EZEKIEL
and YHWH’s
Judgment
for the
Good News
PEOPLE
VOLUME XXIV
Government & Tyranny
EZEKIEL and YHWH’s
Judgment for the
Good News People
Volume XXIV--Government & Tyranny
by
an unworthy servant
And you shall know the truth,
and the truth will make you free.
(John 8:32)
Common Law Copyright, 2003 & 2005 CE, an unworthy servant, Calder, Idaho. The author claims his Right of exclusive ownership and control of this publication, the fruit of his labor, as a matter of Intellectual Property protected by the Laws of YHWH and as guaranteed by the US Constitution for the United States. Permission is granted to quote provided appropriate credit is cited together with the Publisher’s web site name and postal mailing address––WWW.AgeEnd.Com PO Box 473, Calder, ID 83808, USA.
Contents
Volume XXIV--Government & Tyranny
CHAPTER PAGE
- Cover Page 1
- Title Page 2
- Contents 3
- Publisher’s Preface 5
Part UUU--Christian Government
361 Sun Worship Government Reality 6
362 Sun Worship Government Corruption 19
363 The 2000 US Sun Worship Elections 32
364 YHWH’s Sovereignty in Government 45
365 Reacting to Sun Worship Government 51
366 Supporting the Evil? 61
367 Sun Worship Governments’ Failures 69
368 Requirements for Public Office 80
Part VVV--Government Oppression
369 The Basis of Tyranny 84
370 Christian Government Oppression 100
371 The Branch Davidians I 109
372 The Branch Davidians II 115
373 More Classic Cases of Oppression 128
374 Still More Government Oppression 135
375 Conspiracy? 148
SHEERIT YISRAEL
PO Box 473
Calder, Idaho 83808, USA
Publisher’s Preface
Greetings! The following presentation is volume twenty-four of a 36-volume production of some 6,000 pages on “Ezekiel and YHWH’s Judgment for the Good News People,” all of which is on the Internet at the www.AgeEnd.com web site.
This overall effort provides an interpretation of the Good News message in the New Testament, its linkage to the book of Ezekiel, and an application of both to the age-end prophecies relating to certain nations and peoples now out in the world. In order for this single volume to be understood and comprehended, it is imperative that the study be read from its beginning--from page one of volume one.
Anyone trying to read this volume or the study’s 6,000 pages at any mid-point will end up in a state of confusion without having read and digested the preceding material. It is crucially important that this work be read in sequence from its beginning--otherwise, the reader will almost certainly end up missing the essence of the message!
The effort was originally set on a Macintosh computer with Microsoft Word 6.0.1. It was set in Helvetica, 12-point type (18 pt on chapter headings); single line spacings; and margins: left 1.2”, right 0.8”, top 0.7”, bottom 0.8” and footer 0.6” (for page numbers).
For further information on obtaining this study in 18 computer floppy disks (IBM-formatted, high density, 2HD, 1.44 MB, 3 1/2 inches); in a single CD-Rom; or in hard copies (when the Internet or a compatible computer is not available); please write the publisher at the above address and send a stamped, self-addressed, long (legal-size), return envelope.
With a CD-Rom or computer floppy disks, the study is readable on Macintosh (systems 5.0 and later) or IBM/compatible (with Microsoft Word-Windows) personal computers. May The Great CREATOR and SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE bless you as you study His word to learn His will and to obey Him. Shalom (peace) to you and yours!
an unworthy servant, Hanukkah 2003 CE
Chapter 361--Sun Worship Government Reality
The Big Lie
The June 2000 “Internet Vortex” had a UPI article on “Court Rejects Ohio’s ‘God’ Motto” (p. 5) which revealed a most important reality of modern attitudes toward human governments. This article quoted US Senator George Voinovich from Ohio who said that some years earlier, on a trip to India, he saw a sign which read-- “Government Work is God’s Work.”
Admittedly, many people in government and indeed many of the governed people actually believe this nonsense. This assertion is a bald faced lie, as will be conclusively proven in this and succeeding chapters. Human government work is not the work of The ELOHIM and certainly not in the generic sense (although some government functions individually can serve The MOST HIGH).
The Scriptures offer a better assessment. Proverbs 29:2 says that when the righteous are in authority or rule, the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule, people mourn. So it’s not a question of government. It is a question of righteousness.
The Home
To address the matter of government, it is well to look initially at the home and family because the whole foundation of government starts in the home and immediate family. As the Scriptures clearly establish, the home is to be governed by the av (Hebrew for father) in an authoritarian and loving manner--from the top down.
The wife and mother is the principle assistant and helper (the queen) to the av in the exercise of his responsibility over the family. The av is both king and priest of the home. Hence, he (with the help of his assistant) must exercise authority over both secular and religious affairs.
Despite this authority that the av possesses, he should in all cases exercise it in love and concern for the well being of the overall family. Where possible and on appropriate occasions, the av should consider input from his wife, in particular, and other family members, in general, so that his authority doesn’t appear to be arbitrary and inconsiderate of the needs of other members of the family.
In terms of the av’s specific duties and responsibilities, in his office of king and priest, the Word has an abundant and extraordinary set of instructions for the av and his helper in terms of their duties to each other and the family at large--all of which involve true Scriptural love.
In a sense, the “immediate” safety, deliverance and salvation of members of the family rest essentially upon the av and his assistant and how well they do their jobs. There is also much evidence which suggests that some aspects of the wife’s personal future safety may even depend in part on her husband, as well as on her own merits.
For example, previous chapters in this work have mentioned an election of 144,000 Israelite males (age 30 or over) here in the age end, chosen by lot from the foundations of the world.
Probably, out of this 144,000, there will be another selection of a “very elect” class of possibly 7,000 males which will be delivered from the great tribulation and be allowed to live in a place of safety to see the return of YHWH YESHUA in the flesh.
Now, in addition to these elected males (chosen by lot), there is every reason to believe that there will be a comparable number of mature Israelite females. While the lot “might” could have been used for their choices, it is also very possible that some of the women’s selections could depend to some extent upon their husbands (who are in the very election) and how well they support him in his duties of king and priest.
