Either the American Indians/Native Americans/Beringian immigrants are separate nations or they're not

Obama Says U.S. Must Reverse Course With Native Americans
Washington (AP) - Making good on a campaign promise to hold a yearly summit with American Indians, President Barack Obama told tribal leaders Thursday gathered in Washington that he is determined to reverse the federal government's history of marginalizing Indian nations...

************

Every one legitimately born in these United States is a Native American. The various warring Beringian immigrant tribes (aka as Indians) occupied these Lands of the Covenant (Artzot Habrit in Hebrew), this biblical territory promised to Manasseh the son of Joseph, until Manifest Destiny arrived and saw the British Israelites (specifically the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples) claim our God-given homeland from sea to shining sea.

Either the American Indians/Native Americans/Beringian immigrants are separate nations or they're not - quit trying to have it both ways! Take care of your own business, accept your own successes and failures and stop depending on people of white color to save you and do for you what you've failed to do for yourselves.


Reflections on Washita Battlefield National Historic Site


Israel in the Isles

Alternative to UN (YouTube Video)

Meir Kahane

The author, who worked closely with Rabbi Kahane for many years, shares little known memories and insights of the dauntless, ideological MK and leader of the Kach party on the 19th anniversary of his tragic murder.

In Memoriam: Rabbi Meir Kahane
by Shifra Hoffman

The Real Significance of Angela Merkel’s Speech to U.S. Congress

November 3, 2009 | From theTrumpet.com

By Ron Fraser

For only the second time since World War II, a German chancellor has addressed the U.S. Congress. Amazingly, the childish commentators from the popular press ignored the most momentous of Angela Merkel’s statements and zeroed in on a topic that the most astute of climate scientists are increasingly rejecting—the global warming hoax!

Manipulators of public opinion have had a field day using the global warming fear as a smokescreen behind which to hide their true globalist political agenda. This is a reality to which the press and mass media, with few exceptions, remain largely blinded.

It’s time to face up to reality. The real meat was in the main body of Merkel’s speech, not in the global warming smokescreen tagged on the end, though this got the most applause from the Democrat side of the House.

Chancellor Merkel’s address comes at a crucial time in transatlantic relations. The U.S. is in decline politically, economically and financially. The European Union stands on the brink of overnight becoming a giant imperial power, a global power in its own right. In fact, it is becoming the very power that will fill the increasing economic, political and military vacuum being created in the world through America’s decline.

The nation that stands in the lead of the European empire is Germany. As the day approaches for ratification of the treaty that will launch the EU, overnight, as a global player, it is perhaps both a fitting and most historic—let alone prophetic—occasion of huge importance that Washington witnessed today with the German chancellor’s address. Few in that audience would have garnered the truth of the reality America faces, reading between the lines of the chancellor’s speech.

The current year has set a record for the number of EU summits. It seems no sooner is one summit over and we are hearing of the imminent scheduling of another.

Why all the chat in this whirlwind of EU summitry this year? It’s simple. It is time! It’s time for the grand EU design to emerge from behind its facade and finally reveal its true reason for being. And the movers and shakers, the powerfully influential elites who have driven this postwar grand design for Europe thus far, want their enterprise to finally emerge as a powerful global player, not only economically, but politically and, believe it or not, militarily.

The frequency of EU summitry has hinged on the progressive building of a German-dominated imperial power, not by military aggression, but by treaty. Step by step, the European elites have constructed this rising empire by a series of treaties. Each treaty was designed to build upon its predecessor in a process that has taken a simple agreement on access to coal and steel (the treaty of Paris, 1951, that created the European Coal and Steel Community) to rebuild postwar European industry, to its inevitable outcome: a treaty enabling the launching of a powerful pan-European military industry underpinning a powerful imperial military force of global reach.

That old master of international relations, Hans Morgenthau, pointed to industrial capacity as being one of the most important factors underpinning the status of a world power. “[T]he competition among nations for power transforms itself largely into competition for the production of bigger, better and more implements of war,” he wrote in Politics Among Nations. Extrapolating the point, Morgenthau went on to state the logical outcome of this competition for global power. “[A] change in industrial rank, for better or for worse, should be accompanied or followed by a corresponding change in the hierarchy of power.”

The transfer of power that has followed the transfer of industrial capacity, changing the West into major consumers and the East into major producers of goods, is now witnessing a subsequent reduction in power of the previously dominant industrial nations, significantly the Anglo-Saxons, and the rise to power of the world’s major producers, in particular China, Japan, India and a resurrecting Russia.

