Doctrine of Balaam - Part 4


By Walter Giddings

March 17, 2024

Relevant Scripture: Romans 9:1-7

Has the thought ever occurred to us that, outside of congregational assembly, many of our friends and neighbours, and even family members, routinely confess they have committed a federal offense!  Admissions and Confessions are most interesting!  We have already confessed or have done many things!  Our deeds or fruit have already revealed what kind of family tree we are.  Our confessions mean our deeds are not hidden.  What need have we for a trial?!  Not all, but several of our friends and neighbours, and even family members, will freely confess to reading The General Epistle of James.  What is an “epistle”?  The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary defines EPISTLE as “a letter” and “a letter missive”.  

(James 1)

 They have committed a federal offense!  It is a violation of federal law to open mail not addressed to them, 18 USC 1702, Crimes and Criminal Procedure!  That is Title 18, United States Code, Section 1702.  The crime is called “obstruction of correspondence.”  We can be fined or incarcerated up to 5 years in the federal penitentiary. 

We are in James 1, Verse 1.         

          James, a servant of God and of the

   Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes

   which are scattered abroad, greeting

                                                                    James chapter one. 

What does the word “Epistle” mean?  In our day does it mean the same thing as correspondence, or letter, sent first class mail?  When you or I hate The Doctrine that the Caucasian Race is descended from “the twelve tribes” of Israel, everytime we read from The General Epistle of James we are reading, by our own confession, mail that is not addressed to us!  18 USC 1702, Obstruction of Correspondence is a felony!  Our open confession nukes the need for a trial!! 

This is intended only as a “heads-up, a wake-up call.  We have no desire to mimic, or even approach the actions of those in the War Powers Emergency Administration who, with fangs dripping and lips foaming, desire with hearts of predators ravening the prey, to make us their enemies.  So, if anybody wishes to believe they are not descended from The Twelve Tribes of Israel dispersed among the Gentiles, please see me at Fellowship Dinner and I will show you how you can get the charge(s) dismissed. 

Last month on assembly day Pastor Don wanted to be sure that, God willing, I would be here on Green Shamrock Day this month.  Right after the Benediction Pastor Don reminded me, he would be gone, today, and I needed to get Lesson 4 in for formatting a week earlier.  I recall thinking, wow, I sure am glad I know where I want to go with this:  this is doable. 

Is Life what happens while we are making other plans?  On the Preachers Sabbath, (commonly called Sunday or Monday), I sat down in the afternoon and typed in “4 The Doctrine of Balaam”, and pursuant to my habit rechecked the 2 Scriptures I had planned to use to begin The Lesson and hit a wall!  The thought occurred to me that it would take too long to connect all the dots for the connection to make sense.  From experience I have learned when I hit a wall on any lesson, message, study, sermon, or homily it is because I am taking a direction that The Head of “the whole family in heaven and earth” [Ephesians 3:15] does not want me to take.  I complained, of course, but not bitterly.  The next day I was awakened at 4:30 a.m., and it all came to me clearly what I had to do.  There was something about preaching The Doctrine of Balaam I had not yet covered

Is there in churchianity “a conspiracy of her prophets” [Ezekiel 22:25]? Does churchianity conspire to never preach “the error of Balaam for reward”?  [Jude 11] What is The Most Hated Doctrine of The Bible in Churchianity?  To whom only does The Doctrine of Balaam apply?  To whom only does the error of Balaam for reward apply?  To whom only does forbidding the madness of the prophet Balaam apply?  To whom?!

(Amos 3:1-2). 

Who are the only ones hurt by The Doctrine of Balaam? 

p         Hear this word that the LORD hath

              spoken against you, O children of Is-

              rael, against the whole family which I

              brought up from the land of Egypt,    


c       2 You only have I known of all the

              families of the earth:  therefore I will 

              punish you for all your iniquities. 

                                                                   Amos chapter three. 

I (the God of Israel) will punish you (Israel) for all your iniquities.”(!!!)Is “The Israel of God” better known for the punishments/curses we are under?  (Luke 12:48).  Does this remind us of Jesus speaking while he walked the earth in our flesh? 

