Saturday, December 9, 2017

Driving and Cannabis consumption

Reasons Why Marijuana Users Are Safe Drivers
Driving while intoxicated is a well known way to cause an accident on the road. Although not as common, you can be charged with that offense for more than just drinking alcohol. It also includes anything else that causes impairment, such as drugs (whether they are legal ones or not), including marijuana.marijuana and driving However, 20 years of study has concluded that marijuana smokers may actually be getting a bad rap and that they may actually have fewer accidents than other drivers. There have been several studies done over the past 20 years and every one of them has revealed that using marijuana actually has a very minor, if any, effect on the ability of a person to drive a car or other vehicle. Marijuana, Alcohol users Use Products Differently Research studies showed that if a comparison was done between how drivers who had been drinking alcohol and those who had been using marijuana, it showed that the pot users were in fewer crashes. Why is this so? Researchers believe it is because of the way people consume the two products, as alcohol drinkers usually do their drinking out in public and then try to drive home, while pot smokers usually smoke at home and don’t try to drive, meaning fewer are involved in driving accidents in the first place. Research also shows that while drunk drivers usually drive faster and don’t understand that their driving skills are messed up, the drivers that have been smoking marijuana actually tend to drive slower and stay away from risky behavior. These and other tests on marijuana smoking and driving were done in different places all over the world, including Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, the United States, and the UK with the following results: Results of Major Studies on Marijuana and Driving The research that has been done on this phenomenon of marijuana smoking and driving has shown some interesting results: Research studies in the Netherlands at the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research that drivers with blood alcohol rates of .5 percent up to .8 percent had accidents five times more than other drivers, and if it was higher amounts of alcohol, the results were accidents happening up to 15 times more often. But, the marijuana smokers actually showed these drivers posed NO risk at all! Top 10 Reasons Marijuana Users Are Safer Drivers When you combine all of the main results of these two decades worth of scientific research studies, the following 10 reasons marijuana drivers are safer than drunk drivers comes out like this: 1. Drivers who had been using marijuana were found to drive slower, according to a 1983 study done by U.S. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). This was seen as a factor in their favor, since drivers who drank alcohol usually drove faster and that is part of the reason they had accidents. 2. Marijuana users were able to drive straight and not have any trouble staying in their own lanes when driving on the highway, according to a NHTSA done in 1993 in the Netherlands. The study determined also that the use of marijuana had very little affect on the person’s overall driving ability. 3. Drivers who had smoked marijuana were shown to be less likely to try to pass other cars and to drive at a consistent speed, according to a University of Adelaide study done in Australia. The study showed no danger unless the drivers had also been drinking alcohol. 4. Drivers high on marijuana were also shown to be less likely to drive in a reckless fashion, according to a study done in 2000 in the UK by the UK Transport Research Lab. The study was done using driver on driving simulators over a period of a month and was actually undertaken to show that pot was a cause for impairment, but instead it showed the opposite and confirmed that these drivers were actually much safer than some of the other drivers on the road. 5. States that allow the legal use of marijuana for medical reasons are noticing less traffic fatalities; for instance, in Colorado and Montana there has been a nine percent drop in traffic fatalities and a five percent drop in beer sales. The conclusion was that using marijuana actually has helped save lives! Medical marijuana is allowed in 16 states in the U.S. 6. Low doses of marijuana in a person’s system was found by tests in Canada in 2002 to have little effect on a person’s ability to drive a car, and that these drivers were in much fewer car crashes than alcohol drinkers. driving stoned 7. Most marijuana smokers have fewer crashes because they don’t even drive in the first place and just stay home thus concluded more than one of these tests on pot smoking and driving. 8. Marijuana smokers are thought to be more sober drivers. Traffic information from 13 states where medical marijuana is legal showed that these drivers were actually safer and more careful than many other drivers on the road. These studies were confirmed by the University of Colorado and the Montana State University when they compared a relationship between legal marijuana use and deaths in traffic accidents in those states. The studies done by a group called the Truth About Cars showed that traffic deaths fell nine percent in states with legal use of medical marijuana. (To view our study on Drunk Driving vs. Alcohol-Related Traffic Deaths, click here.) 9. Multiple studies showed that marijuana smokers were less likely to be risk takers than those that use alcohol. The studies showed that the marijuana calmed them down and made them actually pay more attention to their abilities.All of these tests and research studies showed that while some people think that marijuana is a major cause of traffic problems, in reality it may make the users even safer when they get behind the wheel! 10. Marijuana smoking drivers were shown to drive at prescribed following distances, which made them less likely to cause or have crashes. Every test seemed to come up with these same results in all of the countries they were done in. Even so, insurance companies will still penalize any driver in an accident that has been shown to have been smoking pot, so this doesn’t give drivers free reign to smoke pot and drive. So, the bottom line is that while alcohol has been shown in every single incident to have major problems and to have caused countless traffic crashes and fatalities, pot smoking overall has had none of these issues and in fact may make drivers pay more attention, drive slower and straighter and perhaps even stay home so they can’t be in an accident at all!

Sunday, September 17, 2017

minister Nancy Jean on the sixth day of August in the year of our Lord two thousand and fourteen completed a Historical Private Agreement Established and Confirmed Thank you to each private man and woman acting as the defacto government and police in the province of Ontario. Colossians 4:12 Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. Tetelestai! View the agreement and witness to my sincere purpose:

The Office of the Person....

The Office of the Person The Official State Office Known As “PERSON" What happens when Attorners, Members of the B.A.R. hold positions in State Legislature? Every State House has an Office filled with B.A.R. Attorneys who serve the B.A.R. DEBT Collectors for the Bankruptcy under the International Monetary Fund - I.M.F. not the people. Here’s a description of part of the fraud they perpetrate by wording all the Bills and Resolutions for the Commercial Codes and Statutes they create. This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. If you spend an hour to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest of your life. 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. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U. S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425. One of the very first of your STATE statutes will have a section listed entitled "Definitions." Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt. In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit: (1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa. (2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter. (3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations. Note however, the definitions statute does not list man or woman -- therefore they are excluded from all the statutes! Under the rule of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned. Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense. If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your STATE legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples : 1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person … 2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person … 3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person … 4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person … 5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person … Notice that only "persons" can commit these STATE legislature created crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the "STATE." If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character. So how does someone become a "person" and subject to regulation by STATE OF… statutes and laws? There is only one way. Contract! You must ask the STATE for permission to volunteer to become a STATE person. You must volunteer because the U. S. Constitution forbids the STATE from compelling you into slavery. This is found in their 13th and 14th Amendments of the de facto U.S. on D.C. as of 1871, not to be mistaken for the Constitution of 1787-89. 13th Amendment Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United STATEs, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the STATE wherein they reside. No STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any STATE deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. You become a STATE created statutory "person" by taking up residency with the STATE and stepping into the office of "person." You must hold an "office" within the STATE government in order for that STATE government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in STATE government, the legislature's control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the STATE Constitution. The most common office held in a STATE is therefore the office known as "person." Your STATE legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so. The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being. God alone created you and by Right of Creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of Law, that what One creates, One controls. This natural Law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His Laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator. The way the STATE gets around God's Law and thereby controls the People is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as "person" and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws - motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office -- YOU. Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. Within these administrative departments of STATE government are hundreds of other STATE created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate. The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official STATE office. They have created the office of “person." The STATE creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common STATE office of all, the office of "person." Anyone filling one of these STATE offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the STATE legislature. Through the STATE created office of "person," the STATE gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, "what one creates, one controls.” A look in Webster's dictionary reveals the origin of the word "person." It literally means "the mask an actor wears.” The legislature creates the office of "person" which is a mask. They cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create the "office" of "person," which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask. A resident is another STATE office holder. All STATE residents hold an office in the STATE government. But not everyone who is a resident also holds the office of “person." Some residents hold the office of judge and they are not persons. Some residents hold the office of prosecutors and they are not persons. Some residents hold the office of police office(rs) and they are not persons. Some residents hold the office of legislators and they are not persons. Some residents are administrators and bureaucrats and they also are not persons. Some residents are attorneys and they also are not persons. An attorney is a STATE officer of the court and is firmly part of the judicial branch. The attorneys will all tell you that they are "licensed" to practice law by the STATE Supreme Court. Therefore, it is unlawful for any attorney to hold any position or office outside of the judicial branch. There can be no attorney legislators - no attorney mayors - no attorneys as police - no attorneys as governor. Yes, I know it happens all the time, however, this practice of multiple office holding by attorneys is prohibited by the individual State and U.S. Constitutions and is a felony in most STATEs. If you read farther into your STATE constitution you will find a clause stating this, the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows: Branches of government -- The powers of the STATE government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein. Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on. Because these "offices" are not persons, the STATE will not, and cannot prosecute them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the STATE in the performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where they "shock the community" and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from STATE employment and lose their absolute protection. If you carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government employees are always terminated from their office or STATE employment and then are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the STATE will not eat its own. The reason all STATE residents hold an office is so the STATE can control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of the STATE. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the STATE. If you read the fine print when you apply for a STATE license or privilege you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a "resident" of that STATE. "Person" is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the STATE, you are a resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes. If you read farther into your STATE constitution you will find a clause stating this, the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows: Branches of government -- The powers of the STATE government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein. Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on. Because these "offices" are not persons, the STATE will not, and cannot prosecute them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the STATE in the performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where they "shock the community" and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from STATE employment and lose their absolute protection. If you carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government employees are always terminated from their office or STATE employment and then are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the STATE will not eat its own. The reason all STATE residents hold an office is so the STATE can control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of the STATE. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the STATE. If you read the fine print when you apply for a STATE license or privilege you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a "resident" of that STATE. "Person" is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the STATE, you are a resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes. A Sovereign is a private, non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual, NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary statutory regulations or quasi laws enacted by any STATE legislature which was created by the People. When you are pulled over by the police, roll down your window and say, "You are speaking to a Sovereign political power holder. I do not consent to you detaining me. Why are you detaining me against my will?” Now the STATE office of policeman knows that "IT" is talking to a flesh and blood Sovereign. The police officer cannot cite a Sovereign because the STATE legislature can only regulate what they create. And the STATE does not create Sovereign political power holders. It is very important to lay the proper foundation, Right from the beginning. Let the police officer know that you are a Sovereign. Remain in your proper office of Sovereign political power holder. Do not leave it. Do not be persuaded by police pressure or tricks to put on the mask of a STATE “person." Why aren't Sovereigns subject to the STATE's charges? Because of the concept of office. The STATE is attempting to prosecute only a particular office known as "person." If you are not in that STATE created office of "person," the STATE statutes simply do not apply to you. This is common sense, for example, if you are not in the STATE of Texas, then Texas laws do not apply to you. For the STATE to control someone, they have to first create the office. Then they must coerce a warm-blooded creature to come fill that office. They want you to fill that office. Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the word person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U. S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 275 (1947). The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United STATEs, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874). As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to "the enacting Sovereign." United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U. S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983). Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874), even the principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations: "Where an act of Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein; but where a statute is general, and thereby any prerogative, Right, title, or interest is divested or taken from the king, in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extend to him by express words.” U. S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained: "A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907). The majority of American STATEs fully embrace the Sovereign immunity theory as well as the federal government. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 895B, comment at 400 (1979). The following U. S. Supreme Court case makes clear all these principals. I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that STATEs and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker. A STATE, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. Let a STATE be considered as subordinate to the people: But let everything else be subordinate to the STATE. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the STATE has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed precedence of the STATE; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning Sovereignty owe their existence. The ministers, dignified very properly by the appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the Sovereigns of the STATE. This second degree of perversion is confined to the old world, and begins to diminish even there: but the first degree is still too prevalent even in the several STATES, of which our union is composed. By a STATE I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its Rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men. Is the foregoing description of a STATE a true description? It will not be questioned, but it is. .... See Our Enemy The State It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the Sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the Sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject. "No such ideas obtain here (speaking of America): at the revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty." Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U. S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L. Ed 440. There are many ways you can give up your Sovereign power and accept the role of "person." One is by receiving STATE benefits. Another is by asking permission in the form of a license or permit from the STATE. One of the subtlest ways of accepting the role of "person," is to answer the questions of bureaucrats. When a STATE bureaucrat knocks on your door and wants to know why your children aren't registered in school, or a police officer pulls you over and starts asking questions, you immediately fill the office of "person" if you start answering their questions. It is for this reason that you should ignore or refuse to "answer" their questions and instead act like a true Sovereign, a King or Queen, and ask only your own questions of them. You are not a "person" subject to their laws. If they persist and haul you into their court unlawfully, your response to the judge is simple and direct, you the Sovereign, must tell him: I have no need to answer you in this matter. It is none of your business whether I understand my Rights or whether I understand your fictitious charges. It is none of your business whether I want counsel. The reason it is none of your business is because I am not a person regulated by the STATE. I do not hold any position or office where I am subject to the legislature. The STATE legislature does not dictate what I do. I am a free Sovereign "Man"(or woman) and I am a political power holder as lawfully decreed in the STATE Constitution at article I (or II) and that constitution is controlling over you. You must NEVER retain or hire an attorney, a STATE officer of the court, to speak or file written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you must) only for counsel and advice about their "legal" system. If you retain an attorney to represent you and speak in your place, you become "NON COMPOS MENTIS", not mentally competent, and you are then considered a ward of the court. You LOSE all your Rights, and you will not be permitted to do anything herein. The judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed by the awesome power of the STATE, its lawyers, police and prisons. The judge will try to force you to abandon your Sovereign sanctuary by threatening you with jail. No matter what happens, if you remain faithful to your Sovereignty, The judge and the STATE may not lawfully move against you. The STATE did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder. Therefore, they do not regulate and control those in the office of Sovereign. They cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that particular office. The reason they have no authority over the office of the Sovereign is because they did not create it and the Sovereign people did not delegate to them any such power. When challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office of the Sovereign and that their statutes only apply to those STATE employees in legislative created offices. This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U. S. Supreme Court case: "The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the STATE, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the STATE, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43 at 47 (1905). Let us analyze this case. It says, "The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights." It does not say, "Sit on his Rights." There is a principle here: "If you don't use 'em you lose 'em." You have to assert your Rights, demand them, "stand upon" them. Next it says, "He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way." It says "private business" - you have a Right to operate a private business. Then it says "in his own way." It doesn't say "in the government's way.” Then it says, "His power to contract is unlimited." As a Sovereign individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here, except that any contract that would harm others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For example, a "contract" to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited. Next it says, "He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the STATE, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property." The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government permission - feudal paradigm) to the duty of the Sovereign individual. The Sovereign individual doesn't need and didn't receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government. Then it says, "His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the STATE." This is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent Rights. The U. S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us Rights. We have fundamental Rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights. And Amendment IX STATEs, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The important point is that our Rights antecede (come before, are senior to) the organization of the STATE. Next the Supreme Court says, "And [his Rights] can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." Does it say the government can take away your Rights? No! Your Rights can only be taken away "by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." "Due process of law" involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. "Trial By Jury" means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact. Then the case says, "Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law." These are some of the Rights of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report anything about themselves or their businesses to anyone. Finally, the Supreme Court says, "He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." The Sovereign individual does not have to pay taxes. If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been "overturned." If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful response. We have researched Hale v. Henkel and here is what we found : "We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U. S. Supreme Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and STATE appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled. So if the STATE through the office of the judge continues to threaten or does imprison you, they are trying to force you into the STATE created office of "person." As long as you continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the STATE lacks all jurisdiction over you. The STATE needs someone filling the office of "person" in order to continue prosecuting a case in their courts. A few weeks in jail puts intense pressure upon most "persons." Jail means the loss of job opportunities, separation from loved ones, and the piling up of debts. Judges will apply this pressure when they attempt to arraign you. When brought in chains before a crowded courtroom the issue of counsel will quickly come up and you can tell the court you are In Propria Persona or simply "PRO PER", as yourself and you need no other. Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are private and are not the STATE's business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign People's command in the constitution that the STATE respect their privacy: Right of privacy -- Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's Right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law. See U.S. Constitution, Ninth Amendment If the judge is stupid enough to actually follow through with his threats and send you to jail, you will soon be released without even being arraigned and all charges will be dropped. You will then have documented prima facie grounds for false arrest and false imprisonment charges against him personally. Now that you know the hidden evil in the word "person", try to stop using it in everyday conversation. Simply use the correct term, MAN or WOMAN. Train yourself, your family and your friends to never use the derogatory word "person" ever again. This can be your first step in the journey to get yourself free from all STATE control. ~~~~~ The “14th Amendment U.S. citizenship status” The Denizen - Inhabitant - Occupant - Foreigner - Resident - Alien A foreigner allowed certain rights in the adopted country. An inhabitant of a place, or one who dwells in a place, whether local, regional or national. A person with rights between those of a citizen and a resident alien. Free Negro, a non-slave black person in the United States, prior to the abolition of slavery. Unassimilated Native American considered a citizen of a tribal domestic nation but not of the United States or any state. The de facto U.S. Corporation on D.C. created a “citizenship” for the freed “black” slaves because they were never considered to be people, as were the “whites.” Citizenship was unequivocally granted to African Americans in 1868 with ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, but it would be almost another 100 years before African Americans were accorded full protection under the law and discrimination outlawed. The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization (and citizenship) to "free white persons," ruling out slaves and free blacks, as well. However, free blacks were accorded a quasi-citizenship in some northern states, being allowed to vote and hold property, but this gradually diminished after 1800. And contrary to what some might believe, free blacks endured significant racial discrimination in the North.If there was ever any doubt as to whether or not African Americans were entitled to citizenship, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 specifically set forth that African slaves (and their descendants) could never be citizens and had no citizenship rights. That decision, however, only fueled the fire. While the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation signed by President Lincoln did free the slaves in Southern states and many fought in the Union Army, it was the Thirteenth Amendment passed in 1864 that outlawed slavery throughout the United States; it did not, however, confer rights of citizenship. Following the Civil War, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the “14th Amendment,” ratified in 1868, did grant citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, but it did not end racial discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was intended to end segregation but was rarely enforced; and in 1883 the Act was ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that state governments had no power to prohibit discrimination by private individuals and organizations, paving the way for Jim Crow laws and confining African Americans to the status of second-class citizens. Many of the provisions set forth in the Civil Rights Act of 1875 were later restored in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The “14th Amendment” was enacted to Grant Slaves Citizenship, or for illegals running to the border to have that baby in America. What was the intent of the Amendment? Restore Blacks to full citizenship that the original Constitution denied them or to all Hispanics to run for the border when they are 8 1/2 months pregnant to achieve citizenship for their baby? If people would actually look at the case decisions both the prevailing and the descending opinions, Americans would understand the law and it’s original intent. In 1865–1866, southern states and localities enacted black Codes to regulate the status and conduct of the newly freed slaves. The codes deprived blacks of many basic rights accorded to whites, including full rights to own property, to testify in court in cases in which whites were parties, to make contracts, to travel, to preach, to assemble, to speak, and to bear arms. To Republicans, the Black Codes were only the latest southern attack on individual rights. Before the war, southern states had suppressed fundamental rights, including free speech and press, in order to protect the institution of slavery. Although the Supreme Court had ruled in 1833 that guarantees of the Bill of Rights did not limit the states (Barron v. Baltimore), many Republicans thought state officials were obligated to respect those guarantees. The Court in Scott v. Sandford (1857) had held that blacks, including free blacks, were not citizens under the Constitution and therefore were entitled to none of the rights and privileges it secured. Republicans also rejected Scott and thought the newly freed slaves should be citizens entitled to all the rights of citizens (See Citizenship). The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the states in 1868. It reflected Republican determination that southern states should not be readmitted to the Union and Congress without additional guarantees. Section 1 made all persons born within the nation citizens both of the United States and of the states where they resided (thereby reversing Scott) and prohibited states from abridging privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and from depriving persons of due process of law or equal protection of the laws. Section 2 reduced the representation of any state that deprived a part of its male population of the right to vote, an indirect attempt to protect the voting rights of blacks. Other sections protected the federal war debt, prohibited payment of the Confederate debt, and disabled from holding office those who had sworn to uphold the Constitution but who had engaged in rebellion. Section 5 empowered Congress “to enforce, by appropriate legislation,” the preceding sections.15 The first major interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s effect came in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), in which the Court held that the basic civil rights and liberties of citizens remained under control of state law. The Court limited the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States referred to in the amendment to relatively narrow rights such as protection on the high seas and the right to travel to and from the nation’s capital. The Slaughterhouse Cases drastically curtailed the protection afforded by the amendment against state violations of fundamental guarantees of liberty. One reason for the majority’s narrow construction of the amendment was its fear that a more expansive reading would threaten the basic functions of state governments, both by federal judicial action and through enforcement by federal statutes that might displace large areas of state law (See Federalism). “the Court held that the basic civil rights and liberties of citizens remained under control of state law.” Here the de facto U.S. Corporation and their slave running Crown Bankster owners and their Crown B.A.R. Attorners demonstrate clearly that U.S. citizens status was purely a creation of their Corporate fiction, therefore within their control. They can control only that which they create. Observe, U.S. citizens are a new type of property attorned to a new owner. “Freed” “Black” Slaves remain as slaves, with very limited privileges; “Civil Rights.” Contrary to the expectations of some of the amendment’s framers, the Supreme Court held that it did not overrule Barron v. Baltimore (1833) to require states and local governments to respect the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. The Court also held that because the amendment provided that “no state shall” deprive persons of the rights it guaranteed, Congressional legislation protecting blacks and Republicans from Ku Klux Klan violence exceeded the power of the federal government. In the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Court nullified provisions of the 1875 Civil Rights Act guaranteeing equal access to public accommodations. It held that the amendment reached only state action, not purely private action. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court held that state-mandated racial segregation of railway cars did not violate the amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (See Segregation, De Jure). In 1908 it upheld a state statute requiring segregation of private colleges (Berea College v. Kentucky). Justice John Marshall Harlan registered eloquent but lonely dissents to the Court’s decisions sanctioning stateimposed segregation. The Court also held, in Bradwell v. Illinois (1873) and Minor v. Happersett (1875), respectively, that the amendment did not protect the right of women to practice law or to vote. Whites had the right to expatriate to escape the construct created to absorb all U.S. “persons” and this is demonstrated in the 15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, only one day before the official date for the U.S. Corporate “14th Amendment” on Sunday, July 28, 1868. In applying the international rules of the law of nations: The persons who are participating in the Fourteenth Amendment system are in rebellion; not the ones that claim de jure status/nationality—one reason being the amendment was not lawfully ratified, see Congressional Record-House, June 13, 1967, pp 15641-15646. The premise of expatriation, or terminating the national of the United States status, is valid due to the contrived Fourteenth Amendment. LB Bork, Illinois national So to denounce any and all alleged contracts, presumed or otherwise, by choice or default, an oath purgatory and Declaration should be based upon the following: One day before the horrific U.S. “14th Amendment” - Never Lawfully Ratified, became a spectacle or thumb in the eye of the Union of States, only to diminish the status of all our people, and to enslave them as DEBTORS in perpetuity, hence forhth known as the U.S. citizen, eventually cast as the Enemy of the State, So be it, July 27, 1868 The Expatriation Act is legally referenced as Public Law, 15 United States Statutes at Large, Chapter 249, pages 223-224 (1868), and is as follows: Article 15. Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. This is a principle of the United Nations and declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. See Title 8 USC § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth. The Right of Expatriation Declared CHAP. CCXLIX. An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States. PREAMBLE. RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN FOREIGN STATES. WHEREAS the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed. SECTION I. Right of expatriation declared. THEREFORE, Be it enacted by the Senate of the and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government. SECTION II. Protection to naturalized citizens in foreign states. And it is further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native born citizens in like situations and circumstances. SECTION III. Release of citizens imprisoned by foreign governments to be demanded. And it is further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in the violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress. Approved, July 27, 1868 You must understand that the several States are foreign to the United States. A good example of this can be found in Title 22 of the United States Code: • FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE. Title 22 USC § 2659. State statutes to be procured. The Secretary of State shall procure from time to time such of the statutes of the several States as may not be in his office. ERGO: The several states are “foreign” to the United States; hence, foreign state as used in the preamble of this act can be easily construed to mean the several states; and in the other sections can mean any foreign state in the world. Note that the exslaves are protected by the United States and carry United States nationality; the United States can, and has gone, into the several States of the Union and protected them. ~~~~~ The 21st Century U.S. person - The Enemy of the State Today, in the days of the year 2017, well beyond 1868, the tragic error in maintaining the inferior status of subject or U.S. citizen, in these advanced times of financial disaster, is the truest form of political suicide. It’s soon to be five years beyond the One Hundred Year mark of full enslavement of the American people by the Crown-Vatican-Swiss Bank Conglomerate owned, fully metastasized malignancy, the Creature of Jeckyl Island, the Jesuit run FEDERAL RESERVE. The totality of ruination perpetrated by these Banksters and their B.A.R. Attorners stands as a monument to glorify the Saturnalia celebration of death to all. The Satanic Jesuits loathe the notion of freedom and independence for mankind. Their gluttony is as perverse as there is. These Banksters and their puppet Franklin Delano Roosevelt "Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and control the lives of all American citizens/U.S. citizens.“ This situation has continued absolutely uninterrupted since March 9, 1933. U.S. has been in a state of declared national emergency for nearly 63 years without most of the population knowing it. According to current laws, as found in 12 USC, Section 95(b) (Now found in Title 50), everything the President or the Secretary of the Treasury has done since March 4, 1933 is automatically approved: "The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, c. 1,Title 1, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1]”. On March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as President. On March 9, 1933, Congress approved, in a special session, his Proclamation 2038 that became known as the Act of March 9, 1933: "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that a serious national emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effectremedies of uniform national application”. This is an example of the Rule of Necessity, a rule of law where necessity knows no law. This rule was invoked to remove the authority of the Constitution. Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1 of this Act of March 9, 1933 is the exact same wording as Title12, USC 95(b) quoted earlier, proving that we are still under the Rule of Necessity in a declared state of national emergency. 