Thursday, April 29, 2010

"Uproar" over enforcement of laws against illegal immigration?

April 2010 - The Arizona state legislature and governor pass a law allowing local police to help in deporting illegal aliens. Polls show 70%+ of the Arizona citizenry support the law. [1]

90%+ of Americans Support a crackdown on illegal immigration. Where is the supposed "uproar"?

The only ones in "uproar" over enforcement of laws against illegal immigration are the Jewish Establishment, their communist lackeys, and illegal immigrant criminals

Jewish/Communist establishment media gives virtual 24/7 non-stop coverage and air time to small minority of criminal illegal aliens and open border proponents who oppose Arizona's new law

Is this really "news", and is this really a "mainstream" media? Or propaganda serving an agenda?

Do they care that soon virtually no one will be watching CNN/MSNBC/CBS, except to get a laugh?

What a "coincidence." We are blessed with pro-immigration rallies on May 1st, international day of communism...again

Friday, April 23, 2010

Curt Maynard (allegedly) kills ex-wife, then himself




According to Curt's
obituary, he had a new wife, Jolee and an unborn child on the way.

Why would a man commit a murder/suicide with a new wife and child on the way?

Paul, aka Saul of Tarsus the Pharisee - A False Apostle, Infiltrator, and Subverter: Satan's Apostle who has deceived millions unto their destruction!


The issue of Saul/Paul is something I have been seriously considering for several years. It has been a difficult process of questioning and re-examination of deeply held beliefs. So it is not something I now write about rashly or flippantly, without consideration or careful study -- but rather soberly, and as respectfully as I can articulate.

Having been brought up in "mainstream Christianity", you are conditioned to believe that the "Bible" is infallible. I understand, therefore, that for a "mainstream Christian" to question the apostleship of Paul seems unthinkable, and even perhaps "blasphemous."

And while it is true that YHWH's word is infallible, we must understand that the "Bible" is a collection of books assembled by men. Catholics and Protestants disagree, for instance, as to what books are canon scripture -- with Catholics including the "Apocryphal" books, and Protestants excluding them.  The task, then, is to sift truth from error, and determine which writings are those of genuine prophets of YHWH, and which are not.

To any serious truthseeker and one who truly wishes to obey YHWH, I urge you to not immediately reject the possibility of this based on preconceived beliefs or an emotional response, but rather to stop and examine the issue rationally and logically, as it is of critical importance.

The evidence is overwhelmingly against Paul being a genuine "apostle." This can be conclusively proven from examining the Scriptures, and the writings of Paul himself, for anyone who has "eyes to see" and "ears to hear" -- that is, anyone who cares to use their eyes and hears, and not shut them up in order to perpetuate their preconceived views.

While Paul's writings contain much truth and the appearance of truth, the most sophisticated and dangerous false teaching mixes the truth with lies in this manner. Consider why Yahshua the Messiah would warn his followers so strongly against false prophets and the "leaven" (ie, doctrine) of the Pharisees, saying that many would be deceived, and the deception so strong that almost the "very elect" would be deceived.

The following is an outline of some of the strongest arguments/evidences against the apostleship of Saul/Paul.

Saul/Paul was not one of the Genuine 12 Apostles - His claim to being an "Apostle" is blatantly false and self-avowed

Saul/Paul was NOT one of the original 12 Apostles, and was not the replacement for Judas. Matthias was chosen by the remaining 11 Apostles as the replacement (Acts 1:26).

The Gospels and Book of Revelation makes clear that there are only 12 apostles:

Revelation 21:14 "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

Yet Saul/Paul over and over in his epistles claims to be an "apostle."

Who was Saul of Tarsus, aka "Paul"? A Pharisee, persecutor and murderer of the followers of Yahshua the Messiah

Saul of Tarsus was a leading Pharisee (and proclaimed "son of a Pharisee" - Acts 23:6), who lead the persecution of Yahshua and his followers. He was present at the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58).

Yahshua strongly warned against the leaven/doctrine of the Pharisees. Based upon all of the evidence against Saul/Paul (outlined below), it is apparent that Saul/Paul decided that overt persecution of Yahshuah's followers was not the best tactic to destroy them, but rather covert infiltration and subversion. So he transformed from a persecutor and murderer of the Messiah's disciples into an infiltrator and deceiver who sought to attack the true message of the Gospel from within by masquerading as an "apostle."

Consider this hypothetical: What if well known Satanist and persecutor and murder of Christians (like a Charles Manson type figure) were to one day suddenly claim to have had a "miraculous" conversion to Christianity, and now claims to be an "Apostle"?   What would you make of such a man? Would you be at least a little suspicious of his claims?  Should he go to prison, perhaps face the death penalty for his crimes? What if this person was not punished for his crimes, and allowed to roam society as a free man spreading his new version of Christianity?  And, incredibly, this person goes on to have his writings included in the Bible!  And it doesn't stop there.  He is then somehow elevated to the title of "greatest Apostle", even though he never was one of the true 12 Apostles! 

