Section 1, Clause 1

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years,¹ and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected….

If the United States Executive Branch were necessary, Yahweh² would have provided for it in His perfect laws. The reason He did not provide for presidents and vice presidents is because He provided Himself as everlasting King:

For YHWH³ is our judge, YHWH is our lawgiver, YHWH is our king…. (Isaiah 33:22)⁴

…YHWH is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king…. (Jeremiah 10:10)

For God is the King of all the earth…. God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness. (Psalm 47:7-8)

YHWH hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all. (Psalm 103:19)

Article 2 is a rejection of Yahweh’s executive power and an attempt to usurp His executive authority.

It would be interesting to catalog the consequences the people of the United States have endured as a result of presidential decisions since the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Most of us, provided we have not been misled by his claim to Christianity, are familiar with George W. Bush’s sins.⁵ And everyone is aware of Bill Clinton’s sins in office. But what of the lives of past presidents? What of our first president, George Washington, who is often extolled as one of America’s greatest Christian statesmen? What kind of Christian⁶ was he?

To discuss Washington may seem a departure from this book’s objective, but because he was one of the key figures in the Constitutional Convention, it is important to understand what kind of man he was. There is conflicting contemporary testimony regarding Washington’s Christianity. Some say he was a Christian, others – his own pastor Dr. James Abercrombie among them – say he was not. However, there is no question that he was a Freemason. Gary North provides the following exposé on the first president of the United States of America:

Washington was a member of the Anglican Church all of his life. Officially, he was a communicant member, but he never took communion, even though his wife did. He would rise and leave the church as soon as communion was about to be served. When challenged publicly about this by the rector of the Christ Church in Philadelphia, Bishop William White, he later apologized indirectly by way of a U.S. Senator, and promised never again to attend the church on communion day, a promise that he apparently kept. Dr. James Abercrombie had been assistant rector of Christ Church during Washington’s Presidency, and he did not mince words in an 1831 statement: “That Washington was a professing Christian is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, I cannot consider any man a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a challenge to divine grace.”⁷

In a letter to a Dr. Wilson, Abercrombie also stated, “Sir, Washington was a Deist.”⁸ North continued:

Here was the strange situation: George Washington was formally a communicant church member who systematically refused to take communion. The institutional problem here was the unwillingness of church authorities to apply formal church sanctions…. Nevertheless, the churches to which Washington belonged did not take official action against him by either requiring him to take communion or by publicly excommunicating him. It was this disciplinary failure on the part of these churches that led to the public legitimizing of Washington as a Christian. This failure later indirectly legitimized the Constitution that he conspired to impose on the nation. Without Washington’s support of the actions of the Convention, the Constitution would never have been ratified. But Washington was deemed either too powerful or too sacrosanct to bring under church discipline.

...Washington refused to commit to public pronouncements any statement of his personal faith besides a commitment to divine Providence. Except during wartime, he only attended church once a month. Thus, concludes Boller, “if to believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ and his atonement for the sins of man and to participate in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper are requisites for the Christian faith, then Washington, on the evidence which we have examined, can hardly be considered a Christian, except in the most nominal sense.”⁹

The key to understanding Washington’s public religion is found on the page facing the title page of J. Hugo Tatsch’s book, The Facts About George Washington as a Freemason. There we find Williams’ 1794 painting of Washington in the regalia of Grand Master of a Masonic lodge. It was an official painting; his lodge at Alexandria paid $50 to the painter. Washington had served as Grand Master [actually Worshipful Master¹⁰] of the Alexandria lodge in 1788 and 1789. When he was inaugurated President of the U.S., he was therefore a Grand Master, the only Mason to be inaugurated President while serving as a Grand Master.

[James] Carter’s account of Washington’s first inauguration as President is illuminating: “On April 30, 1789, Washington took the oath of office as President of the United States administered by Chancellor Robert R. Livingston, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of New York. General Jacob Morton, Worshipful Master of St. John’s Lodge in New York City – the oldest lodge in the city – and Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of New York, was marshal of the inauguration. It was his duty to provide a Bible for the occasion. Morton brought from the altar of St. John’s Lodge the Bible upon which Washington placed his hand while repeating the obligation to uphold the constitution of the United States and then kissed the sacred volume to complete the ceremony.”¹¹

You will not read in the textbooks that 33 of Washington’s generals were Masons. You will also not read that LaFayette was not given command over any troops until after he agreed to be initiated into Union Lodge No.1, at which ceremony Washington officiated as Master Mason. But such was the case. Washington presided over a procession in Philadelphia on December 27, 1778, after the evacuation of the British. Dressed in full Masonic attire, he marched through the city with three hundred other Masons, and then held a Masonic service at Christ Church, which became his congregation of preference during his Presidency.

As President, he received many honors from local lodges. His written replies to them were generous. He never wavered in his attachment to Masonry. In a letter to King David’s Lodge No. 1 of Newport Rhode Island, written on Sunday, August 22, 1790, Washington wrote: “Being persuaded that a just application of the principles, on which the Masonic Fraternity is founded, must be promotive of private virtue and public prosperity, I shall always be happy to advance the interests of the Society, and to be considered by them as a deserving brother.” In several letters, he referred to God as the Supreme Architect. A representative example is his letter to Pennsylvania Masons (Dec. 27, 1791): “…I request you will be assured of my best wishes and earnest prayers for your happiness while you remain in this terrestrial Mansion, and that we may thereafter meet as brethren, in the Eternal Temple of the Supreme Architect.”¹²

John Eidsmoe, in his book-length attempt to defend the Constitution as a Christian document, takes seriously Washington’s outright lie – it can be nothing else – in a letter to G.W. Snyder in 1798, that he had not been in a Masonic lodge “more than once or twice in the last thirty years.”¹³ One does not become the Grand Master of a lodge by attending services once or twice over thirty years, but one can certainly fool two centuries of Christian critics by lying through one’s wooden teeth about it.¹⁴

In other words, Washington, although hardly a Christian – meaning, he was no Christian at all – was a Freemason of the rankest sort:

Washington was initiated, in 1752, in the Lodge at Fredericksburg, Virginia, and the records of that Lodge, still in existence, present the following entries on the subject. The first entry is thus: “Nov. 4th. 1752. This evening Mr. George Washington was initiated as an Entered Apprentice”: receipt of the entrance fee, amounting to £2 3s., was acknowledged.

On March 3 in the following year, “Mr. George Washington” is recorded as having been passed a Fellow Craft; and on August 4, same year, 1753, the record of the transactions of the evening states that “Mr. George Washington,” and others whose names are mentioned, have been raised to the Sublime Degree of Master Mason.¹⁵

In Founding Fathers, Secret Societies: Freemasons, Illuminati, Rosicrucians, and the Decoding of the Great Seal, Robert Heironimus reported that “Testimony given by Timothy Bigelow in a eulogy before the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts two months after Washington’s death indicates that Washington’s Masonic experience was more than perfunctory.”¹⁶ Heironimus then provided Bigelow’s eulogy as found in Albert G. Mackey’s Encyclopedia of Freemasonry:

The information received from our Brethren who had the happiness to be members of the Lodge over which he [Washington] presided for many years, and of which he died the Master, furnishes abundant proof of his persevering zeal for the prosperity of the Institution. Constant and punctual in his attendance, scrupulous in his observance of the regulations of the Lodge, and solicitous, at all times, to communicate light and instruction, he discharged the duties of the chair with uncommon dignity and intelligence in all the mysteries of our art.¹⁷

Heironimus continued:

In his letters and addresses to Masonic bodies, Washington repeated his profound esteem for their principles. In 1797, he addressed the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts: “My attachment to the Society of which we are all members will dispose me always to contribute my best endeavors to promote the honor and prosperity of the Craft.”¹⁸ …Only thirteen months before his death he declared to the Grand Lodge of Maryland, “So far as I am acquainted with the doctrines and principles of Freemasonry, I conceive them to be founded in benevolence, and to be exercised only for the good of mankind. I cannot, therefore, upon this ground, withdraw my approbation from it.”¹⁹

Sovereign Grand Commander Henry C. Clausen, in his book Masons Who Helped Shape Our Nation (commissioned for the Declaration of Independence’s bicentennial), wrote the following about Washington:

It is only fitting, then, that George Washington, the most famous of the Fraternity’s representatives, should defend this historic document which Freemasonry inspired. No man had more fully lived the principles of Freemasonry or contributed more to his Craft and his Nation than this great General and President. …Brother Washington was an active member throughout his public life and into his Mount Vernon retirement. In fact, when he took the oath of office as President, George Washington was serving as Worshipful Master of Alexandria Lodge No. 22….²⁰

What about the other Constitutional framers who are frequently referred to as great Christian men?

