Are you serving the Beast authority? The NWO authority?

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 God.

The idea that governments are automatically bowed down to, is an idea that God 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.

* Daniel would not have been thrown into either the furnace nor the lions' den.

* Moses, while he was a civil servant, killed one of his government's law enforcement officers.

* Israelites would not have rebelled against Pharaoh.

* Peter would not have said in Acts 5:29 "We must obey God rather than men."

* The apostles would not have been hunted down and executed, except for one who was exiled.

* William Tynndale would not have been executed for the crime of translating the Bible into English.

* Christians would not have risked death on the Mayflower's seven week voyage to bring fourth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty.

* A Quaker preacher named William Penn, while he was a British subject in a British Colony, would not have been arrested for preaching a Quaker sermon.

* Patriots would not have started the American Revolution. They would not have risked death to kill their government's law enforcement officers.

* Rahab, a career criminal, would not have helped overthrow her government, and would not be considered righteous (James 2:25) and listed in Hebrews 11 as one of the all-time faithful.

* And today, the Church in China could exist peacefully if it registers with their government, but refuses. Because regulation IS persecution.

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."

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 God.

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 Christ 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 Christians 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 Christian 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. Jesus 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 Christ. 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. Jesus 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 Jesus 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 God 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 GOD 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 Jesus corrected the apostles about Moses' law by stating that it was not so, even from the beginning.

There is no power but of God, as Paul wrote in Romans 13. This is NOT a command to obey counterfeit government. The (legitimate) powers that be are ordained of God. 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 God, 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 Christ 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 Christ, 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 Christian 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 God 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 Christians. 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, Christ paid taxes. But did He render unto Caesar that which is God'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 feel self-righteous telling others to take perjury oaths on forms of any kind (1040, W4, W9, I9, SS5, license applications, child vaccinations, banking agreements, insurance forms, or voter registration), then you are telling them to violate Biblical principals. All oaths must be voluntary. Christ never used compulsion. Christ advised against oaths (Matt 5:34). Your government never tells anyone to sign a form. Coercing a signature is a felony. Mandatory signatures are invalid, and inadmissible in court. You have NO authority to invent the myth that lifetime slavery is mandatory. You have no lawful orders to tell them to sign a form. Your incorrect command to sign the form is itself a crime. It's a crime worse than genocide. Hitler's men were obeying their orders. What is your excuse for inventing orders to enslave and plunder the innocent?

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 Christ. 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.

YOUR GOVERNMENT'S DEFINITION OF THE WORD "MUST"

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.

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 God 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.

* Ephesians 4:14-15 (KJV) "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:"

* Colossians 2:20 (KJV) "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, ... "

Continuing with the topic of federal jurisdiction:

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:

* "states in this union"

* "free inhabitants"

* "free citizens"

The US Constitution omits references to free, and uses phrases with proper capitalized nouns, and often use the preposition "of":

* "Citizen of the United States"

* "Inhabitant of that State"

* "Resident within the United States"

* "People of the several States"

The 14th Amendment created a type of federal "citizenship" which is analogous to ownership.

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 Christian, 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 Lord Jesus Christ,"

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. Jesus told us not to have dominion over others. Christians would

* depart from iniquity (2nd Tim 2:19) and

* come out from among them and be ye separate (2nd Cor 6:17), and

* be not partakers (Rev 18:4) and

* seek citizenship in heaven (Phil 3:20, Eph 2:19, Heb 11:16, etc),

* "And be not conformed to this world ..." Romans 12:2, and

* rather be wronged 1st Cor 6:7, and

* judge not, and love their enemy.

None of these are possible for someone who is trying, with a vote (or a gun*), to force perverted values on others, or to exercise dominion, or to force others to provide for them.
*(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)
Third, Internal Revenue Code, Section 6109(d), (I've added the emphasis): "The SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBER ISSUED to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act shall, except as otherwise be specified under regulations of the Secretary, be used as the identifying number for such individual for purposes of this title."

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...

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."

A PERJURY OATH IS ALWAYS A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY

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).

Christians 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 God. You cannot invoke the Lord's 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.

YOU WAIVED YOUR RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY

Trial 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."

YOU WAIVED YOUR RIGHT TO EARN WAGES

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:

* Section 61 lists 15 types of income subject to taxation but does not mention wages or salary,

* Section 71 lists 19 types of income but does not mention wages or salary,

* Section 101 lists 36 types of income but does not mention wages or salary.

The word "income" has never included wages, except for government employees. The exchange of labor for pay of equal value has never been income.

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):

* "... it becomes essential to distinguish between what is, and what is not 'income'...