In other words, if a particular man is in that 7,000 very elect class and has a loyal, supporting wife, then it “might be” that her elect preference is predicated upon the fact of their marriage and her willingness to be a good wife and support and help him in being king and priest over the family. When the very elect move to safety, it seems plausible that such a good wife would accompany her husband.
Men Should Rule Well in the Here and Now
Since this election of 144,000 Israelites is destined to rule over the people of The ELOHIM (either in the here and now, in terms of a congregation of believers, or certainly in the future in the millennium), the Book is careful to point out that such men must learn to “rule” their own houses well (I Tim 3:4-5). As Shaul put it, if a man doesn’t know how to rule his own house, how can he rule over the assembly?
While the Word’s requirements for husbands and wives are plain enough, it is tragic that here in the age end, those roles are being either reversed or at least upset in some manner because of the surfacing of Christian humanism (which was discussed in former chapters).
The primary basis for this unnatural development is a prophecy by Yeshayahu about a coming time in Yisrael when children will be oppressors and women will rule over men, as noted before (Isa 3:12). One can see this repeatedly in modern society where permissiveness toward (rebellious) children and the rise of the feminist movement have completely upset family units.
An Example
The writer of this study knows a man who has been making some effort over a number of years to obey The MOST HIGH and is quite proud and convinced in his own mind that he is or will be an age end prophet. But in terms of his own family, he does not seem to rule them well at all.
One of his daughters (living on her av’s property and in a house/home owned by him) moved a shack up boy friend in with her and on his property. The av took no action to stop it at all. He let her do whatever she wanted to do in terms of promiscuous sex. He did nothing about it until one day she and the boy friend got into a spat (lover’s quarrel).
Her av sided with her and hit the boy friend (who was supposedly a brother in the same faith as his). But otherwise, her av made no effort to stop the harlotry. He justified the sock with--well, he had to do it to protect his daughter, never realizing that he should have never allowed this conduct to take place in the first place.
From the beginning, he should have put his foot down and ran the shack up boy friend (and her as well, if she objected) off of his property at once. Yet, this man thinks that he is or will be an age end prophet who is going to rule over YHWH’s people.
While such happenings are often acceptable in a humanistic sun worship culture (and evidently took place in the ancient Greek and Roman sun worship societies, as well as today), it is hard to justify them per the Word. As just observed, any person expecting to rule over The ELOHIM’s people will have to learn how to rule over his own family as a starter.
Too, the principles of good rule to be found in a home and family unit should extend to human government forms above the family. But for sure, one does not find good rulership in any human government organizations (built on Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, or whatever). More often, they are guided by the carnality of leaders who are filled with pride, vanity, greed, envy, jealousy, selfishness and lust.
The United States
The United States was founded and established in the late 18th century with the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and finally the Constitution (which has ruled since c1788).
From the beginning, the US was supposed to be a “republic” --specifically a representative republic whereby the people would essentially select other people to make the actual decisions on running the government, and on who the governmental leaders would be.
This condition is what one finds in the Constitution in its provision for an electoral college to choose a president (on the premise that the best brains of the land should be in the electoral college to “independently” elect the best president) and in the selection of senators by the state legislatures. There was no such thing as universal voting laws. It was left up to each state to establish her own rules.
But not content with a republic, powerful forces began to work to convert and change this republic into a “democracy.” Actually, some persons now argue that America has become or is becoming a “social democracy” where the government is responsible for the welfare of its citizens (Jul-Aug 1998 “Intelligence Newsletter,” p. 1). And this has happened over the years.
But even here, the United States is still not a true democracy. As the Oct-Dec 2002 “Hebrew Roots” (p. 3) noted, the pure form of democracy does not exist in the United States; because, in that condition, the voters would have to vote and decide all issues of government.
In the US, such a method is found only at the local (township) level in a few states (like New England, where the citizens of a local township meet in Town meetings and participate in and vote on the issues facing the local government. Thus, in some respects, the US is technically a blend of a democracy and a republic.
The control over establishing laws is in the hands of the representatives of the people (as in a republic); yet, the choice of those representatives is like a total democracy in granting the vote to every conceivable form and part of the population.
Political Parties and Choosing Representatives
Almost from the beginning, political parties developed and they began selecting fields of candidates for the electoral college. These political choices were “committed” to vote for the various parties’ choices for president.
Too, from the beginning, the big money interests would never allow much diversity in political parties (the more parties, the harder they are to control). So America has ended up with essentially two parties, whereby the electoral candidates are chosen by the parties. Consequently, the electors are never “independent” and free to choose the best man for president.
Then, in 1870, the 15th amendment to the Constitution was passed to grant the vote to all humans/humanoids of the US, without regard to race or Scriptural classification. In 1913, the 17th amendment was passed which provided for the direct election of the senators by the people. In 1920, the 19th amendment became law which granted the vote to women (and laid the groundwork for much of the depravity now in evidence).
In 1964, the 24th amendment surfaced which abolished all taxation, as associated with voting. Finally, in 1971, the 26th amendment arrived to extend the vote to 18 year old children (yes, 18 year olds are still children and are not mature adults--per the Book). At last, an effective democracy had taken over the US.
The Resulting Conflict or Paradox in the Constitution
The prevailing theory in the late 18th century was that the “people” in the different states could elect “free” and independent” people to form the electoral college which would have the best brains in the land to choose a president. This probably sounded good in the context of the then formed US republic. It certainly did away with the dangers of a democracy and helped to install a republic.
But the framers certainly never had any perception that the Constitution would be amended over the years to gradually and systematically change the republic into a democracy (which is precisely what has happened since 1788).
In a democracy (and especially one which allows giant corporations, owned by a few fat cats, to control the entire media, entertainment and educational institutions), the electoral college scheme simply doesn’t work out for the benefit of the people (as it did before the establishment of political parties and with the presence of the republic).