               48 But he that knew not, and did com-

              mit things worthy of stripes, shall be  

              beaten with few stripes.  For unto         

              whom soever much is given, of him      

              shall be much required:  and to whom

              men have committed much, of him

              they will ask the more. 

                                                                   Luke chapter twelve. 

Unto God’s own family “much is given”?  Quick review:  did Balaam’s 1st teaching [“Doctrine of Balaam”] teach Balak, king of Moab, to cast a stumbling block before Israel?  Did Balak cast that stumbling block before Israel?  And did God punish Israel? 

(1 Corinthians 10:8).   Did 23,000 perish in the Plague

                8 Neither let us commit fornication,

              as some of them committed, and fell

              in one day three and twenty thousand.

                                                                   First Corinthians chapter ten. 

Did God plague Israel even though Balak cast a stumbling block before the children of Israel?  Did all the children of Israel commit fornication?  Or does Scripture say,

“As some of them committed”?  Did many weep before the altar that Sin was openly committed in Israel’s Camp?

(Romans 9:1-2).  Does everyone see the need for this Lesson?!  Paul confesses that he suffers continual sorrow in his heart

p         I say the truth in Christ.  I lie not, 

              my conscience also bearing me wit-

              ness in the Holy Ghost. 

c       2 That I have great heaviness and

              continual sorrow in my heart. 

(Verse 1).  Do we learn from Paul that our conscience is a witness?  Did Paul swear an oath in “the Holy Ghost”?  Did Paul swear he is saying the truth?  What is that “truth in Christ”?  Verse 3:  

                3 For I could wish that myself were

              accursed from Christ for my brethren,

              my kinsmen according to the flesh. 

Does Paul have “continual sorrow” in his heart for his brethren?  Who are Paul’s brethren?  Are they his “kinsmen according to the flesh”?  Do we have the same thing in our hearts when our kinsmen are only kinsmen in the flesh, instead of kinsmen also in the spirit?  Are Paul’s “kinsmen” the same as our “kinsmen”?

(Verses 4-7). 

c       4 Who are Israelites;  to whom per-

              taineth the adoption, and the glory,

              and the covenants, and the giving of

              the law, and the service of God, and

              the promises; 

p     5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom

              as concerning the flesh Christ came,   

              who is over all, God blessed forever.   


c     6 Not as though the word of God hath

              taken none effect.  For they are not all

              Israel, which are of Israel: 

p     7 Neither, because they are the seed of

              Abraham, are they all children:  but In

              Isaac shall thy seed be called. 

                                                                   Romans chapter nine. 

Are Paul’s “kinsmen” the same as our “kinsmen”?  What was our Scripture?

Answer?  Verse 3. 

Hello Congregation!  Tell me Brethren:  Who are my kindred according to the flesh?  Verse 4:  1st 3 words: “Who are Israelites”!  To those who staunchly deny we are descended from The Twelve Tribes of Israel the remaining words of Verse 4 are devastating!  The Adoption, the Glory, the Covenants, the Giving of the Law, the Service of God, and the Promises are Pillars of the Christian Faith!!  What is the Adoption?  It is “the Placing of Sons”! 

When my wife Maggie was a child, she recited from the New England Primer the Catechism for the English Alphabet:A:  In Adam’s Fall we sinned All.”  Adam lost sonship in The Garden!  Post Calvary The Holy Spirit gives the new birth:  we are born again, born from above; we are new creations, new creatures, tagged for the 1st Resurrection with the shining garments of light, the garments of salvation.  This brings up the Glory, a direct reference to the Resurrection of which Jesus is the 1st born Son. 

Isaiah quotes God saying, “Israel, my glory” [46:13], and saying, “I will not give my glory unto another.” [42:8 and 48:11] The Hatred against The Doctrine/Teaching we are the direct lineal descendants of the Miracle Child Isaac runs so deep they use the Dispensations to dispense with The Covenants!  “The law is done away” nukes “the giving of the law”!  In some cases, the service of God is so shortened that it includes only the prison epistles of Paul!  And even Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, writes the Promises are given only to the Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel.  [Romans 15:8, Galatians 3:16].

