THE
RISE AND FALL OF AMERICA.
America
is heading for major disaster.
THE RISE AND FALL OF AMERICA.
America is heading for major disaster.
Written by Matthew Browne
The
President of United States and the Rogue Supreme Judges have conspired to
destroy the (counterfeit) constitution of America. They have been planning this
for a long time but God has not permitted them to do it unto now, you will see
it happen 2018.
There are two reasons why they want to destroy
it. (1) So they can start and create One World Government that will be run by
their man, which is the anti- Christ who will be most likely come to power
sometime from 2018 to 2021. You cannot have two world powers competing,
therefore, America as a super power must be destroyed. (2) First destroy the
(counterfeit) constitution so they can disarm the general public of their right
to carry guns. The Americans won’t take this sitting down; they will fight this
Presidential Ruling for the next seven years!!
Therefore,
the President will declare Martial Law and will use one million United Nations
armed forces to fulfil their wicked plans. They will destroy greatly; 20%
Americans will be arrested and thrown into concentration camps, many to never
to be released.
Most of them will be raped and murdered in
satanic rituals to give more power to those who believe in a New World Order.
If there is no constitution, there will be no access to judges, lawyers or a
fair trial. Because of this situation arising, the U.S. Government will start
to weaken and it strength as a super power will self-destruct; slavery and marshal
law will be implemented.
The
President acts if he is a God, The President acts if he is a King,
The
President acts if he is a Christian. What do you think? Is he!
The
Presidents Administration think they are above the law (Torah, God’s law) and
also the rogue Judges think so too. This is known as sedition, Satan did this a
long time ago and God threw him out of heaven because he wanted to be a God and
a King.
The
American Public have failed to stand for Truth and because of this the Obama
Administration has almost-they have already destroyed the (counterfeit)
constitution One day soon the President with just one stroke of his gold pen
(no need to, since 9/11 he said I AM ABOVE THE LAW,-I make my laws, I will make
the (Counterfeit) constitution obsolete. Why, Has He not done that
already? The President and the rogue
Judges have been elected to serve the American Public. The constitution was
written for all 322,583,006 American Publics benefit.
So
they could live in peace, have freedom and be protected from evil men. But evil
men in high places have been corrupted by power, lust, greed and making a name
for themselves. Pride comes before a fall. God in his wisdom will let evil men
reign but shortly He will judge all nations according to their actions and
motives. America is going fast towards a major downfall.
Shredding
the Magna Carta
OBAMA-TRUMP
HAS A Military Industrial Complex, IN OTHER WORDS HE IS INSANE, CRAZY AND A
RUTHLESS DICTATOR. OBAMA+TRUMP IS THE CAUSE OF THE WAR TO COME and all 7.25
billion of us human+beings will suffer directly because of him.
you
must understand that Obama is ONLY a puppet on a string, he has no power
whatsoever. The real power is satan, the devil where all evil flows
from...PERIOD.
Russia
Issues Full-Scale War Alert As West Faces Financial Armageddon
The
Obama+TRUMP Administration wants to rip up not just the Bill of Rights. It's
going after the Magna Carta, too. It wants to do away with habeas corpus, the
essential, 800-year-old right that allows the accused to appear before a judge
and plead.
One
night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the pre-eminent New York
journalist, was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of
his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to
the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:
"There
is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an
independent press. You know it and I know it.
There
is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you
know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for
keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you
are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so
foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for
another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my
paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
"The
business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to
pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and
his race for his daily bread.
You
know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?
We
are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping
jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and
our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual
prostitutes."
CHAPTER
ONE
Text
of the Magna Carta
As
might be expected, the text of the Magna Carta of 1215 bears many traces of
haste, and is clearly the product of much bargaining and many hands. Most of
its clauses deal with specific, and often long-standing, grievances rather than
with general principles of law. Some of the grievances are self-explanatory:
others can be understood only in the context of the feudal society in which
they arose. Of a few clauses, the precise meaning is still a matter of
argument.
In
feudal society, the king's barons held their lands `in fee' (feudum) from the
king, for an oath to him of loyalty and obedience, and with the obligation to
provide him with a fixed number of knights whenever these were required for
military service. At first the barons provided the knights by dividing their
estates (of which the largest and most important were known as `honours') into
smaller parcels described as `knights' fees', which they distributed to tenants
able to serve as knights. But by the time of King John it had become more
convenient and usual for the obligation for service to be commuted for a cash
payment known as `scutage', and for the revenue so obtained to be used to
maintain paid armies.