There are several important drawbacks to the electoral college provision in a prevailing democracy, as has evolved in the United States since 1788. First of all, it is a sham in that the electors are committed to political party candidates, as outlined above. Thus, why have electors if they are already committed? Why not just allow a popular vote for president without wasting time with electors?
Since all that is required to be elected president is a majority of the votes of the electors and since each state gives all of its electoral votes to the presidential candidate winning the vote (with two exceptions), it means that a person can be elected president without winning a majority of the popular vote (as happened twice with Bill Clinton).
Also, in 1888, Benjamin Harrison was elected president, but Grover Cleveland won the popular vote (“The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia,” p. 257). This appears to be the situation with the 2000 elections with the ultimate selection of George W. Bush as US President.
While this winner takes all of the electoral vote in each state, it should be noted that state law can allow a situation where electoral votes can be prorated (as occurs in Maine and one more state in the West--evidently Nebraska).
With a true and fair apportionment of the electors along the lines of the state’s votes, the system could become more reasonable and allow a candidate to get elector votes, effectively based upon the balloting. For sure, a proration of each state’s votes to electors would just about insure that the person with the popular vote would get the electoral votes (which is a deficiency in the present arrangement).
In any case, if a person does not win the majority of electoral votes, then the issue goes to the House of Representatives where it will choose the president from the top three candidates. This has happened twice in history--in 1800 with Thomas Jefferson and in 1824 with John Quincy Adams.
The Big Problem
But these are not the big problem with the electoral college scheme. The real difficulty surfaces because the prevailing two party system (Republicans and Democrats) tie up the ballots in most of the states and allow no other candidates to be considered. Even when a third party candidate gets on a ballot, he must win a majority of the votes in the state involved to have any impact at all upon the election.
This means that if a third party candidate fails to win many or any electoral votes, his position is completely drowned out by the two major party candidates. Thus, all candidates and voters, beyond the prevailing two parties, have no voice unless they vote for and support the two parties. In other words, either support one of the two parties--or your position and vote is out, and of no effect nationally.
A Run-Off?
In many democratic elections, there should be a provision for a run-off when one candidate does not receive a simple majority. Possibly, a run off provision could be implemented in individual states, under the present electoral arrangement; if the Constitution would allow it, and if states would pass the required legislation. Certainly, if presidents were elected by popular vote, a run-off allowance would be practical.
A run-off provision would mean that all voters can vote for the candidates of their choice. If there is no majority winner, then a run-off occurs between the two top vote getters. With the electoral system, this might be possible by state. But with a Constitutional change, it could be done nationally. Thus, a person voting for a loser in the first cut, gets a chance to still have some impact on the final run-off election.
This is a good system because it allows a person to vote his conscience and not be concerned about throwing his vote away. If the voter’s candidate doesn’t win, and if there is a run-off, the voter can still get a shot at choosing between the two top vote getters. So, if a voter votes for a losing third party and there is a run-off between the primary two parties, the voter will have a later opportunity to choose between the two.
In the electoral system, the candidate with most of the votes in a given state gets all, 100%, of the electoral votes for that state presently (except as noted above).
Many voters are constantly told that they cannot support their party or candidate because they then lose any chance to have any input between the two major party candidates, who will usually end up with the electoral votes for a given state.
In other words, the voters are told to not waste their votes on the Reform, Libertarian, Green or other third party candidates. Instead, they are persuaded to go ahead and vote against their consciences by voting for the Republican or Democrat candidate. Hence, the voters only get one shot on the presidential question.
No Impacts on Elections
This sad condition means that no third party has much of a chance to have any impact upon an election. The voters either vote for one of the two party candidates (who are bought and controlled by a handful of super rich people, who control the media, entertainment and educational industries in corporate holding companies or foundations)--or they lose out completely.
If there was a run off election between the two top vote getters (in the usual Republican and Democrat parties), one would see these two major parties scrambling for some support from some of the third party positions. In other words, it would help insure that all ideas and positions have some impact on the election and that plutocrats do not buy the election by buying the candidates of the two major parties.
Obviously, the electoral college system simply means that it is incompatible with the very idea of a democracy. A democracy implies popular vote of the masses. With the electoral college and winner takes all by state, it is impossible to have a popular vote of the voters. Voters either vote for the approved and controlled candidates (controlled by the super rich plutocrats, calling the shots) or they lose out.
Truly, in a true democracy (as America has almost become since 1788), the president should be elected by pro-rated electoral votes by state or by popular vote. All viable candidates should be in the voting, and there should be a run-off between the two top vote getters if one of them does not get a majority of the votes nationally.
The person ultimately elected logically should be elected by a majority of the voters (in a democracy).
Everybody should have some input and no voter should have to be forced to vote against his conscience (to avoid throwing his vote away) simply because of an inappropriate electoral system which is incompatible with a democracy. By the way, the 2000 debacle has opened the door for a Constitutional change or perhaps even a new Constitution (which would be a tragedy, as liberals would really change things).
The Big Issues
Consequently, America has become largely a democracy, of sorts, whereby all the people (18 or over) directly elect its governors and leaders (to include the president through the tarred electoral system, as just assessed). However, there are some very inherent problems with democracies because man does not have it in himself to direct his own footsteps (Prov 16:9; 20:24; Jer 10:23).
Importantly, there is still another primary problem in a democracy which is largely unrecognized by Christianity and Judaism, although it is part and parcel of the system. Perhaps this condition, above all else, is one of the reasons that the true believer should not participate in democratic elections. The people of faith must be apolitical, as will be established in subsequent comments herein.
But this major problem remains for all of the persons who do participate in the so-called democratic elections. This dilemma occurs in the sense that the people (theoretically at least) vote for and elect their rulers. In this sense, every person who votes for the winner becomes a party to the resulting good or bad emanating from that winner.
In this context, the people who voted for the diabolical and evil Slick Clinton chose the resulting evil of his administration. As commented upon in other presentations herein, the voters not only voted for him in 1992, but again in 1996; and effectively, again in 1998. Every person who voted for Clinton in any one of those elections is responsible for the sin and evil that he did to people in the US and abroad.