It is difficult for modern Americans to recapture the religious spirit of the country’s great early leaders – George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and their colleagues. The difficulty arises because these brilliant leaders, surely the most capable generation of statesmen ever to appear in America, were at once genuinely religious but not specifically Christian. Virtually all these great men [such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and James Madison] had a profound belief in ‘the Supreme Judge of the world’ and in ‘the protection of Divine Providence,’ to use the words of the Declaration of Independence. Yet only a few [such as John Witherspoon, Patrick Henry and John Jay] believed in the orthodox teachings of traditional Christianity – that, for example, Christ’s death atoned for sin, that the Bible was a unique revelation from God, or that the miracles recorded in the Scripture actually happened.²¹

Twenty-eight of the forty Constitutional signers were Freemasons or had Masonic connections. Sixteen presidents and thirty-five Supreme Court Justices have been Freemasons, the most notable justice being Chief Justice John Marshal (1801-1835), reputed to be the “Father of the Judiciary” and the “Great Expounder of the Constitution.” Marshall served as Grand Master of the Virginia Masons in 1793-95.

Clausen maintained that the United States Constitution was fashioned after Masonic government:

…Freemasonry set the pattern in ideology and form. Since the Masonic federal system of organization was the only pattern for effective organization operating in each of the original Thirteen Colonies, it was natural that patriotic Brethren intent on strengthening the fledgling nation would turn to the organizational base of the Craft for a model. Regardless of the other forces that affected the formation of the Constitution during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the fact remains that the federalism established in the civil government the Constitution created is identical to the federalism of the Grand Lodge system of Masonic government created in Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723.

In purpose as well as in form, the Constitution reflects Masonic influence. Freedom, justice, equity and fraternity are the four cornerstones of the symbolic Temple of Freemasonry, and the Constitution reveals these ideals in many phrases. This may well be due to the fact the President of the Constitutional Convention, General George Washington and its leaders were Freemasons!²²

Not only were there many Freemasons involved with the drafting of the Constitution, but the United States Capitol was built with Masonic ritual. In The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, originally published in 1864, Pastor Benjamin F. Morris relates the following regarding the Masonic christening of the Capitol:

The Capitol of the American republic[’s] … foundations were laid with Christian services, and the blessing of God invoked. Congress, on the 16th of July, 1790, set apart one hundred square miles, on the banks of the Potomac, as the future capitol. On the 15th day of April, 191, the Hon. Daniel Carroll and Dr. David Stewart superintended the fixing of the first corner-stone of the District of Columbia, at Jones’s Point, near Alexandria, where it was laid with all the Masonic ceremonies usual at that time, and a quaint address, almost all in scriptural language, delivered by the Rev. James Muir….

On the 18th of September, 1793, the southeast corner-stone of the Capitol was laid by Washington, with Masonic and Christian services and military demonstrations….²³

One cannot help but wonder if Morris was not a Freemason himself, in view of his attempt to Christianize these Masonic celebrations.

David Barton, founder and president of WallBuilders, minimizes the Constitutional framers’ Masonic connections (as do all Christian Constitutionalists), pointing out that there were differences between the Masonry of their day and our own. Masonry has evolved, but not enough that one should dismiss the framers Masonic connections. Many of Freemasonry’s most disconcerting aspects were in full force in the framers’ day: its self-maledictory oaths (not to Yahweh, His Word, or Christianity, but to the Masonic fraternity), its toleration of polytheism, its secular and humanist ethics, and promotion of gender equality (much of which was borrowed from the antichristian Babylonian Talmud). Richard E. Fletcher, Post Grand Master and Executive Secretary of the Masonic Service Association of North America, expounded upon the parallels between Masonry today and that of the framers:

The Freemasonry of the 1700’s is still basically the same. The concept of the Enlightenment period has not changed. What Masons of that day believed, so do the Masons of today. Freemasonry was not radically different and that is the usual story told by anti-Masons who cannot otherwise explain why such great men as Washington, Lafayette and Paul Revere were members. …the basic beliefs of the fraternity are the same.²⁴

Carefully consider the following, taken from the “World’s Oldest Masonic Website,” and its implications regarding whether any Mason meets the criteria of a true Christian:

Why Can’t Christians Pray in Lodge? Of course Christians can pray in lodge! What they may not do is offer a specifically Christian prayer as Lodge prayer, any more than a Jew or Muslim may offer a prayer specific to his religion.

The reason for this is that it is the custom of Masonry to require all to participate and assent to Lodge prayer. How can it be proper for a Christian to require non-Christians to assent to assent to a prayer peculiar to his own peculiar belief? No Christian would assent to a prayer offered by a Jew or Muslim which essentially denied the doctrine of the Trinity. Because a Lodge acts in unison, prayers offered in Lodge must be of a nature that will be agreed to by all.

To be sure, some Christians believe that only prayers given in a particularly Christian form are truly prayers. These people cannot become Freemasons because they do not subscribe to the principles of religious toleration required of Masons.²⁵

That Freemasons and deists such as Washington and Jefferson (who denounced Christianity) could be elected president speaks volumes of the non-Christian character of the U.S. Constitution. (For an explanation of the antichristian characteristics of Freemasonry, I recommend The Deadly Deception: Freemasonry Exposed … by One of its Top Leaders, by Jim Shaw and Tom McKenney and Unveiling Freemasonry’s Idolatry by John M. Otis.) Harry Elmer Barnes minced no words in identifying the United Sates first seven presidents and other prominent men of the framers era as atheists and infidels:

It is … a lamentable and disheartening fact that the majority of distinguished Americans in the generation of the Fathers were not even professing Christians. Their generation was distinctly less religious than that of [the agnostic Robert G.] Ingersoll which came a century later. Indeed, the views of Ingersoll would have cause no disturbance whatever among the intellectual classes in the days of George Washington. The distinguished Unitarian clergyman, the Reverend Doctor Minot J. Savage, said in a sermon on Ingersoll that “His ideas were very largely those of Voltaire, of Gibbon, of Thomas Paine, of Thomas Jefferson, of Benjamin Franklin, and of a good many other of our prominent Revolutionary heroes.” The Reverend Doctor Wilson, in a sermon published in the Albany Daily Advertiser for 1831, pointed in dismay to the fact that most of the founders of our country were “infidels,” and that of the first seven presidents not one of them had professed his belief in Christianity. The good Doctor protested that it almost seemed as though God had been deliberately excluded from the origins of our government….

The late Mr. [Franklin] Roosevelt, in one his more facetious and gracious moments, referred to Thomas Paine, who had rendered most notable services in promoting the independence and formation of our country, as a “dirty little Atheist.” By the same criteria most of the Fathers, certainly Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Marshall, Morris, and Monroe, were likewise “dirty little Atheists,” as they all shared the religious belief of Paine and most other intellectuals of the time, namely, either Unitarianism or Deism.²⁶

North described the framers’ religious cover-up:

The Framers at the Constitutional Convention issued a death warrant against Christianity, but for tactical reasons, they and their spiritual heirs refused for several generations to deliver it to the intended victims. They covered this covenantal death sentence with a lot of platitudes about the hand of Providence, the need for Morality, the grand design of the universe, and similar Masonic shibboleths.²⁷

Even if some of the framers were genuine Christians, they doomed their divided house to eventual destruction (Matthew 12:25) when they unequally yoked themselves (2 Corinthians 6:14-18) with those who were not Christians. It was already fated to ruin because it was built, not on rock – the Word of Yahweh, but on sand – the traditions of man. (Matthew 7:24-27).

George Washington’s connection with Freemasonry is only the beginning of presidential transgressions. The sins and impositions upon the people have grown steadily, from the first George to the latest George, because the Constitutional framers and others refused to believe Psalm 19:7, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Isaiah 33:22, and James 4:12.

George Mason was less than enthusiastic about the executive branch:

The President of the United States has no constitutional Council (a thing unknown in any safe and regular Government): he will therefore be unsupported by proper information and Advice; and will generally be directed by Minions and Favourites – So He will become a Tool to the Senate…. ²⁸

It was worse in the case of George W. Bush; he became a renegade, essentially answering only to himself – or perhaps to globalist controllers behind the scenes:

George W. Bush has taken this up a notch [from previous presidents] with his Unitary Executive Theory, under which he may on his own invade and occupy countries, ignore congressional restrictions on his power, wiretap without a warrant, authorize CIA torture, send suspected terrorists to other countries to be tortured, and hold the people he declares “enemy combatants” indefinitely without trial.

