "Oaths" (Genesis 14:22, Ezekiel 17:18, Ezekiel 36:7 and Daniel 12:7). And so it is to this very day; an Oath is performed with your right hand raised. Look up "Oath" in any Encyclopedia: An Oath is always a religious ritual. Your Bible prohibits taking an Oath to a pagan state god. A perjury Oath on a government Form is a religious ritual. (Your government continues to conduct their religious rituals, because they cannot have separation of their church from their state). "Foreheads" and "hands," when mentioned together, signify "loyalty and obedience." It is as simple as today's idiom "right hand man." As we study all the Biblical references to the right-hand-and-forehead, keep in mind that there are different messages being conveyed:
Here are the Biblical examples where both forehead and hand terminology are used together. It is important to notice that none of these refer to physical marks, implants, or tattoos, and notice that every instance also mentions "children:" Exodus 13:8-9 (KJV): And thou shalt shew thy son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the LORD did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt. And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the Lord's law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt. Exodus 13:15-16 (KJV): And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem. And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt. Deuteronomy 6:6-9 (KJV): And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates. Deuteronomy 11:16-23 (KJV): Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, [Note: this word "gods" is the Hebrew word 'elohiym' which can mean magistrates or judges] and worship them; And then the LORD'S wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit; and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the LORD giveth you. Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes. And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house, and upon thy gates: That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon the earth. For if ye shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you, to do them, to love the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, and to cleave unto him; Then will the LORD drive out all these nations from before you, and ye shall possess greater nations and mightier than yourselves. Proverbs 7:1-3 (KJV): My son, keep my words, and lay up my commandments with thee. Keep my commandments, and live; and my law as the apple of thine eye. Bind them upon thy fingers, write them upon the table of thine heart. Revelation 7:2-3 (KJV): And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. Revelation 14:1 (KJV): And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. The word "Mark" in Revelation's "the Mark of the Beast" is the Greek word "charagma" (Strong's G5480). "Charagma" is a badge of service, or an etching, such as an etched metallic badge (or perhaps an ID card). Throughout the history of mankind, A BADGE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A SYMBOL OF SERVITUDE. If you've been brainwashed into thinking of a badge as a symbol of authority, you have it backwards. A Mark/Badge on your forehead has your master's name (= authority). If you are off the feudal manor while wearing your master's badge, everyone knows you are conducting business in your master's authority. This was necessary as a public notice that your master would pay for any transactions conducted in his name and he would pay for any damage that you cause. Aaron wore a metal badge at his turban's forehead, as a badge of servitude. It was the part of his Uniform (Exodus 28:36-38) which marks it as God's Uniform. While he is in Uniform, he represents his Master's authority. And so it is to this very day: Uniforms' Caps, Helmets, Berets, or Turbans have a metal Badge of Servitude at the forehead. Also, Ezekiel 9:4 refers to physical marks on the forehead as an outward symbol of inward attitudes. Just as you cannot wear two caps at once, You cannot have both a Mark of a Beast and Yahusha's Mark (as in Rev 14:1) on your forehead. Your forehead is reserved for Yahusha's Mark. If you belong to a Beast, then serve your Beast. If you belong to Messiah, serve Messiah. Chapter 5 SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT A TRUST FUND OR INSURANCESocial Security is Socialism, not insurance, not a Pension, nor a Trust Fund. I will explain in another Chapter why your federal government cannot give entitlements to ordinary people. But first, I will convince you that you did not earn any SS benefits and you did not deposit anything into a Trust Fund, you did not earn a Pension, and you did not pay any insurance premium. In 1937, the Social Security Act was declared unconstitutional because, according to the federal Appellate Court, it was using public funds for private purposes, as a "trust fund" and as "insurance" - Davis v. Boston, 89 F2d 368. The court declared that as an excise tax, which it claimed to be, it could not be imposed on wages since an excise may be placed only on articles of consumption. (This case reversed a lower court's ruling in 17 F. Supp 97, which decided that it was valid as an excise tax). A month later, the Supreme Court, in both Helvering v. Davis, 301 US 619 and in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis 301 US 548, decided on the same day that the Appellate Court was wrong without explaining why the Appellate Court was wrong. The Supreme Court found that the Appellate Court was wrong to claim that there is a Trust Fund or insurance. THERE IS NO TRUST FUND AND IT IS NOT INSURANCE. The Supreme Court refused to face the question of whether Social Security was an excise tax. They declared: "We find it unnecessary to make a choice between the arguments, and so leave the question open." That's right! There is no official explanation of why Social Security is constitutional. You are about to learn why, but you won't like it. By the way, there are some minor Trust Funds for federal worker's compensation, black lung disease, vaccine injury and a few others (these are in the Internal Revenue Code in Sections 9501 to 9510, not in the Social Security Act). Nowhere is there a Trust Fund for old age benefits. Nowhere does the Social Security Act have provisions for a Trust Fund. You can search it all you want, but you won't find it. THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT HAS NO PROVISIONS FOR A TRUST FUND. As further proof that there is no Trust Fund or insurance: In 1980 the Supreme Court in Fleming v. Nestor determined that Social Security remains constitutional because there has never been a promise to pay benefits. Again I repeat: SOCIAL SECURITY REMAINS CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUST FUND AND IT IS NOT INSURANCE AND THERE IS NO PROMISE TO PAY BENEFITS. Allowing your family to partake of Social Security is a sin (1Tim 5:8, Mark 7:9-13). The phrase "worse than an infidel" may seem harsh, but it is in your Bible. Zechariah 14:1 (NIV) "A day of Yahuah is coming when your plunder will be divided among you." Chapter 6 In the past Chapter, I've provided proof that Social Security would be unconstitutional if it was a Trust Fund. In another Chapter, I'll prove that it is only available to "Indigents," but first I'll explain why, so that you will understand that IT CANNOT BE OTHERWISE. FEDERAL ENTITLEMENTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO CHRISTIANS Your Constitution does not allow government to provide ordinary people with entitlements such as "Welfare" or Social Security benefits. It is not a government function to provide entitlements to people. It is not a government function to take care of people. Nor is there any authorized source of funds to take care of people, nor can civil servants receive a paycheck for performing such non-governmental services. And indeed, your Government does not give entitlements to ordinary people. ORDINARY PEOPLE CANNOT QUALIFY FOR FEDERAL BENEFITS. Again: it is not a government function to provide entitlements to people. When your Constitution was being considered for ratification by the State Senates, some people were suspicious of the "general welfare" Clause and tried to claim that these two words could authorize any kind of welfare. The general welfare Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of your U.S. Constitution reads: "The Congress shall have Power to ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; ..." It is an introductory phrase which is followed, after a semi-colon, by a specific list of the 17 things the new government would be authorized to do, such as; to establish Post Offices, coin money, make Treaties, establish standard weights and measures, provide for a Navy, punish pirates, punish counterfeiting, fund a temporary army, declare war, and exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all cases in the future Washington, D.C., etc. To counter those rumors that the general welfare Clause in the proposed Constitution would authorize any kind of welfare, James Madison, in Federalist Paper #41, explained its clear intent. He stated that it "is an absurdity" to claim that the General Welfare Clause confounds or misleads, because this introductory Clause is followed by enumeration of specific particulars that explain and qualify the meaning of phrase "general welfare." That's right! YOUR CONSTITUTION WAS RATIFIED UNDER THE ASSURANCE THAT IT WOULD NEVER BE INTERPRETED TO PROVIDE WELFARE TO INDIVIDUALS - And it has not. And indeed, to this very day, your U.S. Government can not, and does not, provide entitlements to ordinary Americans. Here is the catch: The ONLY way to qualify for entitlements, such as welfare or Social Security, is to become a ward of a foreign authority. The U.S. Government administers their program as their Agent. SOCIAL SECURITY AND WELFARE REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE ORDINARY AMERICANS CANNOT QUALIFY FOR ENTITLEMENTS. The Supreme Court says, 92 US 551: "It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government." Congress cannot appropriate funds for entitlements to Americans. No one who swears an Oath to uphold the Constitution can lawfully spend funds for any entitlement. Government funds can only be spent for legitimate purposes. Examples:
Conclusion #1, "Welfare" is prohibited by your U.S. Constitution. IT HAS NEVER BEEN A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION TO HELP PEOPLE Yahusha the Messiah said in Luke 22:25: "... they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors." 2nd Thessalonians 3:6-14 prohibits Bible Believers from associating with freeloaders. Those who manage themselves will not accept Socialist benefits. Bible Believers will not force others to pay for their retirement. Those who accept benefits do so only by a "Pledge of Allegiance" to a worldly master. Perhaps you've chosen the wrong provider. Another interesting Document is President Cleveland's June 21, 1886 veto of military pensions. His veto blasted into politicians because a pension would "urge honest men to become dishonest." And he refused to pass such a "demoralizing lesson." Military pensions were dishonest in 1886. Federal pensions are still dishonest today. If earned pensions are dishonest, how depraved are those who think of unearned welfare as honest? Conclusion #2, "Pensions" are prohibited by your U.S. Constitution. By the way, The Federalist Papers are not just some antiquated editorial opinions, they are, according to the Supreme Court in Cohen v. Virginia (6 Wheat), the exact record of the intent of the Constitution (also see Coleman v. Miller). Just in case you think a law or an Amendment changed the intent of your U.S. Constitution, Think again. A Congressman cannot swear an Oath to support and defend your Constitution and then suggest an Amendment to change something that he is sworn to perpetuate. If you don't believe me, perhaps you can believe the U.S. Supreme Court in S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 US 437 (1905): "The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now ..." Busser v. Snyder, 37 ALR 1515: "An Old Age Assistance Law is prohibited by a constitutional provision that no appropriation shall be made for charitable or benevolent purposes to any person." Conclusion #3, Old Age Assistance is prohibited by your U.S. Constitution. Also in the Busser case: "The term 'poor,' as used by lawmakers, describes those who are destitute and helpless, unable to support themselves, and without means of support." I want you to remember the legal definition of the term "poor" from this Busser case. Destitute, helpless, unable to support themselves, without means of support. Later on, I will show that this is entirely consistent with the poor laws. If you cannot take care of yourself, others are allowed to take care of you, even if you don't like it. John 21:18. Your U.S. Constitution has not changed. "WELFARE," "PENSIONS" AND "OLD AGE ASSISTANCE" REMAIN UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Such things are not within the realm of the United states government, they must remain foreign. The only way to get such assistance is to become a ward of a foreign authority. The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, as the Agent of your foreign masters, will administer the foreign program with "actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken ..." pursuant to Title 12, United States Code, Section 95(b). The Secretary of the Treasury is the very same multinational authority that issues Social Security Cards. Here is an anti-welfare anti-tax quote from Abraham Lincoln: "You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot lift the wage earner by tearing down the wage payer. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do themselves." Chapter 7 COURT CASES FORCING PEOPLE TO GET A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OVER THEIR OBJECTION In the entire history of Social Security Numbers, there have only been six people who have been told by a Court to get a number. Note that ALL OF THE CASES INVOLVE PEOPLE WHO WERE PARTAKING IN WELFARE.
Again, throughout history, only Socialists have been required to have these Socialist identifiers. There is no government requirement for ordinary people to get a number. ONLY the Beast (the red Beast of Socialism, Revelation 17:3) requires ordinary people to get a number. In one case, the Court concluded that someone who was receiving welfare didn't have to number their children because of their belief that the Social Security Number was the Mark of the Beast. It would be worthwhile to read the case Stevens v. Berger, 428 F.Supp. 896. Also related to SSNs for children, read the third Callahan case 736 F2d 1269. Chapter 8 WHO CAN QUALIFY FOR A SOCIAL SECURITY CARD? You will find conflicting answers to this important question. The official U.S. Government answer is that only Welfare Applicants may get a Social Security Number. Since welfare remains unconstitutional within the Unites states, the only welfare available is "foreign welfare." Your federal government administers this foreign program. Social Security came into existence in 1936, three years after the federal government went bankrupt. The foreign bankruptcy receivership offers this welfare plan for destitute people who volunteer to become their permanent Wards. The original intent was to get the ownership of American's labor (people don't like it when I use the word "slave") to put up as "collateral" for the national debt. Those who survived the Great Depression were grateful for the indentured servitude that allowed them to survive. Are you? If you persist in your inquiry, you will get many answers. I've collected many different Pamphlets and IRS Publications and responses to letters. These are all unofficial. In my Appendix G you will learn what the Courts think about unofficial answers:
COURT CASES. In the last Chapter, you were introduced to the six Court cases that forced people to get Social Security Numbers. All six were welfare recipients. THE LAW. There is no government requirement for anyone to apply for a number. SSN's cannot be assigned unless you first apply for socialist benefits. Section 205(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act allows the Social Security Administration to assign numbers "to any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part from Federal funds including any child on whose behalf such benefits are claimed by another person ..." Read that again. Do you meet the eligibility requirements for a Social Security Number? It is available ONLY to those who claim government funds. Only those who need benefits can receive a Social Security Number. Social Security is not a Trust Fund, nor insurance, nor a Pension - it's a handout. A Christian cannot associate with freeloaders per 2nd Thessalonians 3:6-14. If you ask them to take care of you, then you are asking to become a Ward of a foreign authority. TO GET BENEFITS, YOU MUST BECOME A WARD OF A FOREIGN AUTHORITY. For constitutional reasons, they can give welfare ONLY to these Wards. James Madison said: "it is an absurdity to state that welfare can be given to ordinary people." A "Pauper" is someone who is supported at public expense. As you've seen from the Articles of Confederation, a Pauper cannot have rights. Never did, never will. You, like Esau, gave up your birthright for a future bowl of stew. The only other categories of people who can be given a SSN are "Aliens" applying for federal citizenship, and students enrolling in federally funded schools. [even though the Supreme Court in a 1982 case Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202, says that schools cannot require SSNs from students]. THE REGULATION. Title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 422.103: "(b)Applying for a number. "(1) Form SS-5. An individual needing a social security number may apply for one by filing a signed Form SS-5 'Application for a Social Security Card', at any social security office and submitting the required evidence. .... "(2) Request on birth registration document. Where a parent has requested a social security number for a newborn child as part of an official birth registration process ...." That's right. Persons needing a number does so voluntarily. The only way they can tell if an Indigent is needy enough to sell all his rights for a future bowl of stew is to wait until he asks. Notice that the term "needing" is not the term "wanting." This is entirely consistent with the poor laws. OFFICIAL NOTICES The Paperwork Reduction Act (Public Law 96-511) requires all federal Forms that request information from the public to display an OMB Number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. Title 44, US Code, Section 3507(f), prohibits government Agencies from collecting any information unless the Form displays an OMB Number. To get an OMB Number for the Form "Application for a Social Security Card, Form SS-5," the Agency that created the Application Form (Treasury Department, not the Social Security Administration) had to file a Form SF83 with the OMB. The Standard Form 83's, Section 24 is entitled "Respondents obligation to comply" and then has three boxes to check: "Mandatory," "Voluntary," or "Required to obtain or retain a benefit." Their SF83 confirms that the SS-5 Application for a SSN is required to obtain a benefit and is not mandatory. And the Form SS-5's "Legal authority for information collection" is Section 205(c)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act, which I've quoted above. The Privacy Act (Title 5, US Code, Section 552a) in Subsection (e)(3) requires all federal Forms that solicit information from the public to state what law authorizes the solicitation and whether or not disclosure of the information is mandatory or voluntary. The Application for a Social Security Card, Form SS-5, has a Privacy Act statement. It states in part: "You do not have to give us these facts, but without them we cannot issue you a Social Security number or card. Without a number, you could lose Social Security benefits in the future ..." The laws, regulations and Court decisions and Official Notices are entirely consistent with each other. They conform with history and with the U.S. Constitution and with the truth. And they are entirely consistent with the poor laws. People v. Shirley, 92 ALR 2d 413, (indexed under the topic "Poor Laws"): "The provisions of the welfare code are to be administered fairly, with due consideration not only for the needs of applicants but also for the safeguarding of public funds; if children are not in need, they are not eligible for assistance regardless of who is paying for their support." Taxpayers don't need a Social Security Number. Those who file a Form 1040 for the first time and don't put down a TIN will be assigned a TIN by the IRS. But beware, the payment of a tax not owed creates an obligation to pay future taxes. I have yet to confirm that religious objectors who work for the government can get a temporary ITIN instead of an SSN by filling out a W7 Form. On the other hand, I've read where ITINs/IRSNs only apply to Amish objectors per Section 1402(g) of the Internal Revenue Code (mentioned in the Legislative History of Public Law 99-514, Section 4), and I've also read Revenue Ruling 85-61 which makes it seem that only Alien limited partners qualify for these alternate numbers. The instructions for ITIN application (Form W7) state that the Form is only for those who do not qualify for a Social Security Number. Here are some notes that lead me to believe that "Legal Notice" has to be served, by a process server, on anyone required to get a Social Security Number. U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Batchelder, 442 US 114: "Due process requires that a person be given fair notice as to what constitutes illegal conduct, so that he may conform his conduct to the requirements of the law." Service of Notice requiring TINs is acknowledged by 26 CFR 422.6109-1(h): "... Nothing contained in the regulations under section 6109 shall limit the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to obtain taxpayer identifying numbers required before or after the effective date of this paragraph after notice is served upon the taxpayer pursuant to section 6001." Now take a closer look at this Section 6001 of the Internal Revenue Code. It uses the deceptive terminology "may require" and "or by regulations": "... Whenever in the judgment of the Secretary it is necessary, he may require any person, by notice served upon such person or by regulations, to make such returns, render such statements, or keep such records, as the Secretary deems sufficient to show whether or not such person is liable for tax under this title." Concerning the "or by regulations" terminology: This is one of the places where the word "or" really means "and." If you are going to claim that some people are served Notice in person, while others are served Notice via the publication of regulations, then I demand the equal protection of the law, equal with those who have been served Notice in person. [In statutes, the word `or' can mean `and' unless preceded by a comma. Also see Appendix B where `must' can mean `may']. Concerning the "may require" terminology here is proof that "may require" really means "must require." Note how "may" is defined in 34 AmJur, Mandamus, Section 72: "Frequently, however, the word 'may' or the like as used in statutes relating to the duty of public officers is construed as mandatory, and not merely permissive, Anno: 6 L.R.A. 162; 12 L.R.A.(NS) 340, See STATUTES (also 25 RCL p. 750), and when such is the case, mandamus may issue to compel the officer to perform the duty so imposed. Rock Island County v. United States, 4 Wall. (US) 435, 18 LEd,419; Brokaw v. Highway Comrs., 130 Ill 482, 22 N.E. 596, 6 L.R.A. 161." U.S. Supreme Court in Mahler v. Eby, 264 US 32: "It is essential that where an executive is exercising delegated legislative power he should substantially comply with all the statutory requirements in its exercise" Chapter 9 SOCIALISM IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITYIf Social Security is not insurance or a Trust Fund, then what is it? It is the theft of Socialism. Social Security is Socialism. Socialism is theft. Theft is a sin. There was never a promise to pay benefits. "Rights" can only come from responsibilities. You won't understand this yet, but those who accept public benefits cannot have rights. Federal funds are not available to ordinary persons. Only indigents can qualify to receive federal benefits. It is highly unlikely that you ever qualified for a Social Security Card. Section 205(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act allows government to assign Social Security Numbers to Applicants for benefits financed with government funds. Unless you need federal benefits, Social Security Cards are not available to you. You cannot qualify for a number. That's right! SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHO CAN PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES. If you can still provide for yourself, or if your family or church or state can support you, it would be fraud to apply for federal benefits. Let me repeat this essential fact is several ways, until you understand: The Application for an SS Card (the SS5 Form) is a Form limited to a very specific purpose. It is only for indigents who need federal funds. People who can provide for themselves cannot be indigent. Social Security Cards cannot be issued to anyone until they apply for federal benefits. The government cannot know who is destitute; they must wait for Applicants desperate enough to apply for federal funds. It must be voluntary. Social Security has no Trust Fund; it is solely a handout that is limited to government Wards. Only Socialists can qualify for a card (As you will find out herein, Socialists are not even eligible for citizenship). ONLY THOSE WHO CANNOT SUPPORT THEMSELVES AND ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT SOCIALISM AND WILLING TO SWEAR SO WITH A PERJURY OATH ON A PERMANENT IRREVOCABLE RECORD, CAN QUALIFY TO RECEIVE A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. To remain constitutional, only Wards of the government can receive benefits. This is a vow of poverty. You exchanged your rights to all future wages for the false promise of future benefits. You did so voluntarily. I'll discuss labor rights and poverty vows and taxable wages in other Chapters. According to the legal definition of "Tacit Procuration," you grant them the Power of Attorney if you expect them to provide for you. You asked them to provide for you - to steal for you. Government does not and cannot create wealth, it must tax in order to give. Government cannot provide benefits unless it takes them from someone else. "Socialism" is theft of your neighbor's money. Your new master will take money from your neighbors, against their will and over their objections. These civil servants will eventually resort to the force of guns, on your behalf, to seize property from any neighbor who stubbornly and repeatedly refuses to hand over whatever is demanded. It is theft. They call it "distraint." It is not insurance. Proverbs 1:10-19 gives us advice about those who entrap the innocent to fill their house with plunder. In Matt 20:25-27 and Mark 10:42-43 and Luke 22:25-27 Yahusha tells us to not have dominion over others, but to serve. Bible Believers SERVE. Bible Believers DON'T LORD over those who are not under them. Not by force, not by vote, not by hiring a servant and then delegating to the servant an authority to steal - an authority that you don't have. Again: Bible Believers don't have dominion over their neighbors. You cannot tax your neighbors to fund your retirement. Since there is no Trust Fund (nor can there be one) - Only by the deepest commitment to covetousness can you force others to pay for your retirement (or pay your doctor bills, or pay to educate your children). You are coveting your neighbors' goods. You are forcing your dominion over those who are not subject to your authority, contrary to Christ's command. Conversely, if your bank account and property can be seized to pay for your neighbor's retirement (or doctor bills or tuition), then you must have somehow lost your right to keep `your' property or money. What do you suppose that you signed to waive any right to keep `your' property? Have you become "surety?" The "security" in Social Security is social. Look up "social insurance" in a law dictionary. You have become "surety" for your neighbor. Proverbs 11:15 "He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and he that hateth suretiship is sure." Also: Proverbs 17:18 Only Wards of the government (card carrying Socialists) can receive the benefits of National Socialism. Social Security is not a Trust Fund or insurance, it is an excise tax on the benefits of a limited citizenship (including the government granted privilege of earning wages). This tax revenue goes into the general fund. Authority for this taxation comes from the Buck Act, not the Internal Revenue Code. It is presumed, but not required, that Congress will appropriate funds each year for maintenance of the government Wards. The Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that Social Security benefits are not based on a fixed contract and therefore can change or be eliminated at any time. Fleming v. Nestor, 80 SCt 1367. In the 1891 naturalization case of Mr. Sauer, 81 Federal Reporter 358 the court held that Mr. Sauer (although an industrious, law abiding man) could not become a citizen because he claimed to be a Socialist. "Socialists" could not become citizens, and they still cannot. I have another Chapter that cites every court case where people were forced to get Social Security numbers. Every case is a welfare Applicant. Social Security Numbers are only for Socialists. "Socialists" cannot have rights. Read Appendix C and prove to yourself that they have changed their citizenship and are not protected by the first eight Amendments to your U.S. Constitution (Hague case) and do not have the right to a trial by jury (Colegate case). If you want to loose your birthright, just fill out a Form claiming socialist benefits. If you think you still have a right to a trial by jury, read Appendix F. A Bible Believer cannot be a Socialist. Bible Believers are not to associate with freeloaders, according to 2nd Thessalonians 3:6-14: 2nd Thessalonians 3:6 (NIV): "In the name of the Lord Yahusha Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. 3:7 "For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 3:8 "nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 3:9 "We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 3:10 "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'If a man will not work, he shall not eat.' I want to interject a note here: this isn't a snobbish threat to starve the poor, it is a fundamental Biblical principle. In the same sentence where Yah condemned us to die, he condemned us to work for food. That's right! To acknowledge Socialism is to deny Yah's authority. Genesis 3:19 (KJV): "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." The Socialists that want you to provide not only their food but also health care, deny Yahuah's authority to sentence us to hardships. 3:11 "We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 3:12 "Such people we command and urge in the Lord Yahusha Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. 3:13 "And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right. 3:14 "If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed." That the freeloader may feel ashamed. I've been told that I am too sarcastic just because I quote the Bible. Do not confuse voluntary Charity with forced Socialism. Bible Believers are often in need of Charity, yet cannot accept Socialism. Does the Bible support the notion that Socialism can provide for Bible Belivers? Let's take a closer look:
Theodore Roosevelt: "The first requisite of a citizen in this Republic of ours, is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight." As further proof that Socialists have never had rights, in my Appendix C read where the Articles of Confederation extended the rights of citizenship to inhabitants with the exceptions of paupers and vagabonds and fugitives. A vagrant is not a vagabond. Even Christ was homeless - Matt (8:20, Luke 9:58). A "vagabond" is a homeless freeloader. A "pauper" is a person that must be supported at public expense. Social Security partakers are supported at public expense, therefore they cannot have the rights of citizens anymore than a fugitive would have. The English word "stigma" comes from the Greek and, in English, means "a mark of shame" or "a brand of disgrace." The third six in 666 is the Greek stigma (666 = chi-xi-stigma). The Mark is not necessarily a tattoo or implant. Do you have a permanent mark of shame? Conclusions so far: There is no Social Security Trust Fund, there is no insurance, and there is no pension. It is plunder. It is pure orthodox Socialism. Socialists are not and cannot become citizens. Socialists cannot have rights. They never could and still can't. Bible Believers cannot be Socialists. Bible Believers cannot have Socialist ID. Did your government school teach you this? ---------- Post added at 01:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:13 AM ---------- PUBLIC EDUCATION Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848. Public schools is the 10th Plank. As I said earlier: Those who accept public benefits cannot have rights. "Rights" can only come from responsibilities. You have no right to force others to pay your children's tuition. Hillary's village will raise the children of those who forfeit their rights to their own children. Even the U.S. Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, concluded: "it is the natural duty of the parent to give his children education suitable to their station in life ..." The U.S. Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202, concluded:
"The great object was to get rid of Christianity and to convert our churches into halls of science ... the plan was not to make open attacks upon religion - although we might belabor the clergy and bring them into contempt where we could ... but to establish a system of state - we said national - schools ... from which all religion would be excluded and to which all parents were to be compelled by law to send their children." These views influenced John Dewey at the Columbia Teacher's College, and by 1900, a Socialist system of compulsory schools (which exclude religion) became a reality. SUMMARY The seven-headed scarlet Beast is a Socialist confederation of Beast powers that raised up from the sea. The sea symbolizes multitudes of people (Rev 17:5). "Seas of people" (democracies) demand Socialist benefits. These people received not the love of the truth that they might be saved. They want to be taken care of, but not by God. They won't accept the responsibility to take care of themselves, or suffer God's trials. They fabricated a counterfeit image of God to provide for them and protect them. They get their rights from their god that they created. They expect you to worship their counterfeit image of God. In their Courts, your rights come from the god they created. Abraham Lincoln, September 11, 1858: "Accustomed to trampling on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you." Chapter 10 WHY WOULD GOD PUNISH SOMEONE FOR GETTING A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER?