Bearing Responsibility
What this means is that a voter must logically bear some moral responsibility for the person he elects in governmental roles. Voters can’t back off and claim it’s not their fault. It is the voter’s fault. Each and every person who voted for an evil leader must bear some responsibility for the resulting evil. The winning block of voters are a part and parcel of the coming government administration.
If it is evil, then the voters (who voted for it) must not only be responsible, but would perhaps be morally responsible in a sin or righteous role for the resulting good or bad that the leader will impose on the collective people.
In other words, the persons who voted for Clinton may possibly bear the moral responsibility for his actions (lies, murder, hate, sodomy, etc). Every person who voted for Clinton badly needs to repent and be sorry and ashamed for his action.
This is a hard pill for many people to swallow. Voters want to continually vote for cruds and depraved politicians who will lie, cheat, murder, deceive and practice sin and evil in Washington, but yet want to believe that they bear no responsibility for the ensuing evil and depravity.
Conversely, are not the voters themselves sinners in this instance? Yes, every time Clinton bombed and murdered people (at Waco, in the Balkans, in the Sudan, in Washington or whenever and wherever), the voters who elected Clinton themselves also seem responsible for the murders and deaths. Just as he needs to repent of his evil, the voters who voted for him need to repent as well.
Manifestly, the voters who choose, vote for and elect a liar, crook or immoral person to office must assume the responsibility for electing such a person. Americans want to vote for such cruds, but then not accept any personal responsibility for making such a choice. The Scriptural evidence is that these voters are probably in sin and will one day have to repent for their sinful choices.
The same situation surfaced in ancient Yisrael when the people rejected the theocracy and demanded a human king (like the other nations). These people who made this choice were surely in sin in rejecting the government of YHWH. They bore the responsibility for the repressive actions of the subsequent kings of Yisrael. The same is true with modern voters. They must bare the responsibility for their votes.
More on the US Democracy
One more note, from the United States, needs mention before proceeding on in this study. Despite all the prevailing evils and troubles in American politics, the nation is theoretically now a democracy--with its leaders chosen by the popular vote of the generic people. But is this belief the real truth?
In a 1996 video presentation on “America in Peril III,” noted intelligence analyst Mark Koernke of Michigan observed that in the beginning, this nation was formed as a Constitutional republic. In time, it became a Constitutional dictatorship (under Lincoln) and more recently an unconstitutional dictatorship (under FDR). Clearly, it is now a dictatorship which no informed person can argue.
Dr Stan Monteith, in the Nov 2002 “Radio Liberty” newsletter (p. 4), quoted Plato who said: “Democracy passes into despotism.” And that’s certainly what we have become in America in the early 21st century (with the passage of a whole host of laws supposedly against terrorism).
The existence of the so-called US democracy doesn’t mean much of anything in the present environment since people are so ignorant, uninformed and gullible that they are nothing but an irresponsible mob coordinated and controlled by the super rich fat cats who own the entertainment, media and educational activities (by corporate holding companies, foundations, etc) which motivate and exercise virtual control over the voting public.
Consequently, the US democracy is not really a true democracy. It is one only in theory and something for school textbooks and gullible teachers to put into the minds of small children.
As the perceptive Mark Koernke correctly noted, America is an unconstitutional dictatorship--right now!
The American Presidents
Most US presidents have been bad--either because they were personally sorry, were bought and paid for by America’s ruling plutocrats, got some tough breaks during their tenure in office, or were outright liberals and Socialists.
All during the 20th century, the common problem has been that the plutocrats took over America and started electing deceitful, dishonest men to the presidency--men who had no personal loyalty to America or its people, but were instead motivated by personal gain and greed (which the plutocrats willingly provided). The last true, pro-American president was William Howard Taft, elected in 1908.
Starting with Woodrow Wilson, the money power has owned all of them outright to various degrees. Some of them might not have fully understood how well they were controlled (like perhaps Eisenhower and Reagan). But they were controlled and did perform as they were programmed to do. Assuredly, Eisenhower and Reagan were very naive men in terms of what all was going on under them.
As noted earlier herein, it must be said that Kennedy and Nixon both eventually woke up and tried (unsuccessfully) to break free of their bondage (as did Lincoln, in his day). But these were isolated incidents.
Otherwise, the plutocrats also elected some presidents before Taft--for example, Abe Lincoln, Ulysses Grant and others. Teddy Roosevelt was a banker’s man, just as was FDR. However, the 19th century presidents were not totally owned by the fat cats, as was true, starting with Wilson.
Although he was personally sorry and was owned by the ruling plutocrats, one must give some credit to Warren Harding who was elected in 1920. He came in during prohibition which was a bad break. But to his credit, he signed the only immigration bill in American history which imposed some restrictions on the type of people flooding into this nation (in the form of the old quotas act).
How It Works
One of the best illustrations of how powerful the US plutocrats are in American politics was told by a Nixon aide at the 1968 Republican presidential nominating convention.
Sometime after Richard Nixon was nominated for president, David Rockefeller had a meeting with Nixon, at Nixon’s hotel suite. One of the points of discussion was the composition of Nixon’s cabinet on the premise that he would be elected president of the United States (as indeed did subsequently happen).
The story was that Rockefeller laid out a list of certain people who he wanted in certain roles in the Nixon cabinet.
The subsequent revelation of this meeting and the discussion apparently did not reflect what Nixon’s reaction was to this demand from Rockefeller. However, it is not hard to see that in 1968-1969 Nixon obeyed the Rockefeller plutocrat and did as he was told. In other words, the Rockefeller selected people were placed in the presidential cabinet.
There always has to have been some question about the input of the Rothschild plutocrats in the Nixon election. Manifestly, Richard Nixon was a Rockefeller Republican and was surely controlled by the Rockefeller money interests. It is true that by 1972 Nixon had made the Amalekite Jew plutocrats mad enough that he had to go.