Besides
military service, feudal custom allowed the king to make certain other
exactions from his barons. In times of emergency, and on such special occasions
as the marriage of his eldest daughter, he could demand from them a financial
levy known as an `aid' (auxilium).
When
a baron died, he could demand a succession duty or `relief' (relevium) from the
baron's heir. If there was no heir, or if the succession was disputed, the
baron's lands could be forfeited or `escheated' to the Crown. If the heir was
under age, the king could assume the guardianship of his estates, and enjoy all
the profits from them-ven to the extent of despoliation-until the heir came of
age.
The king had the right, if he chose, to sell
such a guardianship to the highest bidder, and to sell the heir himself in
marriage for such price as the value of his estates would command. The widows
and daughters of barons might also be sold in marriage. With their own tenants,
the barons could deal similarly.
The
scope for extortion and abuse in this system, if it were not benevolently
applied, was obviously great and had been the subject of complaint long before
King John came to the throne. Abuses were, moreover, aggravated by the
difficulty of obtaining redress for them, and in Magna Carta the provision of
the means for obtaining a fair hearing of complaints, not only against the king
and his agents but against lesser feudal lords, achieves corresponding
importance.
About
two-thirds of the clauses of the Magna Carta of 1215 are concerned with matters
such as these and with the misuse of their powers by royal officials. As
regards other topics, the first clause, conceding the freedom of the Church,
and in particular confirming its right to elect its own dignitaries without
royal interference, reflects John's dispute with the Pope over Stephen
Langton's election as archbishop of Canterbury:
it does not appear in the Articles of the
Barons, and its somewhat stilted phrasing seems in part to be attempting to
justify its inclusion, none the less, in the charter itself. The clauses that
deal with the royal forests), over which the king had special powers and
jurisdiction, reflect the disquiet and anxieties that had arisen on account of
a longstanding royal tendency to extend the forest boundaries, to the detriment
of the holders of the lands affected.
Those that deal with debts reflect
administrative problems created by the chronic scarcity of ready cash among the
upper and middle classes, and their need to resort to money-lenders when this
was required. The clause promising the removal of fish-weirs was intended to
facilitate the navigation of rivers.
A number of clauses deal with the special
circumstances that surrounded the making of the charter, and are such as might
be found in any treaty of peace. Others, such as those relating to the city of
London and to merchants clearly represent concessions to special interests.
Magna
Carta and Its American Legacy
Before
penning the Declaration of Independence--the first of the American Charters of
Freedom--in 1776, the Founding Fathers searched for a historical precedent for
asserting their rightful liberties from King George III and the English
Parliament.
They
found it in a gathering that took place 561 years earlier on the plains of
Runnymede, not far from where Windsor Castle stands today. There, on June 15,
1215, an assembly of barons confronted a despotic and cash-strapped King John
and demanded that traditional rights be recognized, written down, confirmed
with the royal seal, and sent to each of the counties to be read to all
freemen. The result was Magna Carta--a momentous achievement for the English
barons and, nearly six centuries later, an inspiration for angry American
colonists.
Magna
Carta was the result of the Angevin king's disastrous foreign policy and
overzealous financial administration. John had suffered a staggering blow the
previous year, having lost an important battle to King Philip II at Bouvines
and with it all hope of regaining the French lands he had inherited.
When
the defeated John returned from the Continent, he attempted to rebuild his
coffers by demanding scutage (a fee paid in lieu of military service) from the
barons who had not joined his war with Philip.
The barons in question, predominantly lords of
northern estates, protested, condemning John's policies and insisting on a
reconfirmation of Henry I's Coronation Oath (1100), which would, in theory,
limit the king's ability to obtain funds. (As even Henry ignored the provisions
of this charter, however, a reconfirmation would not necessarily guarantee
fewer taxes.) But John refused to withdraw his demands, and by spring most
baronial families began to take sides.
The rebelling barons soon faltered before
John's superior resources, but with the unexpected capture of London, they
earned a substantial bargaining chip. John agreed to grant a charter.
