by Pastor Mark Downey
August 11, 2013
Scripture Reading: Isaiah 66:8
The united States began when God’s punishment upon Israel expired, if you believe the prophecy of 2520 years, otherwise known as ‘the seven times punishment,’ which began in 745BC with the Assyrian captivity and ended in 1776; July 4th to be exact. Even more specific and interesting, we can calculate the captivity of Manasseh, which is America, going into captivity in 732BC and coming out of that captivity 2520 years later in the year 1789, the ratification of the Constitution. All of the tribes of Israel went into captivity at different times and all came out of their respective captivities at different times that coincide with the founding of the European nations and their Constitutions. Do we ignore these numbers or do we do the math and surmise that God is telling us something? According to conspiracy theorists, were they all subverted by a jewish-Masonic conspiracy or was it just us? The 1948 IsraeLIE does not compute. What White Christian Americans have to accept is that God meant for there to be a nation born in a day. When God gave Israel the religious test at Sinai, He warned them that if they rejected the Law, they would be judged. Was it just a coincidence that the Declaration of Independence was signed the same year that divine judgment would no longer travail upon His people? America began in a profound way in the eyes of God and He established His Word through prophecy i.e. a nation born in a day.
The uncanny parallel between America and ancient Israel was so obvious that virtually every Christian minister in colonial America expounded upon it in sermons and writings. They clearly held the widespread belief that this new nation was the ‘stone kingdom’ of Daniel with a destiny to finish the work that the Reformation began and ultimately smash the feet of the Babylonian image, which was political Europe and Papal Rome, both based on dictatorial religious tests. Freedom was hailed as never before as a beacon of light separated from darkness, whether political or religious. If we are to fulfill our divine destiny in the advancement of the Kingdom of God, we must not forsake the blessings our founding fathers fought for nor misplace the chronology of sins that spoiled their furthering of God’s will.
That’s the nature of the beast in discerning the truth of history, which is really His story. Are we to believe that as soon as the ‘seven times’ concluded, that another long train of abuses would follow and curse Israel? That contention would paint the God of Israel as cruel and unforgiving and show favor to Esau- Edom whom He says He hates. Why would God continue to punish Israel in the appointed place where He would plant them, “That they would dwell in a place of their own, and move no more” (II Samuel 7:10)? Are we to believe that at the end of their 2520 year captivity, it no sooner ended, than a new curse began?
Independence from the religious tests of Europe continued to resonate with Americans. For example, in his election sermon of 1790, Daniel Foster reminded the governor in attendance, John Hancock, that “It was under your presidency and direction, that ancient prophecy was literally accomplished, ‘a nation born in a day’ – America declared free, sovereign and independent.” If White Christian Americans were to be heirs of the promise, they must be the Covenant People. Just as the 12 tribe nations of ancient Israel (actually 13 with Joseph comprising Ephraim and Manasseh) were free to honor God as they saw fit, so too were the 13 estates or states of colonial America free to worship God. Before there were kings in Israel there were judges and even with the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic Law, the religious test of that day was no guarantee that the people would not sin. That’s because the religious test, or a paper document or exhorting prophets or even the Word of God could not be held responsible for people being in disobedience. The ultimate responsibility is with you and me. 200 years ago, Americans knew that better than the crop of hyphenated Christians today. Do you think they ever heard James 1:14? “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.”
At any point in our history, there have been evil men and diabolical plots to destroy our covenants. With the promises of Christ, there was also running alongside our body politic, the threat of antichrists, defined as anyone in opposition to the covenants. Our founding fathers were attuned to these conspiracies, explaining much of history. After the Revolution they discovered the atheism of the French Revolution and the intrigue of the Bavarian Illuminati. It had not sailed the ocean blue in any other form than rhetoric. Thank God the religious tests of European Freemasonry had not yet taken root in the nation born in a day through divine providence. And that is what a national religious test would have fomented had they not been cognizant of that model across the ocean blue.