And yes, taking a Social Security number is slapping Yahuah in the face for many reasons:
Allow me to describe this Lordship concept with several different terms: "mastership," "ruler," "sovereign," "protector," "boss," "your chain of command." You are under a government whether you like it or not, but only one government. You cannot serve two masters. Christ said "he that is not with me is against me" (Luke 11:23, Matt 12:30). Satan has a counterfeit authority for you to obey. You must choose which chain of command you are in. Satan's counterfeit is very difficult to discern. A closer look at translations would help explain this "Lordship" concept. By reading the English translations, you cannot tell if the word: `Lord' refers to the Almighty or to a human boss. The word "LORD" is translated from several different words:
I repeat again: The first commandment prohibits you from having other rulers or judges as a higher authority than Yah. In the Greek New Testament, the word "LORD" is translated from:
Example: Yahusha said that you cannot serve two Lords (G2962 kurios in both Luke 16:13 and Matt 6:24). You cannot serve both Yah and mammon (mammon = G3126 wealth personified or greed). The Greek word for "God" is "Theos," which means "a magistrate." In Roman days, you would address a Judge as a God. "Emperors" were referred to as "Apo Theos," creator of gods. This lordship continued down through the centuries with the kings claiming divine authority to rule. "Feudal liege lords" retained authority over their subjects. Even today, the word "landlord" retains the "lord" suffix. In Canada today, Judges are still addressed as "Your Worshipfullness." In Court, your Plea is still called a "prayer." The painting on the ceiling of your Capitol dome is titled "Apotheos of George Wahsington." He was the creator of your Judge gods. Does your "first citizen" still claim to have god powers? On May 14, 1998, President Clinton released Executive Order Number 13083 entitled "Federalism." The presidency claims "a Federal Government of supreme ... powers." And as for U.S. citizens, Federal law has the power "... to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives." Yes. Your god defines every moral, political, and legal character of your life. The Roman Civil Law of today is a mirror image of the iron Beast that trampled down the whole earth and broke it to pieces (as in Dan 7:23). Could this mirror image be the image of the Beast brought to life in Revelation 13:15? Do they demand worship? Do they speak blasphemy? The answers seem so obvious to me; I don't understand why others cannot see this. Whom do you serve? Who takes care of you? Who's chain of command are you in? Protection draws subjection. Do you acknowledge that Yahusha has been given all authority in heaven and earth? It is His will that you must obey, and you will be judged on the judgement day according to His will, not man's will. Masters (Lords) take care of their subordinates. If Yah is your Lord (and not the state), then He will provide for you, not the state. He will (perhaps through his church continuing "the perfect law of liberty") take care of widows and orphans (James 1:25,27). He will take care of the handicapped. He will (perhaps through the family, 1st Tim 5:8, or a church) take care of the elderly, not the state god. His church encourages the unemployed "to work with your hands ... so that you will not be dependent on anybody." (1st Thessalonians 4:12 (NIV)). Lords grant permission. Whomever you ask for permission to do something is your lord. Permission to get married, permission to buy medications, permission to travel, and of course, the very reason you got a number in the first place - permission to sell your labor. Later on, I will show you that you granted the Power of Attorney to anyone who you allowed to manage your affairs because it can be presumed that you cannot manage yourself. You have created a host of "Lords" to regulate your life, be your savior, accept your worship, and lord over you - Shame. Judges 10:14 (KJV) "Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your tribulation." NAME Another definition that must be understood is the word "name," which means "authority." If you were to say the phrase "stop in the name of the law" you are saying: "Stop; by the authority of the law." If you sign your name, this signature is your authority and has legal consequences. Agents act in the name (= authority) of their principal. Examples: "whosoever shall call on the name of the Yahuah shall be saved" in Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 both use the Greek "onoma" (G3686) which means "authority." Yahusha said "blessed is he that comes in the name ("onoma"= authority) of the Yahuah." If you were to read: "Mark of the beast," OR "the name of the beast," OR "the number of his name" in Rev 13:17, then you would be reading three alternatives invoking the authority (Greek "onoma") of the Beast. More literally translated: The mark of the beast, or the authority of the beast or the number of its authority. Again: Name = Authority. Taking Yah's name in vain, means taking Yah's authority in vain. "Vain" means "devoid of worth." Yah's name (onoma) will be put upon (epi) your forehead. Revelation 7:3 and 20:4. As Job said: "Blessed be the name of the Yahuah." The ten-horned first Beast that must be worshiped in order to get the Mark has the name (onoma) of blasphemy on its heads. Now that you know what "name" means: Is there a chance that you buy and sell with a Mark (ID Card) of a Beast, or the authority of the Beast, or the number of ("of" = created by) its authority? Your authority to exist does not come from government. Not from an identification card, not from a birth certificate. Why then, do police ask for ID? Officials of the government get their authority to exist from government. Police are seeking proof that you are under their authority. If you have accepted the office of "PERSON" (see my Appendix D), then you are within their government, subject to their law enforcement officer. If the law says so, you may even be required to carry government identification. WORSHIP Both in the Old Testament Hebrew, and the New Testament Greek, the verb "Worship" refers to the assuming of a body position such as bowing down, crouching, or facing. The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed, in Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624, that a "Salute" is the assuming of a physical position. A Salute (which is a form of worship) is initiated by the inferior toward the superior. Whom do you worship - the Lord, or the state god? To whom do you raise your right hand in Court? At the beginning of the worship service, to whom do you worship when the bailiff commands: "All Rise?" William Tell understood enough to refuse to Salute the Judge. Daniel, in Chapter 3, understood enough to refuse to worship the civil authority. How can anyone swear to tell the whole truth, which is impossible? Yahusha in Matt 5:37 said that your "yes" should be yes, and your "no," no, and any testimony more than a "yes" or "no" answer is evil. How can anyone swear to tell nothing but the truth? We know that every man is a liar (Romans 3:4). OATHS Along the same line as "worship," "Oaths" are forbidden by Hebrews 6:16, Matthew 5:33-34, and James 5:12. "Oaths" (being a form of worship) are only offered by the inferior toward the superior, per Hebrews 6:16. A "Salute" (such as raising your right hand when being sworn into a public office) is "worship" and is only offered by the inferior toward the superior. You won't understand this yet, but your elected servants must take an Oath of Office to acknowledge their subordinate position. They are not AUTHORITIES, they are subordinates. Although the Application for a Social Security number no longer has a printed perjury oath above the signature, it has the legal presumption and is equivalent to an oath because there is a punishment associated with false swearing. You are presumed to know this law. See Appendix E. Now to answer the question as to why Yah would punish someone for getting a number. Since you are presumed to have the 10 Commandments in your forehead and on your right hand; Any of these Commandments (laws) would suffice: Acknowledging the name (authority) of false saviors, worshiping (taking oaths to or saluting) false gods, covetousness, swearing, taking Yah's authority in vain, serving graven images, or committing the theft of socialism. And that's just from the 10 Commandments. My list didn't even include falsifying the Application Form, or firstfruits offering (withholding) to fund abominations, or creating a host of bureaucrats ("benefactors," Luke 22:25) to rule over you and creating Judges ("elohiym") who demand worship. YES, GETTING A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER IS SLAPPING Yahuah'S FACE. HOW CAN YOU INSIST THESE SINS WILL GO UNPUNISHED? (And yes, I confess. I did slap Yah's face. When I was 15 years old, I was told to get an Social Security Card in order to qualify for license to operate a CB radio. I dutifully bowed down to their mighty god.) In Revelation 14:9-11-- a divine messenger tells us that those who receive the Mark are damned. The very next verse contrasts those who are damned with those who kept the Commandments. Revelation 14:12 (KJV) "Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of Yah, and the faith of Yahusha." Apparently, those who keep the Commandments will know enough to avoid deception. Adam and Eve had a duty to avoid deception. They, and you too, had to suffer the consequences of falling for deception. Yahushat told his disciples to "take heed that no man deceive you." We too, can avoid deception by obeying the Commandments. If we are deceived, then we will learn the hard way that we should have obeyed. 1st John 3:4 (KJV) "... for sin is the transgression of the law." Chapter 11 This is the same question asked by the Disciples. The Ten Commandments present problems to people who believe in easy salvation. People don't want to believe that they will drink Yah's wrath (Rev 14:9-10) and be tormented with fire and brimstone, and have no rest, day or night, who worship the Beast and his image, and whosoever receives the Mark (Rev 14:10-11). I've added this Chapter because people expect me to have advice on how to cancel their Social Security Number. People accuse me of damning them, with no hope of salvation. I've been accused of being paranoid, fearful, negative, indignant, and not having the joy of Yahusha. People say that having a Social Security card cannot damn them because they are Bible Believer; they are saved by grace; Yahusha's blood paid the penalty for their sin. I cannot respond to these statements because I am not your sovereign. I can only tell you what Scripture says. All us sinners will NOT be saved. It seems to be very arrogant for any sinner to insist that "God will save me just because I call myself a Christian." Yahusha is our only hope for salvation; no one can save himself or herself. All I do is quote from the Bible and reference some verifiable facts. Your assignment is to decide whether or not to live in the fear of Yah's wrath. You get to decide whether or not to obey the Ten Commandments. I'm just a shouting watchman warning people to the dangers of false authority. Have I become your enemy because I tell the truth? You must decide between Beast worship and buying/selling. says if your right hand offends you, cut it off. I'm sure that He was using a metaphor to say that this is not going to be easy. Some people believe in easy salvation based upon Romans 10:9: "... confess that Yahusha is our Master and was raised from the dead and you WILL BE saved."
Do you sense how astonished Peter was at this news? Aside: I've been told that this story proves the awesome forgiveness of Yah's grace is so great that He would save someone who worships money. I don't see this as a love-of-money story, I see this for what it says it is. Those who do the will of Yah (obey the Commandments) must still leave everything and follow Yahusha to be saved.
1st Corinthians 7:21 (NIV) "Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you -- although if you can gain your freedom, do so." If??? Don't let it trouble you??? How does a permanent slave regain his freedom if he cannot purchase it? Answer: He can't. He must suffer the consequences. Just like an enlisted serviceman cannot change his own status. Repenting doesn't change your status. Wanting to get back into Yahuah's chain of command will not change your status. What then can you do, and what are the consequences? Since you cannot change your slave status, there are still a few things you can do when you decide you want citizenship under Yah's chain of command. But you will be an AWOL runaway slave. You must forevermore be a fugitive, and rely upon the grace of your sovereign to protect you. The same sovereign who said you must endure persecution. One simus voluntarily returned to his owner, but then again, he could still serve the one Master, because his owner was an authority ordained of Yahuah. But he still had to suffer punishment from his owner. I can give you some crumbs of comfort, and reasons for the faith that lies within. But if you want legal advice, consult your lawgiver.
Chapter 12 Your federal government is very vague in answering most questions about Social Security Numbers. If you persist in your inquiry (which will take dozens of letters), the Government will openly and honestly tell you a few certain facts about Social Security numbers: 1. It is a permanent irrevocable status. Some bureaucrats claim that it is a contract, while the higher level authorities in the Social Security Administration say it is not a contract, but a status. Go to any law library and look up `status' in any law dictionary. You cannot change your own status once you've signed up anymore than one who enlists in the military can change his own status. 2. It is up to the bank, employer, school, or stockbroker to determine whether or not they will discriminate against someone who fails to give a number. The government has no policy on this. 3. Many State driver's license Applications request a SSN. I cannot prove it, but it seems that this is allowed only for federal territories. Strange language in Section 205(c)(2)(C)(i) of the Social Security Act allows federal states "... for the purpose of establishing the identification of individuals affected by such law, and may require any individual who is or appears to be so affected to furnish to such State ... or agency thereof having administrative responsibility for the law involved ..." his SSN. Yet, The Social Security Administration before 1996 would not issue Social Security Numbers for the purpose of getting a driver's license. If you applied for a Social Security Number and stated that your purpose for applying is to qualify for a driver license, you would get a denial notice Form SSA-L676. If you want to do more research, try to find out how a State driver's license became a federal benefit in 1996. Also read Leahy v. District of Columbia, 833 F2d 1046 where Leahy refused (based on religious objections) to give his SSN on an Application for a driver's license. Religious objections are powerful, because the first Amendment acknowledges the free exercise of religion. In the Leahy case (as in others), only government "... interests of the highest order can overcome legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion." 4. According to a federal report to a Congressional Subcommittee on Social Security, some people do not have Social Security Numbers. You can order one free copy of this report from U.S. General Accounting Office, P.O. Box 37050, Washington, DC 20013. The title of the report is "SOCIAL SECURITY, Government and Commercial Use of the Social Security Number Is Widespread" Report GAO/HEHS-99-28. On the bottom of page 3 you will read: "Some individuals do not have an SSN either because they do not want one or because they are ineligible to receive one." Later, the same paragraph continues: "... the only noncitizens to whom SSA has issued SSNs have been those with one of two valid nonwork reasons for needing a number. That is, the federal government requires applicants for benefits or services under certain federal programs to have an SSN, and states require applicants for driver's licenses to have SSNs." Now re-read this cleverly written TRUE statement, while keeping in mind that SSNs have never been required for work purposes either, not even for citizens, and the law requiring SSNs for driver licenses refers only to federal states. 5. According to the IRS, an ITIN (Individual Taxpayer Identification Number) is available to those who cannot qualify for a Social Security Number. The Application Form for the ITIN (Form W-7) in the general instructions, says that anyone eligible for employment in the U.S. is eligible for a Social Security Number and cannot apply for an ITIN. This seems to confirm that Employment really is a federal benefit, rather than a private contract. Employment, as that term is used in the tax code, is a taxable government granted privilege and is available only to those who waive their right to sell their labor. 6. Once you get a number by signing up for Socialist benefits (financed in whole or in part from Federal funds), guess what happens next. The Social Security Act, Title VIII, Section 801 requires you to pay Social Security AND OTHER TAXES. This Statute is not referenced within the Internal Revenue Code. They don't tell you this - they presume that you know of your vow of poverty. You agreed to partake of the communal fund in exchange for contributions to the communal fund. You agreed to contribute whatever they ask. This allows Congress to tax you at any rate they want to. They can increase your tax to 100%, without a Constitutional Amendment, by a simple majority vote. You no longer have a right to your wages, you only have a government granted privilege of keeping what they allow you to keep. The Buck Act authorizes taxation of anyone with a Social Security Number, even though this is not referenced within the Internal Revenue Code either. More about this, later. Aside: This is what you agreed to. Courts cannot impair the obligation of your permanent irrevocable contract. It doesn't matter that the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified. It doesn't matter that the tax laws would only apply to federal employees in federal territories. It doesn't matter that wages would otherwise not be taxable. Since you volunteered to pay whatever they will demand, they can use your future labor as collateral for the national debt. 7. Those who already have a SSN must disclose it on Forms or suffer a fine. Those who do not have a SSN can file a 1040 Form without a number, and the IRS will assign a Taxpayer ID number. These numbers are assigned by the IRS Entity Section in Philadelphia, and are not Social Security Numbers, and begin with the number "9". 8. In the Legislative History of Public Law 99-514 (which is available in your local law library) in the discussion of Internal Revenue Code, Section 6109(e), shows that Congress never required religious objectors to begin using Social Security Numbers. Also see Revenue Ruling 85-61, 1985-1 CB355. 9. I have copies of letters from Social Security Officials which state:
11. The Patent Number on the back of the Social Security Card (Patent Number 1,904,650) refers to a carefully worded technique involving a manifold web with permanently retained record and transfer strips. WHY WOULD SIMPLE CARDS NEED THEIR OWN PATENT? If you were a suspicious skeptic, you could find legal definitions:
Chapter 13 HIDDEN FACTS ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERSIn my dozens of letters to the IRS, SSA, banks, Justice Department, tax experts, Department of the Treasury, State Department, OMB, GAO, lawyers, and Congressmen; I never got a direct answer about the following laws and fundamental principals. Try getting your own non-answers. If you persist in your inquiry, you will arrive at the truth by noticing what questions they won't answer. [Tip: don't bother talking to self-called Christian lawyers]. 1. Applying for a Social Security Number is entirely voluntary and is in no way mandatory, or required, or coerced. There is no law that requires you to get a number. There is no penalty for not getting a number. 2. Compelled signatures are invalid. If an Application form was mandatory, or required, or coerced, then it would be invalid and inadmissible in Court. That's right! YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER WOULD BE INVALID IF YOU WERE REQUIRED TO GET ONE. Forced Contracts are void. Compelled signatures are inadmissible in Court. But deception by the master deceiver or his disciples is allowed. It is your duty to know the truth and avoid deception. The Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from forcing you to sign "Confessions." Even on Income Tax Forms, as in the Garner case, which I'll quote later. 3. If any law requires you to have a number, they would assign you one without your signature (and over your objections). But there is no law that requires you to have a number. Without your voluntary signature, they do not have a right to kidnap you and force you into their jurisdiction. The GATT Treaty changed this, in November 1996 they started numbering their "Collateral." 4. You've exchanged real rights for civil rights. You cannot be punished for failing to get a number that you are never required to get. No rights can be denied for failing to get a number. The government can not interfere with your natural rights by requiring a signature. Not your right to contract, not your right to earn wages, nor any other natural right. By the term `natural rights' I do not mean "entitlements" such as welfare or social security payments. Welfare and social security (and bankruptcy and divorce and food stamps and abortion and interest and public education) are privileges of being within the government; they are not natural rights. They are NOT available to regular people. Government Socialist Benefits are doled ONLY to the Wards of the government. These are privileges, not rights, even though they are often called "Civil Rights." "Civil Rights" are the opposite of natural rights. Real rights come from God and are inalienable. Real rights are the ones that existed before government existed. The people who created your government hired the civil servants to help them protect their rights. "Rights" do not come from government. Here is the distinction:
5. You waive ALL your Rights by volunteering for a number. There are less than a dozen federal Court cases where someone was required to get a SS Number. ALL of the cases involve people who are applying for welfare benefits, yet had religious objections to getting a number. I could not find any Court cases where an average citizen was required to get a number. Ever since SSN's have existed, no religious objector (other than Welfare Applicants) was ever required by a Court to get a number. Not to get a job or open a bank account or pay a tax. ONLY WELFARE APPLICANTS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. Throughout history, those who voluntarily become slaves in order to care for their families, are permanently marked and serve their master FOREVER (see Exodus 21:6). You have a natural right to sign Contracts. Like Esau, you can (with an Oath) sell your birthright for a bowl of stew (Genesis 25:33). At least he ate what he bought; you sold your birthright for the mere promise of a future bowl of stew. (By the way, God hated Esau according to Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:3) By signing a Contract to apply for a future bowl of stew, you have enlisted in your federal government. You've accepted a dual citizenship, both state and federal (acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1875 Cruikshank case and now allowed to be a presumption that any Court can make unless challenged, by the 1938 case of Erie RR v. Tompkins, 304 US 64). In Appendix C, I prove that you do not have access to the first eight Amendments in the Bill of Rights nor a right to a trial by jury. In Appendix G, I prove that BY GETTING A NUMBER, YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO EARN WAGES, THEREBY MAKING YOUR WAGES TAXABLE. 6. Only those who have a number must disclose it whenever disclosure is required by law. Only Wards of the government are required to have proof that they are Wards of the government. 7. No one can disclose a number that does not exist. No one is asked to disclose a number that does not exist. No one is required to go out and get a number just because a law asks those who have a number to disclose it. Example: there is a law that says employers must ask for employee's "Green Cards." This doesn't mean you have to go get one. 8. Some employers must ask for a number, but No employer is required to obtain a number (except perhaps civil service jobs, as I explained earlier). Unless you consent, employers cannot seize part of your pay without a Court Order. In fact, if you are a non-resident of Washington D.C., an employer has to request authority to act as a "Withholding Agent" (per section 3504-A of the Internal Revenue Code) and forward his request with a Form 2678. If you sue an employer who takes what is yours, the IRS will not back them up in Court. (And, by the way, your labor is your property. Your Constitution prohibits an unapportioned tax on your property. Also see Appendix G). 9. Banks will ask for a number for interest bearing accounts. You can still get a non-interest checking account without a number, but you still need government ID. But beware, you still grant the government the Power of Attorney by getting a bank account, even without a number. 10. Banks and employers are required to ask for a number, just on the chance that the Applicant might be a Ward of the Treasury Department. A numbered person does not have a right to partake of Contracts with banks or employers. He has waived his right to earn wages. The Ward has a government granted privilege, not a right, to participate in Contracts for wages or in Contracts for interest (more about interest laws later). These are taxable government privileges, not rights, and the government requires the disclosure of the SSN so that the government granted privilege can be taxed. This is a legitimate indirect excise tax that need not be subject to apportionment. 11. The Social Security Administration became an independent Agency on March 31, 1995. It now involves the U.N.. More about this later. Be cautious when any law says that you must fill out a Form, or that you must get a number. The term `Must' often means `may.' (See Appendix B). The U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. vs. Minker, 350 US 179 at page 187: "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." Chapter 14 Can a Right be taxed? Do you have a Right to sell your labor, or is selling your labor a government granted privilege? (I use the term 'government granted privilege' loosely. It is actually a Contract with the people who own the IRS). An employee (similar to an indentured servant) gives up Rights to his labor in exchange for care and protection. And along with protection there is always "subjection." The legal definition of 'employee' seems somewhat convoluted, but it uses the original meanings of the word "use" and the word "assured" and the word "business." If you want to study this; start with Clark's Summary of American Law index entry for "Employees." Then find a reprint of a Dictionary from the 1800's and look up the words: "hire" and "occupation." "Business" is the usary of labor. According to Walter Lipmann: "The early Christian writer looked upon business as a peril to the soul" (Walter Lipmann was a Journalist who's book "Public Opinion" exposed how the elite manipulated the media to create World War I). "Use" means "usury," the rights to your labor rather than a direct sale of labor. Directly selling your labor for a paycheck has never been taxable according to the Courts (see Appendix G). Compensation for labor is not the same as selling labor rights. Don't think that privately owned employers are private organizations. They are Agents of the IRS (or whoever owns the IRS). When they ask for your IRS Number, they are performing an IRS function. "Corporations" are incorporated into the government. To employ means to equitably convert. Once you get an employee identification number, you have been converted to their use. Corporations then may USE you for their purpose. IRS can then collect the usury of your labor. Employers must also pay for this government granted privilege. And, you must pay usury (income tax) whenever you profit from labor rights that you no longer own. The IRS gets wealth from the USE of labor rights that they owns. This is usury. Business's do not purchase labor, they employ the labor owned by whoever owns the IRS. The Social Security Act is intended for employees, not for small business owners. Don't confuse "self-employed" with a small business Proprietor. Small business owners need not give away the rights to their labor. "The Social Security Act protects workers whose livelihood depends upon another rather than upon the public at large." Schwing v. United States, 165 F2d 518 "Usury" comparisons to show what happens when you sell labor rights: Bank interest payments Employer wage payments The bank can make a profit off your deposit without splitting the profit, you do not have a "beneficial right" to its use. You sold all rights to profit from "your" deposited money. An employer can make a profit off your labor without splitting the profit. You gave up "beneficial rights" to you labor when you signed a financing statement pursuant to UCC 9-302. "Interest" is not your share of the profit made from your money. Even if the bank makes bad investments, it must still pay you for the rights you sold. It is income derived from capital according to the Supreme Court case of Eisner v. Macomber. "Wages" are not compensation for the direct sale of your labor. It is payment for the rights you sold. It is income derived from labor according to the Supreme Court case of Eisner v. Macomber. While your money is on deposit, you cannot sell it to someone else. While your labor is on deposit, you do not have a right to sell your labor to an employer. I repeat: you are not an owner of 'your' deposited money; you cannot receive any profits, or be liable for losses incurred, with 'your' money because you contracted away your beneficial right to the money. If you signed a financing statement (to deposit your labor into the Socialist trough as Collateral for future benefits), then you are not an owner of 'your' labor. The Interest you receive is payment for selling the beneficial rights to use your money. Taxes paid to the Department of the Treasury (like Interest) are the employer's payments to buy the beneficial rights to your labor. The "paycheck" is the living allowance your owner pays, through their Agent (your employer), to provide for their slaves. Some banks' Contracts let you withdraw your money. However, your Social Security Card is a permanent irrevocable "Certificate of Deposit." "Usury" is an abomination, Ezekiel 18:13. "Usury" is an abomination, Ezekiel 18:13. If it is still confusing (or if you don't believe me), then read the Court cases in Appendix G now. You may still be confused about the distinction between a "direct sale of labor" and the "sale of labor rights." Your IRS Bureaucrats are not confused. They know exactly when to avoid imprisonment for theft, and when to boldly attack anyone who profits from labor that is owned by the Department of the Treasury. Your U.S. Constitution, in Article 1, Section 10, prohibits any State from impairing the Obligation of Contracts. This means the supreme law of the land prohibits the State from interfering or regulating any Contract between a real (unnumbered) worker and those who pay him for his labor. The State and Federal Governments have a duty to protect unnumbered people from any impairment (such as tax or regulation) on their labor. And they have always protected this Right (see Appendix G). But Employment is not a Contract with you as a worker, it is a Contract with those who own your labor rights. If your employment has a Contract between you and your employer, it could not be impaired or regulated. Yet your employer:
Bureaucrats (who can be put in prison for 10 years if they deny you a right [U.S. Code, Title 18, Sections 241 & 242]) will boldly impair the Obligation of most labor Contracts. How can they be so certain? Simply: Numbered persons have no labor Rights. Go get a copy of IRS Form SS-8 and prove to yourself whether or not you have a right to Contract your own labor. An employee does not have a right to benefit from (share the profits from) his own labor. The people who own the IRS also own your labor rights (and you have waived your right to sell your labor). When you applied for a worker authorization number you voluntarily entered into an equitable conversion of your future labor. You no longer have a right to benefit from your labor. You waived your right to earn wages. "Rights" are absolute. We are endowed by our Creator with unalienable Rights. Your Rights cannot be taken away except in punishment of a crime (according to the Supreme Court in Butcher's Union v. Crescent City, 111 US 746). If you had a right to something, you would have a 100% unalienable Right. If something can be legally taken from you (or regulated or a portion taxed from you), then you cannot say that you had a right to it. If someone can legally take 1% of your wages, it has to be because you gave up your Rights to your wages. You gave up ALL Rights to your wages. There are several possibilities to explain why you work without full pay. 1. It could be a simple Contract where you agreed that others could take your wages. This would be illegal conversion of your labor unless there is a Contract. Did you sign something? A simple Contract without consideration is theft; therefore the Courts must presume that you paid something valuable in exchange for benefits. Perhaps you paid something very valuable. Even without a Contract, you are obligated to pay for your benefits. According to Black's Law Dictionary: "constructive contract rests upon the equitable principle that a person shall not be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another, and is not in fact a contract, but an obligation, which the law creates in the absence of any agreement. " I suspect that it is more than just a simple Contract because Congress wasn't sure that the Social Security Act was legal. I've been looking for the book: "The Development of the Social Security Act" by Edwin E. Witte. I found an Article with this excerpt from the book attributed to Frances Perkins Secretary of Labor 1933-1945: "This was a new type of legislation --- nothing of the sort had ever come before Congress of the United States before, it took much explaining and much patience." Also look for another book: "The Formative Years of Social Security" by Arthur J. Altmeyer. 2. Another possibility is that it is a binding Contract where you purchased a promise of protection by exchanging all rights to your future wages. As with other forms of equitable conversion: you get to hold legal title to your labor, but only as a security for the balance of the protection you purchased. This means that you get to keep "full" legal title to your labor. In a moment, I'll explain what this deceptive term means. 3. A third possibility is the medieval system of "corvee labor." This requires some forced labor as a tax payment to the Lord of the Manor. If your tribute is taken before you are paid, then you have performed some corvee labor without pay. You authorized your employer to accept this labor by a card in your right hand, or by a number from your forehead. This is nothing new. The Hebrew word "mac" (Strong's H4522) is used 23 times in the Old Testament referring to a system of forced labor as a tax to a feudal lord, a king, or a foreign ruler. Moses lived in such a system. This is the corvee system. If you want to see how history repeats itself, try to find the Book of Jasher and read Chapter 65, Verses 19-34. The Book of Jasher is mentioned in the Bible in Josh 10:13 and 2nd Sam 1:18). 4. The fourth and most likely possibility is that Social Security is a "Cestui Que Trust." It is a Trust structured like a vow of poverty. You contracted for a Trust whereby you conveyed to the Trustee the beneficial interest in all your future labor in exchange for your benefits. You are left with legal title to your labor. Go to a law dictionary and look up the definition of "Legal Title:" "... the apparent right of ownership and possession, but which carries no beneficial interest in the property, ... it may also mean appearance of title as distinguished from complete title .... Apparent right of ownership with beneficial or equitable title in another." The Trust Contract was executed through the Secretary of the Treasury (who is an Agent for the Trustee, as I will show later). Having taken a vow of poverty, you (of course) would be a government Ward. As with other vows of poverty, you are dependent upon the system that supports you. Does this sound Catholic to you? Perhaps there is a reason for this. The Trustee's Agent is the Secretary of the Treasury. Perhaps his role as "Trustee" is outside his governmental duties. If so, this would explain a lot. More about this later. The "Cestui Que Trust" would be a private Trust and enforceable in any Court. Now that the Social Security Administration is an independent Agency, there is much speculation about the real nature of the Trust. In Flemming v. Nestor, your U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security Benefits are noncontractual and can be eliminated at any time by Congress. They also stated (at 80 S.Ct., page 1379): "The people covered by this Act are now able to rely with complete assurance on the fact that they will be compelled to contribute regularly to this fund whenever each contribution falls due." If you want to do some research, try to figure out the inconsistency. How can the Supreme Court can call it a "Fund" when there is no Trust Fund? By the way, withholding is voluntary. U.S. Citizens are not subject to withholding according to Title 26, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1.1441-5 entitled "Claiming to be a person not subject to withholding." [Although this section was recently repealed, the Tax Court rulings cited in the Section remain as precedent]. Internal Revenue Code, Section 6109(a)(3) requires employers to REQUEST the "identifying number as may be prescribed for securing proper identification of such other person." SUMMARY Numbered persons have waived the equitable Rights to their labor, and no longer have the Right to benefit from their labor, thereby making their labor "taxable." These people are called "employees." Except for civil servants, only indigent avowed Socialists can fall into the government's hidden definition of an "employee." Bureaucrats can tax this labor without risking imprisonment, because they have evidence of a sworn Affidavit (sworn contrary to Scripture) that the numbered employee is an indigent avowed Socialist who has equitably converted his labor. An indigent so desperate (unable to support himself and not supported by family, Church or State) that he applied for federal funds in order to survive (knowing that the Constitution does not provide welfare to anyone other than government owned slaves). The rights to the indigent's labor belong to whoever owns the IRS and these labor rights are administered by the Secretary of the Treasury. (More about this later, but you won't like it.) "Enemies of Christ" have been captured, vanquished and subdued and PUT INTO PERPETUAL SLAVERY. This has been the stated intent of the Catholic Church ever since the Papal Bull called the "Doctrine of Discovery" in 1452. It seems as though their web has snared many. Is this entrapment? Just like a police sting operation, their web traps only those who are predisposed to become enemies of Christ. Us citizen are not subject to withholding. ---------- Post added at 01:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 AM ---------- Chapter 15 FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF SLAVESThe Thirteenth Amendment did away with involuntary servitude. Voluntary servitude remains entirely Constitutional. Ownership of slaves remains with us today. By volunteering to be resident on the feudal manor you become subject to the lord of the manor, to whom you owe absolute allegiance. Your lord has the right to use whatever force is necessary to assure compliance. This is perfectly Biblical. It is voluntary servitude because you volunteered. Even the Supreme Court (92 US 551) said: "The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government." Can you be a slave and not know it? I'll give you a few hints:
The writers of your Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, delegated to their servants the authority to borrow money; therefore they were liable for the debts that their servants incurred on their behalf. They knew that they owed the debt and that their property was the collateral. At what point did you become liable for your share? Was it by being born? Was it by registering to vote? By voluntarily paying a tax? Or was it by agreeing to be a ward on the federal plantation? Your share of the National Debt is now $97,000 per family. This is far more than the net worth of all private property. How do you intend to pay this obligation? Answer: You agreed that you are the collateral! The Social Security Act, Section 801 makes you liable for Social Security Tax and other taxes. The average house holds net worth is only $33,000. Before I continue, you need to understand some basics about what government is, what a republic is and what an all capitalized "PERSON" is. Satan has a counterfeit authority for you to obey. Your legitimate government went bankrupt in 1933, and was substituted with a multinational bankruptcy receivership. Details are covered in depth elsewhere. Here are the basics: Original State Governments Bankrupt federal Government as turned over to creditors Republic (=free from things Public), private Public Proper noun State = original government set up by Christians as a Church. Instituted among men to secure those rights, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. All capitalized STATE = name of a foreign corporation run by military democracy. Their state is still their church, it enforces their rituals, such as oath swearing. There is however, separation of your church from their state. You consented to be governed. The Constitution was written to control government. We the People are masters of the state civil servants. Federal Servants of your state servants are now forced to obey their creditors. Judicial power can not enforce legislated laws: 1- Because servants do not write laws to control their masters (legislated laws do not apply to the common man) and 2- because there must be a separation of powers between the legislative and judicial. There is no Judicial power. Courts obey their chain of command: must enforce legislated laws people cease to be private if they register as Public, or profit from things public. Government can only do business with registered PERSONS (as articles in commerce). This is why they ask for ID identification proof that you are government property. They cannot spend appropriated funds, including their labor, dealing with non-government (private, non-public) people. Private people cannot receive public credit or pay interest or receive interest public PERSONS can receive interest as a public "right" Can protect society by hanging a murderer without appeal. Must respect your right to duel to the death (because servants cannot settle their masters' disputes). Everything must be done in commerce. Only the all capitalized PERSONS can be charged with a crime. Wages are taxable only by apportionment. Article 1, Section 2 of your U.S. Constitution. National debt is secured by all future wages. Wage tax pays the interest first. Only available to unregistered people. The moment someone accepts a public benefit, their benefactor protects them from their original church government. Protection requires subjection. Now, imagine a legal system so diabolical that:
The doctrine of immunity also protects bureaucrats who deny you your rights for failing to disclose your Social Security Number. Even though you have a clearly established right to refuse to disclose a number, bureaucrats cannot be punished unless they are aware of this right. Doyle v. Wilson, 529 FSupp 1343. Mr. Doyle could not get his money refunded by a clerk unless he gave a SSN. The bureaucrats could keep his money until he gave a number, because they did not know he had a right to refuse to give a number. Theft became legal. You now have to prove to bureaucrats that you have a right to refuse disclosure, and you have to do this before they punish you! ATTORNEYS ARE NOT LAWYERS. An attorney is one who entraps slaves for his master. An attorney has the duty to turn your allegiance over to his lord. The word attorney comes from the word "attornment" which means to twist (no surprise here) or to turn over. This originally referred to the transfer of feudal land where the attorney is hired to make sure that all serfs turn over to the new owner and none were freed. This is the same today. Again: Ownership of slaves remains with us today. Later, I will prove that you have already been turned over to the new owners of the federal government. Oxford English Dictionary 1999, ATTORN: "Turn over to another; transfer, assign ... Transfer one's tenancy or ... homage or allegiance to another; formally acknowledge such transfer." Webster's 1828 Dictionary: ATTORNMENT: "The act of a feudatory, vassal or tenant, by which he consents, upon the alienation of an estate, to receive a new lord or superior, and transfers to him his homage and service." I'll start out with examples of legal incapacity. Being under incapacity, you cannot speak for yourself in any legal sense and must be represented, in much the same way that parents must ratify a child's contract (more about this later). In much the same way that an attorney must represent corporations. Your government has distinct definitions for different categories of people. Example: The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626: "... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident', `inhabitant', or `person' ..." If you are confused by the above quoted terms, then its time to study their deceptive vocabulary.
NON-PERSONS First, a simple definition so that you may understand your chain of command. Law: The expressed will of the sovereign. There is only one Sovereign, and He will judge you on the judgement day. But, from the government's point of view, those who created government, and their posterity, are their sovereigns. Civil servants must do two things: obey their masters and control their subjects. Your government only writes laws for their subjects. They call their subjects by the term "persons". Government does not write laws to control their masters. Your government calls their masters non-persons. "Persons" are people who are under the government. "Non-persons" are people who are above the laws of their servants. They are above the government they control. LAW COMES FROM NON-PERSONS. Read Appendix D now. The Lord is the Bible Believer's lawgiver (James 4:12, Isa 33:22). Bible Believer's founded this country. Bible Believers created Bible Believer State governments, not pagan state governments. The Original State is the Church. An association of representatives of Bible Believer States in a convention created your federal government. Congress could only assemble for the 17 reasons mentioned in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. The Untied States was at one time subordinate to the representatives of your Bible Believer States' civil servants. In Appendix D I have cited many proofs that non-persons exist and have rights. You are under the Almighty Sovereign's chain of command and He expects you to properly represent this authority. According to Daniel Garcia's Law Brief, a Sovereign person retains all liberties. He is not part of a nation or state. Garcia claims that Alexander Hamilton was a sovereign non-Citizen. I have no reason to doubt it. Alexander Hamilton was never president. He was the first Secretary of the Treasury and as such he could not have been a citizen. His duties are to the Arch-treasurer of the United States (presuming, of course, that the United States has a right to exist). The borrower is a slave to the lender (Proverbs 22:7). A sovereign may be a non-Citizen or a state Citizen. Let's examine both:
RESIDENT Black's Law Dictionary, first edition (published in 1891 long after the 13th Amendment) cites the definition of "Resident:" "RESIDENT: A tenant, who was obliged to reside on his lord's land, and not depart from the same, a resident may not be entitled to all the privileges or subject to all the duties of an inhabitant. 9 Wend. 11. That's right! A resident is a slave on the plantation and is not allowed to leave. A Resident has no Personal liberty. Black's Law Dictionary, first edition gives us the definition of personal liberty: "Personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due course of law. 1 Bl. Comm. 134" As you can see, A RESIDENT IS SOMEONE WHO HAS NO LIBERTY. Caution: only a resident can get a driver's license. If you apply for a license, you are confessing that you are obliged to reside on your lord's land, and not depart from the same, and are not entitled to all the privileges of an inhabitant. Further Proof: the Supreme Court keeps saying that states cannot regulate the right to travel by automobile. Shapiro v. Thompson 394 US 618 in 1969 and in US v. Wheeler 254 US 281, 293 in 1920 and in US v. Guest 383 US 745 in 1966. The right to travel is so basic that it is not even mentioned in your Constitution. If your right to travel is regulated, it is probably because you asked for permission to travel. There are hundreds of cases that prove this. I recommend the book "The Right to Travel" by Charles Weisman. If you want a simple 12 page brief on the subject, I recommend you buy a copy of the "Aid and Abet" newsletter for lawmen, issue No. 11 entitled "U.S. Courts Confirm Driving a Motor Vehicle is a Right Not Government Privilege." (Available from Aid and Abet, P.O. Box 8787, Phoenix, Arizona 85066). You are the one that has to decide whether you want to live in a nation that protects your right to travel, or one that resorts to brutal force to regulate your travel. If they can regulate such a basic right, they can easily regulate buying and selling. If you actually WANT them to regulate travel, then I remind you "he that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity." If you are bold enough to believe, as does the Supreme Court, that your Creator endows you with an inalienable right to travel, then you will constantly be put in jail by a confederation of beast powers. If this is enough to wear out the saints, then you cannot dismiss this evidence. Caution: only a resident can register to vote. If you register to vote you are confessing that you are obliged to reside on your lord's land, and not depart from the same, and are not entitled to all the privileges of an inhabitant. If this sounds like you are the secured collateral for a bond issue, there is a reason for this. Caution: Before you go claiming that you are an inhabitant, know that the modern legal definition of inhabitant implies "a more fixed and permanent abode" than a resident. This is contrary to the use of this word in both the Articles of Confederation and in your Constitution. It is contrary to the use of the term "inhabitants" that is inscribed on the Liberty Bell. More about this, later. According to your Constitution, Presidents must be residents of their state, whereas Congressmen must be inhabitants of their state. The definition of resident may also imply that there is an in rem duty to manage something belonging to the government. More about this when we study the Constitutions use of the term "resident." CITIZEN Basic citizenship, non-citizenship, and forced citizenship:
At the end of the Civil War a lawful method had to be created in order to care for the four million freed slaves who needed a way to survive. Since your Constitution has never allowed the government to give entitlements to people, Federal ownership was just one of the alternatives being considered for the "freed" slaves. Another alternative was a treaty whereby freed slaves would live in America as citizens of Liberia. Five hundred black families moved to Africa and established the country of Liberia, with the assurance of making a treaty with the US so that everyone could live free. Their constitution is almost identical to yours, except that only blacks can become citizens. They even named their Capital after an American president. In this ultimate battle between good and evil, the treaty never happened and Federal ownership is what we ended up with, where eventually no one could live free. Did your government school teach you this? PERSON In Appendix D, I quote court cases to show that a person is a non-sovereign. King George in the Treaty of Paris granted sovereignty to all Americans (while retaining title as Arch Treasurer). Those who submit to the laws of congress give up their sovereignty in exchange for a personage. Sovereigns are those who are above the laws legislated by their servants. Persons are those who submit to legislated law. Later, I will show that the judicial branch of state government protects state citizens from legislated law. Throughout history, those who ignore God are taken into captivity. You were tricked into becoming a person when you applied for a Social Security number. ENFRANCHISED CITIZENS In the olden days, enfranchised persons received rights and protections from a ruler to whom they owe allegiance. This hasn't changed. Enfranchised citizens are slaves on the federal plantation to whom they owe allegiance. Black's Law Dictionary defines the legal maxim that Protection Draws Subjection: "The protection of an individual by government is on condition of his submission to the laws, and such submission on the other hand entitles the individual to the protection of the government." That's right! If you cannot agree to their perverted, licentious laws then don't take their protection. You qualify for benefits by agreeing that they are your protector/master/lord/benefactor. If you take their benefits, you must submit whether you like it or not. No matter how evil they become. No matter how much they demand. If you take their benefits, they make your rules. They determine what is right and what is wrong. Your moral values are now dictated from your benefactor. This maxim has always existed. Slaves submit to their lords. Slaves must be provided for. Children must submit to parents. Wives submit to husbands. The law of coverture is a part of this legal doctrine. Christians submit to Christ. What chain of command are you in? Further proof of this legal maxim is in the Black's Law Dictionarydefinition of "Allegiance:" "Obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives. U.S. v. Kuhn, D.C.N.Y., 49 F. Supp. 407, 414" Conclusion: Applying for benefits subjects you to "obligation of fidelity and obedience" to a worldly master. Now that you know what allegiance means, and now that you know the red beast of Revelation is socialism, and now that you know that a Russian general will always be in command of the UN military, perhaps you can now understand that George Bush correctly stated "It is those sacred principles enshrined in the UN Charter to which we must henceforth pledge our allegiance." Biblical principles remain true. Americans have sold their birthright. According to Yahusha: Benefactors exercise authority. Benefactors exercise authority. This is evident in the legal definitions that your government uses. The legal definition of 'enfranchisement" makes it seem that God given rights come from benefactors. Notice how the following legal definitions focus on benefits without mentioning the obligations attached to accepting the benefits. Notice how some of the government granted benefits are counterfeits of the rights that free people would have. According to Black's Law Dictionary today's lawyer definitions of `enfranchisement' include:
I will also show you later that civil rights must be regulated, and that natural rights cannot be regulated. Real rights do not come from government. Government cannot grant rights, although they often refer to their privileges as rights. You can read between the lines. These lawyer definitions use freedom and voting as examples of government granted "rights." At the risk of seeming too cynical: Livestock has owner granted rights also. Just because your current owner can be nice to you, doesn't mean you are free, nor does it mean you won't be sold. Just because you can vote for President, doesn't mean you are free. In fact, it is proof that you are a slave. Even the US Supreme Court says "the Constitution of the United States has not conferred the right of suffrage upon any one." (Minor v. Happersett and in US v. Cruikshank). The courts have ruled that the Buck Act defines "an individual entity" as franchised persons of government. Springfield v. Kenny 104 NE2d 65 and Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox 298 US 193. Social Security and welfare are available only to federal citizens. Federal citizens cannot have rights. Social Security benefits are not available to state citizens. A state Citizen cannot obtain a Social Security Number without first obtaining a dual citizenship acknowledged by your federal government. By getting a number, you change your citizenship. (See Appendix C). By registering for the benefits available only to enfranchised persons, you become an enfranchised person. Only those persons receiving government benefits are required to have a social security number. No one else has ever been required to get a SSN. WARD - "Guarding, caring, protecting." - "A person ... placed by a court under the care and supervision of a guardian or conservator." Again, protection draws subjection. You are under the care of the legislature, from whom you get your `rights' and protections in exchange for your submission. I can prove that an attorney is your court appointed guardian, and is considered competent to manage your affairs, whereas you are considered incompetent to manage your own affairs. Go to the Law Library and find the legal encyclopedia entitled "Corpus Juris Secundum." Look up "Attorney & Client" Section 4 in Volume 7 and read: "His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client." That's right: he represents the public, therefore he cannot represent you. (And don't be deceived by the word `public.' It means `government." Examples: public office, public housing, public roads, public library, public school, public law, and public records. And furthermore, as I digress further, the word "republic" comes from a Latin idiom `Libera res publica' which means "free from government things." This is from the Collin's Latin Dictionary. Even Webster's 1828 Dictionary says a Republic has only titular governmental powers. This is because they can only legislate to those who volunteer into their jurisdiction. Later, I will quote the Supreme Court's Meyer case to show that liberty is freedom from arbitrary regulations. Then I'll prove that lawyers cannot represent you according to the Supreme Court's Schware case). Then look up `client': "A client is one who applies to a lawyer or counselor for advice and direction in a question of law, or commits his cause to his management ... one who communicates facts to an attorney expecting professional advice. Clients are also called "wards of the court" in regard to their relationship with their attorneys." To find out what it means to be a "Ward of the Court," go to Black's Law Dictionary. There is only one definition, so you can't possibly get it wrong. "Wards of the Court" are "Infants and persons of unsound mind ... under the care of a guardian." That's right! You must be crazy to talk to an attorney. You are not competent to manage your own affairs. Even asking "... for advice and direction in a question of law ..." or "expecting professional advice" proves that you cannot manage your own affairs. You do not have the law in your right hand and forehead. You volunteered into an evil system that has absolute contempt for any timid soul who is too faint-hearted to resist his oppressors. This is the evil world we live in. Yet in Matthew 5:39 Christ requires you to tolerate attacks from evil people and turn the other cheek. These bullies will have absolute contempt for this behavior. They don't understand that you are obeying a higher authority. ACCEPTING BENEFITS Christ was correct that benefactors gain authority over you (Luke 22:25, but compare to Matt 20:25, Mark 10:42). "Rights" come only from responsibilities. If you cannot be responsible for providing for yourself, then don't expect any rights. Did you pledge allegiance to your new lord? Here is what pledge means according to Strong's Concordance from the four words that are translated into the KJV word `pledge':
The Act to Strengthen Public Credit, signed into law by Ulysses Grant on March 18, 1869, pledged every American citizen as collateral for the repayment of all government obligations, including the national debt. Your federal government did not own anything, the states and the people owned all the wealth. In order to get the central banks to print money, the banks wanted collateral. You are that collateral. A classic book on this topic is The Coming Battle by Martin W. Walbert, published in 1899. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Miller said: "The power of taxation is the power to destroy. No man who is endowed with a modest sum of intelligence would advocate a transfer of this immense power to a private corporation for its gain. It would amount to the self-destruction of the nation. No sane man would advocate the delegation of this high attribute of sovereignty to a corporation for its individual gain and such transfer of power would inevitably result in frightful oppression." Here are some more details for those who are doing homework: "Hypothecation" is a banking term. "Hypothecation" is defined in Section 14(a) of the Federal Reserve Act as an offer of assets owned by a party other than the borrower as collateral for a loan, without transferring title. The United States is the borrower. You are the party other than the borrower. On your behalf, and with your consent, your representatives borrow most of your national debt from the Federal Reserve Bank. Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 USC 411) says that Federal Reserve Notes are obligations of the United States. This is true even if the Federal Reserve is not a government agency, because the government has promised to repay the loans to this privately owned corporation. Federal Reserve Notes are backed by the full faith and credit of hypothecated assets (such as your future labor). According to the Legislative History of Public Law 94-564 "The U.S. commitment to redeem international dollars for gold became a physical impossibility". That's right! Your bankrupt government cannot repay Foreign lenders their gold. They will soon claim their collateral. You are the collateral. The following quote should answer any doubt that you have regarding the legitimacy of the chains attached to receiving benefits. US Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 at page 140: "The ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of a tax measure is -- has the state given something for which it can ask a return?" Let's review the legal maxims. Protection draws subjection. The very definition of allegiance means you are obligated to obedience if you accept protection. The state has given something for which it can ask a return. A pledge of allegiance binds (Strong's H2254.) you as collateral. You grant the power of attorney if you allow them to manage your affairs because it is presumed that you cannot manage yourself. Yahusha said that benefactors exercise authority. You agree to obey your benefactors, no matter how evil they become. While you are in their house, you obey their rules. If you cannot govern yourself, others will govern you. No matter how much they demand. Whether you like it or not. Now you understand that a pledge of allegiance binds you, and allegiance is an obligation to government in exchange for benefits, and that government was created (fabricated as an image) and receives worship and is a benefactor/provider. Perhaps you've worshiped the wrong provider. STATE CITIZEN CONCLUSIONS OF LAWState citizens ratified your Constitution to create your federal government. They are responsible for managing their creation. These citizens are sovereigns, and the legislature cannot and does not write laws for their masters (Matt 10:24, and John 15:20). Never could, still can't. You won't understand this yet, but State Citizens are not subject to the laws written by congress (see Appendix D). According to your Supreme Court in the Mulligan case, state courts must protect you from federal laws. If you can be tricked into applying for benefits, you then become subject to their statutes. Whether you like it or not. No matter how evil they become. The difference in citizenship is distinguished by whichever law of the land applies to you. State constitutions are founded on Christian principles. But, according to a Treaty signed by President Adams "... the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion ...." More about this later. EMPLOYEE An employee is someone (as is an indentured servant) who gives up legal rights to his labor in exchange for care and protection. The same people who own the IRS own his labor rights. More about this later. But you won't like it. Colossians 2:8 (NIV): "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Messiah." Chapter 16 By asking for a SSN, you request to become a lifetime permanent Ward of a foreign program administered by your federal government. You've given them the Power of Attorney under the doctrine of "Tacit Procuration." By confessing that you cannot provide for your own retirement, you've stated that you expect others to take care of you. And indeed, you are not taking care of yourself; or depositing funds into a Trust Fund. Social Security is not a Trust Fund, nor Insurance, nor an earned Pension. Under the doctrine of "Tacit Procuration," if you do not stop them from managing some small affair, it is presumed that you are asking for them to handle all your life's affairs for you. Whether they handle your affairs contrary to your wishes, or even fail to give you any benefits at all (the Supreme Court in Fleming v. Nestor allows government to deny Social Security benefits), is irrelevant; you've given them absolute authority to act on your behalf. You asked (in writing) on a permanent irrevocable record, to be treated as their Ward. You become internal to the government. You have accepted appointment to a government office. The office of "Person" (see Appendix D). Your Constitution was written to control government, not people. And, you've enlisted into the government. You can now expect to be regulated. And, just like other forms of enlistment, you can expect to be treated harshly. Those who hold this government office are now required to sign Forms under the Penalty of Perjury. Although I haven't been able to find this Document, I've been told that those who have a Social Security Number are Federal Employees according to the 1935 Emergency Relief Act Publication, Resolution #11, 74th Congress, Session One, Chapter 48, Section 2, of April 8, 1935. Those who have Social Security Numbers are required to pay taxes on their wages pursuant to Section 801 of the Social Security Act. This is not in the Internal Revenue Code. You do not have legal Rights to yourself. Your owners have "beneficial" Rights to your Person, which include all future labor. Also see Christiansen v. Department of Social Security, 131 P2d 189, 191 for the difference between "beneficial rights" and "legal rights." You are registering to take public money that you did not earn (As I have shown - it is not Insurance or a Trust Fund, it is theft unless you are a permanent welfare case). You are not responsible enough to rely upon the Lord (who gives and takes away). Or family (1st Tim 5:8). Or Bible Believer Charity. Or the fruits of your own labor ("... so that you will not be dependent on anybody." 1st Thessalonians 4:11-12). 2nd Thessalonians 3:10. A Contract is not valid without Consideration. Unless you are offered a gift, you cannot take something without agreeing to the strings attached. You cannot agree with Socialism without agreeing to provide to the Communal Fund. If you ever have a chance to study the "Pilgrim's First Winter," you will see that Socialism has never worked in America. Half of them died that year, because they tried Socialism. Thou shalt not steal. Exodus 20:15 was written in stone by the finger of an unchanging Father (Deuteronomy 9:10, Ex 31:18). If you think Bible Believers don't have to do as Messiah commanded, see 1st John 2:4. A thief that was being executed in Luke 23:41 said that he deserved to be executed for the crime of theft. You too should regret your sin. You have confessed that you need federal funds (such as those that provide for your retirement). You did this knowingly and with full knowledge that your Constitution does not allows this. State citizens can keep most of their rights (Appendix C,) but you rejected state government. 