We have been snookered in just about everything but the kitchen sink in these last decades, why not the U.S. Constitution as well while we're at it? Have we discovered America's Golden Calf ? ...and sitting right under our noses the whole time? Was the Constitution written to intentionally take us out of YHWH's graces and protection? If you were criminally minded and were planning to build a tyrannical empire, you'd first have to get rid of the God that would keep you from abusing His loyal people. You'd somehow have to take all of these honest worshipers away from honoring their God, meaning specifically in your case their well-known tyrant pummeling God, or the God of the universe. So, knowing that you can't get this God to simply abandon those who are truly faithful to Him, you then have to give Him reason to walk away from such people (as satan did in the garden), by tricking God's otherwise loyal people into disobeying and disrespecting this God. Their God and His impenetrable protections would then be forced to "give place" to the new "gods" that the people have chosen to rule over them where the criminal minded might then take over, nation by nation, enslaving the world. But again you'd have to first get that God's loyal people to denounce and/or belittle Him. That God (by His own system of honoring His own Word) would then rightfully not be able to defend those who have replaced Him as their lawgiver and you could do whatever you wanted to do to such 'voluntary' slaves from there on out. Yes, just trick them into thinking that their accepted humanist, pluralist document is somehow aligned with their God's Will and they'll ignorantly fall into a worship of themselves (themselves becoming the newly-created gods called "We the People") and its then "clear sailing" for the new slave masters! ...as the people then have no clue why their God is no longer protecting them ! And here's the best part as a bonus for the criminal and his plan: The people have no idea then, why their God is not coming to their rescue as their national situation only endlessly continues to get worse and worse, because again... they've been tricked into thinking that their national documents are somehow also "inspired" by this same God as well, even though they have never really taken the time to read these documents with any diligence and/or seriously compare them to their God's Bible! You then let the peasants prop up their blasphemous document all they want (although you still pretend that its yet a problem for your criminal empire that they want this document's "rights" as their saving power), yourself being the only ones who know that they are foolishly angering their God all the more. The elite LOVE IT when folks cry out and protest for their "Constitutional rights" rather than call for a serious repentance to the true authority of their (tyrant pummeling) biblical God! (See the booklet "Bullies for satan" for much more on this) ![]() Are we stepping away from today's golden calf system? If we all did, the criminal cabal system in this nation would likely collapse completely under its own weight almost the next day. -dwaine Can we see our way clear to understanding this last layer of deceit without "losing it" altogether? How many balloons must be burst for us in our rosy-colored lives before we, as mere mortals, feel that there is simply too much "upside-down stuff" to have to face now? The truth about 9/11, the Federal reserve, the 501c3 church snare, the chemtrails, the vaccinations, the fiat money system, the birth certificates and the strawman lies were all hard enough to take for all of us, but now? Even the Constitution is a deception from the pits of hell as well? About eight or nine years ago, the curiosities began to sharply poke me in the conscience that something wasn't quite what it seemed to be with the Constitution. But being a human document, I didn't think much of this feeling, knowing that man was imperfect. So at first I just shrugged it off. Over time, those nagging thoughts in my heart continued to grow. Some initial thoughts were serious ones, which began to lure me away from my previously-held belief that the Constitution was somehow even "inspired by God". In the years to come, the progression of my catching on to this would start with wondering why they hadn't included the names of the Father and Son, and even more puzzling to me (knowing over those years that the sacred names were somewhat shrouded in the dark ages history) was the harder to understand fact that the Bible itself was never mentioned in this Constitution as any kind of referee method. Yet little did I know those years back, that this was just going to be the tip of the iceberg for what would later come, and just as the prophecy of the Bible would surely have it fit right in at the most needful time in our own remnant's previous studies in the realm of law (or so it now seems) where the sprouts of a new kingdom of YHWH seems right around the corner for those who are truly tired of satan's imitation version of law. We have already devoted some writings and shows pertaining to this subject of "a Constitution born evil" on this website, where the "founding father's" dreaded disease of "Freemasonism" is exposed here to some depth, and where some of the law issues they corrupted for us are mentioned here and here, but the biggest part remains that I feel that I must start a page to just deal with the actual biblical problems with America's zombie-like obsession with the Constitution itself, thus this page on "America's Golden Calf". I expect that this is surely going to be even a larger controversial subject than 9/11 was over the past few years, so I have a feeling that we are in for a really interesting ride if we choose to stand on this subject with the Messiah's instruction to not flinch as well. Nonetheless, the results of being given the blessings of a biblically-solid replacement for our already completely disrespected Constitutional liberties is sounding nicer and nicer to me as every day goes by and we see the implosion of our present government becoming imminent. (See also: “AMERICA IS DOOMED!” we hear them say! go here, then scroll down a bit) Please bear with us as this section grows. Oh and... We can always use help in either the national programs we have going, or in our local Pittsburgh area if any of you have a heart to do some