I wish to God that the jews had been evicted from our shores. But, patriotic men were very close in principle and stated, “In the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God [meaning Christianity] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” That’s hardly deserving of the insinuation that they called good evil and evil good by not emulating a federal religious test that would do more to integrate than to separate. Let’s be fair: not all religious tests are good and not all religious tests are evil. The historical pattern is such that an episcopal ‘pyramid scheme’ religious test acts as a petri dish for corruption, whereas a presbyter ‘grassroots’ religious test really begins with the individual and family unit and shouldn’t go any further than the borders of a state. Biblically, there should be 50 state religious tests and never 1 federal mandate.
Let me give you an example of just a local ordinance, that if it were on a federal level would be the end of the Christian body politic. The latest example (7-24-13) of the liberal precept that government is greater than the individual can be found in San Antonio, Texas. The city is looking to update its anti-discrimination policies by adding sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories, and plans to punish those who speak out against it. Which means that you cannot run for city council or be appointed to a city board. In other words, Christians automatically fail this religious test. This ordinance also attacks contractors and their subcontractors who show a bias. This is not only religious tyranny, but economic dictatorship. This ‘sign of the times’ is a 180 degrees from what the freedom loving founding fathers envisioned for this nation. Jews and Masons overcame the Christian principle of religious tests by way of deception to include what God considers our enemy, rather than the exclusion of what the Bible calls abominations. That’s how we discern the spirit of a religious test: does it whore after strange gods?
Where does government begin? Thomas Jefferson said, “The right of self-government does not comprehend the government of others.” The enemy of Christian liberty is someone else telling you to live and think like they do. The enemy of our faith is religious tyranny. If I persuade you about God’s Truth, you are not in agreement with me (I’m just a messenger); you’re in agreement with God. The founding fathers were in agreement with God and the Constitution was in agreement with the Word of God. It was not the responsibility of a federal apparatus to impose an establishment of one denomination of Christianity over another. It was understood then, as it should be understood now, that all other non-Christian religions were irrelevant to the Constitution. Why? Because there were 13 nation-states or bodies of Christ that had the liberty to impose their convictions of Jesus Christ within their borders. And who establishes borders? “When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds [boundaries] of the people according to the number of the children of Israel” Deut. 32:8. Who’s going to play God and dissolve those state borders and impose a religious test?
It was a good field of wheat; it was a good Christian nation of states united, until an enemy planted tares in the field; until an enemy made the sum of the total without parts. In other words, antichrists who would break the independent covenants or blessings of each tribe or state and the integrity of their borders. If one state started sinking in apostasy, it didn’t mean that all the others would sink with them. God could have given Jacob only one son to carry the seed and thus only one religious test, but the Bible speaks of ‘E Pluribus Unum’, one out of many, “For the body is not one member, but many” (I Cor. 12:12). A federal religious test would make the body as one member, a national citizen. A state religious test would make membership a part of the whole, being that there were many states with state citizens. Yes, Israel was nation, but each tribe had its own destiny and part to play in God’s plan for the ages. To take away the borders of the people was tantamount to undoing what God hath done; and a federal religious test would have done just that. The antichrists are intent upon eliminating all borders throughout the world and imposing one false god.
The devils and demons are in the details, so let’s take a closer look at how jews, Masons and the religious test fit together. Mention has been made of the jew Moses Michael Hays “introducing” the Scottish Rite to America. You can find 50 websites about this guy and they all use the same word “introduced” in almost identical sentences, which means one has to dig deeper than the common regurgitations. One could introduce the idea of cyanide flavored Kool-Aid, but that doesn’t mean people are lining up under the Jim Jones tent to drink it. Hays provided financial support to beautify Boston Common, establish theaters and endow Harvard College, which has an inordinate number of jews to this day. He was simply a jewish fat cat who had plenty of cash to spread around as if he were some kind of benevolent philanthropist. He was the poster boy for jewry in colonial America, openly asserting his jewishness and like the polluted aristocracy of England, ingratiated himself among the Boston elite. What was his relationship with Paul Revere? Revere was a silversmith and Hays commissioned him to make silver artifacts. One could call it mutual exploitation or just business as usual. I know how tough it is for starving artists, but I don’t think Revere sold his soul to the devil in some kind of jewish-masonic conspiracy.