12 USC 95(b) refers to the authority granted in the Act of October 6, 1917 (a/k/a The Trading with the Enemy Act or War Powers Act) which was "An Act to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes". This Act originally excluded citizens of the United States, but in the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2 amended this to include "any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It was here that every American citizen/U.S. citizen literally became an enemy to the United States government under declaration. According to the current Memorandum of American Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy, U.S. citizens have no personal Rights at law in any court, and all Rights of an enemy (all American citizens/U.S. citizens are all declared enemies) to sue in the courts are suspended, whereby the public good must prevail over private gain. This also provides for the taking over of enemy private property. Now we know why U.S. citizens no longer receive allodial freehold title to land. As enemies, U.S. citizens, property is no longer Theirs to have. The only way U.S. citizens can do business or any type of legal trade is to obtain permission from our government by means of a license. All these Emergency Powers as amended by F.D.R. was initiated by the Foreign FEDERAL RESERVE. In doing so, they also stole all the gold. On March 3, 1933, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York adopted a resolution stating that the withdrawal of currency and gold from the banks had created a national emergency, and "the Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge the President of the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday March 4, and Monday, March 6”. Roosevelt was told to close down the banking system. He did so with Proclamation 2039 under the excuse of alleged unwarranted hoarding of gold by Americans. Then with Proclamation 2040, he declared on March 9, 1933 the existence of a national bank emergency whereas; "All Proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President pursuant to the authority conferred by section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are approved and confirmed”. Roosevelt, in the most repugnant act, did exactly as the unlawful, Foreign FEDERAL RESERVE instructed him. He acted so as to preevent U.S. citizens from getting their own gold, but since U.S. citizens are really slaves, he went on to order they all turn in their gold, therefore robbing them for his Jesuit Zionist Bankster Lords. At that time, and yet another artificially created Depression, the ignorant population accepted Roosevelt for multiple terms, turned in their gold, and then went to another world war fomented by the same Banking Cabal. Once an emergency is declared, there is no common law and the de facto Constitution is automatically abolished. U.S. citizens are no longer under law. Law has been abolished. U.S. citizens are under a system of War Powers. Stocks, bonds, houses, and land can be seized as U.S. citizens are considered enemies of the state. What they have is not theirs under the War Powers given to the President who is the Commander-in-Chief of the military war machine. Whenever any President proclaims that the national emergency has ended, all War Powers shall cease to be in effect. Congress can do nothing without the President's signature because Congress granted him these emergency powers. For over 60 years, no President has been willing to give up this extraordinary power and terminate the original proclamation. Americans are an enemy subject to tribunal district courts under Martial Law wartime jurisdiction; a Constitutional Dictatorship. State Of Emergency The mission of State Of Emergency is to provide current event news, comments on the news and information on the declared state of emergency continually in effect since March 9, 1933. The citizens of the USA have been codified as the enemy of the Federal Government. The source for the proof of our status as the enemy of the government is found in Congressional Records, Senate Reports and the Federal Register (see page links). The emergency must be ended in order to restore Constitutional law. “…"That whoever shall willfully violate any of the provisions of this Act or of any license, rule, or regulation issued thereunder, and whoever shall willfully violate, neglect, or refuse to comply with any order of the President issued in compliance with the provisions of this Act, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person, imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both . . .” “As used in this subdivision, the term ‘person’ means an individual, partnership, association or corporation.” "During time of war or any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers in connection therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after such transaction is completed " Documentation by one writer connects the origin of the Trading With the Enemy Act with events of March 27, 1861. "Americans have been under Fascist rule via presidential executive order" under the Emergency War Powers Act (12 USC 95 a, b): "Every citizen of the United States is now legally established as an enemy via the Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 1)" which amended the Trading With Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 (H.R. 4960, Public Law No. 91).[2] On March 27, 1861, "seven (7) Southern States walked out of Congress leaving Congress without a quorum for adjourning and therefore ending sine die. That which is called Congress today assembles and acts under the authority of the President acting in capacity of being Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, under emergency war-powers rule, i.e. law of necessity," meaning that there is "no law." [12 Stat 319 has never been repealed and exists in Title 50 USC §§ 212, 213, 215, Appendix 16, 26 CFR Chapter 1 § 303.1-6(a), and 31 CFR Chapter 5 § 500.701 Penalties.][3] All U.S. citizens/persons as amended to the Trading With the Enemy Act, are the Enemies of the State. This is how and why the Police, FBI, and their Admiralty Courts enforce Commercial Bankruptcy Code upon U.S. citizens. When we voluntarily or involuntarily entered their Military Courts of Justice, one will frequently hear the prosecutor or defense lawyer argue that: ‘Your comment or actions are a belligerent response’ [or] ‘You are being combative.’ Key words to inform you that you or someone else, is about to be fleeced! Lawyers will even attempt to provoke you or your witness’s anger in the Court, just so you or they behave belligerently toward them and this is why they do that! Under Regulation 840-10 of the Military Code and sections of the Administrative Procedures Act and the presence of that Military [gold fringed] Flag on display in the Courtroom, instantly creates a state of emergency meaning that, the moment a police officer stopped you in the exercise of your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the police officer became a belligerent! He is armed and you’re not! He displays a military rank and you’re a civilian and he has now delivered you into a Military Court of Justice with the intent to ‘pillage and plunder’ within the Admiralty jurisdiction of that Military Court, which is also known as ‘The Law of Prize and Captured Property,’ as defined under Title 10, sections 7651 to 7681 of the Code of Military Justice, March 25, 1862. As mentioned before, The Reconstruction Act included and changed all state officials into having ‘federal foreign standing.’ The 14th amendment deliberately forced and kept them there and section 2 of the Lieber Code instructs that: ‘A victorious army seizes all money and movable property and holds it in trust,’ and this is exactly what the Corporate United States Government and State Governments did and continue to do because they now perceive themselves to be, ‘a victorious army.’ The corporate Congress; the corporate Military Government and their corporate Military Courts of Justice however discovered that they could not gain access to those Public Trusts deposited into the Federal Reserve System, which they had created using our birth registration forms; social security registration forms, licenses, personal property, deeds, promissory notes, equity and credit, without including our individual persons into the bankruptcy of the United States Treasury of 1933. So they cleverly denied our personal Sovereignty and converted our persons into an appellation, which is a corporate fiction or strawman and identified us by writing our birth names all in capital letters. All of our Licenses and documents now reflect this appellation. Again, these acts against the people are done by Foreign Agents, most of whom are completely maddened and obsessed as criminally insane thieves. They’re behaviour demonstrates no regard for others who wish to live. Their local servants here, meaning Police and other Municipal Agencies are completely uninformed and quite often, belligerent order takers who physically harm those who do know their rights. The following material should explain who and what they Codify and publish about themselves: Title 22 U.S. Code (Foreign relations and Intercourse) Chapter 11 identifies all public officials as foreign agents. Title 28 U.S. Code 3002 Section 15A states United States is a Federal Corporation and not a government, including the Judicial Procedural Section. 22 C.F.R. - Code of Federal Regulations 92.12-92.31 FR Heading "Foreign Relationship" states that an oath is required to take office. Title 8 U.S. Code 1481 states once an oath of office is taken, citizenship is relinquished, thus one becomes a foreign entity, agency, or state. That means every public office is a foreign state, including all political subdivisions. (i.e. every single court is considered a separate foreign entity). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 4j states that the Court jurisdiction and immunity fall under a foreign state. Title 28 U.S. Code Chapter 176 - The Federal Debt Collection Procedure places all courts under equity and commerce and under the International Monetary Fund. In 1950 81st Congress investigated the Lawyers Guild and determined that the B.A.R. Association is founded and run by communists under defini- tion. Thus any elected official that is a member of the B.A.R. will only be loyal to the B.A.R. and not the people. December 9, 1945, the International Organization Immunities Act relinquished every public office of United States to United Nations as Congress relinquished every public office over to the U.N. Local governments, up to the president, fall under U.N. jurisdiction. Congress gave the U.N. the right to dictate what laws will be international & gave them the right to tax the States. The Pan American treaty of December 26, 1933 (49 STAT 3097) Treaty Series 881 – (Convention on Rights and Duties of States) stated Congress re- placed Statutes with international law, placing all states under international law. As one can easily see, U.S. is a foreign and hostile Pirate Vessel docked at D.C. Their business to to rape and plunder this land and the people by force if necessary. Barack Obama signed NDAA into effect so that the Military can attack U.S. citizens should they decide and George H.W. Bush signed Noahide Law into effect so under Martial Law, U.S. citizens can be killed and beheaded in FEMA Camps. They have profit to make at it. Every U.S. citizen has a very large Estate, which rightfully belongs to them, not the Banksters or their B.A.R. Attorners. The following information will shed some light on what they do when they drag the U.S. citizen/person/tax slave into mock Military Tribunals: 1099-OID Basic Explanation Of Theory The State did not provide you with a check to pay the charges against you, so they are WITHHOLDING TAXABLE INCOME WHICH IS FEDERAL WITHHOLDING so your charges continue on and you report that taxable income on a Form 1040, 1099OID and 1096. All taxable income must be reported to the IRS. The Court still shows you owe the taxable income (the bill/bond amount) and that is the detainer they use to hold your body with. One should have a 1040, 1099OID and 1096 filed for the bill or Bond amount. The taxable income withheld needs to be assessed on a Form 1040 to identify whose income they are withholding. Could it be that it´s your income claimed? If a 1040 is not filed, one is at the mercy of the Prosecutor using his public deferral, which is a set-off and that set-off is used to detain one and keep one under the jurisdiction of the court/jail. The only way one can zero the account/issue is to claim the taxable income being charged on the Form 1040, 1099OID and 1096. If one does have a 1040, 1099 OID and 1096 filed one has now vouched for claim of Title. Now the State´s [alledged] prosecutor needs to produce his individual Form 1040 tax return to vouch for the claim of title in fact. (He doesn´t have one.) It is the 1040 that is the ´Certificate of Title´ to those who make claim to a ´Title´ to something. If they don´t have that 1040 they are withholding taxable income belonging to the person whose name is on the bill/bond. One needs to ask the Prosecutor if he is making a claim ex-officio or otherwise. The Federal Tax Court is a court of “Record.” The 1040 filing is the "Record" and also the ´Certificate of Title´ to the property in question. "One´s BODY.” And considering that all crime is commercial (27 CFR § 72.11),

Friday, October 28, 2016

Definition of a Human being

Definition of Human Being Are you a 'person', an 'individual', or a 'human being'? These words, at law, define you as being spiritually 'dead.' This is how the world makes its attachment to you. The terms, 'person', 'individual', 'human being', etc., are not in Christ. Words like "individual," and "human being" do not even appear in Scripture! These are 'created' terms by the natural man (1 Cor 2:14). These words describe the 'old man', but not the 'new man' in Christ (Col 3:9-10). In Balantine's Self Pronouncing Law Dictionary, 1948, page 389, Human Being is defined as "See Monster." On page 540 of this same Law Dictionary, Monster is defined as "a human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal." In Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, pages 879-880, a Monster is defined as "a person so cruel, wicked, depraved, etc., as to horrify others." From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Edition, page 901, Human Being is defined as a "Natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate," and on page 1461, Unregenerate means "not regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner; not convinced by or unconverted to a particular religion; wicked, sinful, dissolute." In Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 657, Humanitarianism is defined as "the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid." In Colliers New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928, Humanitarian is defined as "a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; a perfectionist." And in the Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1990, page 653, Humanism is defined as "any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, especially an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God." Therefore, when anyone calls himself or herself a 'human being', or a 'humanitarian,' they are saying (according to every definition of these words, and according to the law), "I'm an animal; I'm a monster; I'm not saved; I'm unrepentant; I'm an unregenerate sinner; I'm not converted; I'm wicked, sinful, and dissolute; I'm cruel, depraved, unenlightened; and I reject Christ's divinity and the importance of a belief in God." "Individuals [Bondman] rely for protection of their right on God's law, and not upon regulations and proclamations of departments of government, or officers who have been designated to carry laws into effect." Baty v. Sale, 43 Ill. 351.” [Codes, edicts, proclamations, and decisions are not Law, which define or regulate the Good and Lawful Bondman. Therefore, title 42 "law" suits are ungodly, and are the redress for and of human beings, i.e., non-believers.] The Septuagint uses the term "human beings" only one time, and its meaning is identical to the above definitions. Let's look at the last verse of the book of Jonah, where Nineva was full of men who were unrepentant, unregenerate, unconverted, wicked, sinful, dissolute, cruel, depraved, unenlightened, rejected the importance of a belief in God. Or, in other words, "human beings." "and shall not I spare Nineve, the great city, in which dwell more than twelve myriads of human beings, who do not know their right hand or their left hand...?" [Jonah 4:11 (Septuagint)] The "human beings" of Nineve did not know their right hand from their left because they did not know the Truth and were lost. They did not know God, they were separated from God. However, those human beings were willing to turn from their ways and learn the things of God, so He spared that city from destruction. The term "human being" is also synonymous with the term 'natural man.' "The natural man is a spiritual monster. His heart is where his feet should be, fixed upon the earth; his heels are lifted up against heaven, which his heart should be set on. His face is towards hell; his back towards heaven. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he ought to mourn for, and mourns for what he ought to rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of his glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor." [Thomas Boston, quoted in Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1987), page 584]. And the Word confirms: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." [1 Corinthians 2:14,] The above verse witnesses to us that the natural man is spiritually dead. The ‘natural man’ in Scripture is synonymous with the ‘natural person’ as defined in man’s laws. "Natural Person means human being, and not an artificial or juristic person." Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 610 A. 2d. 652, 654; 222 Conn. 361. "Natural Person: Any human being who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being recognized so in law. Natural Child: The ordinary euphemism for ‘bastard’ or illegitimate." [Amon v. Moreschi, 296 N.Y. 395, 73 N.E.2d 716." Max Radin, Radin’s Law Dictionary (1955), p. 216.] Those that are spiritually dead belong to the prince of this world because he's dead himself. Satan has dominion over the natural man, for he is the prince of this world [John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11]; and, as a consequence of this, he has dominion over those of the world, i.e., human beings, the natural man – those who receive not the things of the Spirit of God and reject Christ. Because the bondman in Christ is sanctified from the world, he is separated from the adversary's dominion over him–sin [John 8:34]. This is the cause for Christ having sanctified Himself in the Truth of the Word of God – to provide the entrance to the refuge in and through Himself for us.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Why we advocate following only God

There is only One Lawgiver. by: Richard Anthony Compromising with temporal powers can never lead to redemption. Most "Christians" have accepted the unrighteous code of the State, instead of insisting that the State follow the Laws of Almighty God. This article will examine the difference between the two. Between Law and force. The kingdoms of this world use force, for there is no love in what they do. Whereas the kingdom of God uses Law, for love is the fulfilling of the law (Romans 13:8). There is only one lawgiver (James 4:12). This one lawgiver is the Lord (Isaiah 33:22). Man does not have authority to make laws, but only the authority to make ‘ordinances’ which enforce Laws already in existence, which are the Laws of God. To obey the so-called ‘laws’ conjured up by the worldly governing authorities is to set aside the gospel of our Lord, and place oneself under a separate government, other than His. Bondmen of Christ are not citizens of any country on this earth, our citizenship is in heaven, and so our first loyalty is to God, not "our" country (Ephesians 2:19, Philippians 3:20). Ours is a better, heavenly country (Hebrews 11:16). Throughout the scripture, governments have always been the leader in bringing people to sin (Daniel 3:4-6, 1 Kings 12:25:33; 14:21-24, 2 Kings 13:2; 17:21; 21:11,16, 2 Chronicles 21:6,11-13, Isaiah 9:16). God condemned Israel for wanting to be ruled like other nations, by a human king (1 Samuel 8:4-5,20). When they chose to be ruled by a human leader, our Father considered that to be a rejection of Himself because He would not then reign over them (1 Samuel 8:7; 10:19). The people later realized their sin against God when they asked to be ruled by a human government (1 Samuel 12:19). Notice their kings never had any power to make new laws; nor did their best and wisest of kings make any, as in the cases of David and Solomon. And when a return to the ways of the Lord was made among them, as by Hezekiah and Josiah, it was not by making any new regulations, but by putting the original Law into execution; and by directing and requiring of the judges, and other officers, to act according to that Law. To serve an earthly king, or his government, is to serve other gods (1 Samuel 8:8-9), which is violating the First Commandment (Exodus 20:3). It is wickedness and a sin to ask to be ruled by a human government instead of God (1 Samuel 12:17-19). Our Father condemned Israel for following the statutes of their disobedient government (2 Kings 17:7-8). He rejected those who followed the statutes of governments instead of His Commandments (2 Kings 17:19-20). He specifically said not to follow the ordinances of earthly governments, but to follow his laws, ordinances, and statutes instead (Leviticus 18:1-5). Throughout the history of Israel, the majority of the kings of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord (1 Kings 11:4-9, 2 Kings 8:18), which shows that most rulers and governments are corrupt because of their carnal nature (Romans 8:7). The Jews eventually chose king Caesar over King Jesus (John 19:15). Those who do the same are just like them. The whole duty of man is to live by God's commandments (Ecclesiastes 12:13), not man's commandments which turn from the Truth (Mark 7:7, Colossians 2:20-22, Titus 1:14). What duty is there to a servant of Christ except to fulfil God's Law (Romans 13:8)? When we pray, we pray to do our Father’s Will, not man’s will (Matthew 6:10, Luke 11:2). God rewards those who place His Laws above man-made laws (Exodus 1:17,20). We are even instructed to avoid going to courts of law before the unjust and unbelievers (1 Corinthians 6:1-8). How incredible that the just would go before the unjust for justice! Therein no blessings are found: Psalms 1:1, "Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly." The kings and rulers of the earth are against the Lord, and against his anointed (Psalm 2:2). Governments frame mischief and sin through their laws: Psalms 94:20, "Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?" Isaiah 10:1-2, "Woe unto them that prescribe grievous laws and take away the right from the poor." When a government is ungodly, and people trust in that government, then God will punish those who trust in that government and obey their laws (Jeremiah 15:4; 46:25, 2 Kings 21:11-12, Isaiah 9:16, Ezekiel 11:10-12, Micah 6:13,16). The people will be cursed for trusting in man (Jeremiah 17:5, Hosea 10:13). It is better to trust in the Lord, than to put confidence in man and governments (Psalm 118:8-9). We are told not to put our trust in human governments (Psalm 146:3). We are commanded to "turn away" from those with certain characteristics (2 Timothy 3:2-5), and governing authorities possess most of these said characteristics! Governing authorities are "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away" (2 Timothy 3:5). So we are to turn away from governing authorities with these characteristics. They proclaim their own power (force), which becomes a 'law' unto itself. The law is made for evil-doers, not for the righteous (1 Timothy 1:9-10). Therefore, we are to obey God's Law, and whatever laws that man creates are irrelevant to us. Esther 3:8, "And Haman (the highest prince in the kingdom of the Medes and the Persians) said unto king Ahasuerus (the king of the Medes and the Persians who reigned from India to Ethiopia), There is a certain people (people who were obedient to God's Laws) scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king's laws..." As we can see, God's children were following God's Law, which were diverse from the government's law, and His children did not keep the governemnt's law! When one reads the book of Esther, one will see how God protected His children when they followed His law and disregarded the government's law. One cannot obey both laws, because one cannot serve two masters. Jesus’ teaching on Governing Authorities What did Jesus teach about the governments of men? Let us examine three parallel Gospel accounts. He himself explained: Matthew 20:25, "...Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. " Mark 10:42, "...they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them." Luke 22:25, "...The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors." By comparing these three parallel verses, Jesus stated the fact that the governing authorities (princes, rulers, kings) exercise authority over the Gentiles (those who do not believe in God). Note that the term "Gentiles" here cannot mean "Gentile Christians", because Jesus had not yet died to confirm the New Testament, and "Christianity" was not yet in existence. All the apostles were Jews, and Jesus commanded them not to preach to the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6). The Gentiles were the enemy of Christ at this point (Matthew 20:19; Mark 10:33, Luke 18:32). The Gospel was not preached to the Gentiles until at least 10 years after the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 9:15; 10:45; 11:1,18; 13:42,46-48). Notice what Jesus says next. Does he say that His people will have other men rule over them? Most definitely not! Matthew 20:26, "But it shall not be so among you:" Mark 10:43, "But so shall it not be among you:" Luke 22:26, "But ye shall not be so:" Jesus said we shall not have leaders exercise authority over us like they do over the gentiles. We shall not be subject to governing authorities unless those in "power" are servants of God and His people. Read what Jesus said after he told his disciples that earthly princes, rulers, and kings will not have authority over His chosen: Matthew 20:26-27, "…but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:" Mark 10:43-44, "…but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all." Luke 22:26, "...but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve." As we see, Jesus does not want man to have authority over man! He commanded that whoever is the chiefest and greatest among men, will be the servant of all. Unlike human governments which make their chief ruler the dictator of all. Man was not created to rule other men, but was given dominion over the creatures of the earth. This is confirmed in the very first chapter of the Bible, when God created the earth. When our Father created the earth. When he first created man, He commanded, "...let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth" (Genesis 1:26,28). Only God has dominion over man. Man is not subject to any other man. Man is ruled by Law, not by the will of man. Now, Jesus was not condemning all authority, as is clear from the fact that Jesus himself exercised authority over his disciples and others (Matthew 11:27; 23:10; 28:18, John 13:13), and expected his disciples to exercise authority as leaders of his congregation (Matthew 16:19; 18:17; 24:45-47; 25: 21,23, Luke 19:17,19). What sort of authority then was Jesus condemning in this passage? What difference was there between the authority of the gentile ruler and that of himself and his apostles? Surely this, that the latter rested on spiritual ascendancy and was exercised only over those who willingly submitted to it, whereas the former was exercised over all men indiscriminately whether they liked it or not, and for this reason involved the use of the sanctions of physical force and penalties. There can be no doubt that it was this fact that caused Jesus to tell his disciples: "It is not so among you." When an earthly government believes it is "god walking on the earth," it has no true dominion (authority) but only force, and has fallen from the Grace of Almighty God. Dominion and force are opposed to one another. Force is false power. Matthew 23:10, "Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ." Remember, the reason Jesus Christ was crucified was because the governing "authorities" at that time were afraid that they were going to lose their "place and nation," their political power, if the people believed on Jesus (John 11:47-48). The Apostle’s teaching on Governing Authorities Acts 5:29, "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." The reason the apostles were arrested and most eventually executed was because they "all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus" (Acts 17:7). Our brother Paul said, 1 Corinthians 2:5, "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." The apostles disobeyed their governing authorities because, "No man can serve two masters" (Matthew 6:24), and we are not to be "the servants of men" (1 Corinthians 7:23). We can only serve one lord, one Messiah, and no other lord. As Jesus asked in Luke 6:46, "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" We are to do the things Jesus says to do, not the things Caesar says to do. Do you remember when people used to call their government officials, like the police, our "public servants"? Why? Because they were supposed to serve people (Matthew 20:27, Mark 10:42, Luke 22:26). Now, those servants have become the masters, and they are feared more than they fear God (Matthew 10:28, Proverbs 29:25). However, true servants of God do not fear the king’s commandments (Hebrews 11:23). We are not to fear man (Psalm 56:4; 118:6, Isaiah 51:7, Matthew 10:28, Hebrews 13:6). The earthly government is to sit on Christ’s shoulder (Isaiah 9:6), and there is no end to His government (Isaiah 9:7, Psalms 145:13). Those in government are instructed to follow God's Law and serve Him (Psalm 2:10-12). And we are to obey the ordinances of man as long as they do God’s Will; through punishing evildoers and praising them that do well (Romans 13:3, 1 Peter 2:13-17). A Study of Romans 13 Romans 13:1-10 explains the government which applies to the bondmen of Christ. Our Father has ordained rulers, and those rulers have responsibilities before Him. Unfortunately, many interpret this chapter to mean we are to obey all governments, no matter how ungodly they are. However, this cannot mean we are to roll over and submit to governing authorities, because if that's the case, Jesus