Also, remember that Saul/Paul was not trained by the disciples, the men who walked, talked, and lived with the Messiah. He claimed to have received his knowledge from "revelations." He was not recognized by the true apostles as a genuine apostle. Paul claimed that title for himself.

Warnings Against False Prophets and the Leaven/Doctrine of the Pharisees:

1 John 4:1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Matthew 16:6 "Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

Matthew 24:24 "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

 Matthew 23:13 "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

Matthew 24:4-5 "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many."

Note that Yahushua says that MANY will be deceived, not just a few, and that even the "very elect" would almost be deceived. 

Under what authority should the writings of Saul/Paul be considered "canon law" and included in the Bible?

The book we call the "Bible" was put together by the decisions of men.  And specifically, largely by a council put of the Roman Catholic Church assembled by the Roman Emperor in the 4th century AD.  Saul of Tarsus was not one of the 12 true Apostles.  Why, then, should the words, opinions, and letters of Pharisee Saul of Tarsus carry any more weight than any other self-professed follower of the Messiah?  And Paul didn't even himself claim to be writing down "law" or "words coming from God."  He was merely writing letters to those whom he had proselytized.  Can we, similarly, take letters that Billy Graham or Rick Warren wrote, and in 100 years put them into the Bible as well?

Most importantly, Saul/Paul teaches against keeping the Law of YHWH, teaching that the Law is a "curse", "the Law has been abolished", "We are no longer under the law", a nebulous doctrine of "salvation by grace through faith", and an "easy fix" salvation of "confession and belief only"

Saul/Paul's own writings clearly demonstrate that he taught a completely different doctrine than that of Yahshua. Saul taught against keeping the commandments of YHWH, saying that the "law is a curse", "we are no longer under the law", and "the law has been done away with" --and instead teaching a doctrine of "salvation of grace by faith", and an "easy fix" salvation of "confession and belief only." Yahshua the Messiah, on the other hand, taught that one must "do the will of the Father" and obey His commandments in order to obtain eternal life.

Yahshua teaches that only those who obey the Law of YHWH will be saved:

Matthew 19:16-21 "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."

Matthew 7:21-23 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Pharisee Infiltrator Saul/Paul taught that the Law of YHWH was a "curse", and a nebulous doctrine of "salvation by grace through faith":

Galatians 3:10-14 "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit."

Romans 6:14 "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

Here in his letter to the Ephesians, Saul teaches that the Messiah "abolished the law of commandments":
Ephesians 2:15 "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"

Yet Yahshua the Messiah said:

Matthew 5:17-20 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Saul teaches that all one has to do in order to be "saved" is "believe and confess":

Romans 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

If that is all that is required, do not devils and sons of devils intellectually acknowledge that Yahshua is the Messiah and that he was raised from the dead? What differentiates the wicked/unsaved from the righteous/saved, is that the saved obey the commandments of YHWH.

Romans 13 - Saul/Paul teaches that we must obey the laws of men, ie government - Laying a trap for YHWH's people to obey Anti-Christ Beast System unto their destruction

Saul/Paul infamously writes in Romans 13 that we should always obey the government:

Romans 13:1-13 "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?"

Really? Even butchers like Stalin, Lenin, and Mao? -- as they outlawed Christianity, and ordered their citizens to deny God and become atheists?

This is an extremely dangerous and Satanic teaching.  How about if/when the final Anti-Christ power comes and commands Christians to take the "mark of the Beast"? Should we blindly obey the government then? According to Saul/Paul, "yes."

Damning "smoking gun" evidence against Saul/Paul - Paul admits to Timothy that all in Asia have rejected him - In Revelation, Yahushua commends the Ephesians for rejecting false Apostles

In Paul's second letter to Timothy, believed by many scholars to contain some his last recorded words, he makes a statement which is devastating to Paul's claim to apostleship:

2 Timothy 1:15 "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me;"

At that time, the term "Asia" referred to the area of modern-day Turkey. This is confirmed in the Book of Revelation, written to the "seven churches in Asia" (Revelation 1:4).

Ephesus, of course, was a city where Saul/Paul had attempted to win converts (see Paul’s letter to the Ephesians).

The fact that many Israelites in Asia opposed Saul/Paul is corroborated in the book of Acts where men from Asia accuse Paul of teaching against the Law, and bringing an Ephesian friend into the temple:

Acts 21: 27-29 "And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place. (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)"

Now, examine what Yahshua the Messiah says to the Church at Ephesus in Revelation Chapter 2:

Revelation 2:1-2 "Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars"

Stop and consider the significance of this. Saul/Paul, the self-proclaimed "apostle", admits ALL of those in Asia, including the Ephesians, had rejected him. Then Yahshua commends the Ephesians for rejecting false apostles! If you have ears to hear and eyes to see, are you seeing/hearing this? Could it be much more obvious?