The Pulpits of America have insulated the members of churchianity against knowing who they are, by ordering them to never open their Bibles together with those who bring the Israel Truth!  Do we have faith the Bible interprets the Bible:  we are not stuck with man’s interpretation!?  Does this Pulpit insulation leave churchianity without the warning of The Doctrine of Balaam?!  Is the ignorance of the sheep being enforced?  How can The Doctrine of Balaam be levelled against anybody but “The Israel of God”?  [Galatians 6:16] Is their Hatred of The Doctrine, we are Israel, why (!) there is a conspiracy among churchianity’s prophets to never preach the Doctrine of Balaam?!!       


In Lesson 3 we asked ourselves this Question:  How does the Administrative State obtain our tacit consent using The Doctrine of Balaam?  What did we discover has already happened in 20th Century American History?  Did we discover that the Banking Emergency Act of March 9, 1933, amended the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 to surreptitiously and secretly declare citizens of the United States to be belligerents, combatants, enemies of the state, and rebels?  Shall we briefly review that? 

Turn to our 1st Handout from Lesson 3.  As we explained last time, this Handout contains 5 sheets of 9 pages.  The 4th sheet is blank on the reverse side.  The 1st page is Proclamation 2040 dated March 9, 1933.  It has 4 black arrows superimposed upon the left margin calling our attention to the key facts.  The reverse side shows where Proclamation 2040 is contained in The United States Statutes At large Vol. XLVIII Part 2.  The third sheet indicates another source of evidence

The Session Laws passed at the 1st Session of the 73rd Congress, 1933.  On the reverse side is the 1st enactment of the United States Congress in joint session, The Banking Emergency Act of March the 9th.  The 4th Sheet on the front shows the same Act appearing in VOL. XLVIII, THE STATUTES AT LARGE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States Government Printing Office, 1934.  The 5th Sheet contains portions of the Trading With the Enemy Act, enacted October 6, 1917 at the 1st Session of the Sixty-Fifth Congress found in The United States Statutes at Large, page 411 and page 415.  The Hostilities between brethren in World War I were suspended under Armistice effective November 11, 1918, occasioning great joy here at the prospect of American soldiers returning from overseas.  This famous date and the holiday Declaration of it as Armistice Day overshadowed its reputation as the Date the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact, a Covenant between God and each other for Biblical Government on American shores.  Late in the 20th Century Congress renamed Armistice Day as Veteran’s Day, adding another layer of forgetfulness over our 1st, but not last, covenant for Biblical government!  Are sheep good for forgetfulness?  We will be hard put to find 1 in 10 who can tell you the history of Veteran’s Day, and its original names.  

(Handout 2, 1st Sheet, page 1)

In 1921 someone noticed that Congress enacted no official end to World War I, and that many wartime agencies of the Administration continued to function!!  Mr. Justice Van Devanter, delivering the opinion of The United States Supreme Court in Stoehr v Wallace, 255 US 239, 1921, took judicial notice, p241, that The Trading With the Enemy Act is strictly a war measure.  The sanction for it is in Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of The Constitution for the United States of America, empowering Congress to “declare war, grant letters of mark and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land (booty) and water (prize).”  (Booty and Prize are not part of the quote.) 

(Handout 2, 1st Sheet, page 2). 

In 1973 Charles Warren, assistant attorney general of the United States produced a MEMORANDUM OF AMERICAN CASES ON THE LAW OF TRADING WITH THE ENEMY.  It is included as Appendix B in The Report of a Special Committee of the US Senate under the purpose to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, page 15.  There are 2 black arrows in the left margin.  They point to what we need to know. 

The top black arrow points to this declaration

“Every species of intercourse with the enemy is illegal.”

Is International Law here simply declaring the practicality when 2 States are engaged in hostilities with each other?  Neither State wishes their people to do business with The Enemy!  (Look at the lower black arrow in the left margin).  In a prize case that reached The United States Supreme Court in 1814, Justice Story writing the opinion for The Court, said: 

“No contract is considered as valid between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the courts of either government, and they have in the language of the civil law, no ability to sustain a persona standi in judicio.” 