He closed the gold window on the exchange of US paper money for gold by foreign banks (this upset the Rothschilds who are the world’s leading owners of gold); and tragically, for him, he harbored plans to move against the Jewish (correctly the Amalekite--ed) control of the US media (this point is discussed elsewhere herein).
In any case, the Amalekite Jew bankers/masters in the United States began moving against Nixon in early 1973, just after his installation as US president for a second term. The Amalekites used their media powers to completely do Nixon in over the petty burglary at the Watergate complex and his efforts to lie about it.
Nixon never had a chance as the “Washington Post” and other Amalekite controlled media powers constantly bombarded the public about the evils of Richard Nixon. Soon, he was on the way out.
As noted elsewhere herein, Nixon’s nickname was Tricky Dick--in comparison with the nickname Slick Willy as used for Bill Clinton. The difference between the two was that Nixon’s evils were in the minor leagues and child’s play compared to the diabolical Clinton (who always answered to the Amalekite plutocrats).
More History
From Lincoln, and on to Taft, most of the presidents not only had ties to the money power (except for James Garfield, who was elected in 1880 and assassinated in 1881), but were not really good people. Perhaps all of these persons were not totally subservient to the money power, as happened after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 under Woodrow Wilson, but they had shortcomings or failures.
Before Abraham Lincoln (who manifestly was deceptive and dishonest, and the first, real, live, American politician who had no personal scruples or integrity), there were a few good presidents. Certainly, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler and James Buchanan were good men.
The Virginians (Jefferson, Madison and Monroe) were likewise good people, though they failed in dealing with the immigration problem. Many persons persist on believing that George Washington was a good president. And he did have some good points. He evidently was a man of honor and integrity, but very weak as a president.
Howbeit, Washington’s mistake was in letting the Amalekite Alexander Hamilton (correctly Levine) take over much of the leadership in the executive branch. Hamilton and pro banker people in the Congress (like Vice President John Adams, who ran the Senate) were an infectious evil, which started the American path to plutocratic rule.
Washington stupidly sat by and allowed the establishment of the First US Bank, plus other nefarious schemes to benefit the bankers and fat cats (some of which are described elsewhere herein).
In this writer’s assessment of the bad presidents, clearly Bill Clinton was number one in being the absolute worst. Franklin Roosevelt was number two and Abraham Lincoln was number three. Then comes Lyndon Johnson, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Woodrow Wilson, “Useless” Grant, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower--in that order.
A February 2000 Survey
A news report on Feb 21, 2000, said that one of the polling groups surveyed Americans on the best and worst presidents in American history. The report was brief and did not go into the specifics of the sample. Logically, it must have been a stratified sample of some sort because most Americans know nothing about any presidents, beyond the last few (who ruled while they were alive).
In any case, the survey said that the number one, best president of all was Abraham Lincoln--as might be expected since Americans have been taught and programmed for years that he was virtually on the god level. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was number two and George Washington was number three.
Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson were next in sequence of the alleged good ones. Tragically, James Buchanan came in last as the worst president of all. This is quite a fluke because Buchanan was hands down far superior to most of the others rated ahead of him.
Except for Washington and Jefferson, the ones rated as being the best were actually all not only political liberals (who were owned by or linked to the money power), but they were outright Socialists who were (ignorantly) dedicated to the destruction of the United States. Moreover, the so-called “best” presidents (especially Lincoln, Wilson and FDR) were the war presidents, responsible for the death of millions.
The essence of this report is that the American viewpoint is so warped that most Americans have no sense of right and wrong at all. They look at the past histories of some of the biggest scoundrels and evil men in American history and choose them to be the best presidents. And of the truly better presidents, they rate them at the bottom. The American perception of right and wrong is totally warped.
Yes, the Fight Was Lost in 1932
Quite naturally, the so-called patriots (as will be discussed in a later chapter), who have had visions of “saving” America and the American people, are all just wet behind the ears. They are almost all alone in this since the total general public is completely in favor of the status quo. As noted throughout this publication, these would-be patriots lost their fight in 1932 with the election of Franklin Roosevelt.
The liberals have had 70 years to educate little children and they have succeeded. The modern generation is entirely different from the earlier ones at Concord, at Valley Forge, at the Alamo, at Bull Run, at Manila Bay and so forth. The moderns know little or nothing about anything. They don’t know, aren’t interested and don’t want to know.
It’s really all over for the patriots grasping at straws since they have already lost their fight. Yes, the fight seems to have been lost by the carnal, unconverted Americans back in 1932 with the election of the depraved Amalekite Roosevelt.
So, what can one do who is concerned with the liberalism, Socialism and humanism that completely dominates modern American life? The only possible answer is education (which will be addressed in chapters to follow).
Chapter 362--Sun Worship Government Corruption
The Greeks
“The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia” notes that democracies (first) flourished in the early Greek city states before finally giving way to imperialism (thus, before Alexander the Great). Obviously, a democracy, as a form of human government, has its origin in ancient Grecian sun worship (and may link to the evolutionist Democritus, c400 BCE, cited earlier). Naturally, they fit well into the modern, Western, sun worship culture.
More Problems in Democracies
On the surface, a democracy sounds good in the sense of man having to govern himself (outside the bounds of a legitimate theocracy). As the January-February 2000 “Tzemach Letter” (p. 1) noted, the word democracy is based upon two Greek words--demos, meaning common people, and krateo, meaning strength or power.
Thus, democracy theoretically means the empowerment of the common people. Surely, this definition and idea would appeal to most of the common people. But tragically, there are serious problems in the vein of what can very easily happen in a democracy. In other words, things don’t really work out as well as they theoretically should in a democracy.
Conversely, a US War Department Training Manual (No 2000-25, p. 91) defined a democracy as a “government of the masses; authority derived from mass meetings or other forms of direct expression; results in mobocracy; communistic attitude toward property (negating property rights); presence of the will of the majority to regulate whether by deliberation or passion, prejudice or impulse without regard to restraint or consequence; and results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent and anarchy.”