Here are the facts, paraphrased:

Paul to the Ephesians: "I am an apostle of Yahshua"
The Ephesians to Paul: "No you're not."
Yahshua to the Ephesians: "Well done!"

More notable examples of false teachings from Saul/Paul

These are just a few examples, in the interest of brevity. There are many many more similar examples of twisted doctrine, misquoting of Old Testament scripture, etc.

1. In 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 Paul states that eating meat sacrificed to idols is acceptable, stating:

"But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse." (1 Corinthians 8:8)

This, of course, directly contradicts the law of the Old Testament, and is condemned by the Messiah in Revelation 2:14.

2. Paul directly contradicts Yahushua the Messiah on how to pray. 

In Matthew 6:5, the Messiah says to not pray as the "hypocrites" (ie, Pharisees), who openly pray in the synagogues and at the corners of streets, but rather to do it in your closet where only you and the Father known what you are talking about.   Paul, on the other hand, says is 1 Timothy 2:8 "I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting."  And remember, Saul/Paul was a Pharisee!  So no wonder that he instructed people to pray as the Pharisees do. 

3.  Saul/Paul Boastfully Claims He Was The "Father" of His Followers


Matthew 23:9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."


1 Corinthians 4:15 "Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel."

4. Saul/Paul Twists Teaching of Yahshua - Says "All the Law is Summed In a Single Command"

This may seem a small/insignificant difference, but it's clearly not:


Matthew 22:34-40 "But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Pharisee Saul of Tarsus:

Galatians 5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

5.  Paul teaches that each man can do as he pleases in regards to YHWH's laws regarding diet, the holy days and feasts, and the Sabbath.

Colossians 2:16: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days"

Is it possible, then, that Paul was integral in "changing the Sabbath" to Sunday, rom the 7th day of the week as commanded by YHWH in the Old Testament? 

The Problem with Saul/Paul's claim of "conversion" on the road to Damascus - Contradictory accounts

Saul/Paul claims to have been "converted" on the road to Damascus (on his way to arrest Christians), but there are problems with this claim. There are three separate accounts of this "conversion event" in the Book of Acts, and they contradict each other, demonstrating that Saul is lying about it. Secondly, the Scripture says that "at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established" (Deuteronomy 19:15 ), yet Saul never gives us the names of the witnesses to this "conversion event." Like his claim to "apostleship", we are left to take his word alone.

Account #1:

Acts 9:1-7 " And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."
Note in account above that the author of Acts (Luke, a companion of Paul) says that the men traveling with Saul stood there speechless, they heard the sound, but did not see anyone. Also note here that the voice only tells him to arise and go into the city and THERE it shall be told him what to do.

Account #2 (Saul/Paul speaking to the Jews in Jerusalem):

Acts 22:1-9 "Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."
Note in account above that Saul/Paul says that the men traveling with Saul did NOT hear the sound, but saw a light, contradicting the account above from Acts, Chapter 9.

Account #3 (Paul before King Agrippa):

Acts 26:12-18 "Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me."
Here, Paul claims that the voice told him these things he was to do THERE ON THE ROAD. This is a clear departure from the other accounts of the event. The stories cannot be reconciled. At least one is not true.

Passage in 2 Peter purportedly supporting Paul's teachings must be fraudulent

Those who support the doctrines of Saul of Tarsus especially like to cite a passage in the book of 2 Peter as some of their "strongest evidence" to support the claim that Paul a true follower of the Messiah and even an "Apostle".

First of all, it must first be noted that the authorship of the book of 2 Peter is disputed, with many questioning whether the Apostle Peter is the true author.

Putting that issue aside for a second, let's take a look at the passage concerning Paul.

2 Peter 3:15-16

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Take special notice of the phrase "also the other scriptures" in the passage.  Now, assuming Peter actually wrote this book, would he actually refer to the writings of Saul/Paul as "scripture", indicating it was on the level of the words/writings of the Old Testament prophets and the Messiah?  If Peter actually wrote this, this presumably would have been written while Saul/Paul was still alive.  Do you see the problem?  Typically, you wait until the death of a supposed or self-professed prophet before "canonizing" their writings.  You have to test and try a professed "prophet" to see their whole body of work, and determine whether what they say is true and comes to pass or not.

And as I mentioned in another article, you have to ask yourself under what authority would one consider the letters and writings of Paul to be "canon scripture".  What makes Paul any different from any other self-professed follower of the Messiah all down through history?  Similarly, can we take the letters and writings of, say, Billy Graham or Rick Warren and put them in the Bible too?  And what about even while those men are still alive? Preposterous.