                                                8 Cranch 181, (1814).    

This is obviously The War of 1812.  The Julia was a British Merchant Ship captured on the high seas.  “Persona standi in judicio” is written in what language?

This Latin expression indicates that the person bringing the action before the Court to sue for a judgment has standing to maintain his cause before the Court.  But Enemies of the State have no standing in court to bring their cause!!!  How many times since 2020 have courts refused to hear cases brought by citizens of the United States to protest the overturning of the 2020 election for lack of standing to sue?!

How frustrating was it for “citizens of the United States” that violations of election laws and state constitutions were never cases to be decided on the merits?! Is this what Justice Story wrote in The Julia (1814)?  “No...persona standi in judicio”?  Do “citizens of the United States” have no persona standi in judicio?!  Are “citizens of the United States” belligerents, combatants, enemies of the state and rebels?

(Handout 1 Sheet 5). 

Shall we review what we learned in Lesson 3 The Doctrine of Balaam?  Sheet 5 reads at the top SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS.  Sess, I.  Chs.  105,106   1917.  It can be found in United States Statutes at Large page 411.  Look at the top black arrow in the left margin.  It points to CHAP 106 identified as “An Act To define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes.”  October 6, 1917.  The second black arrow points to a phrase of exemption in subsection (c) of the Act: “other than citizens of the United States”. 

Does The Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 clearly say “citizens of the United States” are not the Enemy?  Look at the black arrow at the bottom of the right margin.  It points to a phrase of exemption in subsection (c) defining the words “ally of enemy” “other than citizens of the United States”.  Does The Trading with The Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 clearly say citizens of the United States are not an Ally of the Enemy? 

(Sheet 5, page 2). 

Turn the page to the reverse side which reads at the top SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS.  Sess. I.  Ch. 106.   1917.   page 415.  Look at the black arrow, middle of the left margin.  It points to subsection (b) of “Sec.5.” that empowers the President to control every transaction conceivable.  The only exception to this dictatorial power is for credits.  Look at the black arrow in the right margin.  Here we find the only exemption is for credits.  And that exemption reads:(other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States).  There appear to be no exemptions for coin gold nor coin silver.  This is the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917. 

Turn in the 1st Handout to the reverse side of Sheet 3, which reads PUBLIC LAWS OF THE SEVENTY-THIRD CONGRESS.  This is the Act of March 9, 1933.  The top black arrow in the left margin points to the enacting clause that reads:

“...the Congress hereby declares that a serious emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies of uniform national application.” 

3rd black arrow in the left margin points to the clause that reads: 

“Sec. 2. Subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended is hereby amended to read as follows: 

Are we on Notice that The Act of October 6, 1917, The Trading With the Enemy Act is being amended by The Act of March 9, 1933, The Emergency Banking Act?

(Look at the second black arrow down in the right margin).  It points to the area where the phrase “(other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)” was deleted.  And the phrase “by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was added.  Also, the 2 places in “Sec. 2.” of the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 under defining the word “enemy” and the words “ally of enemy” the 2 phrases, “other than citizens of the United States” were deleted!  Why(?!) would the 73rd Congress pass- the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, in Emergency Session to amend the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 to make “citizens of the United States” belligerents, combatants, enemies of the state, and rebels?!  Does The God of our Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel, have a controversy with American Israel?!  If so, why and how have we become God’s enemies?!!  This ends our review of what we discovered in Lesson 3, The Doctrine of Balaam.

[2nd Handout]

Could we use a major 2nd Witness?  Has anyone else, beside us, noticed that “citizens of the United States” are declared enemies, and have no persona standi in judicio in our courts to protest this?! 

[Sheet 2, page 1]

The top banner line reads “93rd Congress, 1st Session, “Senate” in the middle, and “Report No. 93-549” on the right.  The Report is titled:  EMERGENCY POWERS STATUTES:  Provisions of Federal Law Now in Effect Delegating to the Executive Extraordinary Authority in Time of National Emergency. 


[Sheet 2, page 2] 

This is the FOREWORD to Senate Report No. 93-549.  Look at the black arrow in the left margin.  The first line reads

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. 

This is 40 years old!  The rest of the 1st paragraph tells us President Truman declared a national emergency December 1950 during the Korean conflict, and President Nixon declared 2 national emergencies, March 1970, and August 1971. 