The Scottish Rite was insignificant in 1769 and was never organized until 1801and we’ll see that even then it was insignificant. As he wormed his way into the New England Masonic movement, he was the only jew. In 1775 seventy-six men in Newport were asked to sign a declaration of loyalty to the American colonies that included the phrase "upon the true faith of a Christian." Hays made a big stink about the phrase and refused to sign it. There is no evidence that there were any other jews besides himself or that the religious test had anything to do with holding public office. In fact, the idea of jews having any governmental authority was absurd and unthinkable to the Christian society of that generation. He was infuriated by what he considered a public show of contempt towards him when he was asked to sign an oath of loyalty to the new nation, especially after he had made such a show of his benevolence and charity or what some may have seen as subtle briberies. Maybe some people saw through him and others who were not loyal to America, but to their pocketbooks. It is unclear whether Hays' public jewish identity served as a reason for the loyalty oath requirement. Hays noted that in spite of his patriotism, his jewishness had already caused him to be denied many other rights given to non-Jews.
I found Hays’ letter to the General Assembly protesting the loyalty oath with the provision “Upon the true faith of a Christian” and he said nothing about holding public office. What he did say is revealing and my comments are in brackets.
He said, “I have and ever shall hold the strongest principles and attachment to the just rights and privileges of this my native land, and ever have and shall conform to the rules and acts of this government [I don’t believe him, but I believe he takes the kol nidre], and pay as I always have my proportion of its exigencies [there’s the jewish hook of the power of the purse]. I always have asserted my sentiments in favour of America and confess war on its part just [because there was more money in American enterprise than the English economy]. I decline subscribing the Test at present from these principles: First, that I deny ever being inimical to my country and call for my accusers and proof of my conviction [first, that is what a jew would say, being that they are like chameleons]. Second, that I am an Israelite and am not allowed the liberty of a vote, or voice in common with the rest of the voters, though consistent with the constitution and the other colonies [that must have been a joke on him, because the essence of Christian Identity was alive and well at that time]. Thirdly, because the Test is not general and consequently subject to many glaring inconveniences [well of course it wasn’t a generalization of adherence to a pantheon of gods; it was specifically Christian in nature]. Fourthly, the Continental Congress nor the General Assembly of this nor the legislatures of any other of the colonies have never in this contest taken any notice of countenance respecting the society of Israelites to which I belong [oh, I think they had an inclination about the synagogue of satan]. When any rule, order, or directions is made by the Congress or General Assembly, I shall, to the utmost of my power, adhere to the same [OK, adhere to America as a Christian nation, which it was].” ‘Methinks he doth protesteth too much.’
Much has been written pro and con about Washington and his connection to the Masons. Of course, Masons today are eager to claim him as one of their own. However, during the era of anti-Masonic activity preceding the Civil War, scholars privy to Washington’s letters of correspondence found no evidence of alleged fraternization with the various lodges and deemed the alleged documents spurious. I was curious what Pastor Elmore’s source was regarding Hays and the King David Lodge and he obliged my research with a link to a PDF called ‘Sephardic Pirates of the Revolutionary War’ sponsored by the Jewish Community Center of Silicon Valley. On the first page I found an alleged document by George Washington written to the Hebrew [sic] Congregation in Newport, R.I., and noticed the parts in bold that said, “For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance… May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants.” To me this sounded unusually gratuitous and self serving for jewish propaganda, not at all the syntax of his other writings, so I investigated this letter some more. I found out that the letter was purchased by yet another jewish philanthropist named Morris Morgenstern in 1949. A foundation in his name loaned the letter to the B’nai B’rith Klutznick National Jewish Museum, which lets few people see it. The letter is now said to be worth between $5 and $10 million. I’m sure the insurance companies are telling them ‘don’t let the goyim touch the moichandise.’ What Washington did say, even though jews have tried to debunk it, is, "They [the jews] work more effectively against us, than the enemy's armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in... It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pest to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America" - Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co. It doesn’t get much more Orwellian than records showing that this document was at one time displayed in the Philadelphia Museum of Art, was stolen and was then said to have never existed.