volunteering in the spread of this great new hope of a renewed Puritan-styled "perfect law of liberty" for mankind (this is where other preachers would shamefully preach on how the sheep are supposed to help the one shepherding them, hint hint). blessings in abundance and peace to men on earth through His soon coming kingdom, dwaine The following article (of which right off: please understand I do not support it due to its author's "religious neutral ground" imaginary premise, but is included here only as an example) shows the new, fast-growing buzz of discussion around the nation where the U.S. Constitution (and its surrounding documents) are becoming the center of attention of controversy, but keep in mind as you read this particular article, that the writers still don't know the deeper biblical/spiritual truths that you, my readers and listeners understand, and that is that the luciferians are called luciferians for a reason-- they live their lives according to the rule of lies not the rule of law, and consequently refer to their "god" (lucifer) in any deceptive way necessary, using names that cleverly try to sound like names that we would use for "God". But now that we know about the dark ages "secret societies" and their intentional cover-up of the true sacred names "YHWH", "Yeshua", and Hebrew words like "Elohim", etc, having replaced them with their own terms to intentionally honor their "god", we can read this from a completely different vantage point and know that the luciferians still have somewhat of an upper hand with these types of less-studied folks, in that these authors likely still "think" that they are supporting the God of the Bible by the terms you will see them hailing below (which clearly illustrates how our forefathers were suckered into this nomenclature "metonymy" even back then), when they are in all actuality, using terms that the Freemasons, Illuminati, and Jesuits had concocted to "sound" biblical, but are actually "word art" terms honoring their god, satan. Keep this in mind as you read this example that I have posted here, and see why the deeper truths and layers are so important to one who wishes to be on the right side of Yeshua's "line in the sand" before He arrives for His more "studied" remnant here soon. -dwaine: The Constitution and the Candidates: Race, Religion, Romney, and RyanThe four men facing off in the presidential election could only be there today because of how our Constitution has allowed America to evolve. Professor Akhil Reed Amar on what our constitution really says about religion and race.by Akhil Reed Amar | August 19, 2012 4:45 AM EDTWhen the Philadelphia framers unveiled their proposed Constitution 225 years ago—September 17 will mark the official anniversary—most Americans were white Protestants. Anti-Catholicism ran deep, no Jews held high office, most blacks were enslaved, and the Church of Latter Day Saints did not even exist. Today, while America remains predominantly white and protestant, no white Protestant sits on the Supreme Court, which consists of five white Catholics, three white Jews, and one black Catholic. Among the four leading men now in the presidential/vice presidential spotlight, the only mainstream Protestant is black; two of the remaining three contenders are Catholic and one is Mormon. For this extraordinary evolution, credit the Constitution. ![]() Antenna / Getty Images The place where the Constitution meets religion and race remains a treacherous cultural battleground. This spring, the conservative political operative and self-styled historian David Barton hit the bestseller list with an audacious new book on Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy of church, state, and race. Last week, Barton’s publisher unceremoniously withdrew this publication from store shelves, as scholarly evidence mounted that the book is bunk. Barton’s fall is a cautionary tale about the perils of oversimplification. That said, here are three simple principles to remember regarding race, religion, and the Constitution. Principle One: The Constitution is Not a Religious Document Consider first what the Constitution’s pointedly does not say. Although the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and several Revolution-era state constitutions had explicitly and prominently invoked God in their opening and/or closing passages, the federal Constitution conspicuously said nothing of the sort. Thus, neither the Preamble nor any other constitutional clause explicitly mentioned the “Creator” or “Nature’s God” or “the Supreme Judge of the World,” as had the Declaration of Independence and the New York Constitution of 1777 (which incorporated the Declaration); or “the Great Governor of the World,” as had the Articles of Confederation; or the “Great Governor of the Universe,” as had the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776; or “the Great Legislator of the Universe, ... the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe,” as had the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780. The South Carolina Constitution of 1778 used the word “God” nine times—a word that explicitly appeared in every revolution-era state constitution save Virginia’s. But this word appeared nowhere in the federal Constitution—a pointed omission if ever there was one. Consider next what the Constitution does explicitly say: “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” As of 1787, almost every state did in fact use religious tests. Nine states incorporated these tests into the very texts of their written constitutions. So the Framers’ emphatic rejection of religious tests for federal office-holders was not business as usual. It was big news—a truly revolutionary New World idea whose reverberations powerfully resounded last weekend, with a Mormon and Catholic clasping hands as thousands of onlookers—mostly mainstream Protestants—clapped and cheered. Consider, finally, one additional patch of constitutional text, specifically focused on the presidency. While most Founding-era state constitutions expressly included the phrase “so help me God” or some analogous reference to “God” in their obligatory oaths, the Article II presidential oath omitted all mention of God. This omission was surely pointed and purposeful, with the result that no duly selected president could be obliged to utter the word “God” or profess his belief in any supreme being.