The 2nd paragraph tells us these Presidential Proclamations give force to 470 Provisions of Federal law.  The last sentence at the black arrow in the right margin reads: 

This vast range of powers, taken together, confer   enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes. 

What about “abnormal” constitutional processes?  Or to put the question another way, what about extraordinary constitutional processes?  Are there state and federal constitutional processes for war and/or emergencies? 

The 3rd paragraph of the FOREWORD informs us that the President may ... regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and in a plethora of ways, control the lives of all American citizens. 

The 4th paragraph contains the SPECIAL COMMITTEE’S declaration “there is no present need for the United States Government to continue to function under emergency conditions. 

The 5th paragraph outlines the SPECIAL COMMITTEE’S Congressional Mandate: “... and also, to recommend ways in which the United States can meet future emergency situations with speed and effectiveness but without relinquishment of congressional oversight and control.”  What else can Senate Report 93-549, November 19, 1973, tell us?

In Handout 2, go to Sheet 3, page 1. 

The top line reads INTRODUCTION, and advertises Section A as “A Brief Historical Sketch of the Origin of Emergency Powers Now in Force.  There are 3 black arrows in the left margin only. 

Remember: This is November 1973, 40 years after 1933The 1st black arrow points to the 1st Sentence

A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. 

The 2nd black arrow points to the 2nd Sentence

For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. 

The 3rd black arrow points to the last sentence of the 1st paragraph

And, in the United States, actions taken by the government in times of great crises have --- from, at least, the Civil War --- in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency

Who (?!) teaches these things in 20th Century American History Classes?  Are these things taught in Political Science Classes?  And why (?!) would any socialism teacher teach the existence of a permanent state of national emergency in socialism studies?  Is The Public Fool System keeping them dumb, keeping them happy?  Did The Public Fool System eradicate Civics Classes decades ago? 

(Sheet 3, page 2) 

Look at the black arrow, right margin.  Senate Report 93-549, November 1973 page 186, had this to say on The Emergency Banking Act or Bank Conservation Act, March 9, 1933

 ...The exclusion of domestic transactions, formerly found in the [Trading With the Enemy] Act was deleted from Section 5 (b) at this time.  

Senate Report 93-549, November 1973 page 186, goes on to say:

The legislative history of the Emergency Banking Act [March 9, 1933] is short; only eight hours elapsed from the time the bill was introduced until it was signed into law. 

There were no committee reports.  Indeed, the bill was not even in print at the time it was passed.  77 Cong. Rec. 76, 80 (1933); Schlesinger, The Coming of the New Deal 8. 

Do we have a credible 2nd Witness, in 1973, on the Amendments made by The Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, to The Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917?  Is the 93rd Congress reporting on the 73rd Congress 40 years later? 

(Sheet 4, page 1). 

What about persona standi in judicio/standing to sue doctrine?  Do “citizens of the United States” have standing to sue against “the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency”?  This matter was directly addressed in hearings before THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE.  On Sheet 4, page 1 appears pages 524 and 525 of the transcripts of hearings where The Standing to Sue Doctrine is discussed. 

On the reverse side of Sheet 4, page 2,

Shows where this transcription is printed.  Concerning the possibility “for some party in interest to bring a suit to contest the vitality and continuing operative effect of a declaration of national emergency that was put in force in 1933,” Senator Church, co-Chairman of THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE, said, “Why hasn’t that happened! 

Is it because of the difficulty of a plaintiff establishing his right to contest the use of the power?  Former Attorney General Mr. Katzenbach replied, I expect in most instances that would be true, Mr. Chairman.  With the kinds of regulations that have been used, it would be very difficult for an individual to show that this particular control had damaged him in some unlawful way...I have certainly learned anybody can bring suit about anything, but there is a difference between bringing a suit and winning it...

(look at the first black arrow in the right margin, page 524).

My recollection is that almost every Executive order ever issued straddles on several grounds, but it almost always includes the Trading With the Enemy Act because the language of that act was so broad, it would justify almost anything...there would be enough other circumstances to make it a difficult lawsuit

(1st black arrow, left margin) 

Former Supreme Court Justice Clark agreed, saying, Most difficult from a standpoint of standing to sue.” 