The delightful twists and cracks in this story returns to the flattery and platitudes of Moses Hays in anticipation of a visit by General Washington to the brethren of the King David Lodge and the proposed Masonic greeting afforded dignitaries. The following entry from the old Minute Book of the Lodge will explain why the project failed to materialize. Dated Feb.7, 1781, it reads, “A motion being made that as our worthy brother, his Excellency General Washington, was daily expected among us, a committee should be appointed to prepare an address in behalf of the Lodge, to present him.” By Feb. 14, 1781, the minutes of the meeting recorded that, “The committee appointed to draught an address to our worthy brother his Excellency General Washington, report, that on inquiry they find that General Washington not to be a Grand Master of North America; as was supposed, nor even Master of any particular Lodge. They are, therefore, of the opinion that this Lodge would choose not to address him as a private brother at the same time, think it would not be agreeable to our worthy brother to be addressed as such. Voted, that the report of the committee be received, and that the address be entirely laid aside.” What were they saying? He’s not worthy!
I found even more compelling evidence regarding the jew in colonial America from a jewish author. Listen to this: “In 1860, as flag officer of the Mediterranean squadron, Captain Levy, the Jew, embodied in himself fulfillment of the promises inherent in the Declaration of Independence. But 1860 was not 1776. Prior to 1776, despite the 1740 English statute naturalizing foreigners in the colonies, the Jews had still remained second class citizens. Naturalization conferred no political equality unless one was ready to take an oath “on the true faith of a Christian.” Under British rule, the Jews in the thirteen provinces had made no political demands; they were sure that their situation was better than any other Jewry in the world – and, in any case, complaints would have probably been of little avail to them. But, as events in the 1770’s demonstrated, once the Revolution started it became clear that the Jews had not really accepted their disabilities with equanimity. The Jews were certainly conscious that the new republic was denying them rights accorded others, and some of them were indignant. By 1777 they were fully aware that twelve of the thirteen states were denying them the right to hold high office.
“Moses Michael Hays told the Rhode Islanders bluntly that the Continental Congress and the states were ignoring Jews politically. This was in July, 1776, after the signing of the Declaration of Independence had been adopted…. An obvious question is this: why had the Jews in the last quarter of the century not united nationally, as an organized body, to fight for rights in all states? They took no action because in all likelihood they realized that Jews, pronounced individualists, could not work together as a group to secure political emancipation. A firm national organization of all the Jews in this land was never envisaged. Such unity in American Jewry was not even achieved as late as the turn of the twentieth century.
“What had American Jews Jews gained by 1840? Why had they been emancipated? Who helped them? What had they gained in the early national period – freedom of conscience and the right to worship as Jews? No. These rights they had always enjoyed in the English colonies: indeed these privileges were accorded them in most European lands… Thus, are we to conclude that the Jews had “religious freedom” in the North American British colonies and in the United States? No. They could claim no genuine religious freedom because political rights were denied them as Jews… the thirteen English colonies were Protestant Christians, and Jews, consequently, had always been second-class citizens.