The
document conceded by John and set with his seal in 1215, however, was not what
we know today as Magna Carta but rather a set of baronial stipulations, now
lost, known as the "Articles of the barons." After John and his
barons agreed on the final provisions and additional wording changes, they
issued a formal version on June 19, and it is this document that came to be
known as Magna Carta. Of great significance to future generations was a minor
wording change, the replacement of the term "any baron" with
"any freeman" in stipulating to whom the provisions applied.
Over
time, it would help justify the application of the Charter's provisions to a
greater part of the population. While freemen were a minority in 13th-century
England, the term would eventually include all English, just as "We the
People" would come to apply to all Americans in this century.
While
Magna Carta would one day become a basic document of the British Constitution,
democracy and universal protection of ancient liberties were not among the
barons' goals. The Charter was a feudal document and meant to protect the
rights and property of the few powerful families that topped the rigidly
structured feudal system.
In fact, the majority of the population, the
thousands of unfree labourers, are only mentioned once, in a clause concerning
the use of court-set fines to punish minor offences. Magna Carta's primary
purpose was restorative: to force King John to recognize the supremacy of
ancient liberties, to limit his ability to raise funds, and to reassert the
principle of "due process."
Only
a final clause, which created an enforcement council of tenants-in-chief, and
clergymen, would have severely limited the king's power and introduced
something new to English law: the principle of "majority rule." But
majority rule was an idea whose time had not yet come; in September, at John's
urging, Pope Innocent II annulled the "shameful and demeaning agreement,
forced upon the king by violence and fear." The civil war that followed
ended only with John's death in October 1216.
On
indefinite loan from the Perot Foundation, a 1297 version of Magna Carta shares
space with the Charters of Freedom in the National Archives Rotunda.
To
gain support for the new monarch--John's 9-year-old son, Henry III--the young
king's regents reissued the charter in 1217.
Neither
this version nor that issued by Henry when he assumed personal control of the
throne in 1225 were exact duplicates of John's charter; both lacked some
provisions, including that providing for the enforcement council, found in the
original. With the 1225 issuance, however, the evolution of the document ended.
While
English monarchs, including Henry, confirmed Magna Carta several times after
this, each subsequent issue followed the form of this "final"
version. With each confirmation, copies of the document were made and sent to
the counties so that everyone would know their rights and obligations. Of these
original issues of Magna Carta, 17 survive: 4 from the reign of John; 8 from
that of Henry III; and 5 from Edward I, including the version now on display at
the National Archives.
Although
tradition and interpretation would one day make Magna Carta a document of great
importance to both England and the American colonies, it originally granted
concessions to few but the powerful baronial families. It did include concessions
to the Church, merchants, townsmen, and the lower aristocracy for their aid in
the rebellion, but the majority of the English population would remain without
an active voice in government for another 700 years.
Despite
its historical significance, however, Magna Carta may have remained legally
inconsequential had it not been resurrected and reinterpreted by Sir Edward
Coke in the early 17th century. Coke, Attorney General for Elizabeth, Chief
Justice during the reign of James, and a leader in Parliament in opposition to
Charles I, used Magna Carta as a weapon against the oppressive tactics of the
Stuart kings. Coke argued that even kings must comply to common law. As he
proclaimed to Parliament in 1628, "Magna Carta . . . will have no sovereign."
Lord
Coke's view of the law was particularly relevant to the American experience for
it was during this period that the charters for the colonies were written. Each
included the guarantee that those sailing for the New World and their heirs
would have "all the rights and immunities of free and natural
subjects." As our forefathers developed legal codes for the colonies, many
incorporated liberties guaranteed by Magna Carta and the 1689 English Bill of
Rights directly into their own statutes. Although few colonists could afford
legal training in England, they remained remarkably familiar with English
common law. During one parliamentary debate in the late 18th century, Edmund
Burke observed, "In no country, perhaps in the world, is law so general a
study."
Through Coke, whose four-volume Institutes of
the Laws of England was widely read by American law students, young colonists
such as John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison learned of the spirit
of the charter and the common law--or at least Coke's interpretation of them.
Later, Jefferson would write to Madison of Coke: "a sounder whig never
wrote, nor of profounder learning in the orthodox doctrines of the British
constitution, or in what were called English liberties." It is no wonder
then that as the colonists prepared for war they would look to Coke and Magna
Carta for justification.
By
the 1760s the colonists had come to believe that in America they were creating
a place that adopted the best of the English system but adapted it to new circumstances;
a place where a person could rise by merit, not birth; a place where men could
voice their opinions and actively share in self-government.