(2nd black arrow down, left margin) 

Senator Church.  What you are saying, then, is that if Congress doesn’t act to standardize, restrict, or eliminate the emergency powers, that no one else is very likely to get standing in court to contest! 

(bottom of page 524)

 ...I think the Congress and the legislature ought to be doing it.” 

(Page 525) 

The 3rd speaker down, co-Chairman Senator Church, that staff pointed out a Federal District Court case, US v Briddle, 212 F. Supp. 584 (S.D. Cal. 1962, where a court not only was willing to examine the continued existence of an emergency, but also concluded that the Korean emergency was over with.” 

The Court, in dismissing the indictment against Briddle for violating gold regulations issued pursuant to section 5(b) of The Trading With the Enemy Act.  Briddle claimed the regulations were issued under an emergency that no longer exists.  The Court, in dismissing the indictment, said, ‘If the President can create crimes by fiat and without congressional approval, our system is not much different from that of the Communists, which allegedly threatens our existence.’  The Court rejected the Government’s contention that Truman’s declaration of national emergency continued the state of emergency under which the 1933 gold regulations were issued.  Despite the potential effects of this ruling, the Government did not appeal.  The case, however, was expressly overruled 3 years later in Pike v US, 340 F 2d 187 (9th Cir. 1965).

I want to go back to Mr. Katzenbach’s point that the courts ought not to decide.  I agree.  Congress should decide, and that is why we have undertaken to set up this Special Committee.  Senator Mathias and I want to look into the whole problem.  We want the Congress to retrieve lost powers and to act independent again.”

(last full paragraph, page 525)

Senator Mathias made this comment about the Enormous Scope of War/Emergency Powers: “this body of emergency law... lies here like a time bomb ready for a wrong-minded man, or woman, to get hold of and use.” 

Whatever became of this SPECIAL COMMITTEE’s work? 

(Sheet 5, pages 1 and 2). 

We will look specifically at Title I, National Emergency Act, Sept. 14, 1976, Public Law 94-412, 90 Stat 1255, and Title 5 of The National Emergency Act on the reverse side.  “Sec. 101 (a) All powers and authorities possessed by the President, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any executive a result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on the date of enactment of this Act are terminated two years from the date of such enactment.” 

(Sheet 5, page 2) 

Title V -- REPEAL AND CONTINUATION OF CERTAIN EMERGENCY POWER AND OTHER STATUTES.  “Sec. 502 (a) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the following provisions of law, the powers and authorities conferred thereby, and actions taken thereunder: 

(1) Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a; 50 U.S.C. App. 5 (b) ... “As of March 9, 1933, we completed 90 years of War/Emergency Powers governance, a permanent state of national emergency!!! 

Does our God have a continuing controversy with American Israel? 

Did that Time Bomb of Senator Mathias’ remark in 1973 go off with the 2 Obama/Biden Administrations 2008-2016? 

Did The Trump administration partially defuse that Bomb? 

Was that Time Bomb rearmed and turned upon American Israel on January 6, 2024?

In order to be belligerents, combatants, enemies of the State, and rebels, must we be “citizens of the United States”?

Is the Long Title of the Articles of Confederation, The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union?!! 

What is the stumbling block The War Powers/Emergency Administration has cast before American Israel?!!

To be continued, God Willing, on the next occasion.


Romans 9:1-7

James 1:1.  “to the twelve tribes” 

Amos 3:1-2.  “you only have I known”

Luke 12:48.  “he that knew not”

1 Corinthians 10:8.  sin from the stumbling block

Romans 9:1-2.  “the truth in Christ.”

Romans 9:4-7.  “of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came.”

The New England Primer, 1777.  “In Adam’s Fall we sinned all.”

[Isaiah 46:13]  “Israel, my glory.” 

[Isaiah 42:8 and 48:11]  “I will not give my glory unto another.”

 [Romans 15:8 and Galatians 3:16]  The Promises are given only to the Fathers. 

[Galatians 6:16]  “The Israel of God.”