Therefore, we can conclude that this passage is fraudulent.  Either Peter was not the author of this book....or if he was, this particular passage regarding Paul was inserted by someone else or altered by the translators.  Either way, Peter most certainly would not have said these things about Paul.

Other Notes

-Saul/Paul's false teachings (eg, "rapture" doctrine) have lead to much of the doctrinal confusion, schisms, and infighting among Christians over the last 2,000 years.

- In his letters, Paul is recorded several times responding to people who at that time were questioning and denying his claim to "Apostleship".  For example, in 1 Corinthians 9:1-2 Paul states: "Am I not an apostle?  Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?  Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?  Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you!"  And in 1 Timothy 2:7 Paul states: "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not)".  Why the need to emphasize that he is "not lying" when claiming to be an apostle?  And remember, as outlined above, that the Messiah praised the church at Ephesus in Revelation 2:1-2 for rejected Paul as a false apostle. 

-As evidenced by much of the New Testament, there was actually a bitter feud between Saul/Paul and the genuine 12 Apostles.  The Book of James is actually a refutation of the false teachings of Paul, where it states "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (James 2:17), and that "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)  This directly contradicts the teaching of Paul in Ephesians 2:15 stating "No one is justified by the law".

- Saul/Paul was an Edomite "jew", who claimed to be a "kinsman" of the Herodians (Romans 16:11).  Thus, Saul was of the Satanic bloodline, and of the "generation" (race) of "vipers", that the Messiah described the jewish Pharisees of in Matthew 23:33.


To summarize the important points:

1. Yahshua the Messiah taught that we must obey the Law of YHWH in order to inherit eternal life.

2. Pharisee infiltrator and false Apostle Saul/Paul taught against obeying the Law of YHWH, saying "the law is a curse", and "we are no longer under the law" [Romans 6:14]. He even taught that Yahshua had "abolished the law and commandments" [Ephesians 2:15]. Saul taught an "easy fix" salvation of "salvation by faith" and "if you believe and confess you will be saved" [Romans 10:9]. As a result, most of the Pauline mainstream "Judeo-Christian" churches reject the laws of YHWH in favor of Saul's "easy fix salvation" doctrine.

3. While teaching against the Law of YHWH, Pharisee Saul takes it one step further and teaches that we must obey the laws of men and governments no matter what (ie, obey the Satanic/Beast/AntiChrist controlled governments of the world) [Romans 13:1-13], laying a trap for the people of YHWH unto their destruction.

Other Articles of Interest:

- Yahshua the Messiah was not a 'jew'
- Yahweh Prohibits Race-Mixing and Commands Racial Purity and Segregation
- The Flood of Noah Was Not Worldwide
- The myth of the "brotherhood" of humanity; Adam not the first man, but father of only the white race
- Racial origin of the "Jews"; not Israelites, but descendants of Khazars, Edomites, Canaanites, Cain, and ultimately Satan
- The real sin in the Garden of Eden - Not eating an apple, but seduction into sexual sin - Cain the biological offspring of Satan
- Bible does not say that Earth is only 6,000 years old, only that Adam & Eve created 6,000 years ago - Life existed in previous ages, then destroyed
- The Pagan-Babylonian Origin of Easter
- MUST READ: "Blueprint for Bondage" by Scott D. McQuate

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

National Jewish groups oppose new tough anti-illegal immigration law in Arizona

Groups oppose Arizona immigration law

April 19, 2010

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Three national Jewish groups urged Arizona's governor to veto a bill that would force local authorities to enforce federal immigration law.

If passed, the bill "would make state and local law enforcement officers' jobs nearly impossible, and would bring us further from, not closer to, the goal we all share of making our communities safer," said the letter sent Monday from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs to Gov. Jan. Brewer, a Republican. "It would also cause hardship to countless Arizona residents -- U.S. citizens, legal immigrants, and undocumented immigrants alike -- who if this law is passed will live under a cloud of suspicion and fear."

The legislation, which becomes law unless Brewer vetoes it in the next five days, would require police to ask those suspected of being in the country illegally to produce documentation. It also would ban soliciting work from people on sidewalks if it slows traffic.

Brewer has said she has reservations about the bill, which would be the toughest such measure in the country.

Opponents are concerned that it could lead to racial profiling and inhibit undocumented workers from reporting crime.