The presidency now is an office with virtually open-ended powers. All the officeholder needs is a crisis to justify new authority, and there’s never been a shortage of crises, whether economic or foreign in nature.²⁹

This unbounded power was foreseen by Patrick Henry:

I would rather infinitely … have a King, Lords, and Commons, than a Government so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a King, we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his people, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them: but the President, in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke.³⁰

Mason had the following to say about the office of vice president:

Hence also sprung that unnecessary officer, the Vice President; who for want of other employment, is made President of the Senate; thereby dangerously blending the executive and legislative powers; besides always giving to some one of the States an unnecessary and unjust pre-eminence over the others.³¹

Presidents, vice presidents, their tax-paid cabinets and staffs are superfluous. This will initially prove difficult to accept for the average American who cannot fathom government without a human executive leader. However, the executive branch was nonexistent between 1776 and 1788, when the Constitution was ratified. During those twelve years, the government functioned without a president and vice president. No executive branch existed in America before 1776, except for Yahweh’s Kingship. Consider again McGuffey’s Sixth Eclectic Reader concerning Puritan government:

Their form of government was as strictly theocratical insomuch that it would be difficult to say where there was any civil authority among them distinct from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Whenever a few of them settled a town, they immediately gathered themselves into a church; and their elders were magistrates, and their code of laws was the Pentateuch…. God was their King; and they regarded him as truly and literally so….³²

Christian Presidents?

An email that began circulating during Barack Obama’s presidential campaign asked the question, “Can a Muslim be a good American President?” Thanks to Article 6 and Amendment 1, the answer to that question is yes. However, a more important question is can a Christian be an American President? The answer to that is unequivocally no, at least not without radically compromising his beliefs and convictions. How can a Christian – whose allegiance is to Yahweh alone – swear to uphold a Constitution that is adversarial to the laws and morality of Yahweh? How can a Christian represent WE THE PEOPLE, the vast majority of whom are indifferent or antagonistic to Yahweh, His Kingdom, and His will? How can a Christian preside over a government that promotes pluralism, polytheism, infanticide, sodomy, multiculturalism, ad nauseam?

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of YHWH; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. (Psalm 1:1-2)

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

When today’s Christians finally establish Yahweh’s government, governed exclusively by His perfect laws, the only executive branch will be the one described in Isaiah 33:22, in which Yahweh is King, as in the days of the Puritans.

Term Limits

Section 1, Clause 1 provides four-year terms for presidents. In 1951, Amendment 22 limited presidents to two four-year terms. Today, most “conservatives”³³ are in favor of term limits, not only for presidents but also for senators and representatives. Indeed, most people would concede that term limits are a good thing when evil men rule. But the question Christians should be asking is whether term limits are biblical. Consider Solomon’s wisdom in Proverbs 28:2:

For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof: but by a man of understanding and knowledge the state thereof shall be prolonged. (King James Version)

When a country is lawless, it has one ruler after another; but when it is led by a man with understanding and knowledge, it continues strong. (New Century Version)

By the transgression of a land many [are] its heads. And by an intelligent man, who knoweth right — it is prolonged. (Young’s Literal Translation)

For the ruler who keeps His laws, Yahweh intends for his term to be protracted:

And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book…. And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear YHWH his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them … that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom…. (Deuteronomy 17:18-20)

The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever. (Proverbs 29:14)

The Constitution provides for the United States to be ruled by many heads, ruler after ruler, which is part of Yahweh’s sovereign judgment against a sinful nation. Yahweh’s government has only one head – Matthew 21:42, Ephesians 1:20-22, Colossians 1:13-19.

What term-limit proponents do not seem to consider is that although term limits prevent corrupt officials from serving any longer than their terms allow, they also provide for them to serve as long as their terms allow. Term limits are a Band-Aid on a self-inflicted wound.

Term limits are unnecessary when Yahweh’s government is functioning, governed solely by biblically qualified judges. Provided a man remains biblically qualified and mentally capable, he would not need to be removed from his bench. Only when a judge – for whatever reason – becomes biblically unfit, should his term end. In other words, the people should immediately debar any judge gone bad – and if his going bad involves capital crimes, he should be executed.

Elections

…the community put the legislative power into such hands as they think fit…. (John Locke)³⁴

Article 2 provides for the election of presidents. Even though only a small percentage of people participate in elections, voting is still sacrosanct to most Americans. Voting has for so long been promoted as one of the United States’ foundational and inviolable rights that to question the legitimacy of elections is almost tantamount to sedition – even in the eyes of the average Christian. Many Christians contend that voting is a god-given right, and it is a right – under the god WE THE PEOPLE.

Regrettably, even pronomian and anti-Constitutional author Gary North promotes elections and juries as if they are biblically ordained activities:

God’s civil covenant places judicial boundaries around the voting booth, the jury room, and civil magistrate’s office. To violate these boundaries is to commit revolution or treason against God.³⁵

It is true that Yahweh has placed judicial boundaries around the civil magistrate’s office, as demonstrated, among other ways, in the list of biblical qualifications provided later in this chapter. However, in order for there to be judicial boundaries around the voting booth and the jury room, there must first be a biblical mandate in Yahweh’s civil covenant for the voting booth and the jury room. There are no such mandates. (See Chapter 6 “Article 3, Judicial Usurpation” for more regarding the unbiblical nature of juries.)

Consequently, to violate these two boundaries is not a treasonous act against Yahweh at all. Instead, to promote juries and elections is subversive to Yahweh and His law. It also implies that the framers knew better than Yahweh how men should be placed in office.

North later declared that “biblical theocracy in every area of life can and should come through majority vote or acceptance.”³⁶ Of course, there is no biblical record of Yahweh ever using a majority vote to establish His theocracy. This kind of theology, theoretically, puts Yahweh and His government under the control of any non-Christian majority until enough people can be won to Christ, taught Yahweh’s laws (with the exception of what Yahweh’s law mandates regarding the selection of civil leaders), and until the same people actually vote in a majority bloc, hopefully for the right men.

North went on to declare that “Christians may vote either liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican, but they must … vote biblical.”³⁷ This initially sounds like a good idea but it is inherently unbiblical because Christians who are biblical do not vote. They also do not dupe themselves into believing that unbiblical elections can bring about Yahweh’s biblical theocracy. Furthermore, North’s suggestion is impossible because there is not a liberal, conservative, republican, democrat, libertarian, or constitutionalist who is truly biblical – not by Yahweh’s standards found in His Word.

While Christians pray for Yahweh’s will and kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven, in voting for their “better” man, they promote and toil for an opposing and rival kingdom.

Any government not promoting Yahweh’s kingdom is a rival, even hostile kingdom that, ultimately, Yahweh intends to cease to exist (Isaiah 9:6-7, Daniel 2:37-44, etc.). Consequently, if left to themselves and their inherently flawed laws and policies, the leaders of such governments will inevitably become more and more ungodly, thereby assisting such governments’ eventual self-destruction. Ironically, naïve Christians are found resisting and even contesting Yahweh’s design. They instead want to intervene and “save” the competing kingdom by non-biblically electing “better” men into office, by which the competing kingdom’s demise is only prolonged, and, in the practical sense, Yahweh’s kingdom here on earth is postponed for that much longer.

While Christians pray for Yahweh’s will and kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven, in voting for their “better” man, they promote and toil for an opposing and rival kingdom.

With this in mind, if you are a Christian and you intend to participate in unbiblical elections, ultimately the best thing you can do for Yahweh’s kingdom is to help vote the worst candidate into office.

Because Americans are inundated with propaganda that insinuates or categorically declares that it is un-American and unpatriotic not to vote, my recommendation that Christians should not participate in unbiblical elections will be met with opposition. If you are one of those people who find yourself initially opposed to my proposal, you need to ask yourself: Am I more concerned about being un-American or being unbiblical? I hope the latter concerns you more than the former.

In addition to being continually brainwashed about how wonderful it is that we have free elections in our nation, one of the reasons most Christians believe so strongly about protecting their right to vote is that few, if any, have ever challenged elections from a biblical paradigm. Where do Yahweh’s perfect laws provide for elections as a means of determining government leaders? One need not be a biblical scholar to know that the Bible makes no such provision. Consequently, elections are yet another example of man believing he knows better than Yahweh.

Some people attempt to use Jethro’s counsel to Moses his son-in-law, as the biblical precedent for elections:

Hearken now unto my voice, I will give thee counsel, and God shall be with thee: Be thou for the people to Godward, that thou mayest bring the causes unto God: And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must walk, and the work that they must do. Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens: And let them judge the people at all seasons: and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge.... (Exodus 18:19-22)

Jethro’s counsel supplied a representative form of government, but certainly not like the one provided by the U.S. Constitution. The book of Deuteronomy makes this clear:

Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you…. So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes. And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons [show partiality, NASB] in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s…. (Deuteronomy 1:13-17)

This was not a popular election; it was a nomination of qualified men for Moses to appoint. An election is not necessary to select biblically qualified men. Men either are biblically qualified or they are not. Popularity determines elections; biblical qualifications determine appointments.

Moses warned against democracy, which means “people power.” Instead, he commanded the judges to adjudicate on behalf of Yahweh. King Jehoshaphat reiterated this:

And he set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for YHWH, who is with you in the judgment. Wherefore now let the fear of YHWH be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with YHWH our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts. (2 Chronicles 19:5-7)

This is another biblical condemnation of the humanistic government – of, by, and for the people – lauded by Christian Constitutionalists.