This same War Department TM went on to discuss citizenship and a republic which is what the United States was originally organized as being. The production date for this TM was Nov 30, 1928. Shortly after Franklin Roosevelt took over in 1933, this 156 page manual was canceled and all copies in the US Government were ordered to be destroyed.
And More Problems
The just quoted “Tzemach Letter” (p. 1) goes on to recognize some of the same problems which were broached in the War Department Training Manual.
“Tzemach” says that “The difficulty with the democratic process is that the masses are easily swayed by ungodly leaders. This is especially true today when the media provides the possibility of cultivating an image that in no way reflects the true character and views of the individual in question. Unscrupulous leaders make unrealistic promises to gain public support and power. This results in the observed trend to evil in the nations.”
Therefore, problems inevitably become reality in a democracy. Collectively, people are extremely gullible and manipulative by corrupt and dishonest leaders. Joe Six Pack and Sally Soap Opera are not exactly capable of choosing the best of anything.
The failure to take action against Slick Clinton was the result of the democratic public opinion polls (and Clinton blackmail operations against members of Congress, as discussed elsewhere herein). The prevailing love of Clinton in the democratic polls caused a fear in the Senate--precluding them from taking action against the corrupt Clinton.
For sure, democracies promote “mob” rule without the restrains of right and wrong, even from the law, as just noted. Yes, the famous lynch parties and wild mobs have always been democratic.
The Scriptures have records of mob rule--when the people clamored for Aaron to make them gods to worship during the Exodus (Ex 32:1), and when the people demanded a human king to replace the theocracy (I Sam 8:4-7, 9). A democracy is tantamount to mob rule.
Still More Problems
Since democracies are designed so that the governing politicians occasionally must shell out some benefits/dole to the voting public (in the way of jobs, money, etc), they have a tendency of promoting vast bureaucracies which grow in size over time. The United States is a classic illustration of the continuing growth and expansion of the federal bureaucracy.
Even when the people theoretically elect a conservative government to reign in the expanding bureaucracy, the result usually backfires.
A good sample of this problem was highlighted in a news report in the Jan 24, 2003, “The Week” (p. 12), which focused upon the US government after two years of George W. Bush. As this report noted-- “after two years in the Oval Office, Bush is presiding over the biggest, most expansive, federal government in history."
Perhaps the biggest Bush effort to expand the US bureaucracy came in 2002 and 2003 with the new US Department of Homeland Security. Instead of cutting bureaucratic offices, Bush has merely added new ones. As “The Week” asked-- “What happened to conservatism?”
Beyond the above obviously bad features of a democracy, there are still some more glaring problems.
Tragically, democracies allow corrupt governmental administrations to materialize (as has happened in the US). And furthermore, they allow the big money interests (who really call the shots) to take over--which means that the government becomes a type of a plutocratic democracy.
Canada
Canada, to the North of the United States, has set the pace for what has been happening all over the Christian West in terms of its human governments.
The April 26, 2002, “The Week” (p. 5) had a news report from Ottawa, Canada on a poll taken to address how Canadians feel about their government. The latest finding is that 69% of Canadians believe that their government is corrupt. This poll followed the dumping of Alfonso Gagliano (a mixed blooded Italian?) from the Cabinet for his efforts at forcing a private company to hire his friend.
The Canadian Auditor General Sheila Fraser said in her annual report that the government’s accounting practices and standards are so loose that auditors are ill-equipped to catch the government crooks operating in Canada.
Former parliament member Lee Morrison said that Canadians have grown accustomed to seeing their leaders get mixed up in scandals. He added that politics is a waste of time. He noted that people expect to “just see this and shrug... They expect to be screwed.”
American Government
While things are grossly bad in Canada, in fairness, the Canadians are now in the minor leagues on corruption, in comparison with how things take place South of the border in the United States.
As “Prophecy Flash” observed-- “Can you imagine working at the following company? It has a little over 500 employees with the following statistics: 29 have been accused of spousal abuse. 7 have been arrested for fraud. 19 have been accused of writing bad checks. 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses. 3 have been arrested for assault. 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit. 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.
“8 have been arrested for shoplifting. 21 are current defendants in law suits. In 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving. Can you guess which organization this is? Give up? It’s the members of the United States Congress. The same group that perpetually cranks out hundreds upon hundreds of new laws designed to keep the rest of us in line” (Mar-Apr 2000 “Prophecy Flash,” p. 76).
Corrupt and/or Sorry Politicians
The power of the super rich to elect political leaders was discussed in previous chapters. The handful of the super rich who own the giant media corporations are making a play for world government. The only question about this motion is that there is some internal conflict in establishing the pecking order (since each person or force wants to be the world’s governor).
In any case, the super rich, and almost without exception through their ownership and/or control of powerful media companies, pretty well call most of the shots of importance in laws emanating from legislatures or other branches of government.
Thus, many supposedly honest legislators will ultimately bend and fail to deliver as they should for their people.
Hence, this brings up another point worth considering, in the case of either a republic or limited democracy. While it is unthinkable, the truth seems to be that many elected leaders are either corrupt or just sorry and lazy in terms of legislation that they will willingly agree to and approve.
In modern America, part of the problem is that all men and women (and certainly, those men and women elected to public office) are extremely busy with multitudes of things to do (usually, in the sense of a pursuit of their personal idols and gods in life).
Apparently, it is this situation which also goes to help the super rich plutocrats establish their control over a nation. In other words, the official leaders are either corrupt and won’t stop this control or they are simply incompetent and lazy about its existence.
In any case, most American legislators sit back today and do nothing about being responsible in their offices. As will be covered in later chapters, the legal profession has taken over many legislatures and they seem to thrive upon the theory of many, many, complicated laws which only lawyers can read and interpret. So this is part of the problem.
Otherwise, there is the realty that most laws now passed by the US Congress are enormously large in size (sometimes, literally many inches thick with thousands of pages). Obviously, the legislators that pass these laws and the presidents who sign them never read them. This should be a clue that something is fundamentally wrong with the US system as it now operates.