“And the gains on the sub-federal, state level? On that level there was resistance to the granting of right to the Chosen People [sic]; strong efforts were made to maintain the pre-Revolutionary status quo. America was a Protestant country, certainly a Christian one! Whether churched or not, most Americans believed in a trinitarian God; they wanted Christian chaplains and a national Thanksgiving celebration… They believed in the Old and in the New Testament… They punished people for anti-Christian blasphemy. Actually the law recognized Christianity as the religion of the land. What political gains, then, had the Jews made on the state level by 1840? One must bear in mind that not until 1937 were states forbidden by judicial construction to tamper with First Amendment rights. When Jefferson became president in 1801, only six of the original thirteen states had emancipated their Jews; by 1840, four of the original thirteen – Rhode Island, New Jersey, North Carolina and New Hampshire – still refused to abolish statutes withholding from Jews the right to hold important state office…
“The delegates to the Constitutional Convention were hardly concerned with the political rights of a few thousand exotic infidels, but those states with Jewish communities were ultimately compelled to face the challenge of their Jewish neighbors… Acceptance of Jews was hastened because, though a small minority, they were not an unimportant urban congeries; some were merchants, members of the business elite. They were a literate group at a time when thousands among the farming masses were illiterate… Jews wanted a strong central government able to protect their commercial interests; the national constitution upheld by the Federalists tolerated no disabilities; whereas the state constitutions were often discriminatory…
“Who were the allies of the Jews? Who helped them gained rights and immunities? Certainly the typical observant churchgoer was not a conscious ally?... The Jews gained their liberties by riding on the coattails of the Christian dissenters… The attitude towards Jews was determined by two disparate traditions, tolerance and antipathy. The anti-Jewish one was rooted in the gospel drama of Jew as a villain; the post-Revolutionary tradition of tolerance – not too widespread to be sure – goes back to the Protestant England of… Cromwell…
“Christian piety still remained a mark of good citizenship, but the merchant, the importer and exporter, the substantial ratepayer, assumed an increasing importance. Speculation in terrestrial wares engrossed men more than celestial salvation. Jews were now valued. They were imaginative entrepreneurs; they paid taxes. For these reasons they were encouraged to settle in the British colonies of the Caribbean and North America. This new tolerance… had made itself felt in South Carolina by 1775.” From the book ‘United States Jewry, 1776-1840’ by Jacob Rader Marcus, Wayne State University Press, pp. 115-119.
What can we glean from these candid comments? Well, it can’t be said that the jews were eager to join in the political life of a nation born in a day that was intended for another race of people, the true Israelites. That move may have initiated yet another purge of jews from a host nation. It can’t be said that there was any noticeable current of jewry in Freemasonry during this period of time in which White Christians enjoyed the dominant role of power, other than a few overt jewish businessmen trying to get their foot in the door; or Freemasonry trying to get its foot in the door. The B’nai B’rith was just a twinkle in the eye of their Pharisaic father. ‘No King but Jesus” meant just that. ‘Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God’ was a motto also understood politically and religiously. As usual, jews have more loyalty to mammon than a need for political expediency or organization; although that would come later under different circumstances, which we’ll touch upon in a moment. Jews experienced nothing new in their Judaic preoccupations during the colonial era, however, White Christian Americans, the true Israelites of Scripture, experienced a profound awakening with the birthing of the greatest Christian nation in the history of the world. The jews must have felt like third string bench warmers, indeed “second class citizens.”
A jewish source testifies that, “Some Freemasons genuinely believed that confessing the Jewish faith was a disqualification for Freemasonry, which they regarded as a Christian institution, a view contested by those who adhered to the original English constitution and called themselves humanistic Freemasons. The struggle between the two trends continued during the 19th century” - Encyclopaedia Hebraica. From the same source we read, “Until the 1780s only a few German Jews were admitted to Masonry. About this time Jewish applications for admission to the Masonic lodges became frequent. Though there were some attempts to open the lodges to Jews, no German Freemason of any standing at that time advocated Jewish admittance. Some German Jews became Freemasons when traveling abroad in England, Holland, and, particularly, in post-revolutionary France. In Germany itself French or French-initiated lodges were established during the Napoleonic occupation. A Jewish lodge, L'Aurore Naissante, was founded in Frankfurt, authorized in 1808 by the Grand Orient in Paris. These ventures, however, hardened the resistance of the indigenous lodges in Frankfurt and in other German towns, and some Masonic fraternities introduced amended constitutions specifically excluding Jews.”
Jewish author, Sefton D. Temkin, asserts, “The later history of Freemasonry in the United States shows a number of prominent Jewish names, but nothing corresponding to their influence in the earlier period. In 1843 the Grand Lodge in New York addressed a letter to the Mutterloge in Berlin complaining against the refusal of German lodges to accept registered Masons of the American Lodge because they were Jewish. Nonsectarianism in matters of religion has always characterized American Freemasonry, and regulations excluding Jews have not been part of their constitutions, though whether admissions policies have ever been restrictive would be difficult to establish. The apparatus of secrecy, ritual, and regalia which was a feature of B'nai B'rith in its early years no doubt reflected the influence of Masonic practice as well as a desire to offer a substitute within the Jewish community.”