But these beliefs were soon tested. Following
the costly Seven Years' War, Great Britain was burdened with substantial debts
and the continuing expense of keeping troops on American soil. Parliament
thought the colonies should finance much of their own defence and levied the
first direct tax, the Stamp Act, in 1765. As a result, virtually every
document--newspapers, licenses, insurance policies, legal writs, even playing
cards--would have to carry a stamp showing that required taxes had been paid.
The colonists rebelled against such control over their daily affairs.
Their
own elected legislative bodies had not been asked to consent to the Stamp Act.
The colonists argued that without either this local consent or direct
representation in Parliament, the act was "taxation without
representation." They also objected to the law's provision that those who
disobeyed could be tried in admiralty courts without a jury of their peers.
Coke's influence on Americans showed clearly when the Massachusetts Assembly
reacted by declaring the Stamp Act "against the Magna Carta and the
natural rights of Englishmen, and therefore, according to Lord Coke, null and
void."
But
regardless of whether the charter forbade taxation without representation or if
this was merely implied by the "spirit," the colonists used this
"misinterpretation" to condemn the Stamp Act. To defend their objections,
they turned to a 1609 or 1610 defence argument used by Coke: superiority of the
common law over acts of Parliament. Coke claimed "When an act of
parliament is against common right or reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be
performed, the common law will control it and adjudge such an act void. Because
the Stamp Act seemed to tread on the concept of consensual taxation, the
colonists believed it, "according to Lord Coke," invalid.
The
colonists were enraged. Benjamin Franklin and others in England eloquently
argued the American case, and Parliament quickly rescinded the bill. But the
damage was done; the political climate was changing. As John Adams later wrote
to Thomas Jefferson, "The Revolution was in the minds of the people, and
this was affected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of 15 years before a drop
of blood was shed at Lexington."
Relations
between Great Britain and the colonies continued to deteriorate. The more
Parliament tried to raise revenue and suppress the growing unrest, the more the
colonists demanded the charter rights they had brought with them a century and
a half earlier. At the height of the Stamp Act crisis, William Pitt proclaimed
in Parliament,
"The Americans are the sons not the
bastards of England." Parliament and the Crown, however, appeared to
believe otherwise. But the Americans would have their rights, and they would
fight for them. The seal adopted by Massachusetts on the eve of the Revolution
summed up the mood--a militiaman with sword in one hand and Magna Carta in the
other.
Armed
resistance broke out in April 1775. Fifteen months later, the final break was
made with the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence:
"We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these
are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Although the colonies had
finally and irrevocably articulated their goal, Independence did not come
swiftly. Not until the surrender of British forces at Yorktown in 1781 was the
military struggle won. The constitutional battle, however, was just beginning.
In
the war's aftermath, many Americans recognized that the rather loose
confederation of states would have to be strengthened if the new nation were to
survive. James Madison expressed these concerns in a call for a convention at
Philadelphia in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation: "The good
people of America are to decide the solemn question, whether they will by wise
and magnanimous efforts reap the just fruits of that Independence which they so
gloriously acquired . . . or whether by giving way to unmanly jealousies and
prejudices, or to partial and transitory interests, they will renounce the
auspicious blessings prepared for them by the Revolution."
The representatives of the states listened to
Madison and drew heavily from his ideas. Instead of revising the Articles, they
created a new form of government, embodied in the Constitution of the United
States. Authority emanated directly from the people, not from any governmental
body. And the Constitution would be "the supreme Law of the
Land"--just as Magna Carta had been deemed superior to other statutes.
Conclusion
In 1215, when King
John confirmed Magna Carta with his seal, he was acknowledging the now firmly
embedded concept that no man--not even the king--is above the law. That was a
milestone in constitutional thought for the 13th century and for centuries to
come. In 1779 John Adams expressed it this way: "A government of laws, and
not of men." Further, the charter established important individual rights
that have a direct legacy in the American Bill of Rights. And during the United
States' history, these rights have been expanded. The U.S. Constitution is not
a static document.
(1)
Like Magna Carta,
it has been interpreted and reinterpreted throughout the years. This has
allowed the Constitution to become the longest-lasting constitution in the
world and a model for those penned by other nations.