To assume Jethro’s instructions called for elections is just that – an assumption. Jethro’s counsel called for the appointment of rulers who would be judges, not elections of those who would be presidents.

Appointments are biblical only when biblically qualified men are selected. Among other things, a leader must:

• Be a man.
• Be a Christian.³⁸
• Be an Israelite.³⁹
• Fear Yahweh, not man.
• Be schooled in the laws of Yahweh.
• Write out his own copy of Yahweh’s laws.
• Read Yahweh’s laws daily.
• Scrupulously observe the laws of Yahweh in his own life.
• Be humble.
• Be honest.
• Be just.
• Be impartial in judgment.
• Be immune to bribery.
• Be neither greedy nor covetous.
• Be a terror to the wicked and a champion of the righteous.

Even if a man meets all these qualifications, he still may fail to be eligible if his wife and children fall short. A judge must be the head of his own home and have a dignified, non-gossiping, sober, faithful wife and faithful, submissive children (Exodus 18:19-21; Deuteronomy 1:13-17, 17:15-20; 2 Samuel 23:3; 2 Chronicles 19:5-8; Jeremiah 30:21; Romans 13:1-4; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; and Titus 1:5-9). In Romans 13, Paul describes such men as “ministers [servants] of God to thee for good.”⁴⁰ This is not a description of the politicians provided through elections.

There certainly were 18th-century men who – while promoting elections – nonetheless understood the importance of having godly men as rulers over society. Noah Webster was one of those men who understood this and taught it to his students:

When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that god commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.⁴¹

Consider William Penn’s thoughts on the matter:

Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too. Wherefore governments rather depend upon men than men upon governments. Let men be good and the government cannot be bad…. But if men be bad, let the government be never so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn. I know some say, “Let us have good laws and no matter for the men that execute them.” But let them consider that though good laws do well, good men do better; for good laws may want [lack] good men and be abolished or invaded by ill men; but good men will never want good laws nor suffer [allow] ill ones.⁴²

After quoting Penn in Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, Barton wrote the following:

The quality of government in our republic depends more upon the quality and character of our leaders than upon our laws. Lax or incompetent individuals rarely enforce good laws, and a superb constitution is an inadequate guarantee for good government without competent and reliable leaders.⁴³

However, just as bad men administering good laws will produce less than desirable results, how much more so good men administering bad laws or worse bad men administering bad laws. Moral men administering immoral laws cannot produce moral government. Why do Christians so often want to settle for something less than the best – that is, Yahweh’s government, based solely upon His perfect laws, administered by biblically qualified Christian men?

The Lesser of Two Evils or the Evil of Two Lessers

Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help…. (Psalm 146:3-4)

It is better to trust in YHWH than to put confidence in princes. (Psalm 118:9)

…Cursed by the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm…. For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. Blessed is the man that trusteth in YHWH, and whose hope YHWH is. For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful [anxious, NASB] in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit. (Jeremiah 17:5-8)

In This Independent Republic: Studies in the Nature and Meaning of American History, R.J. Rushdoony pointed out an inherent flaw in elections, one which both James Madison and Gouverneur Morris predicted during the Constitutional Convention:

Madison recognized the possibility that property-less men would unite against the rest of society…. Rather, he felt it “more probable” that such men would “become the tools of opulence and ambition,” so that new “aristocracy” would rule, using the masses as its tools. The Result would be an oligarchy ruling in the name of the people….

…Morris feared that property-less men, if granted the suffrage, would usher in the rule of an aristocracy! The poor would be controlled in their voting by the great and the rich, their masters.

That Madison and Morris were right, recent events [circa 1964] have substantiated. The presidency, if not held by men of great wealth, is increasingly controlled by them, and the cabinet, especially under Kennedy, has represented an amazing concentration of wealth. Through the manipulation of labor votes, powerful financial and industrial interests, the modern oligarchy, are the effectual power in Washington….⁴⁴

Helen Keller once said, “We vote, what does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.”⁴⁵ The election process has not only programmed Americans to put their trust in “princes,” but to accept the lesser of two evils. Or is it the evil of two “lessers”? That this is true even with most Christians was demonstrated in the 2008 Presidential election:

At a meeting Tuesday [July 1, 2008] in Denver, about 100 conservative Christian leaders from around the country agreed to unite behind the candidacy of John McCain, a politician they have long distrusted…. “Collectively we feel that he will support and advance those moral values that we hold much greater than Obama, who in our view will decimate moral values,” said Matt Staver, the chairman of Liberty Counsel, a legal advocacy group….” The group included leaders like Phyllis Schlafly, the long-time leader of Eagle Forum; Steve Strang, the publisher of Charisma magazine; Phil Burress, a prominent Ohio marriage and anti-pornography activist; David Barton, the founder of WallBuilders and Donald Hodel, a former secretary of the Interior, who previously served on the board of Focus on the Family…. Burress said … “I was once one of those people who said ‘no way’ to Sen. John McCain as President. No longer, the stakes are too high. And if Obama wins I need to be able to get up on November 5th, look at myself in the mirror, and when I pray, say, ‘Lord, I did all that I could.”⁴⁶

“The alternative is so bad we must support John McCain,” said Phyllis Schlafly…. One participant said he couldn’t imagine anything worse. “Obama has done the impossible,” he said, “He’s made Hillary Clinton look good to Christian conservatives.”⁴⁷

This has occurred because – unlike Yahweh’s system, which provides for the best of the best to be appointed – the Constitution forces the people to elect the lesser of two evils. It also forces its citizens into joining political parties, which are not only unbiblical but whose platforms are often ungodly. Barton wrote, “political parties are necessary; for they are the mechanisms by which candidates are offered to the public.”⁴⁸ I will add, political parties are also the mechanisms by which their constituents are offered up on the altar of WE THE PEOPLE and Yahweh’s government is delayed for that much longer.

Solomon points out the contrasting results of appointments versus elections:

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. (Proverbs 29:2)

After every election, regardless of who is elected, Americans eventually lament. And, yet every four years, they march right back to the voting booths and do it all over again. Because the U.S. Constitution does not require biblical qualifications (in fact, Article 6 threw them out), each man chooses the lesser of two evils, which ultimately becomes the choice of the majority. This should be at the very least disconcerting:

Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil…. (Exodus 23:2)

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat. (Matthew 7:13)

Elections leave us in a lose-lose situation. On the other hand, when we have two or more biblically qualified candidates, we end up with a servant of God for our good, regardless of who is appointed.

Who Does the Appointing?

The question inevitably asked is “Who does the appointing?” In Deuteronomy 17:15, the Israelites were instructed to select their leaders predicated upon “whom YHWH thy God shall choose.” But how do we determine Yahweh’s choice? This is accomplished by throwing lots, just as the eleven apostles did in Acts 1:

And they appointed two. Joseph called Barsabas … and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship…. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:23-26)

By praying and throwing lots, we put the decision in the hands of Yahweh, who looks beyond deeds to the heart of each man:

…YHWH seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but YHWH looketh on the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7)

And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou has chosen. (Acts 1:24)

…God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness…. (Acts 15:8)

The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of YHWH. (Proverbs 16:33)

The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth [decides, NASB] between the mighty. (Proverbs 18:18)

In 1 Samuel 14:41-42, Saul prayed for a perfect lot in choosing between the people and his son Jonathan and him, and again between Jonathan and him. In both instances, his prayer was answered.

Before lots are thrown, a man would first have to aspire to the position of judge (1 Timothy 3:1). Opportunity would then be presented to the brethren to raise objections regarding his biblical qualifications. If no one raises legitimate objections, his name would be put forward with any others, and following prayer, lots would be thrown so that Yahweh’s choice might be determined.

Although lots do not appear to have been necessary, this is, otherwise, the same process used in, not electing, but selecting and then appointing the seven deacons in Acts 6:3-6.

Simply put, with elections we lose, and with appointments we win, as we always do when we do things Yahweh’s way.

Johnny Hart’s Wizard of Id comic strips offered the following commentary:

Sir Rodney: “Shouldn’t voters have to pass an intelligence test?”
The Wizard: “You don’t have to be intelligent to vote.”
Sir Rodney: “What if there are more stupid people than intelligent people?”
The Wizard: “Then the democrat wins!”

The fact is we elect stupid people, or worse, no matter which party wins. Worse yet, we get someone who inevitably moves America that much farther from the Kingdom of Yahweh.

Left and Liberal

Since 1787, the center in American politics has moved farther and farther to the left as America has moved farther and farther away from Yahweh’s morality. Everyone left of Yahweh’s law is left, which includes everyone in government today. As subjects of the KING of kings, our duty is not to elect any candidate of any political party – including, and perhaps especially, the Constitution Party. Our responsibility is to establish Yahweh’s government and judicial system, appoint men who fear and represent Him, and who will enforce His law rather than Constitutional law.