Perhaps the least understood of all rising industrial powers is the European Union.

People will believe what they choose to believe, regardless of reality. Most choose to believe what is fed to them by the popular press. It has thus played to the huge advantage of the rising European imperial power that it is largely ignored by a poorly educated and largely blind U.S. media machine. While the press and mass media dance to the tune of the liberal socialists’ views on such high-profile stories as the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan, economic “recovery,” and the ever-present, nauseating “celebrity” personalities of the day, the behemoth rises across the Atlantic.

So well-masked has been this resurrection of old “Holy” Roman/Teutonic power that when its reality hits, it will send a massive shock wave through North America in particular. Britain, being much closer geographically to Europe, and now beginning to stand aghast at the degree to which its economy, its political and judicial system have been wrecked by membership of the European Union, at least has an increasing number of sensibly aware voices clamoring for their nation to extricate itself from Brussels/Berlin. Sadly, it’s too late for even such action to have a positive bearing on the state of the British nation.

So drastic is Britain’s economic state (the United Kingdom now being Germany’s largest EU creditor), that its prime minister has announced the fire sale of prime national assets.

Pope Benedict xvi in his recent encyclical “Caritas in Veritate” called for a global order to address the world’s 21st-century challenges. Chancellor Merkel added her voice to that call today, declaring to the joint House of Congress that the solution to the world’s problems was a “global order … under global law.”

Germany and the Vatican have a history of operating in tandem under the facade of the European Union to advance their imperialist agenda for universal government. Now that Czech President Vaclav Klaus has signed the Lisbon Treaty, there remains no known bar to implementation of the imperialist European Constitution by December 1.

During her historic address to the joint houses of Congress in Washington today, Merkel called for the institution of a “global economic order” under “global law.” The request is timely, coming on the eve of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty/EU constitution, which establishes the EU as a globalist imperial power.

Now that the European Union stands revealed for that which it was always destined to become—a global power—Chancellor Merkel gave more than a strong hint as to what will now become the new pretense under which Berlin and Rome will aggressively move forward in the drive for global economic order. She encouraged the U.S. to join the EU in using the G-20 to achieve this end, a reality that has leaped into focus since the G-20 began imposing its globalist EU-driven agenda on the world after the great Wall Street crash of September 2008.

Watch now for the full ratification of the EU constitution in its guise as the Lisbon Treaty to take place at yet another EU summit slated for either November 12 or 19, the subsequent announcement of the appointment to the newly created positions of EU high representative and the EU foreign minister, and the implementation of the EU diplomatic service on Jan. 1, 2010.

When all that is in place, watch then for the rapid development of the European military force, the most dramatic and most dangerous of all the institutions the new EU constitution embraces.

The world would do well to take warning that Chancellor Merkel’s call for a global order under global regulation is about to become a reality—under initiatives to be enforced by the very nation from which she hails!

As you watch this rapid-fire propulsion of the European empire to global power status, remember the words of Herbert W. Armstrong: “Watch for developments suddenly to speed toward European political and military union, through religious union! … [I]n very few years at most, it must start. And when it does, events will flash by with a lightning speed that will astound the world …. This sudden blitz toward union … once triggered will move so swiftly the whole world will be caught by surprise. Yes indeed! They shall wonder in amazement!” (Plain Truth, November 1965). •

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=6698.5218.0.0

************

Pope seeks privileged status for the RCC in Europe

The Lisbon Treaty forges an empire, an emperor and an anvil for war!
 
The Rape of Europe: "No Means No"
 
http://www.davidbenariel.org/

Britain’s Iron Lady Was Right

From the Nov/Dec 2009 Trumpet Print Edition »
A voice of warning from 1989 is about to prove especially farsighted.
By Brad Macdonald

British newspapers jumped on the story when documents were released in September disclosing Margaret Thatcher’s vigorous opposition to German unification in 1989.

In one Kremlin transcript, the former prime minister was revealed as telling Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in off-the-record meetings in September 1989 that the “reunification of Germany is not in the interests of Britain and Western Europe.” While that might appear different from public pronouncements, she stated, Britain does “not want a united Germany.”

It’s not hard to justify the release of these documents as headline news. They shine added light on what was a turning point in modern European history when the Berlin Wall collapsed in November 1989. But the British media and government opted not to report on the most important angle: how Margaret Thatcher’s sober forecasts are actually being fulfilled.