The B’nai B’rith did not enter the picture until 1843 probably because there was an unwritten discrimination towards jews in the Lodge up to that time. If jews are to celebrate anything, it is their foot in the door, a charter for judaics to organize within Masonry, not the Constitution. From Craig Heimbichner’s book ‘Blood on the Altar; the secret history of the world’s most dangerous secret society’ he writes, “In spite of the claim that the United States was begun as a “Masonic plot,” the truth is that most Masons by far were Loyalists who fought for the Crown… the misprision [negligence] frequently arises when a naïve conspiracy researcher skims a few books written by the Masons themselves and begins to believe what he reads.” If we are to believe Masonic literature, everyone who benefited mankind was in the Lodge, but common sense tells us that talk is cheap. Proof is the test of historians. The pro-Masonic view of American history actually comes from the satanic pen of Manly P. Hall, exacerbated by the equally malevolent influence of Aleister Crowley. It’s one thing to quote them; it’s another thing to believe what they say is the truth. It is imperative that we understand the diseased mind of jewry (which is not easy), for example: to fathom the Holocaust as a magnificent hoax. This depraved tendency to believe a lie is what Christ sought to overturn. But, it survived as a mentality, a religion of the double mind, gradually named judaism, which is more of a criminal code that a religion. Theirs is the racial masquerade of duplicity and falsification to impregnate Christianity with the seed of contradictions, which are at the heart of universalism or the so called ‘family of man,’ a lie from its inception. You see, if we only see the thesis without the antithesis, we will be well on our way to the synthesis, a future without a heritage.
The Scottish Rite was an attempt to build a better mousetrap from the Blue Lodge, going from three degrees to 33 degrees. If you like religious tests, this would give you a lifetime of initiations. I said earlier that the Scottish Rite at the time of Moses Hays was insignificant. That’s because the text and commentaries had not yet developed the teeth or fangs of occult ritual. Even Illuminati founder Adam Weishaupt admitted, “The Lodge shall be our nursery garden. All those who are not suited to the work shall remain in the Masonic Lodge and advance in that without knowing anything of the further system” – Nesta Webster; Secret Societies, p. 210. The Scottish Rite is inexorably linked with one man, Albert Pike, born in Boston, in 1809, educated as a lawyer, and was introduced to Scottish Rite Freemasonry in 1853, from 1855 to 1857, he rewrote the entire 30 degrees giving them substance which they did not have previously. This is critical in understanding whether or not the founding fathers, who were Masons, conspired to establish the liberalism of democracy and the racial homogenization and eventual genocide of the White race and Christianity. If something has no substance, what does that mean? It means it’s nothing. The notorious machinations of Pike, which remains the driving force of the 20th century system of skullduggery Masonry, was unknown to the founding fathers, because it wasn’t yet devised. The American Lodge of the 1700’s was a thesis of brotherhood and charity, a storefront if you will. The American Lodge of the 1800’s was the antithesis instituting secrets of the occult, a back room if you will. The American Lodge of the 1900’s was the synthesis calling good evil and evil good, a chain store merchandising the double mind if you will.
The Bible says, “There’s nothing new under the sun.” Evil has been with us since the Garden. The religious test was do not partake of the fruit, whatever that was. The principle was to obey God. The Christian ecclesia leading up to the signing of the Constitution was a bold attempt at defusing the religious tyranny of kings and monarchs that repeated itself through history, because people kept losing sight of their Israelite heritage and also a bold humbling to be worthy in the eyes of God. We have a preponderance of Christian declarations to that effect. The worship of Lucifer came with Albert Pike and we can see the historical manifestation of that enterprise from the 1840’s to the present. The connection between Luciferianism and a Constitutional Republic is an arbitrary oxymoron. The proof is found in where and who and why a religious test is being performed. When that nation of prophecy was born in a day, God did not reciprocate with an abortion.