Monday, April 19, 2010

Holocaust At Waco

A tank sits near the Mount Carmel compound as the Branch Davidian home is consumed in flames. [1]

On February 28, 1993, a team of agents of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) launched an assault on the premises of a religious community called Mount Carmel, outside Waco, Texas, occupied by a sect called the Branch Davidians (an offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventist Church), led by a man named Vernon Howell, who had assumed the name David Koresh. Ostensibly to serve a search and arrest warrant, the raid resulted in a shootout in which four ATF agents and six Davidians were killed. [2]

One BATF agent was killed in transport to the site before the siege even began, and reportedly the other three BATF agents were actually killed by gunfire from other BATF or Federal agents (covered in documentary below "Waco - The Big Lie", time 12:05-15:45, showing BATF agent throwing grenade and firing automatic weapon into room where 3 agents just entered building).

After a 51-day siege, on April 19, 1993, agents of the jewish-occupied US government conducted a military-style assault on the small religious community, murdering 79 men, women, and children -- including 22 British nationals, 2 Canadian nationals, and 2 Australian nationals.

In blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, the BATF, FBI, CIA, and Delta Force assassins mowed down innocent people with machine guns, used armored tanks from Fort Hood, machine gun fire from US Army helicopters, tear gas, and even reportedly deadly nerve gas to murder the Davidians (which is why very few of them tried to flee the building as it burned). The building was burned to the ground and bulldozed to destroy evidence of the crime. The government then concocted the story that the Davidians had "committed suicide" by setting fire to their own building.

Realizing that the public wouldn't accept the military assault on the community on the alleged basis of an arrest warrant for Koresh on firearms charges, the government subsequently concocted lies about the Davidians sexually abusing children.

Nine of the Branch Davidian survivors were sentenced to long terms in Federal prison, including five with 40 year sentences. [3]

The Waco Massacre (Serendipity archive)

Waco: The Untold Story (alleged eyewitness testimony of how CIA assassin teams orchestrated the Waco massacre)

APFN Waco Archive



Kathrine Andrade before the government's Mt. Carmel Raid [4]

Kathrine Andrade after the government's Mt. Carmel Raid

Shari Doyle before the goverment's Mt. Carmel Raid [5]

Shari Doyle after the goverment's Mt. Carmel Raid

Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum
--Autopsy Reports

The Feds Shot First

Waco - The Big Lie (MUST SEE - Excellent Analysis)

Waco - A New Revelation

part 2

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Oklahoma legislature contemplating legislation to authorize state militia to resist Feds

Some Oklahomans want a state militia to resist Washington

Apr 12, 2010
On Deadline - USA Today

Fed up with what they see as Washington's intrusion into their state, Oklahoma "tea party" leaders and some conservative legislators want to create a volunteer militia to defend against the federal government, the Associated Press writes.

"Is it scary? It sure is," said Al Gerhart, a tea party activist who heads the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. "But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?"

State Rep. Charles Key, a Republican representing Oklahoma City, said he believes there's a good chance that legislation could be introduced next year to authorize a militia.

A tea party leader in Tulsa, J.W. Berry, has been soliciting interest through his newsletter, urging that readers "buy more guns, more bullets."

"It's not a far-right crazy plan or anything like that," Berry said. "This would be done with the full cooperation of the state Legislature."

Lots of details to work out. For instance, how would a militia be organized, and how could it block federal mandates?

Critics point out that the National Guard already provides for the state's military needs. They worry a militia would stoke extremism.

"Have they heard of the Oklahoma City bombing?" said Joseph Thai, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma, adding that a militia could "throw fuel in the fire of radicals."

Next Monday marks the 15th anniversary of the anti-government terrorist attack by Timothy McVeigh. The former U.S. soldier and militia sympathizer killed 168 men, women and children with a truck bomb at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. He was executed in June 2001.

(Posted by Michael Winter)

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

On the Necessity of Well-Trained Militias, and the Jewish Media/Gov Establishment's Demonization Thereof

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." -Amendment II, The Constitution of the United States

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." —Patrick Henry

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson


By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.
April 2, 2010

Mainstream media has recently reported the story of the alleged “Militia” group in Michigan which supposedly had plans of killing police officers as a sort of “freedom task”--in the name of Jesus Christ no less. In reality, “This is a group that [is] neither a militia [n]or a Christian group.”[1] This is not the first highlight of news where the media has misused the concept of a “militia” as a representation of everything evil and insane. Virtually every mainstream reference of “militia” today implicates terrorism, anti-American and wacko-extremists--right along with those Al Qaeda terrorists who are attempting to destroy America just because “we are free.”

From 1776 to 2010, the concept of a militia has been turned completely on its head. What was once seen as a necessary component of maintaining and protecting freedom against attacks by a tyrannical domestic government is now seen as a disgusting roach that must be stomped out of existence. Am I suggesting that some of these people who would classify themselves as a “militia” group are legitimately sound and constitute the real purpose of a militia? No. Just as I do not suggest that doctors who perform abortions upon the mother’s mere “choice” constitute actual doctors whose first purpose of treatment is to “do no harm.” We all know that a few people can give a bad name to the rest. What I am talking about here is manipulation to further enslave the people of the States, and empower those who control the federal government and global agenda.