* "Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone, that power can be lawfully exercised ...."

* "Income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of capital assets."

In the 1959 Tax Court case Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 32 Tax Court page 681:
"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":

* "The Amendment ... was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution" ...

* "A direct tax on the income, [would] be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts and place it in the class of [unconstitutional unless apportioned] direct taxes."

also see Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 US 107, Peck v Lowe, 247 US 165 (1918), and Evans v. Gore, 40 SCt 555 (1920) 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."

GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY NO LONGER COMES FROM "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 God, 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 God 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 Religionv ..."). 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 God's wrath. God hates the shedding of innocent blood, Proverbs 6:16-17. Ever since Abel's murder, shed blood cries out to God, Genesis 4:10. God 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

POLITICS = BEAST POWER

The 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 LORD," 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 Jesus." Matt 27:20.

Pilate said publicly that he found no fault in Christ (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 Christ. Pilate liked Christ Jesus 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 Christ should be executed.

Unreasoning mobs do not have authority. The root word of authority is "author." The Lord 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 Christ?

* "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" [gods = Hebrew 'elohiym,' which is elsewhere translated as "judges" or "magistrates"]. First Commandment.

* "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them ..." Second Commandment.

* "Choose this day whom you shall serve." Josh 24:15.

Every registered voter has agreed to abide by the outcome of the election, even if he finds it abhorrent. Governments' derive their powers from the consent of the governed. You have consented to be governed. Those who participate in elections, ever since Saul was elected as King, have consented to the results of the vote. So you've agreed, by registering to vote, that any misguided majority determines your moral values. Your property will be taxed to fund vile abominations. Even the Supreme Court said: "The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government." Registered voters consent to be taxed. Conversely, there would be no taxation without representation. Memorize this legal maxim: "He who consents to an act is not damaged by it." Did your government school teach this?

This is evil in the eyes of the Lord, I Sam 12:17. If God 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 Lord's authority in vain, and worshiping other gods?

Christ said in John 17:11-15, and John 15:19-20 that we are to be in the world but not of it. The Christian 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 Lord 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.

OTHER MARKS: BIRTH AND MARRIAGE CERTIFICATES AND ID CARDS

The term "the United States" is used in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment as something you can be born into. Don't be tricked by this. The term "the United States" can mean either the name of the government or the name of a geographical place. If a form asks if you were born in the United States, do not assume that this refers to a geographical place. It is asking if you were born into the government.

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 Jesus telling Nicodemus that he must be born again, and Nicodemus couldn't understand that Jesus 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:

* "nom": Used in expressions denoting a pseudonym, a false or assumed name.

* "Nom de guerre": War name. A name assumed by or assigned to a person engaged in some action or enterprise.

* "Guerre": War, and as a verb, to wage war.

The U.S. Government Style Manual, Chapter 3 requires only the names of corporate and other fictional entities, or those serving in corporate capacities to be in all capitalized letters.

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. CHRISTIANS CANNOT GET A GOVERNMENT ID CARD. Christians are not part of their system, and DO NOT EXIST IN THE EYES OF THEIR LAW. Only non-Christians can get an ID (mark) of the beast. Only non-Christians can have a name of (of = created by) the beast. Only non-Christians 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 God, so I knew that divorce court could not cancel anyone's vows to God. 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 Christian, 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:

* Roe v. Wade was a privacy case. Government could not know about procreation or child rearing, thereby allowing abortion in the first trimester to go unpunished because the abortion laws were written in such that they "... violate due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment protecting right to privacy ..." Your family has a right to privacy. Roe v. Wade went on to also state: "Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

* Yeager v. Hackensack, 615 F.Supp.1087, citing the authority of Roe v. Wade, confirmed that "Right to be free from compelled disclosure of names of household members is within right of privacy protected by Constitution."

* Yeager v. Hackensack also confirmed that private utilities cannot request Social Security Numbers without first complying with the disclosure provisions of Section 7(b) of the Privacy Act.

* Roe v. Wade cannot be an abortion case. It is only a privacy case. Proof #1: the Supreme Court will not hear cases unless the party is damaged (according to rules laid down in their Ashwander case). Only Roe's privacy was damaged. Roe was not arrested for having an abortion. Roe did not have an abortion, she gave birth to a son who remains an active critic of the abortion laws. Proof #2: The abortion doctor who joined in the case was remanded back to state Courts for his punishment. Roe v. Wade DID NOT legalize abortions. A million repetitions of a lie do not make it true.