himself violated Romans 13. They crucified him unlawfully, and there's a case where Christ did the will of the Father, and that brought him into conflict with the powers that be. Just because God ordains government for His purposes, it does not mean it is a godly government. He does use evil to draw people closer to Him. Here’s a little food for thought: Who wrote the book of Romans? Paul. Where did Paul write Romans? In prison. Where did Paul write most of his Epistles? In prison. What is another name to describe the epistles of Paul? The "Prison Epistles". Why are they known as the "Prison Epistles"? Because Paul was being repeatedly arrested and imprisoned by the "governing authorities." Why was Paul being repeatedly arrested? Because he kept breaking the laws of the "governing authorities." Who put Jesus to death? The government of Rome. Who put Paul to death? The Emperor Nero at Rome in AD 67. Who killed most of the apostles? The governing authorities. Did Jesus and the apostles obey the "governing authorities" of their day? Obviously not. If Paul, in Romans 13, was saying to "obey all governments" then Jesus, the apostles, and all the disciples were hypocrites, because they all lived their life by placing God’s Law above man-made laws! Some people claim that the reason Paul was being repeatedly arrested and imprisoned by the "governing authorites" was because he would not confess that Caesar was his lord. This is not true, because one immediately received the death penalty for not doing so. Obviously, Paul was never directly asked to do so until they executed him in Rome in 67 A.D. Some people claim that the reason our brother Paul was being repeatedly arrested and imprisoned by the "governing authorities" was because he was "preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ." This is not true. The Romans worshipped hundreds of different gods' they had a different god for every thing and every occasion. One more "god" would not have mattered to them. Here is proof that the Romans did not imprison Paul for preaching about Jesus Christ. In Acts 18, the Jews brought Paul before the tribunal of the Roman Government of Achaia (a Greek province under Roman rule) on the charge of persuading men to worship Jesus (verse 13). The Roman court (Gallio) refused to judge religious matters (verse 15), and "drave them from the judgment seat" (verse 16). This scriptural passage is proof that Rome did not judge people for peaching another god. So why was Paul repeatedly imprisoned by the governing authorities? Paul was in prison for violating the Roman government's law (which are in opposition to God's Law), because Jesus commanded his followers to be separate from Caesar. After all, if Paul was in jail because he was preaching about Christ Jesus, then the governing authorities would never have allowed Paul to write letters (epistles) concerning Jesus while in prison, and then allow him to take his writings about Jesus out of prison to publish and spread them throughout the then known world. This, again, evidences that they did not forbid preaching Jesus, and that Paul was in jail, not for preaching Christ's Kingdom, but for disobeying the governing authorities in other matters. Now, for those who believe that Paul was saying to obey all governments at Romans 13, one must also believe that our brother Paul was a hypocrite, for he constantly disobeyed the governing authorities and was repeatedly arrested and imprisoned for doing so. For those who believe that Paul was not a hypocrite, then we must believe that Paul was saying something quite different at Romans 13. With this in mind, let us take a look at the first six passages of Romans 13. Does verse 1 say, "let every soul be subject unto all governments"? Or does it say, "let every soul (including governing authorities such as kings, judges, police, etc.) be subject unto the Higher Power"? Who do souls belong to? God says: Ezekiel 18:4, "Behold, all souls are mine." And the second part of verse 1 tells us Who the Higher Power is: "...For there is no power but of God." The souls of the governmental powers belong to God, and they are not the higher powers, the higher powers are held by Christ himself (Matthew 28:18). Is our Lord not the higher power, then, if all power has been committed unto him (John 17:2)? Christ is the governor among the nations (Psalms 22:28). All power over earthly kings has been given unto Him (Romans 14:9). All judgment has been given unto Him (John 5:22,27). Notice the separation of Power in Romans 13:1. All power comes from, and belongs to, God (Psalm 62:11) and not the one exercising it. And remember that most men, especially those constituting the "governing authorities," usually deny that power given to Jesus (2 Timothy 3:5). Verse 2 says, "Whosoever therefore resisteth (Greek word #498 antitassomai) the power, resisteth (Greek word #436 anthistemi) the ordinance of God:" The words "resisteth" in this verse are from two completely different Greek words with two different meanings. Let's look into the first word "resisteth" by going to the original Greek. To "resist" the power of rulers ordained by God means the following: "antitassomai: To range in battle against" (Thayers Greek Lexicon). "antitassomai: To set an army in array against; to arrange in battle order" (Zodhiates Word Studies). "antitassomai: Setteth himself in array against; as one draws out a host for battle. Implying an organized or concerted resistance" (Vincents Word Studies). "antitassomai: To range in battle against" (Strong's Greek Lexicon). This is in accord with these passages: 2 Corinthians 10:3-4, "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds)." Ephesians 6:11-12, "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians goes on to list all of our spiritual weapons. Notice, there are no physical weapons listed. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, so when you use carnal weapons against the governing power ordained by God, then you are resisting the ordinance of God. Ecclesiastes 9:18, "Wisdom is better than weapons of war: and one sinner will destroy much good." Now the meaning of the second term, "resisteth the ordinance of God" simply means "to set one's self against, to withstand, resist, oppose." In other words, the first "resisteth" means to use physical weapons in battle against an ordained power, which would result in the second "resisteth," which means to oppose the will of God (with no physical weapons). Verse 3 says God ordained governments, but the only power He gave to "governing authorities" is to punish evil-doers and reward the doers of good (John 18:23, Romans 13:3-4, 1 Peter 2:14). The definition of good and evil is defined in the scripture. God did not give government the power to interfere with, and interpose itself in, the exercising of God's Law by His people. Verse 4 says rulers are to be Ministers of God, servants of God. If rulers are not the servants of God, if they do not follow and obey His Word, no obedience is due to them. And how do we know if they are servants of God? By testing them with God's word (Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 12:30, Mark 7:7, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, Titus 1:14, 1 John 4:1, 3 John 1:11, Acts 17:11, 2 Timothy 2:15). God's purpose for all governments is to be "a minister of God to thee for good." Verse 6 says we are to pay taxes to the government for one reason only; because they are God's ministers. If a government uses tax money that go contrary to God's Will, then they are no longer ministers of God, and thus no taxes are due to them (Ezra 4:12-13). Their purpose is to punish evil doers as a rod of correction to drive them back to the ways of the Lord, and to encourage the righteous. They are to be ministers of God, meaning they are to carry out the duties that God has given them. But when the governing authorities ever fail to do this, or go beyond this, then they themselves are resisting the ordinances of God, and are unlawful authorities that must be "resisted" with the Sword of the Word. It is important to take into consideration that Romans 13 was intended to be prescriptive, not descriptive. In other words, it speaks of what the "rulers" are supposed to be, not what they are intrinsically at all times. As "God's minister," the men who govern (the powers that be) are obligated to obey God's Law and to properly apply it to the nation and people which it governs. Conversely, any time the "governors" becomes "a terror to good works," and rewards evil rather than punishing it, they have then begun to "bear the sword in vain." To this extent, he is no longer "a minister of God to thee for good" and it is our duty to resist his unlawful rule as we would the rule of Satan himself. To say that God may deliver His people over to an oppressive government as chastisement for sin is one thing; to say that we are to deliver ourselves and our consciences to that which is contrary to God's Word is quite another. To say that the laws of the temporal government, whether they be "good or evil" (moral), are unequivocally the "ordinances of God," is not merely naive, but a blasphemous affront to the holiness of God and His Word. The righteous and eternal Judge of the world simply cannot be charged with requiring us to obey contradictory commands. God never commanded people to obey the kings of Israel when those kings turned their backs on Him. Our Father put those people into captivity for their disobedience towards Him! And He does the same today. The Nazi's at Nuremberg said, "Well, I was just doing my job. I was obeying the government." It's an error to believe that whatever the State says is okay "because it's ordained of God." For those who are true followers of Christ Jesus, the government is on His shoulders (Isaiah 9:6), He is the King of kings, and the government is the Kingdom of God. It's a government of peace and the only government that will not end: Isaiah 9:7, "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end," All man-made governments come to an end, so they are obviously not the "higher power." We have to obey the government that's always been here and always will be here. In reply to the blind opinion that all kings, princes, and governments are set up and "ordained" by God, we will quote the following passage, which is spoken into the ears of Hosea by God Almighty Himself: Hosea 8:4, "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not." We pray that those who have eyes to see and ears to hear will no longer engage in such opinions. One way to test whether or not a man-made law is godly or not is to test it with the following. Ask yourself, "Does this law punish evil-doers and praise or reward doers of good?" For example, consider the drivers license law. Does the requirement for a drivers license punish evil or reward good? No, it does not. The traffic courts might do this, but not the license itself. Therefore, since God only gave His "governing authorities" the power to punish evil and reward good, this man-made law is outside of God's delegated authority, and no obedience is required if you live, move, and have your being in Him. Another question you can ask is, "Will this Law, being imposed by man, help me walk in God's Truth?" If it is a godly law, it will. But most man made laws do not bring anyone to the Truth, nor can they. The Facts about Governing Authorities The purpose of government is clearly defined in our Father's Word. That is, to punish evil and to praise those that do well. From this, the protection of life, liberty, and property (being gifts from God) follows in accordance with His Order. But when a government falls into idolatry, it collects information from you because it must know where everyone and everything is, in order to tax or seize it. Why is government prone to idolatry? Because governments only exist through law, and law is inherently religious. Behind every law is a judgment, and ones values are based upon their theology or religion. It’s the nature of government to perpetuate itself. Have you ever seen a politician who didn’t want to be re-elected, or a political party that did not want to stay in power? Every one of them are willing to do anything to keep themselves in power (John 11:47-48). Government is power. Government is authority. And corrupt, depraved men, instead of exercising dominion over God’s creation for His sake, desire dominion over men for their own sake. What did the crafty serpent say to Adam and Eve? "Ye shall be as gods" (Genesis 3:5). Who is it that has control over men? God does! If man believes he is his own god, or if he believes he is some kind of god, then he will exercise control over men in order to prove it. A king rules by his law. Likewise, God rules by His Law, and His Law is the Word of God. Jews obeyed their king, Caesar, and killed those who did not obey their king (John 19:15). True servants of Christ honor Him by obeying Him (Luke 6:46, John 14:15), not by substituting man-made requirements in place of his. Thus, in law, the human lawmaker becomes a god by determining for himself which of the many theories at his disposal he will apply to his next act on behalf of "the people." Of course, this means that every other law-maker has an equal "right" to apply his theories to the acts he does, and the only answer to the resulting chaos that comes out of the compromise between theories is that one man must impose his will on all others so that one "coherent" view will control the end result. This means, clearly, a dictatorship and nothing less will do. Taxes We have been taught that we must obey even ungodly governments, and to help them by paying taxes, but scripture says, "...Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD" (2 Chronicles 19:2). The scripture says it is evil in the sight of the Lord for governments to tax the land (2 Kings 23:35-37). The earth does not belong to the government, this earth belongs to God (Exodus 19:5, Psalm 24:1, Isaiah 44:24, 2 Corinthians 5:18). Land tax is claiming ownership over God’s earth. It is literally a dethronement of God and an enthronement of the State. The State is claiming to be god by claiming control and ownership of land. The State is literally trying to be god walking the earth. God has never given his earth to the government to tax, pollute, or destroy (1 Kings 21:1-16). The State's claim of "eminent domain" is in direct conflict with the Word of God: Ezekiel 46:18, "Moreover the prince [government] shall not take of the people's inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession; but he shall give his sons inheritance out of his own possession: that my people be not scattered every man from his possession." Scripture also says it is not lawful for governments to impose a tax upon the servants of God (Ezra 7:24). Thus, it is not lawful to impose tax upon the servants of Christ. But those servants must be true servants. If one seeks to make merchandise of His creation, they will be taxed. The slothful are under taxes (Proverbs 12:24). We also see that the Levites were not taxed or conscripted for military purpose (Numbers 1:45-54; Numbers 18. Note especially verse 24). The tithe was to go to the Levites (Deuteronomy 14:27-29; Joshua 21). God is sovereign; He cannot be taxed. Abram paid tithes of all to Melchizdek, King of Salem, and refused the spoils he was offered from the King of Sodom. It is clear that it was the result of a solemn oath that Abram had made to God. "Abram said to the King of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take anything that is thine, lest thou shouldst say, I have made Abram rich" (Genesis 14:22,23). Abram would not accept the commercial benefits of the heathen, because he knew the resulting duties attached thereto. Instead, he chose to honor the Lord. The people of God are not to finance the government (through heathen taxation); nor is the government to finance the people of God (through benefits such as social security, etc.). A State-financed church is a State controlled church. He who accepts a benefit from the State accepts the sovereignty and authority of the State, and thus is subject to and will serve the State. Jesus himself was accused of forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar at his trial (Luke 23:2). Notice these were not false witnesses who accused Jesus of not paying taxes, because every time a false witness accused Jesus, the scripture tells us it was a false witness (Mark 14:57-59). Where did Jesus forbid to pay taxes to Caesar? In Mark 12:13-17, Jesus was asked if it was lawful to give taxes to Caesar or not. A silver coin, with Caesar's inscription on it, was shown to Christ. In this example, the Lord's answer requires everyone to make the determination as to what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God; Mark 12:17"...Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's..." Who did this silver coin belong to? Since the Scripture says, "The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts" (Haggai 2:8), that means that the silver coin shown to Jesus belonged to God. However, those who live, move, and have their being in the image of Caesar, as the disciples of the Pharisees did, will believe this coin belongs to Caesar instead. We are not to be deluded by the image of Caesar, but built-up in the image of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 11:7; 15:49, 2 Corinthians 3:18, Colossians 3:10). There's only one instance where Jesus paid a tax. Matthew 17:24-27. Let's break this passage down. Verse 24: The tax collector asked Simon Peter if Jesus paid taxes. Verse 25: Peter said, "yes". But "Jesus prevented" Peter from paying the tax. Why did Jesus prevent Peter from paying taxes? Verse 26: Jesus said "Then are the children free" from paying taxes. This is why, because we are now free. But we must not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness. Verse 27: However, to avoid "offending" this tax collector (since, as was the habit of Peter, he opened his mouth too soon without really thinking and obligated Jesus by his statement that Jesus did pay taxes), Jesus told Peter to cast a hook into the sea, and catch a fish, and take out money from its mouth and pay it. Even though Jesus paid this tax, it was to avoid "offending" him, and because Peter rashly agreed to pay it, not because we are bound to pay taxes by Law. Jesus made the point to stress that the children are free from taxes. But notice, Simon Peter and Jesus did not give him any of their own money, but that which came from the fish! It is interesting to note that Peter was a commercial fisherman (a fisher of fish) before being called to be an apostle of Christ (a fisher of men), and when Peter opened his mouth before thinking (as he often did), Christ basically chastised him by having Peter return to his old life to pay his debt! He had to be a fisher of fish to catch that fish with the coin in its mouth. When you join yourself to the world, and make obligations to the world, you must become part of the world again to meet those obligations. Additionally, Jesus could not have fulfilled prophesy if he was to go to prison, which might have happened if he didn't pay that tax after Peter "volunteered" for him. It was not his time to go to prison yet. Likewise, Jesus could have called twelve legions of angels to his rescue, but because the scriptures would not have been fulfilled if he did, he refrained from doing that act (Matthew 26:53-54). Jesus taught that we are free from paying taxes if we are children of the king (Matthew 17:24-26), meaning the children of King Jesus (Acts 17:7, 1 Timothy 1:17). Now, for clarification, if a government is acting strictly as a minister of God, then it is lawful to pay taxes to that government (Romans 13:6). Because that "silver coin" which belongs to God also belongs to God's ministers, as they are acting in His Name and doing His Will. However, if a government is not a minister of God, then there is no duty to give taxes to it. A license is just another form of taxation. By requiring a license, the State is claiming complete control and ownership over a disciple’s life. The term "license" is from the word "licentious", which means "morally unrestrained, disregarding rules, lascivious". These same words describe human governments today. In demanding licensure from true bondmen of Christ, the State is asking that we render to it the submission and tribute that scripture requires us to give to God alone. To partake of this kind of government and pay the taxes due therefrom is to support a government bent on destroying God's dominion. And in case you don't think the governments of men are out to destroy the servants of Christ, the following quote is from an enemy of God responsible for murdering our brothers, sisters, and children at Waco, Texas and for murdering Randy Weavers' family in cold blood on an isolated mountain. "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 for their children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong belief in the Second Amendment; and who distrusts big government. Any of these may qualify [a person as a cultist] but certainly more than one [of these] would cause us to look at this person as a threat, and his family as being in a risk situation that qualified for government interference." Attorney General Janet Reno, Interview on 60 Minutes, June 26, 1994 According to the above, if you are a follower of Christ, you are an enemy of the government. This quote is in response to the question as to why the killing of the people at Waco, Texas was necessary. The answer may shock you. The reason for murdering them, said "the government," was because they were "cultists"! And when asked for their definition of a cultist, their definition (Janet Reno being their mouthpiece) is someone who is a follower of Christ!!! This is an example of the government calling good evil: Isaiah 5:20, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" And this explains why governments persecute those of Christ: Proverbs 29:27, "An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked." Bondmen of Christ So, what is a bondman of Christ to do when the government rises against him in judgment? We shall condemn them, because this is the heritage of the servants of the Lord (Isaiah 54:17). Do we obey governments that produce unfruitful works? No! We are to reprove and rebuke them (Luke 17:3, Ephesians 5:11, 1 Timothy 5:20, 2 Timothy 4:2, Titus 1:13; 2:15, Revelation 3:19). We are to cast down the spiritual wickedness of anyone who exalteth himself against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:5). We are to bind the kings of the earth with our mouth (Psalm 149:6-9). To not keep God’s commandments is defined as to "go and serve other gods, and worship them" (1 Kings 9:6, 2 Kings 17:37-38, 2 Chronicles 7:19,22, Jeremiah 16:11; 22:9, Deuteronomy 7:4; 8:18; 11:28; 28:14; 30:17; 31:16,20, Joshua 22:22). For anyone to assume the power of directing our comings and goings, and not leave us to scripture alone, is declaring the Word of God to be defective and insufficient for that purpose. And, therefore, to those who walk contrawise, our Lord Jesus Christ (who has left us the scriptures for that purpose - 2 Timothy 3:16-17), did not know what was necessary and sufficient for us. All those that impose their will against a bondman of Christ as the bondman walks in His ways are guilty of rebellion against God, because to reject a servant of God is to reject God himself (1 Samuel 8:7). If one's walk is under the direction of any man made authority, they cease to be under the direction and authority of Christ. A minister of Christ is to receive his directions from Christ alone. No other power or authority may be admitted, and no laws or doctrines may be taught, besides those that He has taught. Everything else is of men only, and no part of Christ. What is taught by any man, and not confirmed in Scripture, is not of God. No man can make laws to oblige the Christ's assembly but Christ himself. Christ’s assembly does not exist on paper, but in the hearts of men, and is expressed in their outward acts (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 6:19-20, Acts 17:24-25, John 4:23-24). As Law is the basis of all government, the war to be fought, and around which all the issues revolve, is around the Law of God (Revelation 12:17). Only by a compromise of its unchangeable standards can the followers of Christ Jesus find "social respectability" (John 15:18-20). We must stand firmly for Truth and must not compromise with evil (2 Corinthians 6:14). And what is God’s definition of Truth? God's Law is Truth, and all of God’s Commandments are Truth (Psalm 119:142,151, John 17:17). And what is God’s Will? God’s Will is his Law written in our hearts (Psalm 40:8). God's Children are not to Obey the State When our brother Paul was accused by the Jews of persuading men to worship God contrary to the law, the courts of law of the Roman Government refused to judge religious matters, because they recognized they had no authority to judge in matters of "religious freedom" (Acts 18:12-16), as did the governments before Christ (Jeremiah 38:4-5). There is not one time in scripture where Christ ever submitted to the Roman Imperial law. Period! He said his true family are not his blood relatives, but only those who "shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 12:50). Jesus Christ, nor any servant of God for that matter, has never, ever, never, ever said anything about doing the "will of man on earth", only the "will of your Father which is in heaven." Example #1: There were three kings (the king of Israel, the king of Judah, and the king of Edom), marching out to crush one of their enemies, the Moabites. While in the desert, they discovered there was no water for anyone (2 Kings 3:9-12). So they asked a prophet of the LORD, Elisha, to help them out. But in 2 Kings 3:13, when the king of Israel asked Elisha for help, "Elisha said unto the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee?" In other words, Elisha said, "I am a servant of God, you are not! I’m not going to do anything just because you’re king!" Elisha is going to serve God, he’s not going to serve even three kings. One king has the power to cut off his head. Elisha went up against three kings and said "go to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother." Elisha understood that they had a different calling, and a different approach to religion. But the king of Israel pleaded with him and said, "...the LORD hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab." In other words, these kings and all their armies are going to die! This is a life and death matter. This cuts to the heart of Elisha and he decides he will do something. In 2 Kings 3:14, Elisha said, "As the LORD of hosts liveth, before whom I stand..." This is the key! It is not because Elisha is of a lesser rank than these three kings, or because he’s scared to death that they’ll kill him if he doesn’t do what they say, but "As the LORD of hosts liveth" before whom he serves. And Elisha says that if it wasn’t for the fact that he respected Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, he wouldn’t even look at them or notice them! Now, Elisha is absolutely telling them where it is to their face, because they don’t follow the laws of God, but king Jehoshaphat alone does have that reputation (2 Chronicles 17:3-4). So for his sake, he helped and saved them all. Example #2: In 2 Chronicles 16:7, the Lord cursed king Asa with wars (verse 9b) because he relied on a "king" (government) and made a mutual agreement (license, contract) with him (verse 3), instead of relying on the Lord. He also trusted physicians (verse 12). There will be those who may be thinking that we should "obey all government authority." It is agreed that we should obey that government instituted by the Spirit of God in Christ Jesus; but not a usurper or pretender to His Throne. Rememnber what our Father has told us: Hosea 8:4, "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not." The State is not God Our Lord taught us to resist evil when he said, "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39). Resist evil and it will flee from you (James 4:7). We are not taught to overthrow the government, but to throw the wickedness out of government. We are to overthrow that which is ungodly and wicked by speaking the truth, and establish in its place that which is godly and holy. The only lawful government is that which governs according to God's Word. There is no command in the Word of God to confess the State to the glory of the State: Romans 14:11-12, "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee [*including governing authorities] shall bow to me [*not to ungodly men, i.e. politicians], and every tongue shall confess to God [*not to legislators, lawyers, and judges]. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God [*not to the State, or men working for an ungodly government]." Philippians 2:9-11, "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus [*not the President, Governor, or the State] every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [*not the State, or men using the artifice of the State] is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Colossians 1:16, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him [*not for self-willed men]:" Proverbs 17:15, "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD." Luke 17:21, "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you [*not on a sheet of paper with man-made codes, rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes]." The 20th century is the most violent century in recorded human history. Most of the violence has been committed by "governments." Most of the violence committed by "governments" has been against innocent, non-combatant civilians. Most of the violence committed by "governments" against innocent, non-combatant civilians has been against "their own" citizens, not external "enemies." Man-made laws make criminals out of honest folks (Isaiah 5:20), and these same laws reward criminals today. The true bondman of Christ know the State is not God and that it must be controlled by laws rigidly defined according to Scripture. Even the heathen knows that all the laws of the State must conform to God’s Law: "Any law contrary to the Law of God, is no law at all." Sir William Blackstone "God alone is the lawgiver of eternity". Judge Henry Clay, Crimes of the Civil War, 1868, pages 428-432. "The law is from everlasting." Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1914, ‘Maxim’, page 2143. (Psalm 90:2; 93:2; 145:13). Libellus The disciples of Christ of the first century were under the military authority of Rome, a nation which openly proclaimed its rulers, the Caesar’s, to be divine. All those under the jurisdiction of Rome were required by law to publicly proclaim their allegiance to Caesar by burning a pinch of incense and declaring, "Caesar is Lord". Upon compliance with this law, the citizens and subjects were given a papyrus document called a "libellus", which they were required to present when either stopped by the Roman police or attempting to engage in commerce in the Roman marketplace, increasing the difficulty of "buying or selling" without this mark. In this way, Roman society became closed to anyone not willing to adhere himself and his family to the established religion of Caesar-worship (statism) This is the essence of Scripture’s warnings to the early followers of Christ against taking upon themselves the "mark of the beast". It should be remembered that "it was granted to him [Caesar] to make war with the saints and to overcome them" (Revelation 13:7). Our brothers and sisters were torn apart by wild animals in the Roman Coliseum and used as living candles in the gardens of Nero because they refused to offer up even a tiny pinch of incense in his name and proclaim that he, not Christ, was Lord. In essence, they refused to submit to licensure (permission) from the State to live and worship as God had commanded them. They were not put to death because they believed in Christ. In Rome, you could believe anything you wanted to believe, just as long as you swore by the genius of Caesar. Disciples of Christ were put to death not because they believed in Christ, but because they were called traitors and treasonous individuals, because they would not swear allegiance to the State. To a follower of Christ, disobedience and unfaithfulness to God is idolatry; it is treason. Statism is the concept that the State or government is always right, and that the State or government can do no wrong. This is idolatry, because it ascribes to man that which belongs to God alone. Anyone that says, "the government can do no wrong," or "the government is always right," is saying "government takes the place of God." The Word of God does not give the State the power or the authority to go beyond the Word of God. To ascribe power, authority, reverence, submission, or anything else to the State, above the Word of God, is idolatry. The State does not have "Infinite Wisdom", only God has Infinite Wisdom. Your Questions Answered What about Hebrews 13:17, "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls..." Answer: When scripture speaks of obeying and submitting ourselves to those who have the rule over us, His Word is not talking about heathen governments, but those "rulers" within the Christ's assembly. Notice carefully this verse says these rulers "watch for your souls." Governments of men cannot govern or watch for anyone's souls, for they can only govern outward acts, not the inward being. But true spiritual leaders do watch for our souls. Those who "have the rule over you" at Hebrews 13:17 is specifically defined a few verses earlier in Hebrews 13:7, "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation." As we can see, scripture itself defines these "rulers" as those who speak the Word of God and have faith. Secular governments avoid, and often forbid, speaking the Word of God within their system through outlawing prayer in their schools and replacing it with such unrighteousness as "the theory of evolution," and by taking down the "Ten Commandments" from their courtrooms. These are not the rulers we are to submit to. What about 1 Peter 2:13, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake..."? Answer: Firstly, we must understand that the above partial verse is just that - a partial verse. This is blatant "proof-texting," quoting the Word of God out of context to create a "private" interpretation. If the whole verse and its continuation is not quoted, our Father's Word becomes perverted. Let's look at what our brother Peter wrote, in its full context, so that we may avoid the pollution of others: 1 Peter 2:13-14, "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." Notice that the ordained power that God gave to "governing authorities" is to punish evil-doers and praise those that do well. The only ordinances we should obey are those that conform to this truth. If an ordinance does not punish evil or reward good, then no obedience is due, for this is the only power that God gave to "governing authorities." Anything beyond these two duties creates only tyranny. Secondly, the word "ordinance" in this passage does not mean man's law. The word "ordinance", here is translated from Greek word # 2937, ktisis. This is the only place in any bible where this word is translated as "ordinance." In every other passage of scripture, it is translated as "creature" or "creation." But, since an "ordinance" is a creation of man, as long as that ordinance punishes evil doers and rewards good-doers, it should be obeyed. Thirdly, this passage only applies to submitting the flesh, or your self-will, to worldly governments (2 Peter 2:10), because governments regulate and control the works of the flesh, and not the renewing of the mind through Christ Jesus. Felix Frankfurter was a justice on the US Supreme Court during the 1940's-1960's, and in a court case titled West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett in 1943, this is what he said: “[Man-made] law is concerned with external behavior, and not with the inner life of man.” The governments of men are into morphosis, and not the renewing of the inner man at all. They don't have that capability (1 Corinthians 2:14), and they know what their limitations are. Did not Jesus teach we are to submit to even evil governing authorities when he told us to "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39)? Answer: Even Christ Himself did not literally turn the other cheek when smitten by a member of the Sanhedrin (John 18:22-23), or when struck on the face by the palms of the Roman guards (Matthew 26:67-68, Mark 14:65, Luke 22:64). Matthew 5:39 is speaking about the custom of the Romans when a superior would demand obedience from an inferior. Christ was showing disdain for them when he said to turn the other cheek. When struck by a Roman superior in the first century, you where to drop to one knee or put your forehead in the dirt before them. To turn the other cheek to him would be a very defiant act when you were struck on the face. We are not to resist with violence, of course, but with love. That is truly resisting evil. By simply turning the other cheek for him to hit, you are refusing to partake of the evil resulting from bowing to man, and at the same time you are not reverting to violence. We are to "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21). You are showing him, out of love, that you can only bow to One Lord, and no man will you ever bow down to. You show him that you will place God's command above man's command, no matter what the consequences will be. You are willing to take the punishment, and are willing to get "hit again" by your enemies, but you will stand firm in God's Law of love. By taking a stand such as this, the one who hits you may very well flee from you (James 4:7). Doesn't the scripture say we should agree with our adversary? (Matthew 5:25) Therefore we should obey governments. Answer: Again, this verse is taken out of context. If you read verses 22-25, you will see this passage applies only to your "brother" in Christ, who has become your adversary. Jesus stresses to not be "angry with his brother without a cause" (verse 22), and to remember why "thy brother" is angry at you (verse 23), and then to be "reconciled to thy brother" (verse 24). When we come to verse 25, Jesus is stressing to agree with your brother, because He does not want His children to go to court against each other (1 Corinthians 6:1-8). Nowhere in the entire scripture does the term brother ever refer to an enemy. Matthew 5:25 says to agree with "thine" adversary, it does not say to agree with "the" adversary. If the Christ's assembly had to obey unlawful government, then the gates of hell would be prevailing against it (Matthew 16:18). The Christian church should not be political, we should not mix politics with religion. Answer: We should learn from our past steps through history and time, not repeat them over and over again until they become the norm. The people of any Christian nation cannot withdraw to the comfort and security of their ornate Cathedrals, sit in their comfortable padded pews, and watch as the world around them goes to hell. To do so is a betrayal to the true church and a denial of the power of His Word. One of the most clever tools in the enemy's arsenal, used to silence and intimidate Christians and drive them out of the public forum, is the great lie known as the "separation of church and State." The separation of church and state is a lie. God never put a wall up between them. There is no such statement in the US Constitution. Our Constitution provides for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Germany learned this in 1934 when there was a special meeting held in the German capital of Berlin. Hitler had been Chancellor for just over a year and was taking Germany through a process called "glichshaltung", which basically meant at the time 'coordination.' Everything, including the church, was being re-aligned in terms of Hitler's new national-socialist philosophy. Public protests had already begun as the people objected to this interference with the church. To counter this resounding rejection by the people, Hitler called together the most important Preachers in Germany, gathered them at the chancellery building, and reassured them in order to silence their criticism. Hitler told them their State subsidies would continue, their tax exemptions were secure, and that the church had nothing to fear from a Nazi government. A young Preacher, Martin Neimuller, spoke up at that gathering and objected directly to Hitler. The other Preachers stood there in frozen silence as the bold Neimuller pushed his way up through the crowd to the German Chancellor, eventually facing him eye to eye, and said with all boldness and Christian conviction "Heir Hitler, our concern is not for the church. Jesus Christ will take care of His church. Our concern is for the soul of our nation." As Neimuller was being ushered away by his fellow Christian Ministers, Hitler cunningly resounded "The soul of Germany... you can leave that to me!" And that's just what the church in Germany did; they separated the Church and State from that day on until not many years later, their nation was completely destroyed. America, as so many other nations, continues to do the same today. Conclusion The Law of God is not private law, but universal Law. His Law speaks to offenses that affect the collective body and soul of all mankind. All are part of the whole, and all suffer when the Law is trivialized, ridiculed, and worst of all, replaced with an inevitable inferior invention of man's 'reason'. Jesus said, "He that is not with me is against me;" (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23). Therefore, any government that is not for Him, or is neutral, is against Him. Mention obedience to God's Law (substance), and many "Christians" accuse you of being a 'legalist'. But the very ones who call us a legalist are themselves true legalists to every code, rule, and regulation (form) that Caesar passes. "Legalism" is to adhere to the "form" and not the "substance" of law. They obey Caesar's will without taking any thought as to whether it is right or wrong. They do it blindly, and that's blind faith in a false saviour. They themselves are 'legalists' to Caesar's laws. They fear man and keep his commandments, for they believe this is their 'duty'. Well, let's have God tell us the conclusion… Ecclesiastes 12:13, "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." Notice, we are to fear God (not man) and keep His Commandments (not man's commandments), because this is the whole duty of man (we do not have a duty to any other except God). The only thing we owe to man is "to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law" (Romans 13:8). God will judge those in governments, especially those that act as gods themselves by teaching contrary to God's Will: Wisdom of Solomon 6:1-8, "Hear therefore, O ye kings, and understand; learn, ye that be judges of the ends of the earth. Give ear, ye that rule the people, and glory in the multitude of nations. For power is given you of the Lord, and sovereignty from the Highest, who shall try your works, and search out your counsels. Because, being ministers of his kingdom, ye have not judged aright, nor kept the law, nor walked after the counsel of God; Horribly and speedily shall he come upon you: for a sharp judgment shall be to them that be in high places. For mercy will soon pardon the meanest: but mighty men shall be mightily tormented. For he which is Lord over all shall fear no man's person, neither shall he stand in awe of any man's greatness: for he hath made the small and great, and careth for all alike. But a sore trial shall come upon the mighty." Remember, the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. If men would "obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29), this world would be a much better place.