True, the Constitution does specially privilege “Sundays” in a clause governing the ten-day window for presidential vetoes, but this provision was not expressly theological; and common days of rest can be justified on wholly secular grounds. One textual arrow might seem to point in a different direction. Immediately preceding the thirty-nine famous signatures at the bottom of the 1787 parchment, we find the following words: “done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.” [Emphasis added.] At first blush, these words might seem to contradict the central meaning of the religious test clause and the presidential oath clause. After all, the Constitution requires federal officials to take an oath to the Constitution itself. If that document really does proclaim that Jesus Christ is “our Lord,” then isn’t this oath-taking itself an improper religious test? As it turns out—though this fact has until now not been widely understood—the “our Lord” clause is not part of the official legal Constitution. The official Constitution’s text ends just before these extra words of attestation—extra words that in fact were not ratified by various state conventions in 1787-88. What, then, are we to make of these words? Just this: The words “our Lord” are much like the words “so help me God” in presidential inaugurations. No president can be obliged to utter these words in his inauguration ceremony, but presidents may choose to add them, if they wish. Over the course of American history, many presidents (and most modern presidents) have in fact chosen to add these words. Similarly, the Constitution nowhere requires a president to swear his oath of office on a Bible, but a president can choose to do so—and almost all presidents, beginning with George Washington, have in fact done so. Similarly, the thirty-nine framers at Philadelphia were allowed to profess their faith even in the public square. Some signers with quill in hand likely gave no thought to the “Year of our Lord” language and its theological overtones. But other signers may well have mused on things eternal, and on their personal relationships to God, at the precise instant when they added their names to a plan that they hoped would sharply bend the arc of human history toward justice. All of which leads us to our next general principle: Principle Two: The Constitution is Not an Anti-Religious Document A religiously neutral Constitution should not be confused with an anti-religious or anti-Christian Constitution. Just as no unbeliever may be barred from federal service for his atheism, no true believer may be excluded for his abiding faith. Many of those responsible for America’s Constitution were folk of deep faith. Bracket, for a moment, the Founding generation. Whether or not Barton and his fellow travelers succeed in establishing that the leading framers wore religion on their sleeves, surely the generation of reformers who arose to stamp out slavery and its vestiges brought their faith dramatically into the public square. First and foremost, abolitionists believed that slavery was ungodly—and eventually they succeeded in inscribing their abiding moral principles in the Constitution itself, in a trio of Reconstruction Amendments adopted after the Civil War. Long before Barton, Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, and others made clear the clout of America’s religious right, America’s religious left—the abolitionist generation—gave us the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, the crown jewels of our Constitution. And with these amendments in view, we see our final general principle: Principle Three: The Constitution Includes More Than the Founding Two hundred and twenty-five years ago, slavery, race discrimination, and/or religious tests prevailed in most states. Today, all races and religions stand equal before the law, and do so not because activist federal judges have plucked liberal constitutional principles out of thin air, but because We, the People of the United States, amended our Constitution after the Civil War to hold state governments to much higher standards of religious and racial equality. None of the four men who now stand atop the political pyramid could have scaled these heights had the rules of 1787, grand as they were for their time, remained unchanged. As America celebrates the Constitution’s 225th birthday, let’s give credit not just to the Founders but also to those later generations who, thank God, made amends for some of the sins of our fathers. Portions of this article are based on Akhil Reed Amar's forthcoming book, America’s Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By. Editor's note: The original version of this article stated that most presidents chose to omit "so help me God" from the presidential inauguration. It should be most modern presidents. ©2011 The Newsweek/Daily Beast Company LLC Now that you have read this, can you see what I mean? Either the authors are directly working for the secret society circles as "freindly news-sources", trying to save what little "voting public" that they can of the awakening goyim, or they are ignorantly still yet in the fowler's snare, having not likely had the Holy Spirit to then better discern these deeper layers of truth. In not using the Father and Son's real names, they show their ignorance either way in this article, Amen? Notice also, that they clearly dont see the fake "neutrality" of the way they still yet see this document. -dwaine An excerpt from our friend Ted Weiland's thoughts on this Constitution issue. I concur. -dwaine Dear Brethren, My preaching and writing about the U.S. Constitution has not been about exposing the Constitution so much as it has been about promoting Yahweh’s law and advancing His kingdom. Following salvation and personal discipleship, these two issues should be paramount in everything we do as Christians.
|
Articles / Subjects >
America's Golden Calf
Subpages (1):
Did the document fail us?