Lampooned!

Among the nuggets the Times latched onto was Mrs. Thatcher’s “bombshell” off-the-record admission to Mr. Gorbachev that while she supported German unification in public, privately she held “deep concerns” about the “big changes” afoot. “Even 20 years later, her remarks are likely to cause an uproar,” wrote the Times.

“Mrs. Thatcher (as she then was) was wrong,” the Times haughtily blurted. “As Germany reaches two decades as a reunited country, its unshakable place within the Western family of democratic nations is cause for celebration. Apprehensions about a united Germany were misguided and have clearly been refuted” (September 11; emphasis mine throughout).

They have? Says who?

The Financial Times reported that the decision by Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office to publish the documents was perceived as an “attempt by Britain to set the record straight and show that its diplomats were positive about reunification early on—in spite of Mrs. Thatcher’s personal misgivings” (September 10). This perception wasn’t inaccurate, as Patrick Salmon, chief historian at the British Foreign Office, confirmed: “What they do is they correct the impression that was around at the time, and later, that Britain was negative toward [German unification],” he said.

Such shallow and misleading representation of these revelatory papers in the British media, as well as by the British government, was a tremendous disservice to the British people, many of whom are upset and disturbed by the German-led EU’s growing impingement on British sovereignty.

The release of these documents provided British politicians and journalists an opportunity to investigate why Thatcher opposed German unification, if her reticence was justified, and whether or not her fears are coming to fruition. However, they used them to court Germany, even though it meant turning their back on their former stalwart leader.

German media picked up the same story line. Germany’s Spiegel Online reported that the “new documents reveal that [British] Foreign Ministry diplomats were considerably more far-sighted than Thatcher, who was led by her gut reaction against Germany” (September 11).

“The long-secret papers show that the British government played a far more constructive role in German reunification than had been previously thought,” Spiegel wrote. “Only one person had serious doubts about the change: Margaret Thatcher.” This is pure revisionist history that belies the concern shared by the most astute observers of Germany’s intentions to dominate Europe by using the European Union.

Thatcher’s Apprehensions

Before we prove whether or not Thatcher’s concerns were justified, we must first understand just what they were. And while the Times and its ilk reported on these documents as if Thatcher’s opposition to German reunification was blockbuster news, history shows it was no state secret.

Mrs. Thatcher openly, eloquently and extensively explained her viewpoint in her 1993 autobiography, The Downing Street Years. Written shortly after the Berlin Wall’s fall, the book gives context to her recently disclosed remarks, which were made in meetings that occurred between 1986 and 1990. Reading Thatcher’s explanation, it’s evident she was not the naive rogue, plagued by a lurking hatred of Germans and totally wrong in her views about German reunification, that some have spun her to be.

Throughout her illustrious political career, 11 years of which she stood tall as Britain’s prime minister, Mrs. Thatcher proved herself an avid student of human nature and an eager disciple of history. Mrs. Thatcher’s viewpoint on the “German question,” as it was known then, was informed by a firm grasp on both history and the human mind.

“I do not believe in collective guilt,” she explained in The Downing Street Years, “it is individuals who are morally accountable for their actions.” Contrary to what some believe, Mrs. Thatcher blamed Hitler primarily for World War II, not the collective German people. “But I do believe in national character,” she continued, “which is molded by a range of complex factors, [and] the fact that national caricatures are often absurd and inaccurate does not detract from that.”

Mrs. Thatcher opposed German reunification because she understood German history and the national character of the German people. “Since the unification of Germany under Bismarck,” she wrote, “Germany has veered unpredictably between aggression and self-doubt.” Study German history since the mid-19th century; it’s impossible to argue with the facts on this point.

The documents released in September also recount remarks Mrs. Thatcher made during meetings with French President François Mitterrand. Mrs. Thatcher had already recalled some of these meetings (and remarks) in her 1993 book. In one meeting in France in 1989, she writes, Mitterrand was “more concerned” about German reunification than she was. The reason for his concern?

“He observed that in history the Germans were a people in constant movement and flux.” Mitterrand’s concern, as well as Thatcher’s—as well as the recorded concerns of other historians, politicians and journalists—shows that, at the time, astute observers were leery of a repeat of German dominance in Europe.