Before a Christian principle can be usurped by antichrists, values must be reversed so that good is evil and evil is good. That’s how Article 6 has been subverted by jews and Masons. Those dead White guys were racists and anti-Semites right? So what’s the reverse psychology? Well, it’s the same dead accusation that Hitler was a jew. Or how about an even more magnanimous lie: Jesus Christ was a jew. What does this do to White Christians who are only half informed? It causes them to despise their heritage; it makes them recalcitrant in emulating what worked in the past; it makes them clay in the hands of a jewish potter. Sometimes the enemy tells us exactly what they’re up to: “Take away the heritage of a people and they are easily persuaded" – Karl Marx. Take away the Constitution of White Christians and they are easily persuaded with a jewish-Masonic constitution. The Constitution of our founders died with the War of Northern Aggression and has never recovered except for token appearances.
Christian Identity has the duty to expose these masters of disinformation; the jew is an expert in effectively keeping people looking in all the wrong directions. We shouldn’t be fooled by jewish exaggeration, but we are. No one questions the 6 million figure except hate groups. And the same is true regarding jewish power. I don’t care how much money they’ve got, how many media conglomerates they wield or how many Weiner-like politicians think they are in control. I only care about the One who says He has “All power in heaven and in earth” (Mt. 28:18) and that this modern Babylon will be made desolate in one hour (Rev. 18:19).
Just as I thought I was finished with this sermon, I received a newsletter in the mail, which one could describe as being in the universal gehenna district of Identity, it inadvertently went to the core of the problem. It was from Stephen Jones and he said, “As you are no doubt aware, my perspective is legal, rather than genetic (or biological). I recognize that there are different definitions of words, even biblical words, depending on context.” He goes on with his pitch for universalism, “Paul used the legal term of Jew in Romans 2:28-29. Those with the circumcision of the heart are Jews, while those who depended upon physical circumcision are not Jews. This is obviously not a biological matter, but a heart matter.” Did you catch the sophistry there, failing to clarify who or what a jew is and arbitrarily removing race? He then comes to this conclusion: “The same is true with the term Israel. It can refer to physical descendants of the man named Jacob-Israel, or it can refer to the nation that came out of Egypt, regardless of genealogy. An Israelite could be anyone who had obtained legal citizenship in Israel.” Citizenship is the bottom-line isn’t it? Can Jones prove that the mixed multitude in the wilderness obtained this magic free pass to assume the same God given name and rights that Israelites had?; keeping in mind that God gave Israel the command to exterminate all of the Canaanites in the Promised Land? The religious test for Israel in the wilderness was exclusively exclusionary; there was no test for the racial alien, nor did it proffer a future citizenship for non-Whites. But, you know what? I bet those mongrels had something to do with persuading our people to build a golden calf, just like they argued for all of Israel to have a federal religious test in America, following in the footsteps of the catholic and European oligarchies.
Article 6 was a no-brainer. No jew or negro would be given the opportunity to lie and say, they believe in Jesus too, just like Stephen Jones fantasy world where you can spiritualize any mongrel and make them a spiritual Israelite. There was no Law of God that included the jew or heathen as part of His glorious plan of the ages. So why would anybody want to test their religious beliefs anyway. Well, before any subhuman could mark an X on a piece of paper, true Israelites would have to decide whether or not they were worthy to be included and that is what is at the heart of the matter. The historical record is clear, our founding fathers were only concerned about Baptists, and Congregationalist, and Presbyterians, and Methodists, not jews or negros or Indians. So what to do for an antichrist? If they couldn’t devise a plan to inculcate a federal religious test, they would destroy the religious test where it existed, in the states. And what better way to do that, than a civil war.
The last thing Jones said was, “It is not always possible to prove one way or another how the word is being used, so often our definitions depend upon our opinion or viewpoint, hopefully based upon the evidence of Scripture itself.” And to that I say or actually Proverbs 3:5 says, “Trust in the Lord with all of your heart, and lean not into thine own understanding.” That’s probably why there’s 35,000 denominations and the reason why none of them should be established as the official national religion of the united States. We were a Christian nation in 1776, we were a nation born in a day. On that note, I pray that the apostate country that we’ve become dies in a day. And then, you’ll see a religious test as you’ve never seen it before. The thing is, we’re answering the test questions now. So, in order to pass the test, we have to do our homework. I pray that we trust in the Lord with all our heart to have the wherewithal of His Holy Spirit to ascertain the Truth.