A Sample
This point was well demonstrated in the Apr 3-16, 1998, “Trade N’ Save” paper in an article on “Who Controls the Idaho State Legislature” by Bill Denman. Bill wrote that one Idaho legislator publicly reported that 25% of the bills introduced in the ID Legislature were written by legislators. The other 75% all come from the bureaucracy and various associations.
Actually, much of the governing bureaucracy is now organized (i.e. school teachers have their own unions, etc) so that there often is some overlap in this area. But the point must be made that legislators do not prepare most of the bills. Instead, vested interests prepare the bills and provide the push to get them enacted.
When one adds in the influence of the super rich and the organizations which they dominate, coupled with their media control, it is evident that the typical person on the street has little or no influence on legislation at any level. The politicians are all bought and paid for by special interest groups (most or all of which are controlled directly or indirectly by the plutocrats).
Another Example
The Mar-Apr 2002 “Prophecy Flash” (p. 76) had a reader’s letter and some commentary which told a most fascinating tale from the Texas legislature in the 1960s. It seems that one of the Texas legislators became annoyed with his fellow legislators and their practice of passing bills without even reading them.
Therefore, he introduced a bill “commending Mr. Albert DiSalvo for his outstanding work in population control.” The story is that this bill passed the Texas legislature unanimously.
At the time of this bill, Mr DiSalvo was on trial for a series of murders. He was better known under his nickname-- “The Boston Strangler.”
Alexander Fraser Tytler
Before the American Revolutionary War of over 200 years ago, Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler analyzed the existing situation in the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic of some 2,000 years earlier. He concluded that a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government (per the “Freeman” magazine).
Tytler also said that a democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury; with the result that the democracy collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship.
If there was ever a time when Tytler’s remarks struck home, it has been in the presidential campaign of 2000 where the American populous and candidates all had hopes of a victory in November 2000 to elect a successor to Bill Clinton and a successor who would restore some honor and integrity to the US government (the 2000 elections will be discussed below and in later chapters).
More on the American Reality
Since Christian Socialism and humanism took over in America with Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, most American politicians have talked good to get elected. Most of them talk about being fiscal conservatives, and being persons frugal with the taxpayers’ moneys. But in 2000, all of this talk changed, and especially with the Democrat candidates Al Gore and Bill Bradley.
These two jokes went regularly in January, February and March 2000 to the nation’s minorities with their special appeals for votes (and it is these minorities who generally benefit the most from the welfare state and other government actions to grant privileges and special rights).
Whenever Gore and Bradley debated, they each tried to outdo the other in the give-aways and in promises of more give-aways if elected. At Black gatherings, Gore would cry and moan about what all he had done in Black welfare and special rights--like in affirmative action. Bradley came on to brag about how much he had voted for Black welfare and/or affirmative action.
At a largely Black rally in Harlem on February 21, 2000, both Gore and Bradley were trying to outdo each other on Black benefits. When neither could subdue his opponent on Black give-aways, one of them brought up gun control (as if liberal and permissive Blacks were in favor of gun control laws).
Bradley accused Gore of having a pro-gun position when he was a Senator years ago. Of course, Gore called Bradley a liar and argued that even this year, he rushed back to Washington to break a tie breaking vote on more gun control laws.
Tragically, for America, things have changed over the years (as just noted, with the Gore-Bradley tactics). Now, the politicians are tripping all over themselves in trying to outdo their opponents in give-aways and special benefits and privileges for specific groups of minorities (Blacks, queers, women, Hispanics, etc). The days of talking about fiscal conservatism in America are over.
Slick Manipulated the Blacks
One of the things which propelled Slick Clinton’s enormous political success, first in Arkansas and subsequently across the United States, was how he shrewdly and carefully manipulated Black people. Very early, in his career, he recognized that Black voters would be his base of support.
To be sure that the generic Africans delivered at the polls, Slick apparently realized that two things would be needed. First, he had to be a true, liberal Democrat who would promise and deliver, where possible, massive amounts of welfare, jobs and benefits for Negroes. The second need was huge sums of money to pay off the Black leaders (principally preachers) in order for them to get the Negro vote out.
As discussed elsewhere herein, Slick turned to organized crime to provide him with a significant portion of his needed money. Otherwise, he was always receptive to bribes, both in Arkansas and nationally. For example, the Chinese payments of money to him during the 1996 political campaign were made for obvious later benefits to them. Some called this treason. But the American public didn’t care.
With these huge blocks of campaign money to pay off Black preachers, and by periodically going to the Negro community to offer encouragement, speeches and talks, Slick successfully manipulated the Africans the most of any American president in history. Bill Clinton, per his own words, says that he was the first Black president (Oct 4, 1999, “US News & World Report,” p. 9). Many Blacks believed him.
This Black support paid off early in 1998 during his sodomite troubles. About the only persons who remained solidly behind Slick was his primary Black base of support. A poll of African-Americans around Sep 1, 1998, indicated that 87% of them approved of both Slick’s job performance and morals, as opposed to 7% who disapproved.
With the upcoming 1998 elections, Clinton again turned to the Negroes for them to deliver some liberal Democrat victories at the polls, which would penalize the Republicans and deter the talk of impeachment. Clinton had the money for the necessary payoffs and the Blacks responded.
Black Voter Fraud
Many people, particularly in the American South (where significant numbers of Negroes live), have known for years that Blacks vote in blocs and essentially for the Democrats who favor the give-away programs that they benefit from. But moreover, it is also known in the South that groups of Blacks, under their Negro leaders and preachers, commit gross voting fraud whenever possible in US elections.
The way this works out is that African leaders (preachers) will gather up a busload or carload of Blacks and go to one precinct where they all vote Democrat. Then the leader takes them to another precinct where they vote again for the same Democrat candidates. And perhaps a third, fourth or fifth time, this same load of Blacks may get to vote again and again in different precincts.