There is without doubt a push and agenda by elitists, major media, politicians, and revolutionaries (who despise the ideals held by our founding generation) against the concept of a Second Amendment militia--one whose purpose is to provide for the protection of freedom within the state by citizens of that state: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”[2]

Particularly, in context of this amendment, the ratifiers were sure to express that militias were to secure a free “State” (singular)--not a free “United States” (plural). Those who attempt to strip the significance and application of militias by replacing “militia” with the “U.S. military” are, quite frankly, ignorant of America’s history and constitutional government or are deceitful and manipulative for a certain agenda. As expressed throughout the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, the people were more scared of a standing U.S. military than they were the U.S. Supreme Court.

To our founding generation, the importance of a well-regulated militia could not have been overstated or overrated. Indeed, the existence and maintenance of well-regulated militias were not only recognized as being necessary for a “free State,” as expressed in the second amendment, but also were considered a duty of each State:

“The roots of [the Second Amendment] strike down in to the past until they reach the Assize of Arms of Henry II (1181), whereby the old constitutional force was reorganized by the duty being imposed upon every free man, for the defense of the state, to provide himself arms according to his means.”[3]

Of course, the underlying presumption and foundation for the implementation of well-regulated militias was the evil inherent in human nature--particularly those who possess political power. They recognized that these militias would not only serve a practical effect of resistance against tyrants, but also a mental effect of inhibition.

The founding generation had personally experienced the efforts of Great Britain to disarm the people of the colonies. They knew the potential reality that government would attempt to disarm the people and eliminate the militias so that the people would be good little subjects to the government. To tyrants, obedience is all that is required to be a good citizen.

Founding Father George Mason’s daughter described this American experience and observed the evil of “gradual slavery” perpetrated by “their” government in Great Britain. She says:

“When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”[4]

Not much has changed since 1775 and 1776, because human nature never changes. So, it is no wonder why the second amendment was insisted upon, such that the federal government had no power to forbid militias or prevent the armament of the people of the States. Militias were in fact what stood between freedom and tyranny, in the minds of our founding generation.

Acknowledging the existence and strength of the citizens’ militia in 1787, Alexander Hamilton even found it hard to believe that the federal government would ever usurp power not granted to it by the people of the States because of well-regulated militias (one of the presumptions for the states ratifying the constitution). Hamilton observes: “dangers [from the federal government] so formidable can[not] assail the whole Union...if we take into our view the aid to be derived from the militia.”[5]

Compare today, where anyone who suggests that the states need well-regulated militias strong enough to defend their state from the potential of U.S. military force would be labeled as a terrorist or extremist and would perhaps end up in prison like these arrested in Michigan. Like Sir William Keith, who betrayed the freedom of the colonists for the sake of empowering Great Britain, there are betrayers, instigators and propagators doing the federal government’s bidding today.

Understanding how this agenda has been successful is no wonder. Consider the sources used and implemented by the media, law enforcement and the federal government concerning militias and other “hate groups”: sources that are proposed as being “credible,” like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which allegedly “monitors hate groups and other fringe organizations.”[6] Advocacy groups like this are the same groups which feed information to fusion centers throughout American concerning “hate groups,” and these fusion centers are the same governmental agencies that create reports such as the highly-suspect “MIAC” report, which suggested that supporters of Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul and Bob Barr should be watched closely as potential terrorists.[7]

And so the manipulation takes hold into every fabric of society. This understanding is easy enough to grasp considering that millions of American do very little independent thinking (if at all); do very little or no study concerning principles of freedom and American and world history (and I’m not talking about books written by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the like); conduct little or no research of their own concerning what they hear on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. When Americans hear a story about a crazy “militia” group in Michigan and then hear a fusion center report about Chuck Baldwin, Ron Paul or Bob Barr being leaders of terrorist mentality, they easily make the logical leap: militia equals bad; Chuck Baldwin equals bad; Ron Paul equals bad; firearms equal bad; state sovereignty equals bad. Don’t even suggest to them that a State actually maintain a well-regulated militia for second amendment purposes!

These tactics of delusion and manipulation are obvious and their purposes are known. They go right along with the agenda to strip this country, these states and these people of all effective and meaningful means by which independence, self-government, limited government, constitutional government, state sovereignty, individual sovereignty, and natural rights and freedom are secured.

So, what is the effect of this purpose-driven manipulation? I recently had a person email me in response to my article, “National ID: Who Will Resist?” in context of this recent Michigan “militia” arrest story. In his email, he expresses his trepidation of the federal government as a result of their prosecuting this alleged “militia” group, saying: “Are you kidding? Resist that? You will lose....Find a different way.” And so the federal government parades: Goal accomplished! Thankfully, not everyone thinks this way.