(2)
Through judicial review and amendment, it has
evolved (2) so that today Americans--regardless
of gender, race, or creed—
(3)
can enjoy the
liberties (3)
(4)
and
protection (4) it guarantees. Just as Magna
Carta stood as a bulwark against tyranny in England, the U.S. Constitution and
Bill of Rights today serve similar roles,
(5)
protecting the
individual freedoms of all Americans against arbitrary (5)
(6)
and
capricious (6) rule.
The conclusion is the biggest fat lie invented by man. If
you believe what has been written to be true, then you have been robbed by the
anti-christ deception already.
To explain myself
I will relate it to the Character of God and His Laws that never change.
(1) The U.S. Constitution is not a
static document. It should be static but you have rogue judges that have
destroyed it. However, the Word of God is static. It never changes, God’s Ten
Commandments have never changed but man’s view of them has.
(2) Evolved? The Character of God
and His Laws have never evolved or changed. His Laws are a written Testament
against the wickedness of men’s hearts.
(3) Liberties? America is
enslaved to greed, lust and is full of pride. They are marching to a major
downfall. True freedom is found in Jesus Christ and His Precious Blood that
washes away our sin.
(4) Protection? If you want
protection, weather you are guilty or innocent, money is the key to everything
so they think. The innocent suffer while evil men get promoted. The Lord is my Shepherd,
I shall lack nothing. Psalm 23: His Angels will place a guard around me and
protect me from the wicked one. Psalm 91:
(5) Arbitrary/ Autocrat. A ruler
who has absolute power. Such as a dictatorship. Supreme Judges and the
President of U.S.A. right now have absolute power; therefore, they are the
dictators of American laws and policies. The true King is Yahshua. Follow Him.
(6) Capricious; given to sudden
and unaccountable changes of mood or behaviour. Today’s politicians can never
agree on anything worthy and change their minds so much; they don’t know what
they believe. Their morals and ethics are corrupt and can base their values on
nothing positive. However, God’s Character and Word is positive and will never
be corrupted.
CHAPTER
TWO
THE
ROGUE JUDGES
Rogue
Judges have been strangling U.S.A. democracy for 200 years.
Sometime
in the past an unknown Supreme Judge has made a wild claim that the Supreme
Building is like the Pagan Temple of Kaknak and the Supreme Court Judges are
the High Priests and the other Judges are the Priests of a Civic Religion.
Supposedly, they have priestly clothes, ceremonies and a counterfeit bible
which is the bogus constitution which has been written by the rogues Judges.
They
want us to believe that the constitution evolves over time by good and loving
Judges that meet the needs of the American people. Someone is pulling the wool
over your eyes if you believe that.
Niccole
Machiavelli, an Italian bureaucrat, wrote a book called “The Prince” in the
time of Shakespeare. http://www.jahtruth.net/defin.htm
This
book has been a blueprint for dictators such as Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin,
Stalin and the entire rogue Supreme Judges. Niccole was only interested in how
to gain power. Moral and ethics and the lore of the land was the last thing on
his mind, therefore you end up with evil men in high positions who hate good
and love evil.
In
1795, the Georgia Legislative sold 35,000,000 acres of state-owned land to four
New England Companies at a price of 1.5 cents per acre. This was a fraudulent
sale so these Companies sold it quickly to speculators who resold it too. Then
they all played the innocent game and looked surprised when a law was passed
declaring their titles invalid.
A
rogue Supreme Judge by the name of John Marshall resided over the case and
found in his own counterfeit constitution it was ok to steal the land from the
American people. By the way, he wrote many counterfeits into the real
constitution. John Marshall died in 1835 and in is honour they rung the liberty
bell. It is said that the bell suffered a giant crack in its side and has been
silent ever since. So be it.
American
Civil War
Dread
Scott was an elderly slave who sued his owner, named Sandford, for his freedom.
They had lived for some time in the Wisconsin Territory. In the 1820, congress
had enacted a law that forbade slavery in that Territory. The rogue Judges in
looking for an excuse for their actions focused on the idea that slaves were
property of the landlord. The Firth Amendment says that nobody could be
deprived of “life, liberty, property, without due process of the law”.
These Judges wanted complete power, so in the
process they threw out the 1820 law and said it was unconstitutional. What
gives them the right to create laws out of nothing?