2. You reject state government and request federal protection. The US Supreme Court's decision in Ex Parte Mulligan, 71 US 2, determined that STATES HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT THEIR CITIZENS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Once you become a "resident" in your federal government; your State can no longer protect you from your federal government. You accepted dual citizenship. You cannot complain. The Supreme Court says, 92 US 551: "It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government." Once you become a resident in your federal government; you subject yourself to federal laws. (The term `resident' does not mean 'inhabitant.' For proof, reed your Constitution: PRESIDENTS MUST BE "RESIDENTS," WHEREAS CONGRESSMEN MUST BE "INHABITANTS." To understand why this is so, you must know that a resident is someone who owes a duty to remain available to manage something belonging to the government - anything - such as property, a Trust, a Corporation, an individual, a motor vehicle, or an entire Agency. Since the President is the chief servant, the Constitution requires someone with servile experience, and since legislators represent the will of the sovereigns; we don't require - and probably don't want "servile attitudes." More proof: Physical presence within borders does not prove residence. Never did. Example: In John 17:14-15 Yahushat states that his Disciples [although physically present], were not of the world. Yahushat also said that His Kingdom was not of this world even though The Kingdom was at hand). Your federal government can now trespass across your State's border and use "the long arm of the law" to enforce its laws on its residents (which would otherwise be unconstitutional within your State). Prove it to yourself: Direct taxes must be Constitutionally apportioned to your State by the proportion of your State's representation (U.S. Constitution, Art. 1, Sect. 2, Clause 3 & Art 1, Sect. 9, Clause 4). -- And, no! The 16th Amendment did not change this. The 16th Amendment did not alter, add, or remove any words from the original Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 US 103 (1915) that "… the 16th Amendment conferred no new powers of taxation" - That's right! There is no such thing as an unapportioned tax on the earnings of State citizens. Indirect excise tax on the privileges of limited citizenship (such as the federal privilege of earning wages) does not have to be apportioned. Alternatively, real people, according to the Fifth Amendment, cannot have earnings or property "taken for public use, without just compensation." Which are you? Why did federal territories become States? The "organic" inhabitants of federal territories (who were, by the way, unregistered voters) became States in order to free themselves from your federal government. That's right! BY BECOMING A FEDERAL CITIZEN, YOU'VE NULLIFIED THE REASON FOR YOUR STATE TO EXIST. You've spit on the graves of your State's founders just because some banker or employer lied to you by telling you that you must get a Social Security Number. 3 Changing citizenship You change your citizenship by getting a number, and you are now a citizen of the District of Columbia (or any multi-national World Order that has a legitimate claim to the District). The newer Application Forms for a SSN now have a box to check for those who want to claim U.S. Citizenship. The older Forms did not need this box. Proof: You can now vote for President and Senators even though State citizens cannot (Hint: for those who are actually checking up on this: Amendment 17 does not override the last Clause of Article 5. The Amendment was only ratified by 36 States, even if you include Ohio). Proof: You can be subjected to a trial by government (see Appendix F) because you lost your right to a trial by jury (see the Colgate case in Appendix C). Proof: State citizens are not U.S. citizens (see Appendix C). 4. You agree to be regulated. You submit yourself to the Acts of Congress. You request Congress to determine your moral values for you. Congress determines what Rights you have (if any). You've consented to be governed. "Protection" draws "subjection." "Allegiance" is the "Obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives." U.S. v. Kuhn, D.C.N.Y., 49 F. Supp. 407, 414" 5. A Bible Believer should have known better than to get a Social Security Number. A Bible Believer will not swear. You've sworn an Oath to obey man under Penalty of Perjury. "Perjury" is an Oath, and an "Oath" is always a religious ceremony (Appendix E) - but this time, it is an Oath to your new God. You've openly, knowingly, and voluntarily, (on a permanent record) violated the first Commandment, (Matt 5:34, James 5:12, and Hebrews 6:16). A Bible Believer cannot be a freeloader (2nd Thessalonians 3:6-14), yet Social Security numbers can only be assigned to those who need federal benefits per Section 205(c)(2)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act. A servant is never greater than his master (Matt 10:24, and John 15:20). You've just confessed to public servants that they are not your servant and you are not their master. A Christian would know that if you offer yourself to someone to obey them as a slave, then you are a slave to the one you obey (Romans 6:16). A Believer would never obey a stranger (John 10:5). And no Believer can serve two masters (Matt 6:24, Luke 16:13). A Believer will serve Yah only (Matt 4:10, Acts 5:29). No Believer would want to be a thief, or register (with an ungodly Oath) to partake of dishonest benefits. No able bodied Believer will falsely confess that he is unable to take care of himself in order to fraudulently qualify for future monetary benefits. You must now obey your new masters (Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, Titus 2:9, 1st Peter 2:18). 6. SSNs Waive ALL rights The government cannot interfere with a Right. Bear with me as I repeat this essential precept in several different ways so that you might understand: "Rights" do not come from civil government. We are endowed by our Creator with unalienable Rights. According to the Declaration of Independence, the ONLY reason government exists (it uses the phrase "instituted among men") is to protect Rights. You cannot be granted Rights you already have. The word: "Unalienable" means it cannot be taken from you. If something can be lawfully taken from you, then you didn't have a right to it. Government must protect Rights, not regulate them. Governments are instituted among men to secure those Rights. "Rights" are above government. The exercise of a Right cannot be infringed. A Right cannot be taxed. The exercise of a Right cannot be taxed. The power to tax is the power to destroy. You cannot delegate to your civil servants the power to regulate the inalienable Rights of others. The enumeration in your U.S. Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people. Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. And again, A RIGHT CANNOT BE TAXED. (See Appendix G). The Supreme Court in Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105 determined that no State can convert a Right into a privilege and then charge a fee. The Supreme Court ruled in Hale v. Henkel, 201 US 43, at page 74, that you can carry on your own business without regulation and you owe no duty to the State if you receive nothing except protection, and you have no duty to divulge your business on government Forms, and you owe nothing to the public so long as you do not trespass upon their Rights. The U.S. Supreme Court in Hale v. Henkel, 201 US 43, 74: "The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state, or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights ... An individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute." You waive ALL of your Rights by getting a number. You have no right to own property. You have no beneficial right to yourself. You have NO Right to keep any wages. Congress is nice enough to let you keep some of their money, but whenever they want, they can raise the tax to more than 100% by a simple majority vote. This is the Socialism that you agreed to. Later, I will show you that ALL of your future labor has already been traded to multinational financial networks as "collateral" for the National debt. If you want to do some research, try to find out exactly what kind of protection draws subjection (as the Hale case seems to allow protection without subjection). 7. By getting a number, you in essence become a government officer. Government officers can be forced to account for money they are entrusted with, whereas ordinary people cannot be forced to sign confessions. Not even a tax return. The Supreme Court has twice ruled that tax returns must be voluntary in order to be admissible in court: Garner v. U.S., 424 US 648 and U.S. v. Sullivan 274 US 259. In the 1975 Garner case, Mr. Garner was tried for the crime of "gambling." The prosecutor admitted into evidence his tax return where he had claimed gambling profits. He objected and claimed that this evidence is not admissible because it was compelled testimony. He appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court confirmed that compelled testimony is indeed inadmissible, and that he should have refused to answer the questions on his tax return. His tax return was admissible in Court because it was NOT in any way compelled or coerced. In a more recent tax decision (August 7, 1996), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a California man, Loren Troescher, could refuse to answer questions or turn over documents. The Court ruled: "We need not consider how or in what manner the Fifth Amendment may be invoked as a defense to a prosecution for failure to file tax returns." See U.S. v. Troescher, No. 95-55609. D.C. No. CV93-5736SVW. By getting a Social Security Number, you volunteer to collect excise tax from yourself and turn it over to your master. Failing to turn over (with signed paperwork) the tax you've assessed yourself, is a crime. It's as much a crime as a Customs Officer failing to turn over (or account for) the excise tax he has collected. This is because you have accepted an appointment as a federal officer: (the office of "Person" - see Appendix D). 8. You are subject to, and protected by, your lord of the manor By getting a number: You agree that you are a subject of the government. And you agree that you are not a sovereign citizen (one of "We the People" who created government) and do not have any Rights (see the case cites in Appendix C: K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P 545, and Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520), and that your U.S. Constitution does not directly protect you against the government. You are a member of the "citizenship" (uncapitalized in the 14th Amendment, but capitalized everywhere else in your Constitution) created by Congress rather than a true "Citizen." You are therefore only protected against the government to the extent which your masters allow you access to your Constitution. Government derives its just powers from the consent of the Governed - and you've consented to be governed. Here is an analogy: Those who voluntarily enlist in the military (with an Oath) know that they are waiving their unalienable Rights and will be subject to regulations that can be very harsh. You too, with an Oath, knowingly volunteered to be a subject for the remainder of your enlistment (and you are presumed to know the laws that you volunteered into). Ignorance of the law is no excuse. By being a subject of the government, you are protected by your masters in Congress to whatever extent that they want to protect you. Example: you are protected against the consequences of your own acts by bankruptcy laws. You can "pray" to a courthouse priest that he cancel your vows to God with divorce laws. Your masters protect you from unemployment, injury comp., consumer protection, OSHA, pollution, bank failures, retirement, barking dogs, unlicensed barbers, paint fumes, etc.. You are also "protected" by a building inspector's fines if you don't get a permit to repair your back porch. I recently read about someone who was fined $30,000 for building a backyard deck that cast a shadow onto a wetland. This is in the same Nation where our great grandfathers (without permission from their servants) bridged wetlands and blasted through mountain ranges to build a railroad from sea to shining sea. Your grandfathers had birthrights as sovereigns (Appendix D). You, like Esau, sold that birthright for a future bowl of stew. You are even protected against suffering the consequences of Yah's Acts: the cost of recovering from floods, earthquakes, drought (remember what President Cleveland said), and hurricanes are paid by your master's theft of your neighbor's wages; you are vaccinated against Yah's illnesses, and Hillary's village will educate your children so that you won't be burdened with the responsibility - you've given up that responsibility by accepting their offer. You deprived your children of their birthright by your Probate Contract. Are you comforted to know that an "Angel of Light" has smoothed the rough path of life? (2nd Corinthians 11:14). Conversely, real people are instructed by Their Lawgiver to patiently endure hardships as discipline from Yahuah, and "do not make light of the Yah's discipline" (Hebrews 12, also read 2nd Timothy 2:3-15 and 2Corinthians 1:3-11 and 1st Peter 2:19-20, and 1st Peter 4:12-16). Do you have a God given Right to be protected against the consequences of your acts? Do you have a Right to be protected against Yah's discipline? Which god protects you? Exodus 23:24-33: "Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them. Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee." Chapter 17 A FOREIGN AUTHORITY ISSUES SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS
Your federal government went bankrupt and was surrendered to a foreign creditor in 1933, and ceased all operations. Your federal government now acts ONLY as "Agents" of their foreign masters. You owe absolute allegiance to your foreign owners. The two-horned second Beast that issues SSNs was revealed when the U.S. government went bankrupt in 1933. You have already volunteered into this system. It is already a done deal. It is irrelevant that President Bush (the elder) told the U.N. that the "New World Order" was America's goal. It is irrelevant that Clinton's 1993 national security directive declared its intent to put U.S. Troops under U.N. command. Here are eight little Topics. See if you can connect the dots and see the Big Picture. People! Catch a clue. Topic 1: History of land rights to Washington D.C. (and everything appurtenant thereto): Emperors claimed their authority to rule was "divine authority" and that the Pope delegates divine authority. The HOLY ALLIANCE of May 15,1213 A.D. was a Treaty between Pope Innocent III and King John of England conveying all rights, titles, and interests in England's lands to the Holy Roman See. The Kings of England were indebted to Rome for their wealth, power and authority. ENGLAND AND ENGLISH COLONIES BELONG TO THE ROMAN EMPIRE. [Aside: Since King James was indebted to Rome for all his authority, he was influenced by his superiors to publish his sanitized version of the Bible.] In 1452, Pope Nicholas the fifth, issued a Papal Bull called the "Doctrine of Discovery:" "... to capture, vanquish and subdue the Sarccens, pagans and other enemies of Messiah to take all their possessions and property and to put them into perpetual slavery." Spain's King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were Catholic Monarchs who financed Columbus. Christopher Columbus went forth to declare lands and inhabitants of the New World as property of the Catholic Church. I repeat again: "... to take all their possessions and property and to put them into perpetual slavery." On May 3, 1493 (upon confirming the discovery of the New World), Pope Alexander the sixth, issued the "Intercetera Bull:" "The Catholic faith ... be everywhere increased and spread and barbarous Nations be overthrown and brought to the faith ..." In Papal Bull of September 26, 1493 entitled "Dudum Siquidem," Pope Alexander VI extended Spain's rights to the New World. Spain's rights come from the Pope (if the Pope did indeed have legitimate right to Spain). Columbus' Book of Privileges (written in 1502 before his final voyage, a copy of which is in the U.S. National Archives) has a transcription of this Papal Bull. If true, then the Pope has a legitimate claim on America - both from the Spanish and English roots. Act of Supremacy (1534) vested in the king power to declare and punish heresies. Henry VIII burned copies of the English translation of the New Testament. Tyndale was executed in 1536 for translating the Bible into English. This is entirely consistent with the Catholic censorship of books required by their Fifth Lateran Council, Session 10. Queen Elizabeth forbid preaching on December 27, 1558. (But she was gracious enough to allow the reading of "the Ten Commandments in the vulgar tongue, without exposition or addition of any manner, sense, or meaning to be applied and added..."). This is entirely consistent with the Catholic censorship of Preachers required by their Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11. The Bible was banned until King James published his sanitized translation of the Bible in 1611. The Bible wasn't all that was burned. When Mary I'st restored the Roman Catholic Church, she burned 300 Protestants who had been excommunicated by the Pope. The Catholics then settled in Maryland. "Encarta" says that Maryland was created as a refuge for English Catholics. (But I suspect an ulterior motive. I really don't believe the Devil drove out Beelzebub). Again, their stated intent is that:
After the Revolutionary War, King George III and Ben Franklin signed The Treaty of Paris in 1783. This allows the United States to exist. Yet the very Treaty that allows the U.S. to exist also acknowledges that King George retains his Title over the Holy Roman Empire and the United States of America as "Arch-Treasurer" and "Prince Elector." Did your government school teach you this? Aside: Ben Franklin, (who signed the Treaty to authorize the United States to exist), proposed a motto for the Seal of the United States. The proposed motto was "Resistance to Tyranny is obedience toYahuah". Congress somehow knew when they passed the Residence Act of July 16, 1790, that a large tract of land along the Potomac would become available (By the way, according to British Legal Dictionaries, the word `Residence' means `agent'). And right on schedule, on March 30, 1791 - seventeen Maryland landowners signed Agreements with President Washington to donate and sell what were termed "reservations," that would become Washington D.C.. A State's border is not changed just because someone sells his property. The District of Columbia is still on Maryland soil. The current Maryland State Constitution does not define its borders. Maryland still contains Washington D.C.. Maryland even kept Washington D.C. from freeing the slaves in 1850. The original Charter of Maryland is available at The Avalon Project : Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy (also see http://www.archivesofmaryland.net) Notice that the English Charter for Maryland requires all exports from Maryland to go exclusively to England. By rights, the Catholic Church has a legitimate claim to anything attached to Washington D.C.. Your U.S. Government officially recognizes this particular religion. The U.S. has an Ambassador to the Vatican. Washington D.C. has the National Cathedral. Georgetown University is a Catholic University controlling (to an unknown extent) political thought. Georgetown University was founded in 1789 by John Carroll (on land predestined to be become part of Washington D.C.). Perhaps he had an ulterior agenda (along with his wealthy Catholic neighbors, [according to Chapter 17 of historian Dan Goodwin's latest book]). The Carroll family motto on their coat of arms was changed during this time to "Liberty in all Things" to infer their liberty to kill Protestants. Washington, D.C. is land cession from Maryland. `Cession' is not the word `ceded'. The word "cession" is used in your U.S. Constitution at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 for the government acquisition of Washington D.C.. It does not use words that imply permanent federal jurisdiction, or even federal land title to Washington, D.C.. "Cession," in ecclesiastical law means, "... vacating a benefice without proper dispensation." And just in case you were afraid to ask: The word "Benefice" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as "A term derived from the feudal law, in which it signified a permanent ... estate held by feudal tenure." Original States are Church property (see Appendix M). Maryland was the Catholic's State. If the Pope did not properly vacate the Benefice known as Washington D.C., then the Pope still has a legitimate claim to this permanent estate held by feudal tenure (and all property attached to it, and all future income from that property). You are that property. I want to again remind you that you cannot complain. The Supreme Court says (92 US 551): "It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government." Other federal topics: President Bill Clinton graduated from the Catholic Georgetown University. In Clinton's acceptance speech (when he was nominated as presidential candidate), he praised his mentor, Professor Carroll Quigley. On page 950 of Carroll Quigley's 1964 book "Tragedy and Hope" you will read: "The individual's freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives, by the fact that he will be numbered from birth ... and followed as a number through his educational training, his required military or other service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits." Standing atop the U.S. Capitol Dome (esteemed above all others, out in the open for all to behold, a most prominent symbol on the only building in Washington D.C. from which emanates your authority to control your civil servants) is the goddess "Minerva" wearing a Crown decorated with five pointed pentagrams. This Statue was made IN ROME by American artist Thomas Crawford. The ceiling of the Capitol dome is a painting by Italian artist Constantino Brumidi that depicts the "Apotheosis of George Washington." Surrounding George Washington are figures of gods, some 15 feet tall. They include Ceres, Vulcan, Mercury, Neptune, Minerva and 13 State goddesses pictured as "protectors" of American ideals. What part don't you understand? Is their "In god We Trust" the God that you trust? An Oath is always a religious ritual. Did you swear a Perjury Oath to their god in order to get a graven Mark issued by a final world government so you could buy and sell? According to the book "Art in the United States Capitol" (which is House Document number 94-660), within the painting on the Rotunda ceiling, there is a depiction of America handing to Ceres (who is the Roman goddess of agriculture) a team of horses pulling a reaper. I thought this would have been the other way around; that gods provide for people. Perhaps this symbolizes the famine curse that will soon hit America. Ezekiel 14:13 (NIV) "Son of man, if a country sins against me by being unfaithful and I stretch out my hand against it to cut off its food supply and send famine upon it and kill its men and their animals." Topic 2: Constitutional law. The phrase "supreme Law of the Land" is used in the U.S. Constitution, Article 6, Paragraph 2 to refer equally to Treaties as well as to your Constitution itself. A Treaty with Tripoli (ratified by two-thirds of the Senate and signed by President Adams in June of 1797) correctly states in Article 11: "... the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion ...". This quote is from the English language version signed by President Adams (in U.S. Archives), even though the original foreign version of this Treaty is now missing this controversial clause. President Adams (and two thirds of the Senators in 1797) knew the truth about Washington D.C.. Enforcers: Why do Latin speaking Judges in your local Courthouse wear black robes? How did your nation evolve from a judicial system of restoration to victims and forgiveness, to a system of fines and prison? Answer: by the will of the bar association, which, by the way, was prohibited prior to your Constitution. They have perpetuated Medieval Catholic tradition where sins were confessed and a fine was paid to a black robed Canceller for the forgiveness of the sin. [A Catholic Monk named "Martin Luther" rejected this nonsense, and risked death as a heretic responding to Johann Eck's "404 Articles" in the "Augsburg Confession." Early Protestants faced great persecution to avoid this nonsense. Why do you Protestants so willingly return to this  ?]In Appendix O, I explain that the judicial branch of government no longer exists. You have never known the real judicial system. You have only known Satan's counterfeit. I have not confirmed this yet, but if you want to do some research, please verify that The Supreme Court in Cromelin v. U.S. confirmed that U.S. District Judges are not employees of the U.S. government. Topic 3: "PERSONS" are government property. As explained in Appendix C, U.S. citizens are citizens of your federal government, but not State citizens. As I explained, government entitlements (such as Social Security or welfare) can only be appropriated for those persons that are Wards of the government administered program. Topic 4: You do not have the authority to buy or sell. The United States government went bankrupt in 1933. The good ol' federal U.S. of A. was permanently closed and ceased all operations. All assets of the government were turned over to the foreign bankruptcy receivership, and they operate it. Your foreign owners choose to continue operating their subsidiary without changing the name, (which is exactly what you would expect in any bankruptcy receivership). The name of their foreign subsidiary is "The United States." [Aside: I find it curious that the Beast of Revelation 13:1-4 is a confederacy of the Beasts of Daniel 7 except there is no longer any Eagle wings. Perhaps the Nation symbolized by "Eagle wings" ceased to exist prior to the issuing of the Mark of the Beast. A "Lion" has always symbolized England. Daniel 7:4 says that the Eagle's wings were plucked from the Lion. A "Bear" has always symbolized Russia. Could another recent national Socialist group from central Europe be symbolized by a "Panther" (like unto a Leopard)? Is the "Scarlet Beast" comprised of these Socialist powers? Did the Dragon give this Beast his power, and his seat, and great authority? Did the Nation symbolized by Eagle wings protect Bible Believer from the Serpent in Revelation 12:14?] Just as it is in any corporate takeover, employees automatically become the subordinates of the new management (you likewise were surrendered to the new management). Except that your status is permanent and irrevocable. In exchange for federal entitlements, the 1936 Conference of Governors agreed to pledge the earnings and earning power of the individuals of each State to overcome the bankruptcy. They never did overcome the bankruptcy. The "International Monetary Fund" is the bankruptcy receivership. The "Secretary of the Treasury" is the U.S. governor of the bankruptcy receivership. I will now prove that he owns you. Title 12, United States Code, Section 95(b) gives the Secretary of the Treasury complete power over you. Whatever drastic actions he wants to take in order to control you are already authorized by law. His actions "heretofore or hereafter taken" have already been pre-approved by Congress in 1933. This law claims its authority comes from the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, (as amended). This 1917 Act regulates and punishes trading with the enemy. When your Nation was conquered in 1933, you were acknowledged as the new government's enemy! It's just like any other war where the victor's occupation forces take over government operations after the surrender. The phrase "as amended" in 12 USC 95(b) means that, on March 9, 1933, domestic transactions were removed from the exclusions to the 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act (40 Stat L. 411, Subdivision "b" of Section 5). Trading with the Enemy is always illegal. Prior to March 9, 1933, domestic transactions were always legal. Domestic transactions must be legal because civil servants were never delegated the authority to make their masters' transactions illegal. After March 9, 1933, all domestic transactions are illegal. Your Nation has been conquered. You are the enemy of the occupation forces. Again: trading with the enemy is always illegal, but now your domestic trading is with the enemy of the foreign occupiers. Domestic transactions can now be regulated and punished. I repeat: domestic transactions are illegal. NO MAN MIGHT BUY OR SELL. Biblical Prophecy has come true! Don't be deceived just because he hasn't yet cracked down completely. It is lawful to trade with surrendered people. It is illegal to trade with the unsurrendered enemy. But guess who surrendered. It is those who fall for the deception and agree to be regulated by the Secretary of the Treasury's "actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken ...". Black's Law Dictionary entry for "Bank Holiday" says: "The present law forbids member banks of the Federal Reserve System to transact banking business except under regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury during an emergency proclaimed by the President." [For more information read the book: War and Emergency Powers by the American Agriculture Movement, (available from "War and Emergency Powers," 4656 Alta Vista, Dallas Texas 75229). Another book: War, Central Planning, and Corporations by Eugene Schroder is available from: "Dr. Eugene Schroder," P.O. Box 89, Campo, CO 81029.] There is not much on the internet, but I did find a link entitled "Who is running America" In Daniel Garcia's "Law Brief" (on page 6); he bluntly states that all U.S. citizens that have Social Security Numbers have been sequestered as "Institutional Units" of the International Monetary Fund for "collateral" on International Loans. He then cites as proof the following document: Excerpts from the "United Nations Secretariat, Revised System of National Accounts Draft Chapters and No. 90-24912-2005-1AC" Section F.5; International Organization, 68(3); Section G. The Residence of Institutional Units; Section G.1 Introduction 70. I have not been able to find this Document, nor have I been able to contact Mr. Garcia. While I'm speaking of the topic of not having any authority to buy or sell, there is another topic to consider. If you think that you will be able to barter openly when the crackdown comes, or somehow work for Christian IOUs, think again. No one has the authority to buy or sell, and that includes barter. The Credit Control Act, (Public Law 91-151, Section 206(11)) pre-authorizes the Federal Reserve Board to "prohibit or limit any extension of credit under any circumstances the Board deems appropriate." Punishable per Section 210 by a year in jail. In 1931, the Traitors in your Congress substituted your previous National Anthem with your current Anthem that does not mention God (Since the very definition of "anthem" is a "choral composition with a nonliturgical religious text" you cannot even claim to have an anthem). Then in 1933, a 32nd Degree Mason became President, and the "coin of the realm" was seized and prohibited. Gold coins, although required by your Constitution as your only lawful money, were outlawed and new currency was circulated with the Latin words around the pyramid "NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM" announcing the New World Secular Order. "Secular" means "without God." When a conquered people start using the money of the occupation forces, they (simply by their action of accepting the currency, the "coin of the realm,") acknowledge the authority of the new government. You are their enemy. You have been conquered. To the victor go the spoils. "The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government." Can using the "coin of the realm" be used as evidence that you've surrendered? Messiah and the apostles also lived in occupied territory. Yahusha's statement to Render unto Caesar could very well have meant "return" the money to Caesar and do not acknowledge his claim on your Nation by your use of the coin of his realm. It could also have meant don't render what is Yah's unto Caesar (such as, for example, the firstfruits of your labor - "withholding"). It could also have meant that nothing belonged to Caesar because Caesar was occupying the land without authority. Example: If a citizen of occupied Europe during World War II were told "Render unto Hitler what is Hitler's, and render unto Yah what is Yah's", the citizen would understand the phrase to mean that nothing belongs to Hitler. So it was in Caesar's Palestine - Nothing belonged to Caesar. So it is to this very day, right here in America. To repeat the conclusions so far: The Secretary of the Treasury works for the IMF. He controls you by absolute powers that are already pre-approved by Congress. When you volunteer into his jurisdiction (by signing an Application for a SSN or by signing a IRS 1040 Form) you become subject to his "actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken ..." You cannot buy or sell without his permission. Topic 5: SSNs are issued by a foreign power. The Application for a Social Security Number is the SS5 Form. The Department of the Treasury, not the Social Security Administration, issues this Form. Although the current SS5 Forms do not state what department publishes them, the earlier SS5 Forms state that they are Department of the Treasury Forms. (You can get a photocopy of the SS5 you filled out by submitting Form SSA-L996 to the SS Administration). I will now prove that the Department of the Treasury IS a foreign power. The Secretary of the Treasury is the head of the Treasury Department that issues SSN's. He does not owe allegiance