Let us theorize for a moment: what if a state revives a state militia, for the sole and expressed purposes of defending that state against foreign and domestic tyranny and usurpations, as expressed in the second amendment? What if three-fourths of the states deny this state the right of protecting its freedom, independence and sovereignty through a well-regulated militia? What if the federal government attempts to shut the militia operation down and criminally prosecutes those participating?

As I have repeatedly stated, the States in America are choosing (and will be forced to choose) which path they are going to take: the road to freedom or tyranny? Some will choose the path of truth and freedom. Others will choose the path of manipulation, lies and slavery. And so the principles of limited government may be able to thrive once again in those states that choose freedom.

Let us get this straight at least: if we do not have a generation of people in the States that are willing to do what our founding generation did in securing freedom, then how dare we claim to love them, their ideas and what they attempted to bequeath to us. Just as in generations past, “it has grown the fashion to praise the men of former times but to deny their ideal of Independence.”[8] Praising our founders does nothing to preserve freedom.

To such a slothful attitude and philosophy, perhaps the following statement is appropriate: “Why, had we resigned without a struggle that which our ancestors encountered every danger to win, who would not have spit on you?”[9] Indeed, if our founding generation had the opportunity to spit on us, it is doubtful that they would find it worth their time to indulge us so.

It is past time that the people of these States get a grip of reality concerning the “course of human affairs,” in which we live. It is time that men become men, who are willing to both live and die for freedom. Quit pandering and cowering to these manipulations and threats perpetuated by anti-freedomists. Insist that your state legislators, governors and sheriffs uphold their oath to the Constitution by resisting unconstitutional federal actions. In truth, insist that your state and county officials (and candidates) implement and resurrect the second amendment as it was designed: TO PROTECT YOUR “FREE STATE”!


1, CNN Wire Staff, Militia Arrests Timed To Prevent Violence, CNN News, (March 31, 2010)
2, United States Constitution, Second Amendment.
3, Hannis Taylor, The Origin and Growth of the American Constitution, (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1911), 232–233.
4, Kate Mason Rowland and General Fitzhugh Lee, intro., The Life of George Mason, 1725–1792, vol. 2, (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1802), 409.
5, Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 26.
6, CNN Wire Staff, Militia Arrests Timed To Prevent Violence, CNN News, (March 31, 2010)
7, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, Missouri MIAC Documents Scandal Leads to Advisory on SPLC & ADL, (March 26, 2009)
8, Terence MacSwiney, Principles of Freedom, (New York, NY, E.P. Dutton & Co., 1921), 242.
9, Terence MacSwiney, Principles of Freedom, (New York, NY, E.P. Dutton & Co., 1921), 239.

© 2010 Timothy N. Baldwin, JD - All Rights Reserved

- Time to Revitalize the Constitutional Militias
- The Original Anti-Government, White Supremacist, Pro-Militia, Freedom-loving, Anti-Tax, Gun-toting "Radical Rightwing Extremist Domestic Terrorists"

Monday, April 5, 2010

Max Edelman's sad Holocaust™ tale: "Blind Jew in a Death Camp" - Miraculously survived 8 days without water, escaped being holocausted though blind

Polish jew Max Edelman says he spent time in several German camps during the war.

He claims he was blinded due to a vicious beating from camp guards, who beat him for no other reason than pure "sport."

Even though, as the story goes, a blind inmate would have been immediately sent to the ovens, "somehow" Edelman managed to survive. It was a miracle.

Just prior to his liberation, Max was taken on an eight-day forced death march without food or water. Miraculously, he survived this too.

The one harrowing experience Max can't get rid of is one night when the Germans had a party, and for entertainment had a German shepherd attack and kill a camp inmate by tearing his throat to pieces.

From then on, Max was deathly afraid of dogs. This prevented him from getting a guide dog for years until he finally mustered the courage and got his own guide dog, Calvin, a chocolate Lab.

After the war, Max experienced guilt "for his survival." But somehow he coped.

Edelman emigrated to the United States in 1951, found a job as a X-ray darkroom technician, and now, of course, tells his Holocaust story to young children. He speaks two or more times a week, after decades of silence.

Max Edelman, 87, speaks to a group of eighth-grade students [1]

Blinded by Nazis, guided by a dog

By Sharon L. Peters, Special for USA TODAY

Max Edelman, a sprightly gentleman with a potent laugh, huge social network and vast array of interests, surges through life. At 86, he figures he's got too much to do to slow down. Blind for decades, he receives a little help from Tobin, a placid black Lab.

Like each of the thousands of service dogs, Tobin has been bred and trained to help keep his owner safe and independent. And like the thousands of people who are paired without charge with a dog, Edelman has undergone training to make the most of the union.