Now notice Thatcher’s reaction to Mitterrand’s anxiety. At that moment, she writes, “I produced from my handbag a map showing the various configurations of Germany in the past, which were not altogether reassuring about the future.” Thatcher was so devoted to history as her tutor, she actually carried it around with her in her purse.

That’s what informed her opposition to German reunification!

Because she was familiar with Germany’s historical proclivity to dominate Europe, Mrs. Thatcher warned often that it would be dangerous to lock a reunited Germany into a federal Europe. “Germany is more rather than less likely to dominate within that framework,” she explained, “for a reunited Germany is simply too big and powerful to be just another player with Europe.”

Thatcher feared German reunification because she knew it would wreak havoc on Europe’s political landscape. “Germany is … by its very nature a destabilizing rather than a stabilizing force in Europe,” she wrote. This reasoning underpinned Thatcher’s remark to Gorbachev that “Britain did not want a united Germany.”

In her book, Mrs. Thatcher explains the apprehensions she had about German unification in three succinct points. First, a united Germany would rush Europe toward becoming a dominant federalist power. Second, although Europe might at first be led by a Franco-German axis, Germany would in time marginalize French leadership and become the unchecked leader of Europe. Third, a united Germany would facilitate the decline of America’s presence and influence in Europe.

The British press failed to do this in reporting this story, but you can: Consider the past 20 years of European history, and specifically that of the EU. Has Germany emerged at the vanguard of efforts to forge the European Union as a federalist superpower? Indisputably. Has Germany overpowered and outmaneuvered France to become the predominant, unbridled leader of Europe? Without doubt. And has America’s presence and influence in Europe deteriorated in the shadow of Germany’s mounting and formidable presence? Undeniably.

Historical fact refutes the Times’ assertion that Thatcher’s “apprehensions about a united Germany were misguided and have clearly been refuted.” In fact, Britain’s “Iron Lady” was spot on!

Vindication

If we view them objectively, the documents released in September vindicate more than condemn Mrs. Thatcher. That vindication, at least partially, comes with the knowledge that fellow world leaders had similar fears and opinions about German reunification.

The documents reveal President Mitterrand telling Thatcher that a united Germany could “make even more ground than had Hitler.” If Germany expanded, he said, then Europe would be in the same position that it had been in before World War I. He also said that reunification could turn Germans into the “bad” people they used to be.

They also show Nikolai Ryzhkov, the premier of the Soviet Union, telling Gorbachev that if Germany was allowed to reunify on its own terms, “then in 20 or 30 years Germany will start another world war.”

Jacques Attali, adviser to the French president, was equally concerned. He told a Gorbachev aide that French leaders questioned whether Russia’s lack of interference in the fall of the Berlin Wall meant that “the ussr has made peace with the prospect of a united Germany and will not take any steps to prevent it.” He said, “This has caused a fear approaching panic.” Attali later told Mitterrand that he was so fearful of a united Germany that, should it come to pass, he would “fly off to live on Mars.”

These documents reveal that Mrs. Thatcher was far from alone in her apprehensions; they actually justify her concerns as legitimate. It is true that these leaders mostly gave up their concerns after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Courageously, Britain’s Iron Lady didn’t. “You have not anchored Germany to Europe,” she warned America during a conference in Colorado Springs in October 1995. “You have anchored Europe to a newly dominant, unified Germany. In the end, my friends, you’ll find it will not work.”

As the Trumpet has explained extensively in recent issues, the “end” that Mrs. Thatcher mentioned is very nearly here. Germany is united and strong, and has cemented itself as the most powerful and dominant force, politically, economically and militarily, on the Continent. Soon, perhaps in a matter of months, Germany will impose its authority and power over Europe beyond what most people can readily imagine.

Prophecies in Daniel chapters 8 and 11 reveal that, in addition to revolving around Germany, end-time events in Europe will be heavily dominated by a single individual, and a man of German descent. This man will have a “fierce countenance,” which means he will be unyielding and merciless. The Bible says he will understand “dark sentences,” which, most commentaries agree, means he will conceal his true motives.

He will be skilled in intrigues, deceit, double-talk and double-dealing. He will rule with terrifying cruelty, just like his predecessor Antiochus Epiphanies, the second-century b.c. Greek king who slashed and slaughtered his way into Jerusalem before ransacking the Jewish temple and murdering Jews.