* Matters of child bearing or child rearing must remain strictly private. This cannot be overemphasized. Asking for the birth date of a child is such a gross violation of privacy, it is tantamount to asking to watch the birth! I offer the following proof that matters of child bearing require this level of privacy: the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick recognized that sodomy laws must be enforced because: "The right to privacy does not extend to acts of consensual sodomy between homosexual adults." "Procreation" is private. "Sodomy" cannot be private. Any bureaucrat who asks for a child's birthdate is violating your most sacred family privacy. Treat him like you would treat Herod.

Here is a challenge: You can overturn Roe v. Wade if you can find ANY government Form that compels the disclosure of a child's name or birthdate or existence. [Unless, of course, the child is the government's child. Government property must be regulated. Which kind are your children?].

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 Jesus 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.

OTHER TRAPS: POWER OF ATTORNEY, INTEREST, FEDERAL DISTRICTS

If you allow others to handle your affairs, you give them a power of attorney. As I explained earlier, you grant the power of attorney by getting a number. Proof: they can seize your property without a court order, without proof of a violation, without a judge's signature, and without even starting any court proceedings.

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 Jesus 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.

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?

God established His law to last forever (Psalm 119:152). God 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 Gods delegation of authority:

* Do what is just and right.

* Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed.

* Do no wrong or violence to the weak and powerless.

* Do not shed innocent blood.

If that doesn't sound like your government, then perhaps your government has been overthrown.

The Bible has plenty of history to show that when righteous people turn from God, they are taken captive - often by very brutal tyrants. Even on an individual level - if you cannot govern yourself, others will govern you.

Christ 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 God, it is referring to God'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 Christian citizenship, here on earth:

* Philippians 3:20 (NIV) Our citizenship is in heaven.

* Matt 4:17 and 10:7 The Kingdom of heaven is at hand.

* Mark 1:15 "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand" [This was at the first coming of Christ. How can you ignore this verse?]

* Luke 16:16 Tynndale translation: "The law and the prophets reigned until the time of John: and since that time, the Kingdom of God is preached, and every man striveth to go in."

* Matt 11:12 (NIV) The kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing and forceful men lay hold of it.

* Luke 22 at the Last Supper. Christ confirmed in Verse 29 - "I bestow upon you a kingdom ..." Christ handed over to His disciples the keys to his kingdom. The disciples then argued among themselves who would have the greatest authority as successors to Christ's government.

* John, while suffering tribulation, said in Rev.1:9 that he was "in the Kingdom of Christ." He failed to mention that it was a vision of a postponed Kingdom.

* Matt 6:10 The Lord's prayer, acknowledges a Kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth ...

* Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27 "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." [Did Christ Lie?]

* Colossians 1:12-13 Giving thanks to the Father ... who has brought us [past tense] into the kingdom of his dear Son.

* Jesus promised to be with us until the end of the world. Matt 28:20

* Jesus in Matthew 16:19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

* Hebrews 11:14 & 16 "People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own .... they were longing for a better country -- a heavenly one ..."

* Matt 23:13 "Woe unto you ... for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

* Acts 14:22 (KJV): "we must go through much tribulation to enter into the Kingdom of God."

* Revelation 5:10 "You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."

* Christ is currently at the right hand of God (Acts 2:33, Acts 7:55 & 56, Romans 8:34, Colossians 3:1, Hebrews 10:12, and 1st Peter 3:22).

Martin Luther: "And if thou not be of the Kingdom of Christ, 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.

Jesus was a man of authority. Equal in authority to the Roman government. Jesus 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 Jesus was not a part of. "And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me." Luke 22:29. Did Jesus lie?

Jesus, 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 Christ, or you are against Him.:

* He who is not with me is against me. Matt 12:30 and Luke 11:23.

* Whoever is not against us is for us. Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50.

Nowhere in the Bible does God 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 Jesus corrected the apostles about Moses' law by stating that it was not so, even from the beginning.

There is no power but of God, as Paul wrote in Romans 13. This is NOT a command to obey counterfeit government. The (legitimate) powers that be are ordained of God. 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 the Lord's will:

All nations are required to obey His law, Psalm 22:28, Ezekiel 14:12-23, Obadiah 1:15

* Saul was elected as King, This was evil in the eyes of the Lord, I Sam 12:17b.

* Leviticus 24:22 (NIV) "You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God."

* Deuteronomy 1:17 (KJV) "Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it."

* Numbers 15:16 (NIV) "The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the alien living among you."

* Exodus 18:20-23 (NIV) "Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform. But select capable men from all the people -- men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain -- and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied."

In the next three Appendixes, I'll prove that the Judicial power of your State is empowered to enforce God's law, not man's law.

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 Christian 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, Jesus 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 Jesus 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 Jesus 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 Jesus 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 Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus 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.