But Edelman was far from typical when, in 1990, he traveled from his home in Lyndhurst, Ohio, to Guiding Eyes for the Blind in Yorktown Heights, N.Y., to get his first-ever guide dog. For one thing, he was nearly 70. Back then, says Guiding Eyes' Graham Buck, almost all clients were much younger, mostly kids blind as a result of premature births.

But it wasn't Edelman's age that was the biggest challenge. It was his back story.

The things he'd seen and endured would have destroyed most men — and did, in fact, kill millions. He suffered years of starvation and beatings and spirit-crushing cruelty, including an eight-day forced march just before the U.S. Army arrived to liberate the German camps. He spent 192 grueling hours without food or water, during which 1,700 of the 2,500 prisoners collapsed and were shot by the side of the road.

Somehow Edelman, a Jew sent to Nazi concentration camps when he was 17 and freed at 22, managed to survive. He was blinded in a vicious beating by guards —"for no real reason. It was sport for them, they enjoyed inflicting pain" — months before his rescue.

He was trained as a physical therapist, married and immigrated to the USA in 1951. He landed a job in the X-ray department at the Cleveland Clinic and built a life — more or less successfully moving beyond the memories of the camps, including the death of his father.

He coped reasonably well with survivor guilt and was largely able, except at night when nightmares invaded his sleep, to deflect the awful images that were the last he would actually see.

There was one thing he couldn't vanquish: the memory of one night in the camp.

The commandant was holding a party for like-minded people. As part of the evening's entertainment, he ordered that several prisoners be lined up. Edelman was among them. The commandant eyed the men, made a decision about who would die and ordered his massive German shepherd to attack. The dog lunged, grabbed the prisoner by the throat and killed him.

From that night forward, Edelman's fear of dogs was intractable.

But when he retired, he wanted to relieve his wife of the job of taking him everywhere he wanted to go. A guide dog would be ideal.

He mustered his courage, attended the 26-day Guiding Eyes training, was coached patiently through his dog phobia, and went home with Calvin, a chocolate Lab.

The two had the skills to mesh as a team, but Edelman couldn't connect, didn't really know how to trust the animal. He was appreciative of Calvin as a "tool to get around," he says, but formed no bond. Guiding Eyes experts provided additional help.

"If I failed at this, it would not be for lack of effort," he says.

But Calvin knew something was off. The dog had been around people all of his two years; he knew how things were supposed to be, and this wasn't it. He lost weight and was depressed. The vet said he sensed Edelman's emotional distance.

One day, at a crosswalk, Edelman heard the traffic stop and gave Calvin the "forward" command. A driver made a sudden, sharp right turn and was upon the two without warning.

Watchful Calvin stopped instantly, and the two returned to the sidewalk. "He had saved both of us from serious injury," Edelman says. He hugged Calvin, and the barrier dissolved. "From that day on it was love. We both blossomed."

Calvin served him well for nine years and retired with an adoptive family. Then came Silas, a yellow Lab who forged a solid bond with Edelman; he died last year. Edelman misses Silas deeply. "When we were on our 3-mile walks and I'd get lost in thought and have no idea where we were, he'd get me home."

But he and Tobin, who were paired earlier this month, are bonding. Last week, the dog accompanied Edelman to a college campus where he spoke about the Holocaust. Edelman accepts two or more such invitations most weeks, after decades of silence. "Survivors are few in number now," he says, "so we have to bear a larger load."

Tobin eases the way.

judicial's thoughts...

A Blind Jew In A Death Camp

I sort of think that if you were a blind Jew in a 'Death Camp', you would be in an oven in 15 seconds. So maybe Max is stretching the truth, or maybe there were no 'Death Camps', or both.

Extended version of Max's tale

Thursday, April 1, 2010

"Assassination of Russia" - False flag Govenment sponsored terrorism Russian style

In response to the recent Moscow train bombings, which were immediately blamed on Chechen rebels, a history of recent "terrorist" acts in Russia is in order:

Russian FSB are caught planting bombs in buildings to blame on the Chechens. Most Russians are unlikely to see The Attempt on Russia, a French documentary shot with the help of tycoon Boris Berezovsky, now self-exiled to London. The film alleges involvement of Russian secret services in the Moscow and the Volgodonsk apartment bombings in the fall of 1999. The terrorist attacks claimed 247 lives and paved the way for a new Chechen war that helped install Vladimir Putin as Russian President. While denying the claim, the Kremlin made sure that Russian TV would not show the footage, screened by human rights groups to limited audiences. Still, such allegations have been the talk of the country ever since the tragedy.

2 Moscow Metro Blasts Kill 34: Another FSB ‘False Flag’ Inside Job