to the U.S.. He has allegiance to a foreign power. Federal Law (22 USC 286a(a)) requires the President to appoint the U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund. This appointment is given to the Secretary of the Treasury (see "Legislative History" of Public Law 94-564, page 5942 where Congress is explaining how they are implementing the Bretton-Woods Treaty). If the President appoints someone to an official office required by law, and that position requires him to control you with powers pre-approved by Congress implemented by a Treaty, don't you think his salary would be paid by his employer? Title 22 US Code, Section 286a(d)(1) prohibits your U.S. government from paying the U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund. That's right! His employer pays his salary. Who's chain of command are your under? [Note: For those who do their homework: the "Agreement" mentioned in 22 USC 286a is the Bretton-Woods Treaty which stipulates that the Fund pay the Governors. Also notice that the Secretary of the Treasury is forced to accept "Amendments" on behalf of the U.S., whether we want them or not]. The Secretary of the Treasury is the U.S. representative to the International Monetary Fund. He also is the U.S. representative to INTERPOL, and has allegiance is to its' superiors. The Secretary of the Treasury was designated as the U.S. representative to INTERPOL in 1958. The word "representative" is very misleading. INTERPOL Constitution, Article 30 states, in part: "In the exercise of their duties, the Secretary General and the staff shall neither solicit nor accept instructions from any government or authority outside the organization. They must abstain from any action that might be prejudicial to their international task. Each Member of the Organization shall undertake to respect the exclusively international character of the duties of the Secretary General, and the staff, and abstain from influencing them in the discharge of their duties." That's right! The Secretary of the Treasury must abstain from advising them in the discharge of their duties. He cannot give advice; he can only take orders. He is not the U.S. representative to the IMF; he is the IMF's manager OF the U.S.. The Secretary of the Treasury takes orders on how to manage IMF property. You are IMF property. Inquiring minds might want to know just what "international task" and "exclusively international character of the duties" that are being discharged. Hint: the INTERPOL emblem is a World Globe with a Sword through it. The Secretary of the Treasury is not an Officer of the United States. It is, of course, prohibited for U.S. Officers to act as Agent of foreign principals (18 USC 219). And, of course, U.S. Officers cannot hold office until they take an "Oath of Office" that they will bear true faith and allegiance to support the Constitution of the United States (per 5 USC 3331). Although my letters go unanswered, I have been told that the Secretary of the Treasury has NOT taken such an Oath. I have also been told that an INTERPOL Internal Memorandum of June 6, 1972 required all members to "expatriate" from their Countries. To repeat the conclusions so far: You are property of a subsidiary of the International Monetary Fund. The Secretary of the Treasury administers IMF property. The Secretary of the Treasury has allegiance to foreign powers, and takes his orders from them, not from you. The Secretary of the Treasury controls federal PERSONS by absolute powers that are already pre-approved by Congress. No man within his jurisdiction may legally buy or sell without his permission. If you have a Social Security Number, you have a permanent irrevocable status as a federal "PERSON." Topic 6: National ID Card Page 650 of Public Law 104-208, Part B, Title IV, in with the other defense appropriations legislation (as if you were the enemy), requires a national Identification Card for all Americans. No one will be able to get a job without one. That's right! For the first time in history, your Federal Government must pre-authorize private employment Contracts. The program will be administered by this same Treasury Department. This will be encoded on your State driver's license, or for those who don't drive, a separate ID Card. After October 1, 2000 - federal Agencies will only accept State ID's that conform to Treasury standards. Do you have a problem with this? Topic 7: You and all your labor and your children have been sold. You are commercial merchandise, and your children are no longer protected by your U.S. Constitution that attempted to secure the blessings of liberty to your posterity. The GATT Trade Treaty, Uruguay Round Agreement (which is the supreme law of your land) [Note: "Treaties" and your Constitution are both equally regarded as "The Supreme Law of the Land"] requires SSN's at birth, after November 30, 1996. See the "U.S. Legislative History" of Public Law 103-465 (House Report No. 103-826(1) page 196) where Congress is explaining how they are enacting this Treaty. "Section 2" is entitled: "Taxpayer identification numbers required at birth (sec. 742 of the bill and secs. 32 and 6109 of the Code)" [Note that this contradicts a February 1999 Pamphlet by the Social Security Administration. SSA Publication 05-10023 entitled "Social Security Numbers for Newborns." On page 4 it states: "Getting a Social Security number for your baby is strictly voluntary."] "GATT" is a Treaty with an international political monster that evolved out of the European Economic Committee (EEC, also called the "common market" or "European Union"). The EEC was established at the Vatican on March 25, 1957, and controls most of all commerce in the world. The EEC is now headed by a Frenchman, Jacque Delores, a devout Catholic. The 1991 Maastricht Agreement by 12 (now 15, 13 of which are Socialist), European Nations created an international political body with it's own Parliament and tribunals, and limits the powers of member Nations. This tribunal controls (to some extent) Treaties of member Nations. Why do they require the U.S. to number your children? Answer: They own your children. The GATT Treaty forces your U.S. Government to issue Social Security Numbers to newborns. Isn't it curious that Revelation 13:12 says that the second Beast (which is the Beast that issues the Mark) exercises the power of the first Beast? Isn't it curious that Christian infants are immediately claimed as property of the EEC Beast? Revelation 12:4 says "... and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born." If you want to do further research, start by browsing through Title 22 of the U.S. Code, and notice all the laws that require deposits to foreign banks. Then notice that on the back of every cancelled check that you've ever written to the IRS (before 1999) has an endorsement for the payment of debt obligations of the U.S.. That's right! Your IRS payments do not run the government. Your IRS payments do not even go to Congress for them to decide whether or not to pay their debts. Your payments are levied directly to the bankruptcy receivership, just as you would expect in any bankruptcy. (Details: they first go the states unemployment fund's bank account at the Federal Reserve Bank per Section 904 of the Social Security Act, then to the "U.N. Bank for Reconstruction and Development" per 22 USC 286 [created by the Bretton Woods Treaty], then after one year, they go to the IMF's Rothchild bank). Then notice that all the money is backed, not by gold in Fort Knox, but by "the full faith and credit" of the United States. This means that you and your future labor are the collateral for this credit. Then recognize that the U.S. cannot pay the National Debt. Then prepare to be "seized" as collateral for all that money deposited by Title 22. The GATT Treaty merely takes inventory of legitimate collateral. You volunteered, so stop your mocking. You were warned not to be "surety" for strangers (Prov. 6:1, 11:15, 17:18). After you are prepared to face the consequences under man's law, prepare to "be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb" per Revelation 14:10. Particular things happened in 1998. Starting with the 1998 tax returns (for the first time ever), tax payment checks are made payable the U.S. Treasury, not to the IRS. Black's Law Dictionary, seventh edition, was published and it no longer had an entry for "UNITED STATES" (which had always been the definition given by the Supreme Court's Hooven decision) and a new entry "United States of America" appeared which did not have an official definition. And new currency is issued which no longer indicates which Federal Reserve Bank issued the note. Perhaps Bush (the elder) and Clinton were right all along. They have been telling you for years that the federal government would be privatized. The book "Guardians of the Grail" by J.R. Church (ISBN 0-941241-02-5, Prophecy Publications) traces the roots of all Nations' Central Banks (including your Federal Reserve Board as well as the Bank of England, and the EEC) back to the 12th Century "Knights Templar," who's stated objective was to own the World. If true, that would mean all the World is now enfranchised to these Bankers who once owed allegiance to the Catholic Church. They are working to promote a World leader from the Morovingian clan. This includes the Habsburg dynasty (whose Charles V is displayed on the ECU coin) and Juan Carlos of Spain. Topic 8: United Nations registration for SSN numbered PERSONS. The United Nations is involved in assigning Social Security Numbers to newborn children, and probably everyone else. In the next paragraph, I am going to quote a Federal Regulation that deceptively refers to the U.N. as if it was New York City. To understand the legal definition of the term "New York City" as it used in the Code of Federal Regulations, you must first understand that the U.N. has its headquarters in New York City, and that UNITED NATIONS LAW SUPERSEDES ANY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAW "WITHIN THE HEADQUARTERS DISTRICT." This is according to a federal law known as Title 22, U.S. Code, Section 287(d). Apparently New York City is on U.N. soil. While keeping in mind that New York City (as you know it) is not a State, and it is not even the Capital of New York State, notice how federal Social Security Regulations refer to New York City (the headquarters of the United Nations) as a State: Title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 111, Subpart B 422.103(b)(2): "(2) Birth registration document. SSA may enter into an agreement with officials of a State, including, for this purpose, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and New York City, to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children." Perhaps someone can explain the above quoted law. Tell me if I have this correct: Social Security numbers have been assigned for six decades, but now officials of the U.N. headquarters district can establish a new procedure to assign Social Security numbers. Hummm. Notice the phrase "the official birth registration process." The legal definition of the word "Birth" has two meanings, either natural birth, or coming into legal existence. Example: a Corporation has a birth. "Birth" is the event (such as signing a Form) that creates legal existence in the eyes of the law. After you read my notes on "birth certificates," return here and study this until you convince yourself that a birth certificate is prima facie evidence that you are (at best) a "PERSON" without birthrights, and at worst, property of a government. Then re-read my notes on the GATT Treaty requiring SSNs at birth, above. If you have a number, you are a commodity in foreign commerce. 2nd Peter 2:3 (KJV) "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you." Conclusions: You do not have the right to buy or sell. All domestic transactions are illegal. The Secretary of the Treasury (who's allegiance is to foreign powers), is already pre-approved to regulate your transactions. Your SSN comes from this same authority. Your new ID Card will be issued by this same authority. The Catholic Church has a legitimate claim on their property. By your own authority (signature on a permanent irrevocable record), you registered yourself into the system. This registration is somehow regulated by U.N. headquarters. You have a number of this authority. You cannot legally buy or sell without permission of this authority. The GATT Treaty (with the EEC) requires SSNs at birth. The EEC was established at the Vatican. The National debt is owed to multinational banking cartels. These cartels might have been established by Catholic crusaders. Your national debt cannot be paid. Your future labor has been hypothecated as collateral for the national debt, and has been seized. There are rumors that anyone who tries to get out of the Beast system has all their government files transferred to the Secret Service's Phoenix project (This is unrelated to the UFO project of the same name). The Secret Service is a branch of the Treasury Department. What is next? Deliverance? Don't count on it. There are many examples where godly Nations pray for deliverance only to be further enslaved or destroyed (Psalm 74. Ezekiel 6&7, Habakkuk 1, Isaiah 58). If God willed these godly Nations to be destroyed, what chance does America have? God even warned his chosen people in 1st Samuel 8:18 (NIV): "When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." Your duty was to control your Servants. You failed. William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, warned us in 1681: "Unless we are governed by Yah, we will be ruled by tyrants." Even Yah's chosen people were enslaved for tolerating a leader who sinned openly (Jerimiah 15:4). As I said earlier, the word "cataclysm" means wash down. Prepare America for a good scrubbing. The thicker the encrusted filth, the rougher the abrasive that is needed. Yah has always used pagan Nations to punish disobedient Nations. Conquering Nations are instruments of His discipline (Isa 8:4-10, 10:5-6, 45:1-3, Jer 5:15-18, 20:4-5, 24:10, Eze 21:15-23, 30:24-26, 32:11-15). Isaiah saw the collapse of truth in his society and foresaw the decline and approaching enslavement of Judah. Isaiah 59:12-15 (NKJV) "For our transgressions are multiplied before You, And our sins testify against us; For our transgressions are with us, And as for our iniquities, we know them: In transgressing and lying against the LORD, And departing from our God, Speaking oppression and revolt, Conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood. Justice is turned back, And righteousness stands afar off; For truth is fallen in the street, And equity cannot enter. So truth fails, And he who departs from evil makes himself a prey. Then the LORD saw it, and it displeased Him That there was no justice." Ezekiel 7:3-25 (NIV) "The end is now upon you and I will unleash my anger against you. I will judge you according to your conduct and repay you for all your detestable practices. I will not look on you with pity or spare you; I will surely repay you for your conduct and the detestable practices among you. Then you will know that I am the LORD. "This is what the Sovereign Yah says: Disaster! An unheard-of disaster is coming. The end has come! The end has come! It has roused itself against you. It has come! Doom has come upon you--you who dwell in the land. The time has come, the day is near; there is panic, not joy, upon the mountains. I am about to pour out my wrath on you and spend my anger against you; I will judge you according to your conduct and repay you for all your detestable practices. I will not look on you with pity or spare you; I will repay you in accordance with your conduct and the detestable practices among you. Then you will know that it is I the Yahuah who strikes the blow. "The day is here! It has come! Doom has burst forth, the rod has budded, arrogance has blossomed! Though they blow the trumpet and get everything ready, no one will go into battle, for my wrath is upon the whole crowd. Outside is the sword, inside are plague and famine; those in the country will die by the sword, and those in the city will be devoured by famine and plague. ... They will throw their silver into the streets, and their gold will be an unclean thing. Their silver and gold will not be able to save them in the day of the Lord's wrath. They will not satisfy their hunger or fill their stomachs with it, for it has made them stumble into sin. ... I will hand it all over as plunder to foreigners and as loot to the wicked of the earth, and they will defile it. ... Prepare chains, because the land is full of bloodshed and the city is full of violence. I will bring the most wicked of the nations to take possession of their houses; I will put an end to the pride of the mighty, and their sanctuaries will be desecrated. When terror comes, they will seek peace, but there will be none." America will be captured, vanquished, and subdued. Or did Yah change? Using the same terminology as is found in Isaiah 28  NIV)- Verse 15: "... we have made a lie our refuge and falsehood our hiding place." Verse 18: "... when the overwhelming scourge sweeps by, you will be beaten down by it." Verse 19: "As often as it comes it will carry you away: morning after morning, by day and by night, it will sweep through. The understanding of this message will bring sheer terror" Verse 22: "Now stop your mocking or your chains will become heavier: the Lord, the Lord Almighty, has told me of the destruction decreed against the whole land." Jeremiah 34:17 (KJV) "Therefore thus saith the Yah; Ye have not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother, and every man to his neighbour: behold, I proclaim a liberty for you, saith the Yahuah, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine; and I will make you to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth." May Yah bless you. Appendix A Since no one in Government told you to get a Social Security Number, only those serving the Beast are requiring numbers. Make sure that you are not requiring others to worship the Beast. You are most certainly serving a Beast if you deceive others by telling them to get a Social Security Number. The "obey authority" excuse is used so often that I need to address it in more detail. It does not refer to obeying false authority. If you obey false authority you are rebelling against legitimate authority. Obeying false authority is mutiny against Yah. The idea that governments are automatically bowed down to, is an idea that Yah prohibited in his first two commandments. The word secular means "without God." Bible believers will not automatically obey secular government. Imagine how easy life would have been if we had obeyed secular authority.
Did the very same author of the above words change his mind in 1 Corinthians 6:12 when he wrote "all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." ? Romans 13:3 continues with a comparison between legitimate and illegitimate rulers: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:" It cannot be both ways. You cannot claim that verse 1 refers to all powers, if tyrants are excluded in verse 3. And, by the way, I support Bible smugglers. I do this to obey authority ordained of Yahuah. 1st Peter 2:13-16 (KJV) "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God." Read that again. Peter is recommending that you obey government in order to silence the rumors of foolish men who are saying that your liberty from their laws is a guise for maliciousness. Peter even used the term "foolish," yet Yahusha said we would be in danger of hell fire if we called anyone a fool. Matt 5:22. Titus 3:1 (KJV) "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work," Hebrews 13:17 (KJV) "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." It is irrelevant that Bible Believers are required to obey legitimate authority. No law or court has ever required you to get a Social Security Number. If you are not yet convinced that you have the Mark of the Beast, then you must eventually decide where you will draw your line in the sand. Most people flippantly say they will refuse to take an implant in their right hand. They give it no further thought. If government controls buying and selling, will you disobey? Will it be voluntary or mandatory? To what extent will you obey government? Some say we must obey a Hitler, others say we must obey authority up to, but not including, a Hitler. Others say civil disobedience is necessary if our convictions require us to disobey. How can you say that a Bible Believer must cooperate with evil? You are the one that must decide whether or not to cooperate with evil. There are a dozen New Testament verses that tell us to stand firm. The word `apostasy' means failing to stand firm. This is not legal advice. I am NOT telling you to take a stand. Those who refuse to compromise with evil will lose their homes, jobs and family. Isaiah 59:15 he who departs from evil makes himself a prey. You must choose your battles wisely. We are in this predicament because people over the last 70 years refused to take a stand. They willingly gave up their rights, until there are none left. Ben Franklin said that those who give up some liberty for safety deserve neither. Government employees are allowed to deceive you (See Appendix B) and the law requires you, just like Adam and Eve, to accept the consequences if you are deceived. Do not obey a lie. Jeremiah 17:5 If you trust men, you are under a curse. If you ever need to be deprogrammed from the error that we must obey tyrants, read Martin Luther's Secular Authority: To What Extent It Should be Obeyed, published in 1523. Yahusha himself tells you in Matt 10:17-22 to beware of those who will turn you over to authorities, and to stand firm. The persecuted church for 20 centuries, ever since Acts 4:26, knew that governments conspired against Messiah. Or read the sermons of the American Revolution. Or James 2:6-7: those who blaspheme the one that called you, are the ones taking you to court. Yahusha told us to agree with our adversary so we will not be cast into prison, Matt 5:25 and Luke 12:58. Does that sound like Yahusha was pro-Government? The same biblical principals that require us to obey legitimate government require us to disobey illegitimate government. If you want to know if a government is legitimate read Romans 13:3. Legitimate Government is not a terror to good works, but to evil. Also 1st Peter 2:14. Your US government upheld these principles against national socialists at Nuremberg. The "we were just obeying orders" excuse did not work at Nuremberg and it won't work here. Did the same Peter who is quoted in Acts 5:29 as saying that we must obey Yahuah rather than men, change his mind in 1st Peter 2:13-4, or is he only referring to legitimate government? NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES YAH GIVE MANKIND THE AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE. In fact it is prohibited for mankind to legislate, Deuteronomy 4:2. The only legitimate government among mankind, is the government that enforces Biblical law. Even Yahusha corrected the apostles about Moses' law by stating that it was not so, even from the beginning. There is no power but of Yahuah, as Paul wrote in Romans 13. This is NOT a command to obey counterfeit government. The (legitimate) powers that be are ordained of Yah. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers (as contrasted with counterfeit powers). The same Paul that tells us that the powers that be are ordained of Yahuah, and that every soul should be subject unto the higher powers - is the same Paul who was often in prison (2nd Corinthians 11:23) and who escaped from law enforcement officers in Damascenes according to 2nd Corinthians 11:32. Government eventually executed Paul. It cannot be both ways. Either he was executed for obeying civil government, or Romans 13:1 is the definition of legitimate power. Did Messiah tell us to avoid being turned over to legitimate authority (Matt 10:17)? Actions speak louder than words. There are many people who willingly hand over part of their wages to fund abominations. You are either for Messiah, or against him. Choose this day whom you shall serve. Those who choose to be part of the evil system must obey their masters. Must a Bible Believer pay for vile abominations such as abortion clinics in public schools, punish parents for disciplining their children, punish schools for acknowledging the existence of God, fund pornography for school libraries, pay usury on the National Debt, execute people known to be innocent (Exodus 23:7 says that Yah will not tolerate slaying of the innocent.), fund the National Endowment for the Arts to publicly display Piss Christ "art," buy condoms for children, pay for UN atrocities, deliberately mis-educate youth, and sodomize your military? Do your civil servants act on your behalf to teach witchcraft at the public schools while prohibiting student prayer? Thomas Jefferson said that "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Your founders set up a system that prohibits the collection of a direct tax. There is no need to fund persecution of Bible Believers. Example: On 5/21/93 the Clinton Administration petitioned the Supreme Court to allow RICO racketeering statutes be used against abortion protesters. They claimed that anti-abortion groups comprise "a nationwide criminal conspiracy of extremists ...[bent on] unlawful and violent methods" to drive customers away from abortion clinics. Then, right on schedule, on 1/25/94 the Supreme Court ruled that RICO prosecutions need not prove economic motive. This means that racketeering charges can be brought against any church with a member who shows a pattern of misdeeds (twice praying outside a clinic). All church property can then be seized without a trial of any kind. Another example: The Freedom of Choice Act would make it against the law to suggest to a pregnant girl that she put her baby up for adoption rather than to kill it. Another example: In 1973 homosexuality was officially classified as a psychological illness, and only 20 years later, anyone who questions such lifestyle is a dangerous nut. In 1993 the American Psychiatric Association said that an "irrational fear and hatred of homosexuals is a psychological abnormality that interferes with the judgment and reliability of those affected." Now there is even talk of forcing Christian hospitals to perform abortions, and forcing churches to hire homosexuals. And hate speech laws to prohibit reading the Bible (especially Jude:7, Lev 20:13, etc). If congress is your benefactor, you've agreed to this. Yes, Romans 13:6 says we should pay legitimate tax for legitimate government. But verse 3 defines legitimate government as not being a terror to good works. I assure you that Satan has a counterfeit authority for you to obey. And once you pay a tax you don't owe to a false authority, the legal doctrine of solutio indebiti enslaves you and requires you to continue paying future taxes. Yes, Messiah paid taxes. But did He render unto Caesar that which is Yah's? Did He fund vile abominations with his own labor? Notice that He didn't pay the Temple tax until Peter blurted out that He pays taxes. Notice that He didn't pay with His own money. More about taxes later. If you are the type of character who wants to control others, with the color of man's law, then you are of the same class of citizenship who used political influence to execute Messiah. You are just like those who influenced King Darius to pass a law prohibiting Daniel from praying. I may seem harsh, but you deserve their fate. Dan 6:24. In Revelation 13, the two-horned second beast issues the mark of the beast. Right before he is introduced, there is this warning: "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity." (Revelation 13:10). Appendix B You've probably been told that you "Must" file a form, or you "Must" disclose a number. Let's take a closer look. US Supreme Court in US vs. Minker, 350 US 179 at page 187: "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." US v. Tallmadge 829 F2d 767: "... One who relies on a legal interpretation by a government official assumes the risk that it is in error... it has also been held or said that `the government could scarcely function if it were bound by its employees unauthorized representations'" Goldberg v. Weinberger, 546 F2d 477. Caterpillar Tractor Company v. US, 589 F2d 1040 (also see GEHL Co. v. C.I.R. 795 F2d 1324): "Informal publications of IRS all the way up to revenue rulings are simply guides to taxpayers and taxpayer relies on them at his peril." United States Supreme Court Federal Crop Insurance Corp. v. Merril, 332 US 380 (1947): "... Anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his authority ... and this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority." Fields v. US, 27 App DC 433: Words like "may," "must," "shall," etc., are constantly used in statutes without intending that they be taken literally. Brinkley v. Brinkley, 56 NY 192: "Must" as used in statutes has been frequently construed not to be mandatory Fort Howard Paper v. Fox River Dist. 26 NW2nd 661: The word "shall" in a statute may be construed to mean "may," particularly in order to avoid a constitutional doubt. Gow v. Consolidated Copper, 165 Atl. 136: If necessary, to avoid unconstitutionality of a statute, "shall" will be deemed equivalent to "may". George Williams College v. Village of Williams Bay, 7 NW2nd 891: "Shall" in any statute may be construed to mean "may" in order to avoid constitutional doubt. US Supreme Court, Cairo and Fulton RR Co. v. Hecht, 95 US 170: As against the government, the word "shall" when used in statutes is to be construed as "may," unless a contrary intention is manifest Ballou v. Kemp, 95 F2nd 556: The word "shall" in a statute may be construed as "may" where the connection in which it is used or the relation to which it is put with other parts of the same statute indicates that the legislature intended that it should receive such a construction. Appendix C YOUR GOVERNMENT'S DEFINITION OF THE WORD “CITIZEN”Citizenship is a complex issue, and many volumes have been written on the subject. I might not, on the next few pages, convince you that state Citizens are not US citizens. But I'll try. Here are the basics: You do not need to be a citizen, but if you are a citizen, there are only two kinds of citizenship: state citizenship and federal citizenship. Those who reside in federal territories or receive federal benefits are federal citizens. "A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." (Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383). Citizens give up natural rights in exchange for political privileges. State citizens have political rights, such as the right to run for President, and such as the protections acknowledged by the first eight amendments. Alternatively, Federal citizens cannot have political rights. Federal citizens are subjects on the federal plantation. Example: only state citizens can become President, no one from a federal territory, such as Washington DC, can run for President. Again: territories, such as Washington, DC, are outside the US. Again: Federal people cannot have political rights, and cannot run for President. If you don't understand this yet, I'll try to explain the chain of command. State citizens created state governments. State citizens are masters of their servants. An association of these servants (who once called their association "The United States in Congress Assembled") became your federal government. Your US Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, granted your federal servants exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over the District of Columbia. I repeat: exclusive legislation in all cases. DC residents and Fourteenth Amendment citizens are subject to the servants of the servants of the state citizens. They are not state citizens. These servants and sub-servants cannot grant rights. "Rights" do not come from servants. You cannot be granted rights you already have. Appendix D covers the distinction between the term "person" and the term "sovereign." You had all the birthrights of a sovereign. I want to introduce you to the sovereign power that you gave up when you consented to be governed. Sovereignty is delegated from Yahuah to you, and it is up to you to keep it. After the Revolutionary war, Ben Franklin led a delegation to negotiate the Treaty of Paris, which was signed September 3rd 1783. This document is what gives America the right to exist. King George signed over to all Americans the rights of the sovereign, except those that he retained. All Americans understood, at that time, exactly what power they had. US Supreme Court in Lansing v. Smith (1829) 4 Wend. 9,20: "People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative." The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348 (1825): "The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the people] he shall not be bound." Read that again. That's right! Your birthright means you are not bound to statutes that take away your rights. Unless, of course, you signed something to give up your birthright. [Aside: notice the phrase "shall not be bound" is similar to other Republics, such as the historical account in Acts 22:29 that a Roman officer cannot bind a Roman citizen. Notice that the word "bind" is used in the Bible to refer to a mark that is both on hands and foreheads. Deuternomy 6:8, Deuternomy 11:18, Proverbs 7:2-3. Now notice that the word 'pledge' as in a pledge of allegiance means to bind. Strong's H2254. A pledge of allegiance is an oath to be bound, and is symbolically a mark on your hands and forehead.] Even the very definition of "Liberty" means you cannot be regulated. Study the terms "Liberty" and "Liberties" in the Law Dictionary. Another Example: the US Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399: The term Liberty "... denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience, the established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary ..." If this doesn't describe your liberty, then perhaps you signed something to give up your rights. Notice that protecting public interest is not a function of government, at least according to your Supreme Court. Your government was instituted among men to protect the rights of the innocent. PROTECTING PUBLIC INTEREST IS CONTRARY TO PROTECTING RIGHTS. Ben Franklin said that those who would give up liberty for safety deserve neither. Thomas Jefferson said that the Tree of Liberty must be periodically fertilized with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Conclusion: the federalists have been given exclusive jurisdiction over Washington DC. There are no sovereign rights in Washington DC.