“Through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand,” Daniel writes, “and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand” (Daniel 8:25). The word craft means fraud. The expression “by peace he shall destroy many,” wrote Gerald Flurry, “means he is pretending ‘peace’ and friendship. Then suddenly comes the malignant shock! He destroys suddenly while his enemy is in this state of mind. This illustrates the deceitful malice practiced by this political tyrant” (Trumpet, June 1999).

Don’t be too quick to discount that forecast. It is rooted in historical fact and biblical prophecy. It will—together with Margaret Thatcher’s spirited warnings—be vindicated by the blood, sweat and tears caused by the soon-coming emergence of a German-led European empire. •

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=6588.0.119.0

************

Germany Behind the Mask

The EU is a German Ruse

Is Germany in Danger of Backsliding?

Germany's Fourth Reich Spreads Its Wings Over the World

Will The Atlantic Times address the German threat?

Arnold's Office Refuses to Comment

The Intelligence Summit Misses the Mark: the German-Jesuit Threat to World Peace

www.davidbenariel.org

The War Against the U.S. Constitution

September 27, 2009
From theTrumpet.com
Is the Constitution being destroyed? By Gerald Flurry

When Robert Bork was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, it created a firestorm in Congress, and he failed to get confirmed. Shortly thereafter, he wrote The Tempting of America, which I believe is the best book about constitutional law in a century—perhaps ever.

Mr. Bork said he believes we are more than halfway along in the destruction of our Constitution. If he is right, our republic is in grave danger.

He made that statement about two decades ago. Surely he would think the Constitution is 60 to 75 percent destroyed today.

So you could make the case that the problem is too far gone to even correct. At least, this danger should terrify every American citizen!

Negative Liberties

In a 2001 radio interview, Barack Obama revealed some of his shocking ideas about how the government should run.

Here is what he said about the 1953-1969 Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, which was a very activist court: “To that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical.” Notice this! “It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution” (emphasis mine throughout).

The extremely liberal Warren Supreme Court wasn’t radical enough, in Mr. Obama’s opinion.

Mr. Obama was talking about how the constraints on the Constitution need to be removed. He was revealing where he believes the Founding Fathers erred in writing the defining legal charter of the United States!

“Generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties,” Mr. Obama continued. “It says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

That is true, and it is a major reason the Constitution was so successful in establishing this nation.

Essayist Bill Whittle wrote this in response to Mr. Obama’s interview: “The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population. Barack Obama sees the limiting of government not as a linchpin, but rather as a fatal flaw …” (National Review Online, Oct. 27, 2008).

This is Mr. Obama’s view of the Constitution. When he says it should have stated what the government “must” do on the people’s behalf, he is talking about federal social programs. As he said in the same radio interview, this means taking wealth from some citizens and redistributing it to others in the form of health care, welfare and other social benefits.

A lot of that thinking was what virtually destroyed the home mortgage firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That crisis is at the heart of America’s financial meltdown.

I warned about how dangerous his views were in the January 2009 Trumpet. Mr. Obama gave a clear signal that he would work to change the Constitution—the founding document of this nation!

That is a shocking view from a man with very little experience in government. And his election shows how little Americans understand or care about their Constitution!

Understanding Human Nature

The Founding Fathers created the Constitution to limit the government’s power because they had lived under a tyrant who decided, according to his own whims, what was fair for the people and what wasn’t. The Constitution gave them a certain protection from evil human nature. The founders based this charter on certain biblical principles, not just human reasoning.

What happens if you don’t have a Constitution to hold back the radical left? You end up with a welfare state and a loss of many freedoms!

I believe Mr. Obama sincerely thinks his ideas will solve America’s problems, and I’m not saying he is malicious.

But look at how his disrespect for the Constitution is driving his decisions. He is pushing the government into activities it was never meant to do. He is appointing judges who think the same way, who will reject parts of the Constitution and remove its restraints so radicals can do whatever they want with the government!

One of the strongest czars the president chose, and who has since been forced to resign, was a self-avowed communist! How much love do you think he has for the Constitution?

Our Forefathers’ Goal

Early immigrants who came to this land were often persecuted in the countries they left. They usually lacked religious freedom.

The famous British historian Paul Johnson wrote an article titled “No Law Without Order, No Freedom Without Law.” It was printed in the Sunday Telegraph, Dec. 26, 1999. In it he wrote: 
”[B]oth in Virginia and in New England to the north, the colonists were determined, God-fearing men, often in search of a religious toleration denied them at home, who brought their families and were anxious to farm and establish permanent settlements. They put political and religious freedom before riches …. Thus took shape the economic dynamo that eventually became the United States—an experiment designed to establish the rule of God on Earth ….”