Legislatures
have control over the substance of the laws and the courts controlled the
processes by which the laws are applied to individual cases. Abraham Lincoln
not to be out done said in a speech in 1859. “The people of these united states
are the rightful masters of both congress and courts, not to overthrow the
Constitution, but to overthrow the men who would pervert the Constitution”.
The
1860 election was followed by the civil war. The Southerners thought the
constitution was on their side. Truth and Justice were on their side for the
bogus high priests of the Supreme Court had told them so. For the South, the
civil war was insane but they had fallen for the biggest lie ever invented,
that slaves are the property of landlords. Dream on, get real, and get a life.
Rogue Judges are the ones fully responsible for the 500,000 dead and 500,000
wounded in the civil war.
In
December, 1866, The Washington Chronicle wrote that “treason had found a refuge
in the bosom of the Supreme Court of the United States.”
In
April, 1867, The Independent wrote that the “Supreme Court was regarded as a
diseased member of the body politic and was risking amputation.”
These
rogue Judges found in their counterfeit constitution it was okay to have
abortions even though all states had laws against it. They also tied up police
hands with crazy laws which caused over 100,000 murders and 500,000 rapes and
also had a hand in the cause of the Great Depression.
CHAPTER THREE
YOU HAVE BEEN CONNED
ALL Constitutions THAT ARE Written BY MAN
ARE ALL ILLEGAL
America,
Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand and all other countries that have a
written constitution by man are all counterfeits of the real.
There
is only one constitution that is written by Lord God (Guardian of Divinity) and
that is which is to be found in the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven.
There is only one supreme King and Master that rules overall and that is your
real Father “Yahweh” as known to the HOUSE of Israel and “I AM” as known to the
non-Jew. The Torah and the Logos are the only legal constitution that our real
Father has ever let man to live by and DO.
Any other constitution is a counterfeit and you have all been conned.
(con-stitution).
Just
encase you do not understand, you must live by the ten commandments which
include all 613 laws given to the HOUSE of Israel through Moses direct from
your real Father in Heaven. Your real Father then sent his only well beloved
Son who came in the body (human) known as Yahshua who gave two more commands which
all humans must live by.
All
rules and laws that are invented and created by man that contradict and are the
opposite of what Yahweh has said in His written constitution the TORAH will
have to pay the penalty of death. All prime ministers and presidents, kings and
queens that rule over men, whether it is governments or kingdoms, God will hold
all of them accountable for treason and they will all face the fire and will
all die.
Any
man who uses these counterfeit laws to bring judgments against the guilty or
innocent will be accountable to God for treason.
I
am referring to the Supreme Court and all judges, lawyers, barristers, Justice
Department and prosecutors will be accountable to God for treason.
Any
man who is considering being a judge, lawyer, barrister, and work for the
Justice department and is willing to contradict and do the opposite of the
TORAH will be accountable to God for treason. Please reconsider and work for
your real Father by building the KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH ON HIS TERMS AS IT IS
WRITTEN IN THE TORAH. By doing this and living according to the TORAH and by
every WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of “I AM” you shall live and have
eternal live.
Any
person that does not live by every WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of
Yahweh shall face the fire and will all die – no exceptions.
For
it says in Deuteronomy 4:2 where it states plainly we
are not to add or detract not even one letter from THE Law/God's Laws. Also I
would like to point out that when Jesus came He said, "I am not come to
destroy the prophets or the Law. I am not come to destroy but FULFILL the
Law".
Now
I am going to give evidence that all HUMAN BEINGS that I have listed above are
all liars and deceivers and not one of them cares about any kind of justice at
all. They should all be locked up and all the innocent human beings that they
have caused to be put in jails under their counterfeit laws should be released
and given their freedom.
Any
human being that lives by the Torah are free indeed of man’s laws, amen.
Here
is a list of all those who have been murdered or put in prison for no good
reason. They have NEVER had a TRAIL by a JURY. The evidence is planted by
corrupt police, CIA and FBI.(MI 5 and MI 6)
The Levitical Priesthood of Tennessee
A
preacher approached me in Swanee, Tennessee some years ago and asked me if it
was true that I practiced the Law of Moses. I replied that it was true. His
next question was if I practiced the sacrificial laws. Perceiving his
craftiness by asking this forked question, I asked him if he practiced the
Levitical Priesthood in Tennessee. He emphatically denied that he did any such
thing, and proceeded to preach me a true fire and brimstone sermon about Christ
Crucified and how Jesus did away with the Law of Moses in general, and the
sacrificial laws in particular.