For this scam, all that is needed is a little money to pay off the Black leaders to get them pepped up to run the bus or car caravans to the polls. If Southern White politicians speak out and condemn this vote fraud, they are immediately chastised and condemned in the controlled media as racists and White supremacists.
In late October 1998, one district in Georgia proposed a solution. They would install TV cameras at their precincts to monitor the voters. With this film, it would have been later possible to see if some voters voted in two or more precincts.
While this sounded good to a few Southern Whites (who were familiar with Black voting habits), it was immediately condemned in the controlled national media as being racist (obviously, since it would reveal Black voter fraud--which must never be allowed to happen in the politically correct, controlled society).
Since Slick Clinton was and is so incredibly dishonest and crooked, there was little doubt but that he has used this Black voter fraud process many times over in his elections in Arkansas.
Actually, a number of White leaders in Arkansas (including a former justice of the Arkansas State Supreme Court) have argued for years that Slick manipulated and used the huge Black population in the Mississippi Delta in Eastern Arkansas to get elected and re-elected (as suggested in the “Clinton Chronicles” video).
Stealing Elections
The public is so mesmerized with apathy and indifference that crooks like Slick Clinton have discovered that elections can easily be stolen in heavily Black and Hispanic voting areas and nothing will be done about it. If any critic speaks out, he is immediately branded by the controlled media as a racist and White supremacist, as just noted.
The public is so gullible and the media is so dishonest that it is impossible to raise any question over the culture and conduct of Blacks and Hispanics in the contemporary American culture (however dishonest and corrupt they may be).
Obviously, this reality is what has been fueling the Democrat leadership in the United States to open America’s borders to as many Colored persons as possible. The Blacks and Hispanics bloc vote for Democrats (although George W. Bush did get some Hispanic votes in Florida in 2000); and the more that come in (legally or illegally), the better it is for Democrat politicians.
With disinterested officials and a could care less (controlled) media, the die is cast that more and more elections will be stolen by large blocs of particularly Negro voters (and Hispanics to a lesser degree) in the future.
For the interim, it means that White political crooks like Slick Clinton (who are perfectly willing to sell the US out for votes) will benefit. As the Colored power accelerates, more and more Black (and Hispanic) political leaders will emerge (which means a vast acceleration in Colored incompetence and corruption).
The Modern Democrat Propensity for Fraud
While it is manifestly true that both Democrats and Republicans can steal elections, in fairness, there is a difference in degrees of dishonesty and corruption. As noted in previous comments, the more WASP types among Republicans are just not as prone for dishonesty--as is true with Edomite, Black and Hispanic Democrats. All of them can be crooks. It’s just that one definition tends to be worse than the other.
Therefore, in modern America, the Democrats are usually the people who do the short-changing and cheating in elections (and they get away with it because the liberal, leftist, controlled media is on their side). Primarily, this issue arises because Blacks and Amalekites, in particular (who are mostly Democrats), won’t bat an eye about committing fraud in an election (as noted earlier).
It is also true that in the liberal mentality, stealing an election is no big deal. Liberals, Socialists and humanists, by and large, are generally very secular and immoral. Since they seem to have little or no religious scruples (which some WASPs have), and since they are so opposed to righteousness and truth, they will often do anything without any semblance of morality or concern for righteousness.
The Amalekites are obviously the most immoral and dishonest of all forms of the leftist combine. As the Amalekites are children of Satan (both mentally and spiritually), they have no qualms at all about committing fraud in democratic elections (or anything else for that matter). In the United States, the Amalekite Jew bankers/masters own the US Democrat party for all purposes.
Corruption Prevails
Truly, in the United States, the so-called democracy has turned into a joke where crooked politicians and their plutocratic backers steal elections, right and left, and no one in authority seems to care one way or the other or do anything about it.
Of course, the dilemma starts with the way the nation is set up or how it has evolved to allow powerful, super rich plutocrats to own virtually the entire media and public education systems (as is thoroughly described elsewhere herein, on how the real rulers in America call the shots on almost all questions of importance).
While the above comments have focused upon the Democrats and their propensity for fraud and corruption, the point must be made again that the Republicans are also bad. It’s just that the Republicans are miles behind the Democrats on dishonesty and stealing elections.
The same conclusion can be applied to particular politicians of the two ruling parties. Most American politicians are dishonest and will willingly sell their own constituents, family, friends and even their own mothers out to get elected. There is simply no way to assess modern American politicians (collectively) without being sick and depressed over how utterly sorry and corrupt that they are in reality.
Just as the Democrat party is the worst of the two major parties, the same thing can be generally said about Democrat politicians vis-à-vis Republican politicians. Both peoples are pathetically evil, sorry and corrupt. But of the two, one must acknowledge that Democrat politicians are probably the more wretched.
This doesn’t mean that most Republicans are not evil. It just means that they are not as evil as most Democrats (who are generally liberals with no sense of morality, honesty or integrity at all in their mental make-ups). Thus, essentially, both types of politicians are bad. But the liberal Democrats are the worst.
Third Parties?
In terms of other political parties, probably the same thing could be said for them if they actually held political power in the United States. These small third parties are irrelevant to the political destiny of the US and her sub-components. Since they have no role, there is no point in trying to determine how crooked that they are in comparison with the two ruling parties.
Probably, right now, people of more character and honor would automatically flock to and identify with some of the small third parties (because they are substantially better than the two ruling parties). But since they are not getting any money and support from the ruling plutocrats, there is simply the reality that most of these third parties have not yet been corrupted by money.
If any of these third parties ever reach the big leagues (which they cannot ever accomplish in the present situation because the plutocrats control the current reality, and they are simply not going to allow a third party to surface and cause an impact on anything of significance), they too would become corrupted.
Hypothetically speaking, if a third party did gain some power and influence, the plutocrats would bring their stacks of money in to corrupt it and its people just as they have done with the Democrats and Republicans.
In the present US democracy, it is simply impossible to avoid the reality that the plutocrats really call the political shots (through their ownership and/or control of the national media and their influence over the education system, primarily by their large tax-exempt foundations).