What a goal. They planned to establish the rule of God on Earth! That means they had the goal of each person keeping the Ten Commandments of God—the basis of all righteous law.

In 1954, Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, “I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it.”

The Constitution is the foundation of our republic. And the Ten Commandments were, in many ways, the foundation of the Constitution. Our forefathers believed that if we didn’t keep God’s Ten Commandments, our republic would collapse!

We can’t afford to take the words of our founders lightly if we want to see our nation stand.

It was much harder for our Founding Fathers to spill streams of blood winning our freedom, and to create and establish our constitutional law, than it is for us just to maintain it! So we ought to respect our Founding Fathers above ourselves. But we are too vain and arrogant to see how profoundly strong they were and how pathetically shallow and weak we are.

Law schools routinely teach about being “legal realists.” Like former Vice President Al Gore, they want an “evolving Constitution.” But this reasoning gives the judges despotic powers. It also takes us away from the foundational law established by our forefathers.

Then why do our politicians allow it? The president and Congress often like the judges to do this, if the decisions are favorable to their views and they know their views will not be approved by the voters. Still, the judges are taking power from the legislature and the executive branches as they rewrite the Constitution.

Our politicians simply lack the vision to see how disastrous this process is. It is based on selfish lawlessness—not law!

The great heresy being taught in our law schools is that the judges are not bound by law. Some are saying the Constitution isn’t even law!

That means we are being led by the human reasoning of a dangerously liberal culture.

That is often the opposite of establishing the rule of law. History reveals that empires are destroyed if they fail to establish the rule of law. But the radical liberal culture often has contempt of history and our Founding Fathers. Its followers foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law.

The Constitution is being altered dramatically. And it is the foundation of our republic! We are experiencing a constitutional earthquake, and most of our people don’t even know it—yet. Your future is being changed for you, and often you have no input.

This process is sure to lead to anarchy! That is why you and I should be deeply concerned.

Seeking Destructive Lawlessness

Why did our Founding Fathers work so hard to establish the Constitution? Because it was to be the supreme law of the land.

“A well-known Harvard law professor,” Mr. Bork wrote, “turned to me with some exasperation and said, ‘Your notion that the Constitution is in some sense law must rest upon an obscure philosophic principle with which I am unfamiliar.’”

But notice what the Constitution itself states:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

A Harvard law professor is actually stating that the Constitution is not even law! That view comes from our most prestigious university. The very fact that he would even make that statement shows that we are already getting into extreme lawlessness!

The majority of our leaders now agree with the Harvard law professor. He made a statement that shows we are failing to establish the rule of law. The real issue here is lawlessness.

That means your future will be adversely affected.

Cal Thomas wrote in the March 8, 2000, Washington Times,

In the final Democratic debate before the Super Tuesday election, Vice President Al Gore responded to a question about the type of Supreme Court justices he as president would select: “I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people.” …

Mr. Gore’s view of the Constitution, shared by most political liberals, is one of the most dangerous philosophies of our time. It establishes a class of philosopher-kings who determine the rights of the people and shreds the Constitution as a document that conforms people to unchanging principles that promote their own and the general welfare.

A “living” Constitution, notes constitutional attorney John Whitehead, means the Constitution is “up for grabs,” and it becomes whatever the justices decide, not the people through their elected representatives ….

The founders never intended the courts to be supreme. Their intention was that the law, rooted in objective and unchanging truth, would be preeminent.

Law scholars today don’t believe the Constitution was “rooted in objective and unchanging truth”—that is, they don’t believe our founders established the rule of law. But that’s just what the founders did. And now most lawyers and judges reject their foundational work.

Our views today reflect a deadly degeneration into lawlessness!

The radical liberal culture in politics wants a ” living Constitution.” Mr. Bork stated that many liberals imply the Constitution is dead. They don’t want unchanging truth, established 200 years ago, to direct their lives. For more information on this subject, request our free booklet No Freedom Without Law.

The liberal religious culture similarly wants a “living Bible.” Their “intelligence” demands that they adapt the Bible to modern times—even though every word was inspired by God (Matthew 4:4).

Most religions preach that God’s law was done away, in spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-18: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Christ came to fulfill the law, or fill the law to the full. He essentially was saying every t must be crossed and every i dotted. Still, many thought, and still think, that He came to destroy the law. They refuse to believe the truth!