When the majority of WE THE PEOPLE set the standards and elect rulers, they end up with only what they deserve:

When sheep vote, they inevitably elect a wolf who tells them there’s no such thing as wolves, and they continue to feel good about themselves on the long ride to the slaughterhouse.⁴⁹

Criminal Accomplices

Of greater consequence, voters become accomplices to the crimes of those they elect. Paul warned Timothy of this consequence even as it pertains to appointments:

Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thus share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin. (1 Timothy 5:22, NASB)

If you helped elect Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama, and/or other scoundrels and villains, you might consider repenting and asking Yahweh’s forgiveness.

Empowering the Deity

Elections embody an even more inherent evil. To be a viable god, WE THE PEOPLE must be able to demonstrate power in some fashion. How is this accomplished?

The power of most false gods resides only in the minds of their adherents. With the deity WE THE PEOPLE, however, the people are able to demonstrate actual power.

The word “democracy” is derived from the Greek words demo and kratos: demo, meaning people, and kratos, meaning power. Democracy literally means “people power.” This people power is Constitutionally demonstrated in two ways: through elections and juries. Through these two means, WE THE PEOPLE finds its voice and is able to speak and thereby become a “viable” alternative to Yahweh as God, as in the four Latin words vox populi vox dei, translated “the voice of the people, the voice of god.”

It will be argued that the United States government is not a democracy but a republic. There is virtually little difference between the two. Consider Random House Webster’ College Dictionary’s definitions:

democracy … 1. a government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system….⁵⁰

republic … 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them….⁵¹

Essentially, republicanism is just another form of democracy, that is, people power, expressed through an at least 51% majority vote.

Vox populi vox dei is the rallying cry of the Constitution, republicanism, democracy, and humanism – the four being essentially the same thing. What happened to the rallying cry of the American revolution – “No king but Jesus!”? Yahweh was replaced with WE THE PEOPLE and “No king but Jesus!” was replaced with “The voice of the people [is] the voice of god.”

On December 10, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its position on free elections is described in Article 21:

The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.⁵²

Elections and juries are also the two means by which WE THE PEOPLE challenges Yahweh’s moral authority. In elections, any scoundrel, or worse, can be voted into office by the majority. Similarly, juries are able to convict innocent men and acquit guilty men. (I have more to say on the United States’ unbiblical jury system in Chapter 6, which addresses Article 3).

Constitutionalists often contrast the divine right of kings with the divine right of the people:

King Charles II beheaded Algernon Sidney in 1683 for saying that there is no divine right of kings to rule over the people. Sidney insisted that the right to rule is actually in the people and therefore no person can rightfully rule the people without their consent [or vote].⁵³

But the only difference between the divine right of kings and the divine right of the people is the number of people involved. Whether one of many – it is still humanism. The “divine right” of the people to elect whom they wish replaced not only the divine right of kings and parliament, but also the divine right of Yahweh as God, King, Judge, and Lawgiver. James Wilson, one of Pennsylvania’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention, labeled this divine attribute sovereignty:

Election is the exercise of original sovereignty in the people….⁵⁴

In a Born Loser cartoon by Art and Chip Sansom, Brutus Thornapple asks a bum at the bus stop, “Have you decided who you’re going to vote for in the election?” The bum replies, “Oh, I never vote; I find it only encourages them.” It both encourages and empowers them. Whenever you participate in elections, you participate in idolatry.

The Transitory, Yet Violent Power of the Electorate

In his insightful book The Law, early nineteenth-century French Economist Frederic Bastiat commented upon the transitory power of the electorate:

What is the attitude of the democrat when political rights are under discussion? How does he regard the people when a legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is claimed that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted with the finest perception; their will is always right; the general will cannot err; voting cannot be too universal. When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted…. Are they not capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know what is best for themselves? Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so.

But when the legislator is finally elected – ah! Then indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: The people who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into degradation.⁵⁵

Transitory or not, the power of the electorate is nonetheless potent. Benjamin R. Tucker (1854-1939), editor and publisher of the periodical Liberty, described this power:

Now, what is the ballot? It is neither more nor less than a paper representative of the bayonet, the billy, and the bullet. It is a labor-saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and bowing to the inevitable. The voice of the majority saves bloodshed, but it is no less the arbitrament of force than is the decree of the most absolute of despots backed by the most powerful of armies.⁵⁶

In an article entitled “Is Voting an Act of Violence?” Carl Watner provided similar insight:

…what connection is there between electoral voting and those who act violently in the name of the State? Why does the State want large numbers of people to participate in electoral voting? There are two primary reasons for this. First, those who act in the name of the State can use the fact that many people vote as evidence that they are acting in the name of “the people.” Widespread voting is cited as evidence of “consent.” State agents, such as legislators, presidents, and judges need an aura of legitimacy if their actions are to be viewed as right and proper by a large majority of the population. Second, governments – especially democratic ones – have discovered that as the proportion of the citizenry which holds the government in esteem increases, the less force the government requires to keep the balance of the population (those who view the government as illegitimate) under control. In other words, the more legitimacy that a government attains the less it needs to exercise outright violence against it opponents. A government which continually had to resort to violence to achieve its ends would soon be seen for exactly what it was: a criminal gang….

By voting, it is clear that each voter endorses the governmental system under which he or she lives. By the act of voting, each voter is saying: It is right and proper for some people, acting in the name of the State, to pass laws and to use violence to compel obedience to those laws if they are not obeyed….

In legal parlance, we would have to say that the voters, office holders, and other participants in government have “aided and abetted” (incited, encouraged, countenanced) the police, soldiers, and jailers who actually commit the physical aggression required in order to bring about submission of the refuseniks. Various war crime tribunal decisions since World War II have established that both elected officials and dictatorial heads of state are legally responsible for the commission of crimes that are committed under their orders, but not by their own hands. In other words, those giving the instructions to soldiers to kill innocent civilians are responsible, even though they do not personally hold the weapons or pull the triggers. Although this principle of liability has never been extended backwards from political leaders to those who participate in elections, it should be clear from this analysis that the chain of responsibility extends from those who exercise the actual violence, to those who give the orders that the violence be used, to those who participate in elections which result in those political leaders being elected [1 Timothy 5:22].

Now let us return to the initial question of this article: What truth is there to the statement that “Voting is the most violent act someone can commit in his lifetime.”? Let this question be answered by assuming that one is not a serial murderer or does not engage in any type of overt criminal activity. In other words, let us assume that most people who vote in electoral elections otherwise lead peaceful, innocent lives. Is voting the most violent act that they will commit in their lifetimes? Based on the argument in this article. The answer must be “yes.” Each person, by voting, sanctions the violence used by agents of the State. The link in the chain of responsibility for that violence surrounds each voter when he pulls down the lever in the voting booth. Voting is an act of presumptive violence because each voter assumes the right to appoint a political guardian over other human beings….⁵⁷

The Christian Electorate

Although few Christians have considered the implications of elections, they do understand that elections are empowering, as reflected in a pamphlet entitled Christian Citizenship: How Christians can be involved in Politics, published by the Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville, Tennessee:

Elections determine who will be in office, who will make laws, who will set tax structures, and will appoint persons to the administrative and judicial positions which affect the direction of our communities, our states, and our nation.⁵⁸

Most Christians do not understand the biblical ramifications of elections, particularly as it concerns their part in the selection of “legislators.” Whoever makes a nation’s laws is ultimately the god of that nation. Therefore, even if only Christians were elected, but they still enacted laws contrary to the Bible (which today’s antinomian Christians would inevitably do) they would be as much responsible for enthroning WE THE PEOPLE as is today’s non-Christian electorate.

Christians, through elections, will help determine the direction or course of their communities, states, and nation. But do not be fooled into thinking that it will be for the ultimate good – not in a democratic system in which the majority (who are inevitably in the broad way leading to destruction) gets their man and gets their way. America’s voting history demonstrates that elections have produced men and women who almost without exception are progressively more unbiblical and, therefore, ungodly.

Do not overlook the irony in the primary title (Christian Citizenship) of the aforementioned pamphlet. Christians are citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven from which our King reigns:

For our citizenship is in heaven…. (Philippians 3:20, NASB)

This is describing citizenship in the Kingdom, which Yeshua (Jesus’ given Hebrew name) admonished us to pray for and seek here on earth as it is in heaven. And just as you cannot serve two masters or kings, you cannot be a practicing citizen of two rival kingdoms.

The Christian electorate inevitably endorses, authorizes, commissions, and empowers the false god WE THE PEOPLE and its kingdom and laws. In so doing, such Christians are – at best – citizens in bad standing in Yahweh’s Kingdom, just as were those who clamored for a surrogate king in 1 Samuel 8.