* There cannot be a separation of church and state. Your government continues to conduct their religious rituals, because they cannot have separation of their church from their state Your courthouse Latin speaking black robed priests require religious rituals in their synagogues. The state is their church. Your U.S. Constitution was ordained and established. "Ordained" is a religious term.

* President Adams and a 3/4ths majority of the Senate confessed that "... the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion ..." And to this very day, it is obvious that your ordained federal system performs it's anti-Christian religious rituals.

* If you say that the Social Security Card is the Mark of the Beast, the EEOC claims that you are making a political statement, not a religious statement. They seem to think that they are your church. I cannot distinguish any difference between church and state. If I say that Jesus is my King, am I making a religious statement or a political statement?

Do you now confess that there is a world antichrist power, as defined in 1st John 4, "whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world?"

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).

Jesus 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:
http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/colony2.html

http://freedomlaw.com/BRColony.html

http://biblebelievers.org.au/king35.htm

http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/nutshell.html

http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/theking.htm

Don't confuse the "U.S. Treasury," which has the Mint, with the "Department of the Treasury" that has the IRS.

* Pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order number 92, the IRS is trained under the direction of the United Nations Division of Human Resources.

* Executive Order 10422. The "Office of Personnel Management" is under the direction of the Secretary of the United Nations. Pursuant to Treasury Delegation Order number 91, the IRS entered into a Service Agreement with the U.S. Treasury Department (see Public Law 94-564 and its Legislative History page 5967) to service the "Reorganization Plan" for the "Agency for International Development."

* The IRS is an also an Agency of INTERPOL (22 USC 263a). The memorandum of understanding (MOA) is between the "Secretary of the Treasury" and the "International Monetary Fund" and the "International Bank for Reconstruction and Development." They pay the IRS.

* The IRS operates under "Public Policy" and not Constitutional law. They are agents of your nation's creditors. This is perfectly legal. The IRS never states that they collect taxes for the United States Treasury, they only refer to "The Treasury."

* According to the U.S. Government Manual, the Attorney General is the permanent representative to INTERPOL, and the Secretary of the Treasury is the alternate member.

* Under Article 30 of the INTERPOL Constitution, these members must abstain from advising INTERPOL's Secretary General, they can only take Orders.

The original states still live peaceably as nations of Christian sovereigns [ruling their civil servants under God's chain of command] - Provided that there remains at least one sovereign in each state. Satanic forces are trying to eliminate them.

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. Jesus 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."

* [Could evangelism be a terrorist act? Could influencing others to write to Congressmen be political intimidation intended to influence a policy of the government? How about distributing tracts?]

* This same Crime Control Act, Chapter 113B, Section 138 protects witnesses. You will not be able to find out who your accusers are, even though your 6th Amendment allows you to confront your accusers in court. (How did they get around this? Did you waive rights?)

Hate Crime Laws prohibit you from speaking out against politically incorrect behaviors. Try reading Leviticus 20:13 in public and see how well the Bible is tolerated in public. Your religious liberty will not be tolerated. You are a terrorist. Here in the same nation that the Pilgrims founded to establish religious liberty. Here in the same nation where your Declaration of Independence says that governments are instituted among men to secure rights endowed by God. In 1993, President Clinton bragged about putting 100,000 new Police on the streets. Perhaps you didn't read the law. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993, Section 5108:
"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 signed Executive Order 13107, "Implementation of Human Rights Treaties" to implement within the federal government the Treaties "to which the United States is now or may become a party in the future." This includes Treaties that the Senate has wisely refused to ratify. Examples: The U.N. Treaty on "Genocide" says that persuading a religious group, in whole or in part, into changing their religion, is the crime of Genocide. The "Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring" has already been set up to oversee these hate crimes. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has been rejected for the past 50 years because it refuses to recognize the right of the individual to own property. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child allows children the freedom of expression, freedom of association, and freedom of conscience and religion. This means that prostitution, gangs, cults, and witchcraft are now protected rights. Parental authority that seeks to direct a child in how he/she is raised will result in loss of the child to state protection. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been wisely rejected ever since 1948. Article 29 prohibits any rights that are contrary to the purposes of the Untied Nations. You may not speak out against the U.N.. Speaking out makes you a terrorist who is opposed to basic human rights.

The 1999 Intelligence Authorization Act, Title VI, Section 605 grants the Attorney General the authority to allow routine wire taps without approval of a judge.

If you want to research the Presidential Executive Orders, try http://www.uhuh.com/laws

Hit 154-Times

 

msnbot-207-46-195-228.search.msn.com