The Presidency is an office of servitude, not an office of authority. Unless, of course, you signed something to make you subordinate to his authority. The story that I think best contrasts today's esteem of servants with the true nature of servitude is the story of Thomas Jefferson's inauguration. President Jefferson was sworn into office, and went home to his boarding house for lunch. All seats at the table were occupied, and no one offered their seat to the civil servant, so he ate his inauguration day lunch alone in his room. I'll quote from his inauguration speech later. The next time you are filling out a form that asks you to check a box, don't be so quick to confess that you are a US citizen. (And don't be so willing to waive your right to privacy, fill out confessions, take perjury oaths, or greed after whatever worldly recognition that the form offers). Without a confession, you might be able to retain basic human rights, such as the right to own property and the right to earn wages. Article IV of the Articles of Confederation extended privileges of citizenship to mere inhabitants, with this phrase: "... the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states" The Articles of Confederation uses phrases in which nouns are not capitalized proper nouns, and never use the preposition "of," examples:
In your U.S. Constitution prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the word "Citizen" was ALWAYS capitalized: Article 1, Section 2 (twice); Article 1, Section 3; Article 2, Section 1; Article 3, Section 2 (five times); Article 4 Section 2 (twice); and the 11th Amendment (twice). But, it is NEVER capitalized in the five occurrences within the 14th Amendment. Congress did not forget the proper use of English. One refers to the proper title of the government's Master. The other is a word for government property. Which one are you? The 14th Amendment created a new class of citizenship. Originally intended for the 4 million freed slaves who had no means of support, it allowed for federal ownership of those who needed federal entitlements in order to survive. As previously explained, it "is an absurdity" to think that your Constitution would ever be interpreted to provide welfare to individuals. Under your Constitution, welfare for individuals is not possible without ownership (because welfare is the responsibility of owners, church and family). This is Biblical. Equal protection under the law ? Lawyers will tell you that the 14th Amendment was the great equalizer. They will tell you that your rights to equal protection under the law come from the 14th Amendment. They will then ask you why you would question such strong protections? Compare the following two quotes that acknowledge equal protection under the law: The 14th Amendment, Section 1: "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ... " The 5th Amendment "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..." The US Supreme Court in 1878 case of Davidson v. New Orleans stated that your Constitution is not redundant. They mean different things. Recommended reading on the topic of the 14th Amendment: 1968 Utah Supreme Court decision in Dyett v. Turner, 439 P2d 266. Another topic. The phrase: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment in Elk v. Wilkins in 1884 (112 US 94) "The persons declared to be citizens are `all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance." Do you owe direct and immediate allegiance to your servants? Another Topic. The term "citizen" as used in government laws In Powe v. U.S. 109 F2d 147, 149 (1940) the court determined what the term `citizen' means in federal statutes. Notice that the term `citizen,' when used in federal laws, excludes State citizens: "... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..." U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542: "A person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other." In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks 7 SCt 656, 662; 120 US 678, 690 found that: "In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense ... It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution ..." The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626: "In Baldwin v. Franks ... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident', `inhabitant', or `person' ..." 14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122: "... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government." (Read that again. Pay attention. CITIZENS IN THE U.S. ARE SUBJECTS EVER SINCE THE CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT. What part don't you understand?) 125 Fed 322, 325: "The thirteenth amendment is a great extension of the powers of the national government." U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794: "The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution" Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520: "... the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause" [of the fourteenth amendment] That's right! the US Supreme Court says that Fourteenth Amendment citizens are not protected by the Bill of Rights. STATE CITIZENSHIP State Citizens have their same rights in all the states because your Federal Constitution in Article 4, Section 2 guarantees that "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." The Supreme Court in Colgate v. Harvey 296 US 404, 429 clarified that rights of state citizenship are in contradistinction to the rights of US citizenship: "The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other ..." Colgate v. Harvey then concluded that the right to trial by jury and the right to bear arms are not guaranteed to 14th Amendment citizens. Merely reciting which kind of citizen you are, is admissible by anyone taking you to federal court. Be careful about checking a box on a form claiming US citizenship. Example: The US Supreme Court in Urtetiqui v. D'Arcy 34 US 692: "Where plaintiff, suing in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland, alleges that he is a citizen of Maryland, an affidavit signed by him in a suit brought in a state court, reciting that he was not a citizen of the United States, thereby procuring a removal of the case to the federal court, is admissible on defendant's behalf." Your U.S. Constitution Article 4, Section 2 guarantees "privileges and immunities" to Citizens of each state. K Tashiro v. Jordan 256 P 545, was later affirmed by US Supreme Court in 278 US 123: "There is clear distinction between national and State Citizenship, U.S. Citizenship does not entitle citizen of the privileges and immunities of the Citizen of the State" That's correct! If you claim to be a US citizen, you are claiming that you are not entitled to the privileges and immunities of a State Citizen (a right guaranteed by Article 4, Section 2). You are not protected by your U.S. Constitution. You have no rights. Like Esau, you sold your birthright. Hebrews 12:16: See to it that no one is profane, like Esau, who flippantly sold his birthright. If you are a citizen, it is because you have voluntarily submitted to the dominion of your political community. Whether you like it or not. No matter how evil. US Supreme Court in the 1875 case U.S. v. Cruikshank 92 US 542: "Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights .... The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government." A Bible Believer, however, would not consent to be governed. He already has a King. He already has a citizenship. Philippians 3:20 (NIV): "But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Master Yahusha Messiah," United States v. 24 Federal Cases 829,830 (1873): "The rights of Citizens of the States, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment and are fully guaranteed by other provisions." Notice the terminology "enter into society" in the 1798 U.S. Supreme Court case Calder v. Bull, 3 Dallas 386: "The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundation of the legislative power, they will decide what are the proper objects of it: The nature, and ends of the legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle flows from the very nature of our free Republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit ..." And notice the same terminology in Andrew Jackson's second inauguration speech March 4, 1833: "Constantly bearing in mind that entering into society individuals must give up a share of liberty ..." Again notice that citizens have given up a share of liberty, whereas non-citizens keep their rights. Have you entered into a society that uses a vote to determine the morality of abortion, sodomy, divorce, usury, pornography, and property seizure? You paid your fair share for these abominations. Yahusha told us not to have dominion over others. Christians would
*(Aside: Ballot and bullet and bully are etymologically the same word. They all refer to rock throwing. Examples: President Lincoln 8/26/1863 said "Among free men there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet." Another example: The apostle Paul, admits that before he was converted he stoned to death the saints. He confesses in Acts 26:10 "When they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.") State governments were originally founded on Biblical principles. Here in these United States, or any other Republic, the citizens are the higher power of Romans 13:1. The civil servants who daily blaspheme God are not the higher powers ordained of God. They are a terror to good works. Romans 13:1 (KJV): "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Romans 13:3 (KJV) "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." The same principles that require you to obey lawful government require you to punish tyrants. Here are Citizenship issues for the advance student who wants to do some research: I've found coincidences that seem related to the 14th Amendment. First, The 14th Amendment says that all persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the US, and Social Security Act, Section 205(c)(2)(b)(i) lists indigent children and immigrants as the only ones who can qualify for Social Security Numbers. Note that the words "including children" may be construed to exclude all non-children. For the advanced student: try to find proof that the word "children" in this section of the Social Security Act refers only to government wards. Second, there are ASSIGNED Social Security Numbers and ISSUED Social Security Numbers. Compare Social Security Act, Section 205(c)(2) with 20 CFR 422.103 through .104, and 26 CFR 31.6011(b) and (c). Assigned Social Security Numbers Issued Social Security Numbers Are always called Account Numbers Are never called Account Numbers Are not for children (in neither SS Act nor SS regulations) Are for children (SS Act only) Are not for children (regulations only) Search as much as you want, but you won't find an issued account number. Yet, this is what your tax law wants. Every April 15th, you swear a perjury oath to the federal god that you have a number that does not exist. There is one last topic to consider. The word "enumerated" as used in the Social Security Act. The Social Security Administration has stated on their former web site: "The process of issuing Social Security numbers is called "enumeration," and over the years it has been one of the most interesting topics involving Social Security." Now, here is the legal definition of ENUMERATED: The term is often used in law as equivalent to "mentioned specifically," "designated" or "expressly named or granted;" as in speaking of enumerated government powers, ITEMS OF PROPERTY, or articles in a tariff schedule...
__________________ http://www.submission.org/quran/koran-index.html  |
| The Following 2 Warriors Say Asante sana to Pragmatic For This Useful Post: | ||
 GoddessTbaby (10-12-2009),  Moorbey (10-12-2009) | ||
|
09-18-2009
| |||||
| |||||
| Appendix D YOUR GOVERNMENT'S DEFINITION OF THE WORD "PERSON"The word "person" is used in many laws. If you don't know what the term means, you might think that you are one of these. American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910: "This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested ... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons ... The law of persons is the law of status or condition." People are not persons. On the next page you will read legal definitions of the word `person.' As you will see, persons are defined as non-sovereigns. A sovereign is someone who is not subject to statutes. A person is someone who voluntarily submits himself to statutes. In the United States the people are sovereign over their civil servants: Romans 6:16 (NIV): "Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey ..." Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939, 943: "The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated; and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the federal and state government." 1794 US Supreme Court case Glass v. Sloop Betsey: "... Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people" 1829 US Supreme Court case Lansing v. Smith: "People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative." US Supreme Court in 4 Wheat 402: "The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people ... The people, in their capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution ..." US Supreme Court in Luther v. Borden, 48 US 1, 12 LEd 581: "... The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and intrust to whom they please. ... The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure." US Supreme Court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, page 370: "While sovereign powers are delegated to ... the government, sovereignty itself remains with the people ..." Yick Wo is a powerful anti-discrimination case. You might get the impression that the legislature can write perfectly legal laws, yet the laws cannot be enforced contrary to the intent of the people. It's as if servants do not make rules for their masters. It's as if the Citizens who created government were their masters. It's as if civil servants were to obey the higher authority. You are the higher authority of Romans 13:1. You as ruler are not a terror to good works per Romans 13:3. Imagine that! Isn't it a shame that your government was surrendered to those who are a terror to good works? Isn't it a shame that you enlisted to obey them? US Supreme Court in Julliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421: "There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States .... In this country sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld." US Supreme Court in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979): "In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it." US Supreme Court in U.S. v. Cooper, 312 US 600,604, 61 SCt 742 (1941): "Since in common usage the term `person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing that term are ordinarily construed to exclude it." US Supreme Court in U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 67 SCt 677 (1947): "In common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so." US Supreme Court in US v. Fox 94 US 315: "Since in common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign, statutes employing the phrase are ordinarily construed to exclude it." U.S. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C. Ill, 2 F.R.D. 528, 530: "In common usage the word `person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are generally construed to exclude the sovereign." Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice (1979) 612 F2d 417, 425: "The word `person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C. para 1." In the 1935 Supreme Court case of Perry v. U.S. (294 US 330) the Supreme Court found that "In United States, sovereignty resides in people ... the Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus declared." That's right! According to the US Supreme Court, the people are non-persons. This all makes sense, after all, servants don't make rules for their masters. In his book Judicial Tyranny and Your Income Tax, tax attorney Jeffrey Dickstein included the transcript of the tax trial U.S. v. Carl Beery, Case A87-43CR Vol. III transcript. On page 296 of the book, you will read where the IRS claims that "an individual is somebody with a social security number." For the advanced student: The 1936 conference of Governors made a promise to pay the interest on the national debt from the future earnings of its federal citizens. This is as valid as any other promise to pay, as is a promissory note. As with any mortgage or loan it can be sold or even foreclosed. When it is sold, the collateral is transferred with it. The following is speculation. The pieces of the puzzle seem to fit together when you take the word "PERSON" to a third level of abstraction. Suppose that the word "PERSON" refers to a government corporation. When a birth certificate is filed with a state, the federal government creates a "strawman corporation" with the same name as the baby, except the name is all capitalized. This corporation is the all capitalized name that you see on "your" ID, which is not you and is not even a proper noun. It is the corporation that gets a social security number. This would be consistent with the Constitution that prohibits people from getting welfare. Only the corporation can get a bank loan or earn interest. This would explain how the government gets around the usury laws. Only the corporation can get a driver's license or passport, or declare bankruptcy or pay probate or fill prescriptions. Only the corporation can pay taxes (which otherwise would be unconstitutional as an unapportioned direct tax). The state marries and divorces the corporations, while the flesh remain husband and wife until death do they part (as in Romans 7:2,3) because the government cannot put asunder any family relationship. Attorneys must represent corporations. Attorneys are prohibited from representing people (according to the Supreme Court in the Schware case). After the corporate child is created, the federal government then opens a Treasury Account into which it makes an account entry of the estimated value of all future earnings. It then uses the Governors' promise to pay this account as collateral for another loan on the national debt. This corporation remains unconnected to you until you volunteer to pay its debts. To become surety to pay it's debts, all you have to do is voluntarily sign a W-4 form or a 1040 Form or pay a license fee. This becomes a solutio indebiti. You won't believe that such a thing exists, but according to the law dictionary: "From the payment of which is not due arises an obligation ... and includes also the case where one performed labor for another, or assumed to pay a debt for which he was not bound, or relinquished a right or released a debt, under the impression that he was legally bound to do so." Lamentations 5:8 (KJV) "Servants have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us out of their hand." Appendix E Including perjury oaths on forms. Hands often symbolize an oath. Examples: Genesis 14:22, Ezek 17:18, Ezek 36:7 and Dan 12:7. And so it is to this very day; an oath is performed with your right hand raised. An oath is always a religious ritual. Your Bible prohibits taking an oath to a pagan state god. A perjury oath is a religious ritual. The SS5 Form to get a SS Number is signed under the Penalty of Perjury (although there is no longer a written oath above the signature). Bible Believers are advised not to take oaths in James 5:12 and Matthew 5:33-34, but if you must take an oath, take oaths only to superiors (Hebrews 6:16). You are subordinate to whomever you take an oath. When taking oaths to your superiors, you must invoke the authority of Yah. You cannot invoke the Yahs name for evil intent, which would include a false oath, or bearing false witness. Pagans take oaths to someone higher than themselves - their god. Your Bible prohibits taking an oath to their god, or to any pagan state. If your Bible can call Satan a god (2nd Corinthians 4:4) then your government can too. And, by the way, the words "In God we Trust" did not appear on all your money until 1955. It wasn't until March 13, 1878 that oaths were even allowed in federal courts (Chapter 37, 20 Statute 30). It was entirely voluntary, and the accused had to actually request to take an oath. Everything is backwards now. Refusing to swear to their god is contempt of court and a presumption of guilt. Contempt of court can land you in jail for the rest of your life, without a trial of any kind. There was a time in your once-great nation where swearing an oath to God that you were innocent, called an oath of purgation, would put an immediate halt to any criminal proceedings against you. This is based on Hebrews 6:16: "Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument." The government cannot gain jurisdiction over their masters. They only had jurisdiction over those who submit to them. What part don't you understand? What form did you sign to submit to them? An affirmation is the same as an oath, except it omits a reference to God. It is for atheists. See Torcaso v. Maryland 367 US 488. Christians cannot affirm, nor swear oaths. I recommend the book "The Oath or Affirmation" by Robert Hallstrom. [Gospel Ministry Publications, P.O. Box 9411, Boise Idaho 83707] The penalty of perjury oath on your 1040 Form is an oath prohibited for Christians. Appendix F YOU WAIVED YOUR RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURYTrial by government is prohibited for real people. A trial by A JURY OF YOUR PEERS IS A TRIAL BY 12 PEOPLE WHO KNOW YOU and who can judge the law as well as the facts. The writers of your Constitution had a strong distrust of government tyranny. A trial by a jury of your peers was intended to replace the inherently unfair trial by government. A trial by government does not fulfill the Fifth Amendment guarantee to due process of law. You have a right to a fair trial. Trial by government cannot be fair. "Inquisition" is trial by government. The book Elliot's Debates On The Adoption Of The Constitution quotes (Vol 3, page 579) Patrick Henry as stating; "By the bill of rights of England, a subject has a right to a trial by his peers. What is meant by his peers? Those who reside near him, his neighbors, and who are well acquainted with his character and situation in life." Also in Elliot's Debates we can read (Vol 2, page 516) where another Founding Father, James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence, and later a Supreme Court Justice, reassured us that a jury of your peers would always be 12 people who know you: "Where jurors can be acquainted with the characters of the parties and the witnesses -- where the whole cause can be brought within their knowledge and their view -- I know no mode of investigation equal to that by a trial by jury: they hear every thing that is alleged; they not only hear the words, but they see and mark the features of the countenance; they can judge of weight due to such testimony; and moreover, it is a cheap and expeditious manner of distributing justice. There is another advantage annexed to the trial by jury; the jurors may indeed return a mistaken or il-founded verdict, but their errors cannot be systematical." And again, in Elliot's Debates, Vol 2, page 110, Mr. Holmes from Massachusetts, assured us that cases would be heard in the local community where the jury of peers could form a judgment based on the character of the accused and the credibility of the witnesses. That's right! Your Constitution was ratified on the reassurance that a jury of your peers would always be 12 people who know you. Here is further proof that a trial by jury is not a trial by government: The Metropolitan News, a Los Angeles legal newspaper on October 25, 1973 quoted Hon. L. Thaxton Hanson, Justice Court of Appeals, State of California (ret.): "In ancient times, the right to trial by jury was called `trial per pals' - that is, trial by country - or by the people, as distinguished from trial by government." Lord Hale, 18th Century English Jurist, was being quoted in the US Supreme Court's case Sparf & Hansen v. US, 156 US 51 at page 119 (1895): "... if the judge's opinion in matter of law must rule the issue of fact submitted to the jury, the trial by jury would be useless." Much of your law comes from the English system. The US Supreme Court, in the same Sparf case at page 117 quotes Englishman John Milton in his book Defense of the People: "And hence it is that when a malefactor is asked at his arraignment, `How will you be tried?' he answers always, according to law and custom, `By God and my country, not by God and the King, or the King's Deputy [Judge].'" In the impeachment Trial of US Supreme Court Justice Chase in 1805, your US Government itself fought for the right of the jury to judge the law as well as the facts. They impeached Justice Chase because he failed to tell a jury in a murder trial that they can judge the law. -- Perhaps juries today do not have the right to judge the law. Perhaps juries have waived their rights by registering to vote. All of their rights. [Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, and registered voters have consented to be governed]. Supreme Court Justice Chase, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was impeached for "... endeavoring to wrest from the jury their indisputable right to hear argument, and determine upon the question of law as well as the question of fact, ..." Your U.S. Government itself, in the Chase Transcript Article 1, Section 2, Clause 4, argued that Justice Chase did this outrageous thing: "... to the disgrace of the character of the American bench, in manifest violation of law and justice and in open contempt of the rights of juries, on which ultimately rest the liberty and safety of the American people." In 1969 in U.S. v. Moylan 417 F2d 1002 at page 1006: "We recognize as appellants urge, the UNDISPUTED power of the jury to acquit, even if the verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. ... the jury has the power to acquit and the courts must abide by that decision." 1st Corinthians 4:3 (NIV): I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. Appendix G We are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. One of those rights is a right to sell your own labor. According to your Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men to secure the rights endowed by the Creator. A right cannot be regulated. A right cannot be taxed. If you had a right to your wages, it would be a Government duty to secure your right to wages. What contract did you sign to waive your right to earn wages? The U.S. Constitution in Article 1, Section 10 prohibits government from impairing the obligation of contracts. If you had a right to contract your labor for wages of equal value, then government would not impair that contract. But you don't have a right to contract, because your labor belongs to your benefactor. It belongs to the same people who own the IRS. Your employer buys your labor from them. They allow you to keep a living allowance. Slaves must be provided for. The application form for a Social Security Number is a Department of the Treasury form, not a form from the Social Security Administration. They are your Lord. If you applied for a number, you agreed that the Secretary of the Treasury is your Lord. You cannot question federal jurisdiction once you avail yourself of federal benefits (according to the Supreme Court's Ashwander case). And I again repeat the Black's Law Dictionary definition of "Allegiance:" "Obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives. U.S. v. Kuhn, D.C.N.Y., 49 F. Supp. 407, 414" Let's take a closer look at this obligation of obedience. If government determines your moral values for you then you cannot claim that it is immoral to fund vile abominations. You must render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. On the other hand, if you have a right to earn wages, then your wages cannot be taken from you to fund abominations. If you waived your right to earn wages, then your wages become taxable. BASIC TAXATION PRINCIPLES Romans 13:6 requires us to pay taxes to fund legitimate government functions. This makes perfect sense, after all, we masters should pay our servants. On the other hand, Satan has a counterfeit authority for you to obey. This counterfeit authority needs tax revenue to fund their abominations. How then do you distinguish legitimate authority from illegitimate authority? Answer: Legitimate government functions, per Romans 13:3-4, are not a terror to good works, but to evil. There are two ways to make your earnings taxable: one is to work for the government, the other is to have your labor rights owned by the government. No one has a right to work for the government. The privilege of working for government is a government granted taxable privilege. It was taxable in 1862, long before the 16th Amendment, and it remains taxable now. The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 [76th Congress, 1st Session, Chap 59, pages 574-575] has never been repealed. It defines gross income to include only "compensation for personal service as an officer or employee of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing." That's right! The statute definition is such that only federal government employees have "income." [Side issue: This allows the IRS to say that wages are income. And the Internal Revenue Code is very misleading. If you study it carefully, you'll find out that the term "employer" only refers to the government.] And only federal government employees have a right to work in the U.S. "The United States" is both the name of the government and the name of the geographical place. Don't confuse the two. And NO, the 16th Amendment didn't make all wages taxable. The Supreme Court ruled in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 US 103 that: "The 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation ..." but simply prohibited the income tax from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged. The other way to make wages taxable is to give away your right to earn wages, thereby making an equitable conversion of your labor. This is usury prohibited by scripture. You have no right to profit from labor that you no longer own. Income, gain, or profit from the use of government owned labor is taxable as an excise tax. Courts have acquired an in rem jurisdiction of this government owned labor. Any indigent socialist who deposits all his future labor into the socialist trough in order to receive a future bowl of stew is, of course, receiving taxable profit if he tries to sell the labor owned by his benefactor. The Social Security Act, Title VIII, Section 801 requires him to pay Social Security AND OTHER TAXES. Pay attention to the courts' use of the terms "income" "gain" and "profit." Note that the Internal Revenue Code:
Edwards v. Keith, 231 Fed 1: "One does not derive income by rendering services and charging for them." Conner v. U.S., 303 F.Supp. 1187 (1969) on page 1191: "If there is no gain there is no income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation." Wilby v. Mississippi, 47 S 465: "It certainly was not the intention of the legislature to levy a tax upon honest toil and labor." Staples v. U.S., 21 F.Supp. 737, 739 (1937): "Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor." U.S. v. Ballard, 400 F2d 404 (1976): "The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code." Spring Valley Water Works v. Barber, 33 P 735: "A right common in every citizen such as the right to own property or to engage in business of a character not requiring regulation CANNOT, however, be taxed as a special franchise by first prohibiting its exercise and then permitting its enjoyment upon the payment of a certain sum of money." Tennessee Supreme Court in Jack Cole v. Commissioner MacFarland, 337 SW2d 453 (1960): "The right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, and realization and receipt of income is therefore not a "privilege that can be taxed." [from:Taxation West Key 933] In this 1960 case, the Tennessee Supreme Court also quoted prior decisions that defined the term `privilege' in contradistinction to right: "Legislature ... cannot name something to be a taxable privilege unless it is first a privilege." "Privileges are special rights, belonging to the individual or class, and not to the mass; properly, an exemption from some general burden, obligation or duty; a right peculiar to some individual or body" US Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316: "If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a right, this would enable the state to destroy rights guaranteed by the constitutions through the use of oppressive taxation. ... The power to tax involves the power to destroy." U.S. Supreme Court in Butcher's Union v. Crescent City, 111 US 746: "The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. ... to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." Here are some cases to demonstrate that you do not have a right to sell labor that you no longer own. It is a taxable government granted privilege to sell their labor. The amount of your profit determines the tax. Oliver v. Halstead, 86 SE2d 859 (1955): "There is a clear distinction between 'profit' and 'wages' or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law." Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 US 309 (1913): "Income ... may be defined as the gain derived from capital or from labor or from both combined." The Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber, 40 SCt 192 and 252 US 189 (1920) and subsequently reaffirmed in Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 US 527 (1921):