What a sad commentary on modern Christianity. At election time every four years, most “conservative” Christian ministries encourage their flocks to become involved in empowering the false deity WE THE PEOPLE. Consider the following from Dr. James Dobson:

…let me take a moment to remind you about the national election that is rapidly approaching…. Unfortunately, millions of Christians are unlikely to vote again this year. That is disgraceful!⁵⁹

Where did Dobson get the authority to tell his readers it is disgraceful if they do not participate in the election process? Certainly not from Romans 13:1-7,⁶⁰ which he later referenced. He assumed his authority from the United States Constitution or, more particularly, from WE THE PEOPLE. This makes Dobson, in this instance, an ambassador for WE THE PEOPLE instead of Yahweh.

Dr. Rick Scarborough of Vision America took it one step further when he declared, “For a Christian not to vote is a sin.”⁶¹ According the Apostle John in 1 John 3:4, sin is a transgression of Yahweh’s law. Perhaps Scarborough could delineate which law of Yahweh requires voting.

Following is how Kenneth Copeland expressed Christians’ responsibility to vote:

As the Body of Christ, we have great authority in the kingdom of heaven and in the things of God. It may come as a shock to many to learn that even though politicians will have to answer to God for what they do, the Body of Christ will also be held responsible [for not voting]….⁶²

Will the body of Christ answer to Yahweh because they do not participate in the election process? Knowing all the implications of elections, it stands to reason that they will more likely be judged for their involvement.

Copeland intensified the guilt with the mantra “people have suffered and died so we could have that right [to vote].”⁶² Implied is that all of the United States’ wars were fought with this right in mind. Can you name one military conflict since the ratification of the United States Constitution in which citizens’ right to vote was in jeopardy? Voting was not an issue even in America’s War for Independence, fought thirteen years before the Constitutional Convention.

Copeland went on to say that “not voting is the same as casting a vote for the wrong side.”⁶² No, it is not! To participate in elections is to vote against Yahweh and His Kingdom.

How about “voting out all the rascals” as some suggest? Even were this plausible, it would only result in a new batch of rascals who would need voting out in the next election. We cannot fix the system by perpetuating the system. We cannot bring about Yahweh’s Kingdom here on earth by voting the opposition into office – regardless their merits. In the end, elections are a political shell game that diverts the attention of the people from the real solutions.

Copeland audaciously continued:

Your Holy Spirit-directed ballot is a powerful seed. When you vote in faith, in obedience to God, your household will be protected. God will take care of you no matter who is in office or what is happening in the world. So don’t fear.⁶²

What exactly is a “Holy Spirit-directed ballot”? How can it be Holy Spirit directed when not all Christians vote the same? Would this not make the Holy Spirit double minded or schizophrenic? The result of Christian voting is more likely to be a modern-day fulfillment of what Yeshua declared in Matthew 12:25: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.”

Copeland claimed that if Christians vote, their households will be protected. How does he justify this to the parents who helped elect George W. Bush and then lost sons and daughters in the ungodly conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Even pronomians such as Gary DeMar promote voting for candidates, albeit with Christian principles. At the same time, they usually also promote Constitutional candidates, sometimes without any mention of Christian principles or even a caveat:

Christians must elect representatives who will abide by the Constitution, not only in word but in deed. All candidates running for public office should be required to take a comprehensive test on the Constitution with the results of the test published so all can see that they really know and understand the Constitution they will swear to uphold.⁶³

It is difficult for me to imagine anyone who claims to be a Christian endorsing candidates who would abide by a document (by word or deed) that, in so many locations, is antithetical to Yahweh’s morality. Instead of a constitutional test, I suggest that the “test” (for appointment) ought to be based on the biblical qualifications provided earlier in this chapter.

In an article entitled Hold Your Nose and Vote, Lenny Cacchio summarized his position, “Until the Kingdom of God comes, we must suffer the fools and be grateful for the occasional statesman.” He also wrote, “I have accepted that this is the way of the world, a mixture of desirable and undesirable traits of fallible humans. And I know that is the way it will be until the King of kings decides it is time to change it.”⁶⁴ Here we have the crux of the problem – Christians who have given up doing things biblically because they are waiting for the return of their King to make things right. I contend that Yahweh is waiting on us to make things right. After all, we are the ones who have made a mess of things.

On November 3, 2004, popular public radio host Garrison Keillor made a speech at Chicago’s Rockefeller Memorial Chapel, in which he stated the following:

I am now chairman of a national campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to take the right to vote away from born-again Christians. Just a little project of mine. My feeling is that born-again people are citizens of heaven; that is where their citizenship is, in heaven, it’s not here among us in America.⁶⁵

This statement was followed by much roaring laughter and applause – and much indignation from Christianity. But where were the real Christians who did not dissent, but instead declared “Amen”? I am with Keillor: Christians have no business participating in elections produced by a system in opposition to Yahweh and His Kingdom.

Some people will consider this abandoning the nation to Yahweh’s enemies. In reality, it is the Christian electorate which is condemning us to more non-Christian control in a non-Christian system.

Early in 2008, D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe coauthored the book How Would Jesus Vote? What makes anyone think the KING of kings would vote for a man? Yeshua would not have voted, and neither should we. Rather than playing the shell game every two or four years, Christians should instead put the same effort into establishing Yahweh’s Kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven, based solely upon His perfect laws. One of the principal means of doing this is helping to educate Christians of their Constitutional idolatry.

Section 1, Clauses 8-9

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

An Atheistic Oath

Thou shalt fear YHWH thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. (Deuteronomy 6:13)

It is true that Supreme Court Justice James Iredell (1790-99), and others of his contemporaries, believed an oath, regardless whether it was taken in the name of Yahweh, was nonetheless a “solemn appeal to the Supreme Being.”⁶⁶ However, this did not mean that everyone viewed it the same way. No one would argue that because the U.S. Constitution failed to specify Yahweh in its oaths, few government officials today regard oaths the same as Iredell did.

As early as 1796 oaths, while still retaining an appeal to the Supreme Being, had already become inclusive of gods other than Yahweh, as attested by Zephaniah Swift, member of the U.S. Congress and later Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:

All persons who believe in the existence of a God, let their religion be what it will, may be admitted to be witnesses. An oath is a solemn appeal to the Supreme Being that he who takes it will speak the truth, and an imprecation of His vengeance if he swears false.⁶⁷

In 1844, Daniel Webster essentially testified before the Supreme Court to the same oath-swearing pluralism:

What is an oath? …it is founded on a degree of consciousness that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues or punish our vices…. We all know that the doctrine of the … law is that there must be in every person who enters court as a witness, be he Christian or Hindoo, there must be a firm conviction on his mind that falsehood or perjury will be punished either in this world or the next or he cannot be admitted as a witness.⁶⁸

Because the Presidential oath does not appeal to Yahweh, it is essentially atheistic and, therefore, has nothing by which to hold those who take it to their word:

The oath of the President of the United States could as well be taken by a pagan or a Mahammedan [sic] as by the Chief Magistrate of a Christian people: it excludes the name of the Supreme Being. Indeed, it is negatively atheistical, for no God is appealed to at all. In framing many of our public formularies, greater care seems to have been taken to adapt them to the prejudices of the infidel few than to the consciences of the Christian millions. In these things the minority in our country has hitherto managed to govern the majority. We look on the designed omission of it [the name of God] as an attempt to exclude from civil affairs Him who is the governor among the nations.⁶⁹

The oath in God’s name is the “legal recognition of God”⁷⁰ as the source of all things and the only true ground of all being. It establishes the state under God and under His law. The removal of God from oaths, and the light and dishonest use of oaths, and the light and dishonest use of oaths, is a declaration of independence from Him, and it is warfare against God in the name of the new gods, apostate man and his totalitarian state.⁷¹

On November 26, 1873, at the National Convention to amend the Preamble, Pastor E.R. Craven noted the following:

On Tuesday next another inauguration is to take place. President Grant may, if he so choose, appeal to God; but even as he takes the oath required, he may proclaim himself an atheist, and there is no power on earth that can stay his inauguration. The Constitution does, in terms, require an oath, but by the proviso quoted it degrades it to the low platform of a solemn promise – the oath that it requires is emasculated.⁷²

Someone is likely to point out that nearly all of the presidents have taken their oath of office by placing their hands upon the Bible. This is nothing more than a tradition and is nowhere required in the Constitution. Even if this custom were spiritually significant for some of the presidents, it was surely nothing but a meaningless ritual for the majority. How could swearing upon a Christian Bible be momentous to these men when Christianity itself meant nothing?

Swearing upon the Bible is a meaningless gesture for a more important reason. If ever there was an unequal yoking, it is when public officials – particularly presidents – place their hands on the Bible and swear to uphold the laws of WE THE PEOPLE. This no more Christianizes the oath than Aaron’s naming the golden calf “Yahweh” sanctified his act of idolatry. This practice is as oxymoronic as the term “Judeo-Christian.”⁷³ And just as Judaism has primacy in the term “Judeo-Christian,” the Constitution has primacy in the United States oath of office.