Seeing
that the man was a Christian in distress over doctrine, I apologized for my
outrageous suggestion that HE, of all people, might be a practicioner of the
sacrificial system of Tennessee, explaining that I was a stranger from a far,
far land called Missouri, and that I had heard the people of Tennessee
practiced the Levitical Priesthood, complete with sacrifices and heave
offerings, but they called it another name, the 'Judicial System.' As he stared
at me for a few minutes, like I'd just announced that I'd taken a ride in a
UFO, I asked if they had a Highway Patrol in Tennessee. He said they did, and
after a few more questions, it came out that they also had police, lawyers,
judges, courts, courthouses, courtrooms complete with bars and benches and,
even, fines for criminal activities; the sum total of which constituted the
judicial system of the State of Tennessee. Looking at him, I said that the
stories I'd heard were true, that the people of Tennessee were indeed a
religious lot, which lead him to ask how having police and all the rest was
religious. So I told him a story.
Let's
say that one day you decide to take a drive, and an ever vigilant policeman
sees you tooling along at 80 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, so he takes off after you,
and pulls you over. Asking for your driver's license, he notes that it doesn't
give you permission to drive 80 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, so he arrests you and
hauls you off to the nearest jail. From there, you're brought to the courthouse
and into a courtroom, where you face a judge sitting on a bench behind a bar.
You're stood beside your lawyer, who enters a plea of guilty, which makes you a
criminal. The judge levies a fine and court costs. If you don't like the
decision, you can appeal, if necessary all the way to the Supreme Court. So
what you have are the civil servants of the State of Tennessee performing their
jobs, which constitute the judicial system of the State of Tennessee.
In
olden days, this system wasn't called the judicial system, it was called the
Levtical Priesthood, and it worked the same way.
Today's
policeman was known as the High Priest's servant. As such, he was constantly on
the lookout for sin, which is the transgression of the Law (1John 3:4). When he
uncovered a sin, he hauled the sinner off to the temple ward, which is today's
courthouse/jail combination. Modern courthouses are designed like temples, even
to the point of sitting in the town square, so that everything in town revolves
around them. The temple is where the High Priest conducted the sacrifices in
the Holy Place. It was easy to recognize the High Priest going about his duties
because of his long, flowing, often black, robes. When he had to sit in
judgement on a sinner, he would go to the Holy Place and go behind the altar,
which was behind the veil to the Holy Place. Sound anything like a judge
entering a courtroom, and sitting on his bench, which is behind the bar? In
order for a sinner to pass through the veil and approach the High Priest
required an intercessor, who helped in your prayer to the High Priest
concerning your sin. Sound like a lawyer entering a plea? When the accused
admitted his guilt, he became a sinner. The High Priest then commanded him to
perform penance, oftimes in the form of sacrifices, which he called a sin
offering. He would also impose a heave offering, to reimburse him for his time.
Sounds more and more like a modern court, with you entering a plea of guilty,
and having fines and court costs levied. If the sinner thought the High Priest
was not acting properly, he could go before the Aaronic Priesthood, if
necessary all the way to Moses, which is essentially the same as going through
the court of appeals to the Supreme Court. So, what you had were the Levites of
Israel performing their jobs which constituted the Levitical Priesthood of
Israel. What's the phrase, 'a rose by any other name...?'
So,
I closed by chiding this Christian preacher a little, reminding him that he
practices the sacrificial system of the State of Tennessee every time he goes
into court. Remember, Tennessee is a sovereign, sovereigns make laws, lawmakers
are gods, violating laws is sin, sins require sacrifice as a matter of law,
either Civil or Common, and people who practice the religion of the United
States make sacrifices to their god, voluntarily or involuntarily.
The Levitical
Priesthood Of Tennessee
The Police = The
High Priest's Servants
Crimes = Sins
The Jail = The
Ward
The Courthouse =
The Temple
The Courtroom =
The Holy Place
The Judge = The
High Priest
The Bench = The
Altar
The Bar = The Veil
Lawyers =
Intercessors
Pleas = Prayers
Being Guilty of a
Crime = Being Guilty of a Sin
Criminals =
Sinners
Fines = Sin
Offerings
Court Costs =
Heave Offering
The Supreme Court
= The Holy of Holies
The Judicial
System = The Levitical Priesthood
No comments:
Post a Comment