"The rule of Eisner v. Macomber has been reaffirmed on so many occasions that citation of the cases to this effect would be unnecessarily burdensome. To depart from the rule at this late date would ignore the sound principles upon which that case was decided and would throw into confusion the fundamental income tax structure and law as it has developed in the almost half century which has elapsed since adoption of the 16th amendment. That there cannot be 'income' without a 'gain' accords with the common understanding of the term, a test of construction which is particularly appropriate in our system of self-assessed Federal income tax ... Moreover, that which is not income in fact manifestly cannot be made such by the legislative expedient of calling it income ...." So. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. Supp. 736, 247 US 330: "'income' as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in. The true function of the words 'gains' and 'profits' is to limit the meaning of the word 'income'. Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews, 345 A 239, and 47 A.2d 277 (1946): "Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit." U.S. Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, at 113 (1943): "A state may not ... impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." U.S. Supreme Court in Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 US 40: "The power to tax the exercise of a [right] ... is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment." President Jefferson, concluding his first inaugural address, March 4, 1801: "... a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government … " Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. Mclain, 24 SCt 382 (1904): "the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language." Oregon Supreme Court in Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P 813, pg 819 (1930): "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state: but the individuals' right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Long v. Ramussen, 281 F 236, 238 (1922): "The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The later are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue law." Reaffirmed in Gerth v. US, 132 F. Supp. 894 (1955) and in Economy Heating Co. v. U.S., 470 F2d 585 (1972) Regal Drug Co v. Wardell, 260 US 386: "Congress may not, under the taxing power, assert a power not delegated to it by the Constitution." U.S. Supreme Court in Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516: "The state cannot diminish the rights of the people." Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F2d 946(1973) "... there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights." Miller v. U.S., 230 F 489 "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." FOR THE ADVANCED STUDENT There are only two types of taxes authorized by your Constitution, indirect (such as imposts, duties and excises) and direct. Essentially: Direct taxes are taxes on people not things. Indirect taxes are a tax on things, but not people. Indirect tax, being a tax on things, must meet careful criteria so that it doesn't tax people. Congress has always had the authority to collect an indirect tax on profits (of those within federal jurisdiction) without apportionment and without regard to any census. This power has always existed, it was not added by the 16th Amendment. Direct taxes (according to Article 1, Sect. 2) must be apportioned among the states, not among the people, and must be paid by the states, not by people. STATES PAY DIRECT TAXES, NOT PEOPLE! The Governor then sends the tax bills to citizens who remit payment to the state treasury who then pays your federal government. Your federal government can, however, directly tax federal employees. Federal employees can be taxed directly, just as they have been ever since the 1862 Tax Act of 12 Stat 432, Chapter 119, Section 86 imposed a direct 3% tax on their wages above $600 per year. This was long before the 16th Amendment, even though your U.S. Constitution prohibited direct taxes unless apportioned. The taxing of people is a direct tax called "capitation" and is prohibited by U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 9. A direct tax on wages "... would be by nature a capitation rather than excise tax." according to the Supreme Court in Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918) Indirect taxes need not be apportioned, but must be taxed during import, manufacture or sale. To tax the purchaser for owning a thing would be a direct tax. The U.S. Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers Loan, 158 US 601, found that The Income Tax Act of 1894 "... being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and, therefore unconstitutional and void because not apportioned according to representation ..." A direct tax on wages remains unconstitutional. 1975 US Supreme Court case Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Traigle, 421 US 100: "... Income tax statutes apply only to state created Corporations no matter whether state, local or federal." Eisner v. Macomber, 40 S.Ct. 192 (1920), 252 US 189 (1919): "The 16th Amendment must be construed in the connection with the taxing clause of the original Constitution" ... "this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US 1 (36 SCt 242 & 243) (1916) made it theoretically possible to have an indirect tax on income (profits), while a direct tax on wages remained unconstitutional unless apportioned. This important case clarifies that a tax on income (profit) is an indirect tax as long as income was "separated from the source":
US Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390: "The term [liberty] ... denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience ... The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary ..." U.S. Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 (1943): "The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to suppress its enjoyment. ... Those who can tax the exercise of this practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance. Those who can tax the privilege ... can close the doors to all those who do not have a full purse." US Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491: "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." U.S. Supreme Court in Brady v. U.S., 397 US 742: "Waivers of Constitutional rights not only must be voluntary, but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences." "... the slothful shall be under tribute." Proverbs 12:24 Appendix H "WE THE PEOPLE" Real people don't let others handle their affairs - they handle their own affairs. Real people will protect themselves, they don't need their servants' permission. The Declaration of Independence stated that governments are instituted among men to secure unalienable God given rights. The writers of the Declaration, "... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence" pledged their lives, fortunes and honor to protect themselves and their rights. They tried to secure the blessings of liberty against the brutal force of their (British=Roman) government. At that time it was the most powerful government on earth. Real people handled their own affairs before they created your civil government, and they will handle their own affairs now. They can defend their family, their property, and their community without permission from a servant. In a Republic, people are the Lawgivers who created civil government. God delegated this responsibility to them, and they created a government to enforce God's laws. All government authority comes from them. Real people must take the law into their own hands. Created persons cannot take the law into their own hands. Which one are you? US Supreme Court in Luther v. Borden 48 US 1: "... The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain might take away what they have delegated and intrust to whom they please. They have the whole title and as absolute proprietors have the right of using or abusing." That's right! No one can delegate an authority that he himself does not have. All government power comes from the people who created it. There is no government power that did not come from its creators. If real people can't do something, then they could not have delegated that authority to the government they created. I repeat: If you cannot do something then you cannot delegate, in a written constitution, an authority you don't have. IF YOU CANNOT DO SOMETHING THEN YOUR GOVERNMENT CANNOT DO IT EITHER. You delegated the authority to possess nuclear bombs, prescribe drugs, and execute criminals because you have these rights, unless you somehow waived your rights. Again: All authority comes from God. If you fail to control your creature, you are irresponsible. You will suffer the natural consequence of your irresponsibility: Domination. What did you sign that gave away your rights? Could it be that you agreed to an alternate Lordship? Will this sin go unpunished? Throughout the Bible, godly nations prosper, then turn from Yahuah, then are quickly taken into captivity by pagan nations. Conquering nations are instruments of His discipline (Isa 8:4-10, 10:5-6, 45:1-3, Jer 5:15-18, 20:4-5, 24:10, Eze 21:15-23, 30:24-26, 32:11-15). Is America going to be any different, or did Yah change? Here is a quote from John Philpot Curran, 1790: "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime." US Supreme Court in Fairbanks v. U.S. 181 US 283: "Powers denied are not to be implied; they are to be obtained, if at all, from and in the same manner provided by, those who originally granted the enumerated powers, but who at the same time denied powers." It is your duty (not just a right) to control your subordinates, wards, children and property. And this includes anyone who acknowledges their servitude by worshiping you with an oath (such as an oath of office), or by allowing you to manage their affairs. You might just want to regulate their medicine, guns, pollutants, home repairs, seat belts, marriage, children, dogs, etc. In the Luther case quoted above, the Supreme Court said that, as absolute proprietors of your government, you could use or abuse your servants, and that you might take away what you have delegated and intrust to whom you please. Here is a quote from Abraham Linclon: "Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." Just as the Supreme Court confirmed, all government authority must be delegated from you. If you have the authority to posses nuclear bombs, and prescribe drugs, and execute criminals then you can take care of these essential tasks yourself, and you can also ask your civil servants to help you, if you feel that they can be trusted. Since your Constitution prohibits a standing army, I would suggest not giving them any bombs. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 29 said that the armament in the hands of the citizens was to be up-to-date and equal to that of the Army, and that there should be "a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to [the military] in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens." Now the topic of Non-Authority. You cannot expand your authority by delegating powers you do not have. All authority is delegated, and your government servants cannot do something that they are not delegated (i.e., you can fail to delegate, as in the Luther case, or you can further prohibit powers as was mentioned in the Fairbanks case). Perhaps you could even ban their bibles (remember that this servitude "... is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion ..."). Then how did your civil servant subordinates get the authority to expand their powers? How can they do things that they are not delegated? Things you do not have the authority to do. Examples: allow sodomy, adultery, pornography for the library, divorce (can you delegate authority to cancel your neighbors vows to God?), authorize usury, seize property from those known to be innocent, prohibit self-medication, deny parents rights, buy Maplethorp art, etc. And now, even abortion clinics in high schools? The fruit of the womb is God's reward, Psalms 127:3. Shedding innocent blood is a certain way to provoke Yah's wrath. Yahuah hates the shedding of innocent blood, Proverbs 6:16-17. Ever since Abel's murder, shed blood cries out to Yah, Genesis 4:10. Yah promised to abandon, and indeed has always abandoned, any nation that allows shedding of innocent blood or sexual immorality: Numbers 35:33, Leviticus 18, Jeremiah 7:6 (although I can't explain sacrifice of the innocent in 2nd Sam 21:9). And yes, abortion is mentioned in the Bible. Acts 7:19 uses the Greek word brephos meaning a fetus. Your nation has been surrendered to benefactors. Your civil 'servants' no longer work for you. Can government ban the Bible from their subjects? William Tyndale was executed, by civil government, for translating the Bible into English. It will happen again. At least Tyndale was a subject. In the near future, those who refuse to become subjects will be executed. Revelation 20:4 says that people will be beheaded for refusing the mark. (by the way, Tyndale was strangled). In The US Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (93 SCt 705) the court correctly stated that the 14th Amendment does not protect the unborn. Many people have used this to conclude, falsely, that your Constitution's enumerated powers somehow allows you to murder the non-born, without giving any thought that this logic would also allow murder of the non-citizen. This case is NOT a citizenship case. It is irrelevant that the 14th Amendment has a definition of federal citizens. The Preamble of your U.S. Constitution secures the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. Their as-yet-unborn posterity. The abortion apologists are claiming that the preamble has not secured the blessings of liberty to the posterity. The shedding of innocent blood is now a protected right for those who accept this federal citizenship. In Appendix C, I discuss this 14th Amendment Citizenship Appendix I POLITICS = BEAST POWERThe U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 4 guarantees to every inhabitant a REPUBLIC form of government. Only a subversive would want to live in a democracy. In a democracy, a majority votes to force their will on others. Christians will not exercise dominion over others. Christians will not covet their neighbors' goods. Christians will not plunder the innocent. In a republic, everyone has rights. Your U.S. Constitution guaranteed a republic form of government. The republic doesn't exist anymore. In a democracy, the misguided mobocracy forces their will on the minority. Democracy is part of the Beast system. Socialists cannot use a Republic, which is free from things public. The word "democracy" does not appear anywhere in your U.S. Constitution because you are not a democracy. Democracy has no place in America. Thomas Jefferson said "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Alexander Hamilton: "We are a Republic. Real Liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy." 1st Samuel 15:24 And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: "for I have transgressed the commandment of the Yahuah," and thy words: "because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice." James Madison, 1787, Federalist Paper #10: "Democracy is the most vile form of government ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Fisher Ames, author of the words of the First Amendment: "A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way." John Adams, 1815: "Democracy ... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "Between a balanced Republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." Dr. Jedediah Morse, one of the authors of your Bill of Rights: "A simple democracy is the devil's own government." "But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbaas, and destroy Yahusha." Matt 27:20. Pilate said publicly that he found no fault in Messiah (Luke 23:4 & 14). Pilate publicly washed his hands to show that he had no jurisdiction, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just person: se ye to it" (Matt 27:24) but the mob forced him to execute Messiah. Pilate liked Messiah Yahusha and wanted to release him (Luke 23:20), but that did not matter; he did not dare act contrary to the will of the vast majority. That's right! Voters, by a voice vote, determined that Messiah should be executed. Unreasoning mobs do not have authority. The root word of authority is "author." Yahuah is our lawgiver (Isaiah 33:22, James 4:12). Nowhere in scripture is authority given to civil governments to legislate their own laws. Scripture prohibits us from legislating, Deuteronomy 4:2. We get the word "republic" from the shortened Latin idiom "Libera Res Publica," which means "free from things public." Bouvier's 1870 Law Dictionary, Vol 1, page 13: "The term republic, res publica, signifies the state independently of its form of government." The sovereign people are independent of the administrating governments in all republics. FREEMEN ARE FREE FROM CIVIL AUTHORITY. Perhaps you can now understand Acts 22:27,29: "Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the chief captain also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him." A Roman officer cannot bind (arrest) a Roman citizen. Again: freemen are free from civil authority. As further proof that a democracy is prohibited, consider the legal maxim: "The multitude of those who err is no protection for error." In a democracy, which we have had since 1933, you can vote to plunder others and demand benefits. You too can exercise your democratic rights to persecute others. But, you must pay your fair share. You have a right to create any kind of political system, just like those who voted for Saul to be King. But, this time, you delegated to your servants a power to create a host of gods/saviors/benefactors to provide for you, protect you and lord over you. Isn't this the essence of creating false images of god to be worshiped? Isn't this the essence of denying the Lordship of Messiah?
This is evil in the eyes of the Yahuah, I Sam 12:17. If Yah is an unchanging God (Mal 3:6, Heb 13:8, Heb 6:7, Num 23:19, 1st Sam 15:29) then I might suggest that it is still evil to elect someone to rule over you. You should also read 1st Samuel 8:5-19. Have you violated the Commandments against theft, and taking the Yahuah's authority in vain, and worshiping other gods? Messiah said in John 17:11-15, and John 15:19-20 that we are to be in the world but not of it. The Bible Believer must not be of the worldly society. [a classic argument for Christians to not participate in society is Leo Tolstoy's What I Believe published in Russia in 1884.] When Saul was elected as King, the system of patriarchal (family) government was rejected, and the idea of centralized government was embraced. This rejected the form of government used in the first 10 books of the Bible, asking for a king while the Yahuah was already your King (1st Sam 12:12). You are now suffering the end results. Another Example: If you are a registered voter, and an election passed a bond issue, then you agreed to have a lien on your property until the bond is paid, even if you didn't vote. Would a Bible believer do such a thing? [Hint: Don't be surety for strangers (Prov. 6:1, 11:15). Don't be surety for debts (Prov. 22:26) Do not put up collateral. Do not consent to be liened. (Prov 11:15 Prov 17:18).] Another Example: `Conflict of interest' is legal terminology for those who can influence a government decision to enrich themselves. This is not limited to Elected Officials or civil servants. Social Security partakers are, by voting, also influencing government to receive their check. Anyone who receives a government check, be it a paycheck or an entitlement check has a conflict of interest that prohibits them from voting. Voting becomes, for them, a government granted privilege that can be revoked at any time. On the other hand, Government's sovereign masters have a right to control their servants. Read your state Constitution and notice the difference between the term "registered voters" and the term "qualified voters" (sometimes called "electors"). Read my Appendix D and find out the government definition of "Person." A right cannot be regulated. If you think you still have a right to vote, just try to exercise your unregulated right and see what happens. By the way, even Voter registrations cannot demand a social security number according to Meyer v. Putnam 526P.2d 139 and Greidinger v. Davis 988 F2d 1344. You are no longer in a Republic. Prove it to yourself. Ask yourself some questions: Do you have all the rights that a sovereign has (see Appendix D)? Can a majority of Congressmen, and a judge now conspire to take all your rights from you? Can a city government prohibit you from owning a dog unless you first beg for permission and pay a fee? If you insist that you have a right to own a dog, and refuse to register it, can they kill the dog and fine you? America is still a great country, even if we are no longer free. Be grateful that you still have a right to refuse to register with Caesar, and not end up like an unregistered dog. Exodus 23:2 "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil" Republic v. Democracy, by Gregory Williams, P.O. Box 10, Summer Lake, Oregon The History of American Constitutional or Common Law, ISBN 1-57282-010-1, The Message Company, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1-(505)-474-0998. Appendix J OTHER MARKS: BIRTH AND MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES AND ID CARDS There is a big difference between "the United States" as a geographical place surrounded by a border and "the United States" as the name of a political unit. The border existed before the government existed. The government did not create the border. Governments don't determine where the border is. The people who created government already had the territory that the new servants were hired to defend. Government Servants cannot extend the established geographic "United States," they can only extend the political (or corporate) "United States." They can, and did, extend their jurisdiction beyond their federal territories (of Washington DC, Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa and Northern Marianas Island) to anywhere and anything receiving federal funds. This is entirely voluntary, and is done with the consent of those who are governed. Since your Constitution limits your federal government to Washington D.C. and the territories, it would be unconstitutional to tax anyone within a state. Thomas Jefferson, while he was Vice-President, in the Kentucky Resolves, reassured us that there are only three federal crimes that apply within a state. The three crimes mentioned in your Constitution: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. James Madison, in the Virginia Resolves also concluded that states had a right to interfere with the federal government's laws it considered unconstitutional. U.S. Supreme Court in Foley Brothers v. Filardo, 336 US 281: "It is a well established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears." The Buck Act (4 USC 104 to 113) creates taxable "Federal Areas" within States wherever your federal government sends aid. This includes Social Security. Now read Springfield v. Kenny 104 NE2d 65. If you want proof that you are an "individual entity" that is classified as a property franchise of your federal government, read the Supreme Court case Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox 298 US 193 (56 SCt 773). As long as you have a link to your federal government, you are in a "federal area" that is subject to federal laws. You would otherwise be outside your federal jurisdiction. As long as you have a SSN, a resident driver license, a federal bank account, or even a zip code or a two letter federal area (I've read that these two letter abbreviations were created by the Secretary of the Treasury in 31 CFR Part 51.2, but I could not find a copy of this repealed regulation), or if you confess that you are in an all capitalized STATE, then you are receiving taxable federal benefits within a federal area. Also see Howard v. Commissioners of Sinking Fund, 344 US 624. Keep in mind that your federal legislature can not make laws for state citizens. Congress can only make territorial laws, with few exceptions. American Banana Co. v. U.S. Fruit Co (1909) 213 US 347. U.S. v. Spear (1949) 338 US 217. N.Y. Central R.R. Co. v. Chisholm (1925) 268 US 29. Foley Brothers v. Filardo, 336 US 281 (1948). Now back to my original question. Which "United States" were you born in: the geographical or the political? In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks 7 SCt 656, 662; 120 US 678, 690 said that: "In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense ... It is so used in Section 1 of Article 14 of the Amendments of the Constitution ..." The legal definition of the word "Birth" has two meanings, natural birth or coming into legal existence. Example: a corporation has a birth. "Birth" is the event, such as signing a form that creates legal existence in the eyes of the law. [It is a lot like Yahusha telling Nicodemus that he must be born again, and Nicodemus couldn't understand that Yahusha was speaking of corporate law]. We become officers/employees/agents of the corporate body by such events as "entering into society" or "initiation" or "being recognized" or "coming into legal existence" not by natural birth. Now reread the first sentence of the 14th Amendment and tell me if you were both (1) born or naturalized into the government (2) AND SUBJECT TO the jurisdiction thereof ? The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade correctly stated, although irrelevant to the case, that the: "... word `person' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn." As I show in Appendix D, the word `person' does not include the Christian either. To suggest that non-persons can be killed, is the same kind of laws that Hitler used. "Persons" have names in all capitalized letters. Christian names are not in all capital letters. I am now going to prove that getting a Birth Certificate surrenders the child to the government. Don't take my word for it, just become familiar with the terminology, and then look at a birth certificate. Try to get a copy of the document signed by the doctor, not just the computer printout. Black's Law Dictionary, "Christian name": "The baptismal name as distinct from the surname. The name which is given one after his birth or at baptism, or is afterward assumed by him in addition to his family name. Such name may consist of a single letter." Black's Law Dictionary, "Surname": "The family name; the name over and above the Christian name. The part of a name which is not given in baptism. The name of a person which is derived from the common name of his parents .... The last name; the name common to all members of a family." Gregg's Manual of English: "A name spelled in all capital letters or a name initialed, is not a proper noun denoting a specific person, but is a fictitious name, or a name of a dead person, or a nom de guerre." Read that again. A name spelled in all capital letters is the name of a dead person. Your government considers you to be either a dead person or a fictitious name. Black's Law Dictionary "Fictitious Name": "A counterfeit, alias, feigned, or pretended name taken by a person, differing in some essential particular from his true name (consisting of Christian name and patronymic), with the implication that it is meant to deceive or mislead." Oxford Dictionary:
Now look at a Birth Certificate. Is the baby's name in all capital letters? Did the father name the baby or did the doctor, while exercising his duties as a licensed government agent, assign the name to the baby? Is there any hint on the legal document that the father named the baby? Does an all capitalized name differ in some essential particular from his true Christian name? If so, the implication is that it is meant to deceive or mislead. If not, then you've acknowledged that the all capitalized name is his true name, which cannot be a Christian name. Does your state birth certificate laws use the word 'person' when referring to the name on the Certificate? The government now has proof that the baby is a "PERSON." "PERSONS" have legal existence in the eyes of the law, and are subject to the statutes written by the legislature. "Sovereigns" are above the law written by their servants. The "PERSON" on the Birth Certificate will not be able to exercise the rights of a non-person. You, like Esau, gave up your birthright, which will not pass to your children. There is something even more sinister here. Government cannot know about matters of childbirth. According to the Supreme Court's famous Roe v. Wade decision "State criminal abortion laws ... violate due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment protecting right to privacy." That's right! The Supreme Court says childbearing must remain strictly private. Why then is the doctor informing the government that a child was born? I suspect that the doctor is required to register government property. The government wants to secure another loan on the national debt and it needs collateral. A UCC-1 (Uniform Commercial Code) financing statement is not necessary because pursuant to UCC 9-302: "The filing of a financing statement otherwise required is not necessary or effective to perfect a security interest in property subject to (1) A statute or treaty of the United States which provides for a national or international registration or a national or international certificate of title or which provides a place for filing different from that specified ..." Is the doctor giving the baby to whoever owns the government? 2Peter 2:3 (KJV) "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you ..." Now, if you don't think the government is owned, look at a Birth Certificate and tell me why the STATE NAME is all capitalized. Hint: it's not all capitalized in your original state Constitution. Fictitious names exist for a purpose. Fictions are invented to give courts jurisdiction. Snider v. Newell 44 SE 354. That's right. "Corporations" are fictions created by government. "Persons" are also fictions created by government. However, real Christians, being non-fiction, were protected against the courts. They governed themselves. Can a Christian use an all capitalized fictitious name knowing that to do so is "...with the implication that it is meant to deceive or mislead"? Now look at your driver's license or passport or birth certificate or voter registration. Can a Christian use an all capitalized fictitious name on any ID? Now go and try to get a government ID or Birth Certificate with a Christian name and see what happens. You cannot do it. Government cannot issue any ID with your Christian name on it. Bible Believers CANNOT GET A GOVERNMENT ID CARD. Bible Believers are not part of their system, and DO NOT EXIST IN THE EYES OF THEIR LAW. Only non-Believerss can get an ID (mark) of the beast. Only non-Believers can have a name of (of = created by) the beast. Only non-Believers can get the (ID) number of the Beast's name (name = authority). Do you now confess that you have a Mark of a Beast, a name of a Beast, and a number of his name? "Fictions" give courts jurisdiction. Could a fictitious, all capitalized, name of your state government be an image of the Beast? The Greek word for "image" that is used in Revelation's "image" of the Beast is the Greek word "icon" (Strong's 1504). Synonyms: "image," "artifice," and "fabrication." Also see: "ruse," "expedient." This icon that receives worship is not the same thing as an idol, which can also receive worship, although both are made by the hands of man. Without an ID Card you will notice that you are denied the right to travel by car or by airline. Nor can you cash a check or open a bank account or get a home phone. Nor can you rent a Post Office Box (per Domestic Mail regulation DMM 951.142 even though the Post Office cannot accept a Social Security Card as identification). You can still officially get a job without a SSN. But soon, you will be officially unable to get a job. Your papers are not in order. Christians will be persecuted. If you want to try an exercise in frustration, try to get the phone company to send you your bill with your real name on it to your real address. You cannot do it. You must worship the state god in order to get phone service. The state is the god that created the Corporation. Real people don't exist in the eyes of the law. Conclusion: as suggested by the Baldwin case quoted above, claiming that you are a U.S. citizen (with a Birth Certificate, or on an SSN application) is enough proof that you were born into your federal government. "A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." (Kitchens v. Steele 112 F.Supp 383). Real people do not exist in the eyes of the law, because people are sovereigns, and the legislature cannot and does not write laws for their masters (Matt 10:24, and John 15:20). Most government forms ask for a date of birth. A date of birth on a government form is not the date you took your first breath, it is the date the instrument was signed that made you property of the government. The U.N. is involved in "the official birth registration process" per Title 20, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 422.103(b)(2). Here is further proof that government forms do not ask for the day you took your first breath: "Hearsay" is inadmissible in court. Although you were present on your born-day, you were not aware of any specific calendar system on that day, nor does your memory serve you well. It would be subornation of perjury for any government officer (with or without a form) to coerce you, under penalty of perjury, for inadmissible hearsay that you cannot recall. Federal Rules of Evidence rule 602 prohibits you from telling them your birth day. I read a Brief article about an 1884 law textbook Parsons on Contracts with this quote from the chapter "Marriage is a Contract": "since the state married them, the children were fruits of the state." How did you delegate to your servants the authority to divorce man from wife contrary to Mark 10:9? I knew that I could not cancel my neighbor's vows to Yah, so I knew that divorce court could not cancel anyone's vows to Yah. It sounds too Catholic to me. How can you delegate the authority to bastardize your neighbors' children? It turns out that we did not delegate this authority. Apparently there are two meanings of the word `marriage,' one meaning "holy matrimony" and the other refers to a status within the government. I always thought it peculiar that people who have a right to get married would have to beg civil servants for permission (license = permission) to get married. I read the 1877 U.S. Supreme Court decision Meister v. Moore 96 US 80, that a Marriage License was not required, nor do states confer the right to marry, and that marriage is based on contract. This is consistent with the Bible, and it makes sense that the Supreme Court would confirm that this most sacred of family rights does not involve government. Since your Constitution prohibits any state from impairing the obligation of contracts (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 10), the sanctity of the family is safe from government interference. Then I read the 1888 US Supreme Court decision in Maynard v. Hill 8 SCt 723, 125 US 190, where the Maynards had intermarried in the state of Vermont (meaning they had a license) and that marriage was NOT based on contract but upon a status, and the government could do whatever it wanted to do with the marriage because a state created the status of marriage. Perhaps children are indeed fruits of the state. After all, when a slave owner allows two slaves to mate and they produce new property, the new property is registered in the owner's records. Is your birth registered in your father's family bible, or is your birth registered in your owner's records? Asking for permission to get married is a confession that you do not have a right to get married. By applying for a marriage license, you've waived your right to get married. When the law says that the state cannot recognize a common law marriage, it doesn't mean you're not married. It means the state cannot take your children nor divorce you. God's laws prevail. Your family is not part of their Corporation. Your family does not have existence in the eyes of their laws. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You should have known (as did the Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105) that "A state may not, through a license tax, impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." By paying for a marriage license, you confessed that you did not have a right to get married. The power to tax is the power to destroy. What part of "let no man put asunder" don't you understand? Notice that the definition of a Christian name is a name that is given one after birth or at baptism, or is afterward assumed by him in addition to his family name. You can assume a name that is not your government name. Examples: Saul became Paul, Simon became Peter (Cephas in John 1:42), Zacchaeus became Matthew, Didymus became Thomas, and the Thaddaeus of Matthew 10:3 and Mark 13:18 became Judas, son of James in Luke 6:16. Even John the Baptist's father had to rename his son (Luke 1:63) after the Holy Spirit had filled him "even from his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15 KJV). Just try assuming a Christian name and see what happens. There are dozens of early court cases to prove that you can use any name you want to. However, merchants who control your buying and selling have been deceived by a beast power into asking for ID "proof that you are who you say you are." If these merchants were Bible Believers, they should be saying: "I acknowledge your authority to be whoever you say you are. The government does not have a law impairing the obligations of contracts." Early court decisions confirm that Christians must have names, and must reveal their name in court, but non-Christians did not have to have names. Non-Christians could be called anything, such as John Doe. If a Christian was called by a name other than his own, he could abate the court proceedings by claiming that there was a "misnomer." Everything is backwards now. Non-Christians get full government recognition with an all capitalized government name, and anyone who wants to keep their Christian name is treated as an enemy of the state. And furthermore, contempt of court is a life sentence without a trial. More name games with children. Government cannot know the names or birthdates or family relationships of your children. Or even the existence of your children. They cannot even ask! Here are proofs that Birth Certificates are about government property, not about babies:
Midwives are now "required" to report home births to government so that a Birth Certificate can be issued, and a SSN will be issued pursuant to the GATT treaty. Midwives under Pharaoh were also required to report the birth of Moses; so that civil government could process him (Acts 7:19) but these midwives lied to their government. Quiz: Is it right or is it wrong for Midwives to lie to government? When Yahusha was a baby, all little boys in Bethlehem were to be processed by civil government. Is it right or wrong to escape lawful government processing of children? For the advanced student: In Maynard v. Hill the Supreme Court referred to the Maynard's marriage with the term `status,' and every occurrence of the term `status' was in italics. I never found out what the italics signifies. If you want to do some research, find out what italics means in Supreme Court decisions, and keep in mind that Social Security is also not based on contract, but upon a status. I was also about to study the Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act of 1921, 42 Stat 224, (formerly 42 USC 161-175,) and the Federal Birth Registration areas of 1929, and Meeker v. US 350 US 199, and Chapter 135 Sect. 9, 42 USC 225 which gave the Children's Bureau power to enter homes and take children. Galatians 5:1 (NIV) "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." Appendix K OTHER TRAPS: POWER OF ATTORNEY, INTEREST, FEDERAL DISTRICTS Go to any library and look up "Procuration" in a Law Dictionary, pay special attention to "tacit procuration": "An implied or tacit procuration takes place when an individual sees another managing his affairs and does not interfere to prevent it." By doing nothing, you grant the power of attorney if you see the government handling any of your affairs and you do not interfere to prevent it. As I explained earlier the poor laws were written to take care of "those who are destitute and helpless ..." Even acceptance of their control over prescription drugs is proof that you do not manage your own affairs. You, by your action of accepting their management of your affairs, agree that you are incompetent to manage yourself. Perhaps you even grant the power of attorney by accepting Federal Reserve Notes when they are required to pay (tender in payment of debts) Gold coin per Constitution Article 1, Section 10. A classic book on this topic is The Miracle on Main Street by F. Tupper Saussy ISBN: 0-911805-00-1 Even without a signature or an oath, your actions can grant the power of attorney and alter your citizenship. By accepting the benefits of statutory citizenship, you become a statutory citizen. Examples: accepting statutory deeds, accepting usury or voting for bond issues, voting for president unless you are in the Electoral College, confessing that you reside within a Federal zip code, declaring bankruptcy, or using the Freedom of Information Act, or many other Statutes. This is because Persons and Corporations get their rights from Congress, whereas Sovereigns get their rights from God. Zip Codes are optional as far as the Post Office is concerned (see Domestic Mail Policy DMM122.32), yet Social Security cards will not be issued unless the application form has a zip code address (you will get SSA Denial Notice, Form SSA-L676, stating that they cannot mail a Social Security Card to an address that doesn't have a zip code - they can mail the denial but they cannot mail the card??). They cannot force you into a federal jurisdiction, which would be the crime of kidnapping. Not even one created by the Buck Act. You must voluntarily confess that you are a resident in your federal government, with a federal address, otherwise their laws do not apply to you and they can not send you an SS card. Draft registration is another example. In Lincoln's day, when there were no 14th Amendment citizens, he drafted state citizens the Constitutional way. He sent letters to the governors, who then called out their militia to quell the insurrection. Another example is in recent changes to the draft registration process - the application no longer requires a signature under a perjury oath (even though courts may presume such an oath). All it now needs is a "mandatory" federal address. Once you confess that you are a resident of the government, you are now an expendable human resource. How many men have died fighting recent U.N. just wars for those who are not honest enough to teach basic citizenship in their schools? By the way, the Selective Service System cannot require that registrants to provide their Social Security numbers, (Wolman v. U.S., 501 F.Supp. 310 and 542 F.Supp. 84). Concerning U.N. wars - your U.S. Constitution requires your president, not the U.N., to be "Commander in Chief" of your armed forces. You have no rights to accept or charge interest. Interest is a government granted privilege that is granted contrary to Biblical principles. The borrower is a slave to the lender (Proverbs 22:7). One percent interest is usury (Nehemiah 5:10-11). A Bible believer will never accept usury (Psalms 15:5, Ezekiel 18:13) or charge usury (Deut 23:19-20, Ex 22:25). In your own country, up until 1694, accepting or paying interest was a punishable crime. Government incorporated banks can give usury. In order to do this they need an SSN so that they can tax this government granted privilege. You can still get a non-interest checking account without a number. By the way, Private banks can pay interest too, but they must pay a 10% tax for this government granted privilege. There are no private banks left. Note: The very same unchanging Yahusha Christ who said that not one jot nor tittle shall fall from the law also told the parable of the ten talents in which a master used sarcasm to rebuke an unprofitable servant. Luke 19:23. Sarcasm does not authorize usury. He was saying (my paraphrase): "So you think I'm a hardened criminal who reaps what he doesn't sow, why then didn't you go all the way and commit the crime of usury by depositing my money in a bank." In the 1935 Supreme Court case of Perry v. U.S. (294 US 330) the Supreme Court found that "In the United States, sovereignty resides in people ...", but Mr. Perry could not redeem his Government Bond for the Gold it promised to pay. They didn't come right out and say it, but I suspect they ruled this way because sovereigns cannot accept interest. (for more Supreme Court opinions on sovereignty, see Appendix D) The US Supreme Court ruled in a 1913 case, German Alliance Insurance Co. v. Kansas 233 US 389 at page 432 that "Moreover, interest laws were in their inception not a restriction upon the right of contract but an enlargement, permitting what theretofore had been regarded both as an ecclesiastical and civil offense. ... they therefore fall within the rule that contemporary practice, if subsequently continued and universally acquiesced in, amounts to an interpretation of the Constitution." How do you like that? By turning our backs to an unchanging God (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8, Hebrews 6:17-18, Numbers 23:19, 1st Samuel 15:29, Titus 1:2) we've let criminals, (theretofore regarded as a crime), now unpunishable, interpret our Constitution for us. The Supreme Court had to rule this way because they don't interpret your Constitution. They are just servants. Their masters (we the people) determine the law. If the people are Christian, we will have Christian law, if the people are worldly, we will accept evil law. Which law do you accept? You should have known, as did Abe Lincoln in his first inaugural address, that: "If the policy of the government ... is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court ... the people will have ceased to be their own rulers." Back then, you could be your own rulers. Just try to assert your rulership now, and see what happens. 2nd Timothy 3:12&13 (KJV): Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Yahusha shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. Appendix L THE PURPOSE OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT The purpose of civil government is to enforce God's laws. Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Greek defines the word 'church' (Greek ekklesia) as a group of men who meet to discuss the affairs of state. If your church is separated from state, then you do not have a church. Perhaps your nation has been taken captive by brutal pagan occupation forces. Let's take a closer look. Black's Law Dictionary entry for "CHURCH:" "A body or community of Christians, united under one form of government by the profession of one faith, and the observance of the same rituals and ceremonies." UNITED UNDER ONE FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Do you still think church and state are separate? Let's take a closer look. Why does government exist? The Declaration of Independence claims that governments are instituted among men to secure the unalienable rights endowed by their Creator. This is the ONLY reason given for the existence of the U.S. government. Does this sound like separation of church from state? Yah established His law to last forever (Psalm 119:152). Yahuah alone gives man authority to rule over other men (Gen 9:6, Dan 2:20-22, Dan 4:32, Psalm 47:9, John 19:11). Jeremiah 22:3 summarizes Yahs delegation of authority:
The Bible has plenty of history to show that when righteous people turn from Yahuah, they are taken captive - often by very brutal tyrants. Even on an individual level - if you cannot govern yourself, others will govern you. Yahusha has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. He is the sovereign to whom you owe allegiance. When the Bible speaks of the Kingdom of Yahuah, it is referring to Yah's government here on earth. Not, as a self-called "Christian Lawyer" would tell you, some spiritual notion of an afterlife. People, pay attention. Here is proof of your citizenship, here on earth:
Martin Luther: "And if thou not be of the Kingdom of Messiah, it is certain that thou belong to the kingdom of Satan, which is this evil world." John the Baptist, as the High Priest, was baptizing people into the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth. Yahusha was a man of authority. Equal in authority to the Roman government. Yahusha had authority and he delegated that authority just like any other government leader. He was King, and his kingdom was "at hand" and it was on this earth. (He said in John 18:36 that his kingdom is not of this world, but he used a term that refers to an organized system, jurisdictional or "constitutional order"). It was Rome that Yahusha was not a part of. "And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me." Luke 22:29. Did Yahusha lie? Yahusha, as the lawgiver, appointed us a kingdom. This is our constitutional mandate. He told us that we were not to be like the governments of the gentiles. Luke 22L25-26: "And he said unto them, the kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve." There is nothing contradictory among the following scriptures, because there is no middle ground. You are either for Messiah, or you are against Him.:
There is no power but of Yahuah, as Paul wrote in Romans 13. This is NOT a command to obey counterfeit government. The (legitimate) powers that be are ordained of Yah. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers (as contrasted with counterfeit powers). While keeping in mind that mankind was never given the authority to legislate, let's examine a few scriptures requiring a government to administer Yahuah's will: All nations are required to obey His law, Psalm 22:28, Ezekiel 14:12-23, Obadiah 1:15
Appendix M SEPARATING CHURCH FROM STATE The purpose of this Appendix is to provide ample proofs that your original state government was your church, so that you can (1) confirm that you surrendered your church to evil forces and (2) contrast your original state that exists only as a shadow, to the all capitalized "STATE," which is a federal corporation. The Church of England and the Government of England persecuted the Bible Believer Pilgrims. They risked death and disease on a three-month sea voyage to flee from English law. They brought forth on this continent a new nation. A nation free from British nonsense. There is no separation of church and state. The church, to preserve religious freedom established the state. The term "separation of church and state" was recently coined by the Supreme court in 1947 by misquoting Thomas Jefferson. Actually, separation of church and state is Article 52 of the Soviet Constitution. Psalm 2 says that nations will rage against God. Romans 1:18-32 says nations will promote sin and lawlessness. Nine of the thirteen original states had established religions, which were prerequisites to citizenship. The 1st Amendment did not separate church and state. The 1st Amendment was ratified to prevent your Federal government from establishing a religion. As proof that the 1st Amendment didn't prohibit state religions, one need only confirm that the states continued their religions long after they ratified the Bill of Rights. Massachusetts in 1828 was the last state to disestablish its religion, thirty seven years AFTER the 1st Amendment allegedly separated church from state. November 11, 1620. Mayflower Compact: Pilgrims aboard the Mayflower, in Plymouth Harbor, Covenant: "For the Glory of God and the Advancement of the Christian Faith ..." May 19, 1643. Articles of Confederation of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Plymouth and New Haven: "Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, Namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord, Yahusha Christ, and to insure the liberties of the Gospel in purities with peace." April 3, 1644. Charter of New Haven Colony: "... That the judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses ... be a rule unto all the courts in this jurisdiction ..." April 26, 1685. The Great Law of Pennsylvania: "Whereas the Glory of Almighty God and the God of Mankind is the reason and the end of Government ... Therefore Government itself is a venerable ordinance of God ..." For nearly a hundred years, only a confessed Christian could hold public office in America. 1701 Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges: "That all persons who profess to believe in Yahusha Christ, the saviour of the world, shall be capable ... To serve this government in any capacity, both legislatively and executively." 1772. Samual Adams: "The rights of the colonists as Christians... may be best understood by reading and carefully studying, the institution of the Great Lawgiver and head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament." July 4, 1776. Declaration of Independence gives the reason for your government to exist: "... all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights... appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world ... and for the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of divine providence ..." Here are some other statements from America's founders who understood that freedoms are based on Christian principals: 1756 John Adams, America's second President: "Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only Law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts here exhibited... What a paradise would this region be!" 1781, Thomas Jefferson: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." July 12, 1804, Alexander Hamilton's last dying words after Vice President Aaron Burr shot him: "I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty; through the merits of the Lord Yahusha Christ. I am a sinner, I look to Him for mercy; pray for me." 1821, Daniel Webster: "If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity." Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence: "The only foundation for ... a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments." If your U.S. Constitution was to say that the church and state were separate (which it does not), then how would you explain these statements: George Washington: "Do not let anyone claim to be a true American, do not let them claim the tribute of American Patriotism if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics. If they do that, they cannot be called true Americans." Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Yahusha Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay: "Providence has given to our people the choice of our rulers and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for its rulers." John Quincy Adams: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: That it connected in one insoluble bond the principles of Christianity with the principles of civil government." James Madison, 1788: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future ... upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God." George Washington, October 3, 1789 proclaiming a National Day of Prayer: "Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits and humbly to implore His protection, aid and favors ..." George Mason, 1789: "All human laws which contradict His laws, we are bound in conscience to disobey." The Supreme Court of Maryland in 1799: "By our form of Government, the Christian religion is the established religion" (A confession of a government established religion, eight years AFTER the 1st Amendment supposedly separated church from state.) John Quincy Adams, 1821: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of Christianity, from the day of the Declaration ... they were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all acknowledged as the rules of their conduct." Noah Webster: "The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scripture ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evil men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible." President Andrew Jackson, 1845: "The Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests." The US Supreme Court in 1892 in the case Church of the Holy Trinity vs. the U.S.: "Our law and our institutions must be necessarily based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise, and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian ... This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation ... We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth ... THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION." That's right! One Hundred and One years after the 1st Amendment supposedly separated church from state, the Supreme Court said the U.S. is a Christian nation. US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in 1851: "... the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement by the state. ... any attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation." THATS RIGHT! SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE CREATES UNIVERSAL INDIGNATION. As the Declaration of Independence was being signed on July 4, 1776, Samuel Adams said: "We have this day restored the sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven, and from the rising to the setting of the sun let his kingdom come." Here is a simple Biblical test to determine if your state's servants still hold allegiance to the authority that created their office. 1st John 4:2-6 (KJV) "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Yahusha Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Yahusha Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world ... They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." If you think this is still your nation, just consider that the Supreme Court has banned Bible in schools and ordered the Ten Commandments removed. Now I want to mention a few things about the "STATE" church.
Appendix N YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND: PROOF THAT YOU HAVE BEEN OVERTHROWN Within government, there are two chains of command. State and federal. The original states, as defined in the last Appendix, supposedly still exist. They are hanging by a thin thread, but they can still exist. The other chain of command is the federal territories. There is nothing wrong with owing allegiance to the original states, because it is a church organization. There is everything wrong with owing allegiance to corrupt powers. Let's explore how states (Christians) became the all-capitalized "STATES" (Corporations of the non-Christian federal government). Yahusha is at the right hand of God, and has been given ALL authority in Heaven and in Earth. All legitimate authority is ordained of God (Romans 13, 1st Peter 2, etc). Illegitimate authority is ordained of Satan. Sheep know their own master's voice (John 10) and flee from strangers. Church and State can become separate. Nations can be conquered. Corporations can be sold, even if the lower level employees are not told of the sale. The line of succession can be broken, just once, and an unaware nation is forever enslaved. Just because the name on the letterhead remains the same, doesn't mean the chain of command is still intact. Your nation has been surrendered - three times. After a conquered nation is surrendered, the victor can do anything he wants to suppress the nationalistic sentiment of the conquered. He can kill all the men, take all your property, abolish your legislature and rename your nation. And all the brutal things allowed by the rules of surrender in Deuteronomy 20. As a minimum, the victor will control foreign affairs, circulate their own currency, and control your existing legislature without you suspecting anything. The victor will probably enslave you by a tax on your labor and your property. If you are no longer in control of "your" government, perhaps you should find out why. Here is some early history: Columbus claimed America for the Pope. The Christian Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock in 1620, having centuries earlier renounced Catholic authority by the Declaration of Arbraoath. By the late 1600's the Puritans arranged for Colonial Charters allowing Corporations, such as the Massachusetts Bay Company, to tax the inhabitants. This is how the Puritans surrendered the Pilgrims back to England, and they became British Colonies. England was exercising the authority of the Holy Roman Empire. The HOLY ALLIANCE of 1213 A.D. was a Treaty between Pope Innocent III and King John of England conveying all rights, titles, and interests in the Crown of England's lands to the Pope. [I believe this is unrelated to the second Beast exercising the authority of the first Beast.] The Kings of England were indebted to Rome for their wealth, power and authority. King George violated the Fairfax Resolves in 1774. War starts on April 19, 1775 (Paul Revere's ride to Lexington and Concord), when British Colonists living in a British Colony, who considered themselves to be Englishmen, who were subject to British law, who owe allegiance to King George, who never thought of overthrowing the most powerful nation on earth - risked death to shoot at their government's law enforcement officers. If these Christian farmers did not have a right to kill their government's law enforcement officers, then your U.S. Government has no right to exist. The entire legitimacy of your U.S. Government hangs on their right to reject their ungodly government. Romans 13:1 (KJV) "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." In October 1781, after three weeks of negotiations, Cornwallis (who was a Freemason) "surrendered" to George Washington (who was also a Freemason), on the condition that the Bank of England would control the central bank of your new government. Cornwallis' troops were then allowed to leave with their arms and ammunition - very unusual for a "surrender." The theretofore worthless Continentals were then redeemed at 100 cents to the dollar with British silver. Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, authorized Ben Franklin to borrow 8 million Livra from the British Crown. He signed the Note on July 16, 1782. The loan was due on January 1, 1788. When it became obvious that the Note could not be paid, a Constitutional Convention was held to reorganize the bankruptcy. Did your government schools tell you this? Now read the first sentence of Article 6. The Treaty of Paris, 1783, allows the United States to exist, yet King George claimed that he was retaining title over the Holy Roman Empire and the United States of America as "Arch-Treasurer" and "Prince Elector." The very authority that allows the United States to exist, perpetuates the notion that Kings rule by divine right, and also retains the authority over your treasury for the Holy Roman Empire. If you claim that the U.S. has won its Independence, then you are acknowledging the legitimacy of rest of the Treaty. Perhaps you can now understand why your U.S. Constitution was pushed on you, and why feudal tenure still applies, and why your U.S. Government is in no way founded upon the Christian religion. And indeed, to this very day, the "Department of the Treasury" is not part of your U.S. Government. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT REMAINS WITHIN THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND WITHIN THE ROMAN EMPIRE. I suggest that you study the issue for a week or so. Here are some links: The United States is still a British Colony (2) Freedomlaw.com "THE UNITED STATES ******************* IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY" A KING'S CHARTER THAT REFUSES TO DIE In a Nutshell A King's Charter Don't confuse the "U.S. Treasury," which has the Mint, with the "Department of the Treasury" that has the IRS.
Your U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, in anticipation of the upcoming, but still secret, default. "States" are not federal. "States" existed before your federal government. In fact, "states" existed before Britain claimed them. The states created your federal government and granted them authority to do ONLY the 17 things listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the federal Constitution. The original federal government must remain subordinate to the states. The 10th Amendment was added to ensure that states and people would always remain superior to your federal government. Your U.S. Constitution does not apply to federal territories. Examples: taxes need not be uniform in the territories, nor is any territory guaranteed a Republic form of Government. No citizen of a territory can become President. No citizen of Washington, D.C. can become President. Congress can do whatever it wants within the territories. In all cases whatsoever. This is why territories wanted to free themselves by getting admitted into the Union. Territories are not part of these united States. Washington D.C. is a territory. Therefore, Washington D.C. is not a part of these united States. Again: no one from Washington, D.C. can become President because no federal person can have political rights. You can voluntarily become a federal person by checking a box that asks if you are a U.S. citizen. In 1811, the Charter for the Central Bank expired and renewal was denied. This caused the War of 1812. We lost, which allows the English Central Bank to continue in the U.S. to this very day. Your federal government now rules the states. How did this happen? Answer: It doesn't. State citizens were offered a substitute authority of a similar sounding, but all capitalized, name, and they "entered into society." The real states remain dormant awaiting a remnant to awaken them. Your federal legislature makes laws for the territories and territorial persons. State legislatures make laws for state governments. To hide their strict limitations, they often use alternative meanings of words in their statutes. I don't want to confuse you here with a lot of legal gibberish, but if you are going to study the laws and court decisions you need to understand that the legal definitions are not the common meanings. Examples: There are three United States (per the Supreme Court's Hooven case), there are four U.S. Constitutions (the original, the one for Virgin Islands, the one for Puerto Rico, and one adopted as the by-laws of the federal corporation), there are seven Treasury Departments, there have been only three Internal Revenue Services (Guam, Philippine, and Puerto Rico, AND NO OTHERS), and there are 54 states. If you don't know with whom you are dealing, and you sign their Form just once, with a perjury oath, then you are trapped in their snare. Without an oath, you do not exist in their eyes. They cannot see you. You are above their laws. Once you fill out their Form, you now have legal existence in the eyes of their law. The word "cognizance" means that they can see you from the eyes of their law. There is always a presumption of a perjury oath on any government Form. "Oaths," like salutes, are a form of worship and are initiated by the subordinate toward the superior. Once you swear an oath to your new god, just once, then you are on their roster. You are the subordinate. Once you are on their roster, they can call muster at any time and you must show up and perform your duties. They will determine your values for you. Example: You must now pay taxes, under duress, for abominations that are contrary to your values. When the states failed to convene Congress from 1861 to 1871, a band of conspirators took matters into their own hands. The reconstructionists took over control of the States with a Corporation incorporated under the District of Columbia. This Corporation is entitled: "The United States." It was created by the 41st Congress in 1871 by Session III, Chapter 61 and 62. It still exists today. They adopted your Constitution as their by-laws. Since by-laws can be interpreted to the advantage of whatever politics of the day happen to exist, this started a conflicting history of court decisions. Whenever you see your state name with only the first letter Capitalized, this refers to the original creators of your federal government. Whenever you see your all capitalized STATE OF_____, on legal documents like licenses, laws, court decisions, and birth certificates, this refers to a Corporation of the United States, of the District of Columbia. The all capitalized "STATES" are political sub-divisions of the United States. Again: federal persons cannot have rights. 19 CJS section 884: "The United States Government is a Foreign Corporation with respect to a State." In re: Merriam's Estate, 36 N.Y. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, Affirmed in U.S. v. Perkins 163 U.S. 625 In 1935, Social Security was offered to Americans. The Act was written by Chief Justice Brandice for the Rothchilds. Section 904 of the Act was supposedly written by Paul Warburg, Jr. (who was in charge of your Federal Reserve during WWI while his brother Max Warburg was in charge of the German Central Bank). According to the Supreme Court in Ashwander v. TVA, anyone who "avails himself of a benefit" is in a federal territory, and cannot question jurisdiction. Perhaps now you understand why they encourage you to get a Social Security Number. By getting a number, you've negated the reason your state was admitted into the union. The United States Treasury Department personnel (who represented us at the founding of the United Nations in 1945) were later determined to be "Communists" according to "Senate Report Interlocking Subversion in Government Departments," dated July 30, 1953. Treaties with the Communist U.N. are "equal" to your U.S. Constitution. In 1977, Public Law 95-147 declared that banking institutions (including State Banks), were to be under the direction and control of the corporate Governor of the International Monetary Fund, a private entity of the United Nations. In 1933, the United States (Incorporated) went bankrupt and was transferred to the bankruptcy receivership. The IMF installed the Secretary of the Treasury as Chief Executive of the federal Corporation. Read Clearfield Trust Company v. U.S., 318 US 363 for proof of federal bankruptcy. Or Senate Report No. 93-549 (page 187 and 594). The Clearfield doctrine requires this bankrupt incorporated United States to abide by laws of commerce. The IRS must be incorporated if it deals in Federal Reserve Notes instead of Gold and Silver. What contract did you sign to obligate yourself to this Corporation? The Federal Reserve Bank is a private business. It is not a part of government according to Lewis v. Federal Reserve, 680 F2d 1240. 75 Congressional Record 12595 - 12603 contains a quote from the House Banking Committee: "Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are U.S. government institutions. They are not government institutions." Do not ever confuse the United States federal Corporation with their state masters who also have the same name (the masters who wanted to secure the blessings of liberty to their posterity). You must be careful if you ever want to contract with them. "Contracts" are above your U.S. Constitution. If you were to contract with them, you might find that private property could be taken without just compensation, or perhaps you could be drafted to fight UNjust wars, or perhaps they could tender something other than gold or silver coin, or perhaps you could be subjected to their regulatory Agencies (and by the way, "liberty" is the absence of regulation). Perhaps you could even be jailed for a crime. Prior to 1938, most crimes had to have victims. After 1938 anything could be a crime. Are you prepared to be a criminal? The original apostles were often in jail, and most of them were executed. John 16:2 tells us to be prepared for execution. Yahusha Christ himself tells us that even our relatives will turn us in to have us put to death. Luke 21:16. Are you prepared? SPOT THE TREND: In 1994 the Justice Department announced its perpetrator profile of who it considers to be a religious cultist: "A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools their children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the Second Amendment; and who distrusts government. Any of these may qualify but certainly more than one would cause us to look at this person as a threat, and his family as being in a risk situation that qualified for government intervention." The Defense Department's operations plan for Civil Disturbance Doctrine: "If any civil disturbance by a resistance group, religious organization, or other persons considered to be non-conformist takes place, Appendix 3 to Annex B of Plan 55-2 hereby gives all Federal forces total power over the situation if/when local and state authorities cannot put down said dissent." "POR:SGH:JCS Pub 6, Vol 5, AFR-60-5 hereby provides for America's military and the National Guard State Partnership Program to join the United Nations personnel in said operations." The Crime Control Act of 1993 definition of "intent to commit terrorist acts" includes any acts that: "appear to be intended - (1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (2) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."
"The Attorney General ... shall report to Congress and the President on the efforts made, and success of such efforts, to recruit and hire former Royal Hong Kong Police officers into Federal law enforcement positions. The report shall discuss any legal or administrative barriers preventing a program of adequate recruitment of former Royal Hong Kong Police officers." The Anti-terrorism and Death Penalty Act of 1996 allows the government to determine who terrorists are. You will not be allowed to assert otherwise. Section 219(8): "If a designation under this subsection has become effective under paragraph 1B, a defendant in a criminal action shall not be permitted to raise any question concerning the validity of the issuance of such designation as a defense or an objection at any trial or hearing." On December 10, 1998, President Clinton |