For someone to put his hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution is no different from the pluralism described in 2 Kings 17:

Then [Shalmaneser] the king of Assyria commanded, saying, Carry thither one of the [Levitical] priests whom ye brought from thence [Samaria] … and let him teach them [the non-Israelite exiles in Israel’s land] the manner of the God of the land. Then one of the priests … came … and taught them how they should fear YHWH. Howbeit every nation made gods of their own…. And the men of Babylon made Succothbenoth, and the men of Cuth made Nergal, and the men of Hamath made Ashima, and the Avites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burnt their children in fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech…. They feared YHWH, and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations whom they carried away from thence. (2 Kings 17:27-33)

Swearing to uphold the United States Constitution with your hand on the Bible is the same sin described by the Prophet Zephaniah:

I will also stretch out mine hand upon Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut off … them that worship the host of heaven upon the housetops; and them that worship and that swear by YHWH, and that swear by Malcham. (Zephaniah 1:4-5)

Swearing in Yahweh’s name, or swearing on the Bible, means nothing to Yahweh, if at the same time, you are also swearing in the name of another god or swearing to keep the laws of another god. Such is treason and sedition against the God of gods and King of kings.

Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left; that ye come not among these nations … neither make mention of the name of their gods, nor cause to swear by them, neither serve them, nor bow yourselves unto them: But cleave unto YHWH your God…. (Joshua 23:6-8)

An Impotent Non-Biblical Oath

The presidential oath is non-biblical. In order to be biblical, an oath must be sworn in Yahweh’s name:

Thou shalt fear YHWH thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name. (Deuteronomy 10:20)

This oath requires that only those who fear, serve, and cling to Yahweh are qualified to hold leadership in Yahweh’s government. No greater oath exists than this:

…when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself. (Hebrews 6:13)

The restriction in Article 6 that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” eliminated any possibility that this oath might be required for civil leadership. This qualification eventually nullified all State oaths to the contrary, all of which have been subsequently revoked.

Swearing in Yahweh’s name places a person under Yahweh’s sovereignty, authority, and judgment:

For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. (Hebrews 6:16, NASB)

In order for such an oath to end every dispute, it must be self-maledictory – that is, one in which the person calls down a curse upon himself if he does not uphold his oath. An example of a self-maledictory oath is found in Nehemiah 10:

…their nobles … entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law … and to observe and do all the commandments of YHWH our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes; and that we would not give our daughters unto the people of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons. (Nehemiah 10:29-30)

Unlike the vast majority of oaths, which are broken whenever it is advantageous, the oaths taken in Nehemiah’s day actually meant something. Maledictory oaths taken in the name of Yahweh place the oath taker under the curse of Yahweh if he does not uphold his oath.

By taking the oath, a man promised to abide by his word and his obligations even as God is faithful to His word. If he failed, by oath of office, the public official invoked divine judgment and the curse of the law upon himself.⁷⁴

An outward pledge given by the person taking it that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God…. The term has been variously defined: as, “a solemn invocation of the vengeance of the Deity upon the witness if he do [sic] not declare the whole truth, so far as he knows it;” … or “religious asseveration by which a person renounces the mercy and imprecates the vengeance of Heaven if he do not speak the truth” … or “a religious act by which the party invokes God not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise, but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith, or … to punish his perjury if he shall be guilty of it;”…. The essential idea of an oath would seem to be, however, that of a recognition of God’s authority by the party taking it, and an undertaking to accomplish the transaction to which it refers as required by his laws.⁷⁵

So solemn and awful were all appeals to God considered in those ancient times, that it was taken for granted that the man was innocent who could by an oath appeal to the omniscient God that he had not put his hand to his neighbour’s goods. Since oaths have become multiplied, and since they have been administered on the most trifling occasions, their solemnity is gone, and their importance little regarded. Should the oath ever reacquire its weight and importance, it must be when administered only in cases of peculiar delicacy and difficulty, and as sparingly as in the days of Moses.⁷⁶

The solemnity and consequence of the oath has been lost, not because of its frequent use, but because its judgment is no longer enforced. As a transgression of the Third Commandment, breaking an oath made in the name of Yahweh is punishable by death.⁷⁷

And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am YHWH. (Leviticus 19:12)

And he that blasphemeth the name of YHWH, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land…. (Leviticus 24:16)

Oaths that do not force us to answer to someone greater than ourselves are impotent. In the event that the oath taker is not a man of his word, something must compel him to uphold his vow. Cole v. Richardson noted that without self-imprecation, an oath becomes merely an “amenity.”⁷⁸

The presidential oath of office contains nothing compelling or binding. Consequently, nothing prevents a newly elected president from disregarding his oath the moment he steps off the inauguration platform.

Section 2, Clause 1

The President shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Reprieves and Pardons

Mason declared the following self-evident insight regarding this presidential power, even as it pertains to treason:

The President of the United States has the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason (Art 2, Sect 2, Clause 1); which may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt.⁷⁹

This could have been written with George W. Bush in mind, who, on July 2, 2007, commuted Scooter Libby’s prison term after Libby was convicted in the CIA identity leak of Valerie E. Wilson, aka Valerie Plame. During his two-term administration, Bush granted 191 pardons and nine commutations of people judged to be criminals by the United States judicial system.

Section 2, Clause 2

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of the departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions, which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Treaties

What kind of treaties and with whom?

While the power to make treaties is general and unrestricted, it is not to be so construed as to destroy the fundamental laws of the land. “A treaty to change the organization of the government, to annihilate its sovereignty, to overturn its republican form, or to deprive it of its constitutional powers, would be void; because it would destroy what it was designed merely to fulfill, the will of the people.”⁸⁰

Under the U.S. Constitution, treaties were to be made, not with the will of Yahweh in mind, but the will of the people.

If the U.S. Constitution were a biblically compatible document, the framers would have stipulated (as does the Bible) that the government would not be permitted to enter treaties with non-Christian nations:

Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. (Exodus 23:32)

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. (2 Corinthians 6:14-16)

This statute applies as much to national treaties, leagues, pacts, alliances, coalitions, and federations as it does to marriages and business relationships.

Judges 2 describes some of the consequences of transgressing Exodus 23:32:

And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this? Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you. (Judges 2:2-3)

These consequences have always accompanied America’s disobedience when she has made treaties with non-Christian nations. Consider the consequences of GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), the NAU (North American Union), and other disastrous unbiblical trade agreements.

Yahweh is a jealous God (Exodus 34:14), and He does not permit His people to covenant, contract, or make treaty with individuals or nations who are covenanted with other gods.

The United States’ treaty with Tripoli in 1796 declared that the Constitutional Republic is “not in any sense founded on the Christian religion – as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims].”⁸¹ Because this Constitutional Republic is not a Christian government why should it have any compunction about making treaties with other non-Christian governments, to the continuing detriment of its own people?

Judicial Appointments

The provision of Section 2, Clause 2 for the appointment of judges is biblical. However, with appointments at the discretion of non-biblical presidents and senates – which are under no obligation to make appointments in accord with the biblical qualifications – such appointments become unbiblical. This is evidenced in the men and women adjudicating in today’s Constitutional courts, none of whom are biblically qualified and who judge on behalf of WE THE PEOPLE or create their own laws based upon their own opinions and rulings.

Section 4, Clause 1

The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Treason and high crimes against whom? Not against Yahweh. Constitutional government does not recognize high crimes – such as idolatry, blasphemy, and adultery – against Yahweh as crimes at all. If it did, Bill Clinton and others would not only have been impeached, they would have been executed.

The United States Constitution was itself a treasonous act against Yahweh. The treason and high crimes mentioned in this clause refer only to crimes against WE THE PEOPLE.

If the Constitution were a biblical document, there would have been no presidents to impeach because presidents and vice presidents would never have been elected.

---

Click Here to Read Chapter 6

---

Click to order the Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution CDs:

• The e-book (on CD) A Christian Perspective on the U.S. Constitution
• The audio CD The Bible vs. The U.S. Constitution (Pts. 1 & 2)

End Notes

1. Amendment 12, adopted in 1951, limits a president to two four-year terms.

2. YHWH (most often pronounced Yahweh) is the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

3. Where the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) – the four Hebrew characters that represent the personal name of God – has been unlawfully rendered the LORD or GOD in English translations, I have taken the liberty to correct this error by inserting YHWH where appropriate. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

4. All Scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted. Portions of Scripture have been omitted for brevity. If there are questions regarding any passage, please open your Bible and study the text to ensure it has been properly used.

5. Any one inclined to believe George W. Bush is a Christian can listen to our three-part audio series The War in Iraq II: Unfinished Business, which presents sufficient evidence to convince any honest person that Bush is far from Christian.

6. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua and forgiven of your sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, “Baptism by the Scriptures” and “Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered” may be read online, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.

7. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) p. 420.

8. Dr. James Abercrombie, quoted in John E. Remsburg, Thomas Paine: The Apostle of Liberty (New York, NY: The Truth Seeker Co., 1917) p. 92.

9. Paul Boller, George Washington & Religion (Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963) pp. 34, 75, 90.

10. Henry C. Clausen, Sovereign Grand Commander, Masons Who Helped Shape Our Nation (San Diego, CA: Neyenesch Printers, 1976) pp. 9-12.

11. James Carter, Masonry in Texas: Background, History, and Influence to 1846 (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1955) p. 104.

12. George Washington, quoted in J. Hugo Tatsch, Facts About George Washington as a Freemason, (New York, NY: Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Company, 1931) p. 18.

13. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987) p. 125.

14. North, pp. 420-24.

15. Albert G. Mackey, Revised Encyclopedia of Freemasonry 3 vols. (New York: Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply, 1966) vol. 2, p. 1093.

16. Robert Heironimus, Founding Fathers, Secret Societies: Freemasons, Illuminati, Rosicrucians, and the Decoding of the Great Seal (Rochester, VT: Destiny Books, 2006) p. 44.

17. Mackey, vol. 2, p. 1095.

18. Julius F. Sachse, Washington’s Masonic Correspondence (Lancaster, PA: New Era Printing Co., 1915).

19. Heironimus, p. 44, quoting Mackey, vol. 2, p. 1095.

20. Clausen, pp. 9-12.

21. Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch and George M. Marsden, The Search for Christian America (Westchester, IL : Crossway, 1983) p. 72.

22. Clausen, p. 84.

23. Benjamin F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, Inc., 2009, originally published 1864) pp. 769-70.

24. Richard E. Fletcher, email to Ted R. Weiland, 4 December 2008.

25. Roger Firestone, “Difficult Questions About Freemasonry,” <http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/Masonry/Questions/difficult.html.>

26. Harry Elmer Barnes, History and Social Intelligence (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopt, 1926) pp. 347-48.

27. North, p. 691.

28. George Mason, The Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, ed. David Wootten (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2003) p. 1.

29. Sheldon Richman, “The presidency is now an office with virtually open-ended powers,” Florence News, Casa Grande Valley Newspapers Inc., <http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19731154&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=>.

30. Patrick Henry, Ralph Ketcham, ed., “Speeches of Patrick Henry (June 5 and 7, 1788),” The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2003) p. 214.

31. Mason, p. 1.

32. William Holmes McGuffey, McGuffey’s Sixth Eclectic Reader (New York, NY: American Book Company, 1879) p. 225.

33. When measured against Yahweh’s perfect laws, America has few true conservatives. For the most part, she has only conservative and non-conservative liberals.

34. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (London, UK: C. & J. Rivington) p. 211.

35. North, p. 71.

36. Ibid., p. 191.

37. Ibid., p. 291.

38. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied in order to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua and forgiven of your sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, “Baptism by the Scriptures” and “Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered” may be read online, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.

39. God’s Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever, provides a documented dissertation correlating the identity of Israel with today’s Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic, and kindred peoples. God’s Covenant People may be read online, or it may be obtained from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $14 donation.*

40. Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government: A Revolutionary Commentary on Romans 13:1-7 may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $7 donation.*

41. Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven, CT: Durrie & Peck, 1832) pp. 336-37.

42. William Penn, quoted in Thomas Clarkson, Memoirs of the Private and Public Life of William Penn (London, UK: Richard Taylor and Co., 1813) vol. 1, p. 303.

43. David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press, 2005) p. 341.

44. Rousas John Rushdoony, This Independent Republic: Studies in the Nature and Meaning of American History (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1964) pp. 53-54.

45. Helen Keller, Ellen Bilofsky, ed., “Letter to Mrs. Grindon, January 12, 1911 published in the Manchester Advertiser, March 3, 1911,” To Love This Life: Quotations by Helen Keller (New York, NY: AFB Press, 2000) p. 79.

46. Michael Scherer, “Christian Conservatives Uniting Behind McCain,” Swampland: TIME blog, 2 July 2008, <http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/07/christian_conservatives_unitin.html>.

47. “Evangelical Leaders Meet and Decide to Back Sen. John McCain,” Charisma, 2 July 2008, <http://www.charismamag.com/cms/news/archives/0702081.php>.

48. Barton, p. 349.

49. Thomas Fleming, Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, 11 February 1997.

50. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, s.v. “democracy” (New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 2000) p. 354.

51. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, s.v. “republic” (New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 2000) p. 1121.

52. Article 21, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, <http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/>.

53. W. Cleon Skousen, A Miracle that Changed the World: The 5000 Year Leap (Malta, ID: National Center for Constitutional Studies, 2006) p. 141.

54. James Wilson, Quoted by Robert Yates, Chief Justice of the State of New York and one of New York’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention, “Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787,” Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention 1787, Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1838 (Hawthorne, CA: Omni Publications, 1986) pp. 160-61.

55. Frederic Bastian, The Law (Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., [1848] 1987) pp. 59-60.

56. Benjamin Ricketson Tucker, Instead of a Book by a Man Too Busy to Write One: A Fragmentary Exposition of Philosophical Anarchism (New York, NY: Adamant Media Corporation, 1897, 2005) pp. 426-27.

57. Carl Watner, “Is Voting an Act of Violence?” The Voluntaryist, No. 103, April 2000, <http://members.aol.com/Vlntryst/wn103.html>.

58. Christian Citizenship: How Christians can be involved in Politics, published by the Christian Life Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville, Tennessee.

59. Dr. James Dobson, “Family News from Dr. James Dobson,” October 1998.

60. Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government: A Revolutionary Commentary on Romans 13:1-7 may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $7 donation.*

61. Rick Scarborough, “The Vision Grows,” Vision America, Video, <http://www.visionamerica.us/>.

62. Kenneth Copeland, “Pray, Listen & Obey … Vote!”

63. Gary DeMar, “Constitutional hermeneutics,” 10 April, 2006, <http://americanvision.org/1252/constitutional-hermeneutics/>.

64. Lenny Cacchio, “Hold Your Nose and Vote,” Living to Win.

65. Garrison Keillor, speech delivered at Chicago’s Rockfeller Memorial Chapel, 3 November 2004.

66. James Iredell, 30 July 1788, Jonathan Elliot, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, (Washington, DC: Jonathan Elliot, 1836) vol. 4, p. 196.

67. Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham, CT: John Byrne, 1796) vol. 2, p. 238.

68. Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster’s speech in Defence of the Christian Ministry and in Favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young, Delivered in the Supreme court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard’s Will (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1844) p. 43.

69. D.X. Junkin, The Oath, quoted by T.P. Stevenson, Corresponding Secretary of the National Association to Amend the Preamble, “History of the Movement to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.” Proceedings of the National convention to secure the religious amendment of the Constitution of the United States: Held in New York, Feb. 26 and 27, 1873 (New York: John Polhemus, Printer, 1873) p. iv.

70. T. Robert Ingram, The World Under God’s Law (Houston, TX: St. Thomas Press, 1981) p. 46.

71. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 115.

72. E.R. Craven, Address, Proceedings of the National convention to secure the religious amendment of the Constitution of the United States: Held in New York, Feb. 26 and 27, 1873 (New York: John Polhemus, Printer, 1873) pp. 18-19.

73. The term “Judeo-Christianity” refers to the vast segment of Christianity that has been heavily influenced, often unknowingly, by the Talmudic religion of Judaism. The term is an oxymoron. The religions of Judaism and Christianity are wholly incompatible as demonstrated by their respective books of faith – the Talmud and the Bible. This incongruity is addressed in detail in God’s Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever. God’s Covenant People may be read online or it may be obtained from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $14 donation.*

74. Rushdoony, p. 111.

75. John Bouvier, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary: A Concise Encyclopedia of the Law, 3 vols., s.v. “Oath” (Kansas City, MO: Vernon Law Book Company, 1914) vol. 3, p. 2388.

76. Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, 6 vols. (New York, NY: Carlton & Phillips, 1853) vol. 1, p. 413.

77. “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of Yahweh thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

78. Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. at 685, 92 S.Ct. at 1337; 31 L.Ed.2d 593 (1972).

79. Mason, p. 1.

80. Israel Ward Andrews, Andrews Manual of the Constitution (Cincinnati and New York: Van Antwerp, Bragg & Co., 1887) pp. 168.

81. Treaty with Tripoli, of Barbary, Article 11.

*We are admonished in Matthew 10:8 “freely ye have received, freely give.” Although there is a suggested price for our books, we do not sell them. In keeping with 2 Corinthians 9:7, this ministry is supported by freewill offerings. If you cannot afford the suggested price, inform us of your situation, and we will be pleased to provide you with whatever you need for whatever you can send.

Mission to Israel · P.O. Box 248 · Scottsbluff, NE 69363