Christians are supposedly people who follow Christ, the Lawgiver. That is how they got their name “Christian.”

But whether secular or religious, we are racing into lawlessness, and our nation is plunging toward disaster. Any good history book will show us that!

The Bible should be even more convicting. Study it and see the deadly danger of lawlessness. When the new U.S. government was established, Benjamin Franklin said that we have “a republic, if you can keep it.” It’s all about either establishing the rule of law—or descending into lawlessness and chaos. •

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=6605.5072.0.0

************


The president usurper, the fraud and foreigner, has failed to be transparent with We The People and bring to light revealing documents he pays expensive lawyers to keep in the dark, including his long form birth certificate, contemptuous of our Constitution and Republic. Regardless of whether or not the bastard shows us his birth certificate, we know Obama is not a natural born citizen - as required by our Constitution - since a natural born citizen is born of two American parents.

Emperor Obama

President Usurper Obama

Obama's African Coup in America

President Barack Obama sound good to you?

BLACK DAY IN AMERICA: Obama Wins, America Loses

Christianity, Judaism, and Science

1 Timothy 6:20 (King James Version)


20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called...

Legitimate science is not opposed by true Christianity or Judaism, as evident by books like these:

The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth
by Gerald L. Schroeder

The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom
by Gerald L. Schroeder

And articles:

 Does The Bible Teach There Were Human Prototypes? by David Ben-Ariel

And booklets:

 What Science Can’t Discover About the Human Mind by Herbert W. Armstrong.



http://www.davidbenariel.org/

In defense of Lou Dobbs, under attack by PC racists

Kudos to Lou Dobbs for daring to speak the plain truth! We need more folks willing to take a stand for our nation of laws, our Republic and Constitution, and who refuse to be shouted down, cowed into silence by threats or bullied by the politically correct racist thugs and their leftist tactics of intimidation! If we don't speak up now, who will later?
************

Dobbs’ wife, Debi Lee Segura, told Foxnews.com today she was outside the house when the shot was fired in her direction.

New Jersey State Police Sgt. Steve Jones confirmed troopers were called to Dobbs’ home in rural Wantage, N.J., at about 10:30 a.m. on Oct. 5.

Investigators were told Dobbs and his wife were outside their home when they heard a gunshot, and a bullet struck their attic, Foxnews.com reported.

“It struck the siding and then fell to the ground,” Jones said.

Jones said the bullet was taken for analysis, and the incident is still under investigation.

More from Dobbs’ Monday broadcast:

•“If anybody thinks that we’re not engaged in a battle for the soul of this country right now, you’re sorely mistaken. And the more you stay on the sidelines and the more you don’t make your voice heard, the more likely it is that we’re going to lose this battle for the soul of the nation.”

•“My wife and I have been shot at, our driver, my house has been shot and hit. The investigation continues. I’ve had bodyguards now, you know, I’m not in the mood to put up with little fools like Geraldo Rivera.”

•“It’s time we really awaken to what is happening in this country, it is ugly, it has to stop, and we have to find the courage to elect congressmen and senators, and yes, presidents who will speak truth. Not pander and not play politically correct games.”

•“We need to get real about what is happening in this country, and understand that if this battle for the soul of the country is lost, so much is lost that follows. Respect for our laws, respect for our borders, our ports, our national sovereignty.”

•“That respect demands, demands at least an honest debate on Capitol Hill about illegal immigration, it demands at least an honest debate on the airwaves.”

•“Why are we not enforcing laws, why do we not demand respect for our sovereignty, why do we not demand honest, open, straightforward debate.”

•“Why do we not acknowledge who were are, the most most racially, ethnically diverse society on the face of the earth?”

•“Why don’t we talk about how great this nation is, about the great things we accomplished, the great way in which we live, you know, the American way?” Source
 

************

May 1: Illegal Immigration Day Defused!
May we turn from our NATIONAL SINS of idolatry and immorality that the CURSE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION comes to its swift end (Daniel 9:11).

Death to America: Major American Cities Targeted by Terrorists?
Will Providence permit foreign murderers in our midst (in attitude, if not yet in action) to unleash nuclear fires within our major cities? Will militant minorities work with them against us? Won't our British-Israelite brethren suffer the same within their respective biblical inheritances?

http://www.davidbenariel.org/