The Declaration Speaks for Itself
Paragraph #2, Sentences 6-7
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Grievance #7
He [Britain’s King George III] has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
That King George was thwarting the immigration to America and the naturalization of foreigners in the American colonies is not what should have agitated the American colonials, but instead his underlying unbiblical immigration policies.
Had this been their chief concern, perhaps they wouldn’t have adopted their own biblically egregious immigration laws a mere twelve and fifteen years later in Article 6108 of the United States Constitution and Amendment 1109 of the Bill of Rights.
The Bible’s Principle Border
and Immigration Law
Besides the two greatest commandments (loving Yahweh with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and loving your neighbor as yourself), the First Commandment (Thou shalt have no other Gods before Yahweh110) is foundational to all of the other commandments, statutes, and judgments. The First Commandment (along with its statutes and judgment) is also the principle border and immigration law for any nation acknowledging Yahweh as its Sovereign and thus His law as supreme. That the First Commandment is nowhere cited in either the Declaration or the Constitution should alone be a red flag to those who have been hoodwinked into believing the two are biblically inspired.
Contrast this with Alexis de Tocqueville’s testimony regarding New Haven, Connecticut’s 1650 Constitution:
They [the Puritans] exercised the rights of sovereignty; they named their magistrates, concluded peace or declared war, made police regulations, and enacted laws as if their allegiance was due only to God. Nothing can be more curious and, at the same time more instructive, than the legislation of that period; it is there that the solution of the great social problem which the United States [America] now presents to the world is to be found [in perfect fulfillment of Deuteronomy 4:5-8, demonstrating the continuing veracity of Yahweh’s law and its accompanying blessings, per Deuteronomy 28:1-14].
Amongst these documents we shall notice, as especially characteristic, the code of laws promulgated by the little State of Connecticut in 1650. The legislators of Connecticut begin with the penal laws, and … they borrow their provisions from the text of Holy Writ. “Whosoever shall worship any other God than the Lord,” says the preamble of the Code, “shall surely be put to death.” This is followed by ten or twelve enactments of the same kind, copied verbatim from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy….111
Mosques, Synagogues, and Temples
Most of today’s Christians and patriots are justifiably concerned about the Muslim invasion of America; an invasion that speaks volumes regarding the biblically adverse nature of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
If the First Commandment were America’s foundational border and immigration law, all immigrants and visitors would be vetted thereby. In turn, they would be required to leave any gods, cultures, and laws that are not Yahweh’s at the border. This would be under penalty of death if said immigrants or visitors were discovered openly worshiping or proselytizing on behalf of other gods, per Deuteronomy 13, etc.
No Muslim, for example, would ever agree to such a law and would look elsewhere to do his dirty work, the worst of which is the proselytizing of our posterity to their false god.
Article 6’s Christian Test Ban
Question: Are Muslims, Jews,* Hindus, and devotees to other false gods serving as civil rulers today in America because of the Bible’s mandatory biblical qualifications for civil leaders, or because those qualifications were eliminated by Article 6’s Christian test ban112?
Clue: It’s certainly not because the constitutional framers incorporated those qualifications into American law.
This was a glaring departure from the biblical qualifications required by the early 1600s Puritans—qualifications for civil leaders that, for example, include the following:
Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God [Yahweh], men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers over you.... (Exodus 18:21)
States’ Ratifying Conventions
Not only did the constitutional framers nowhere mandate biblical qualifications for America’s civil leaders, they instead eliminated them with Article 6’s religious test ban.112
Article 6’s test ban was the most hotly debated component of the new Constitution in the states’ ratifying conventions. The delegates understood this ban would open the door to Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Catholics, and other anti-Christs and non-Christians to full citizenship, including civil leadership:
Amos Singletary, … delegate to the Massachusetts ratifying convention, was upset at the Constitution’s not requiring men in power to be religious “and though he hoped to see Christians [in office], yet by the Constitution, a papist, or an infidel was as eligible as they.” …Henry Abbot, a delegate to the North Carolina convention, warned that “the exclusion of religious tests” was “dangerous and impolitic” and that “pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us [and the Senators and representatives might all be pagans].” If there is no religious test, he asked, “to whom will they [officeholders] swear support—the ancient pagan gods of Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, or Pluto?”113
In the North Carolina convention a delegate protested that “in a political view, these gentlemen who formed this Constitution should not have given this invitation to Jews and heathens.” James Iredell, later a Justice of the Supreme Court, conceded that the people might “perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans [might] be admitted into offices.”114
Tragically, the states adopted Article 6 as proposed. Consequently, America’s state and federal governments are today inundated with adherents to false gods serving as civil rulers, thereby introducing their cultures and laws into America’s ethos. For example, America’s current legislation concerning capital punishment115 and in utero infanticide reflect talmudic law** rather than biblical law.
Cursed
America and her posterity are being cursed as a consequence of the 18th-century “founding fathers” unbiblical immigration policies:
The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low. He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail. Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of Yahweh thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee. (Deuteronomy 28:43-45)
Thanks to the 1787 cadre of polytheism-promoting Enlightenment and Masonic theistic rationalists (aka constitutional framers) America is today ruled by anti-Christs rather than led by Christians:
For many [plural] deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.... Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your [personal, State, White, Senate, or] house [of Representatives] neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (2 John 1:7-11)
Amendment 1’s Provision for
National Polytheism
Question: Is America’s landscape dotted with Mosques, Synagogues, and Temples devoted to false gods because of the First Commandment116 or because of the First Amendment117?
Clue: It’s certainly not because of the First Commandment.
Had the constitutional framers composed a biblically compatible Constitution, including the First Commandment as its principle border and immigration law, there would be no Mosques, no Synagogues, and no Temples in America. There would likewise be no adherents of those religions serving as civil leaders, introducing their decadence into American society. Nor would America’s posterity find themselves being proselytized to their false gods.
In other words, had the First Commandment116 not been replaced with the First Commandment-violating, polytheism-enabling First Amendment,117 America would still be a predominantly Christian nation.
Had the Declaration’s signatories been biblically inclined,118 they would have been much more incensed over Great Britain’s immigration violations against Yahweh than they were King George’s immigration violations against the colonies. Eleven years later, the constitutional framers would have furthermore established the First Commandment as America’s foundational law.
Had this been the case, America would be an entirely different nation today. The number of abuses today from the constitutional framers’ failure are incalculable and only compounding with each passing year.
For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. (Jeremiah 2:13)
* Some people will invariably claim that today’s Jews’ god is one and the same as the Christian God. The following passages puts this false assertion to rest:
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6)
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)
“For many [plural] deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.... Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your [personal, State, White, Senate, or] house [of Representatives] neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 1:7-11)
** “If young, by which is meant a new-born infant, it must be proved that it was not of premature birth; if prematurely born, it must be at least thirty days old to be considered a human being (Sifra, l.c.; Niddah 44b; “Yad,” Rozeah, ii. 2). But the unborn child is considered as part of its mother (Sanh. 80b); killing it in its mother’s womb is therefore a finable offense only (Mek., Nez. 8; B. K. 42b).” (“Homicide,” The Jewish Encyclopedia, (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1904) Volume VI, p. 453)
“The talmudic scholars … maintained that the word ‘harm’ [“hurt” in KJV in Exodus 21:20-25] refers to the woman and not to the foetus…. In talmudic times, as in ancient halakhah, abortion was not considered a transgression unless the foetus was viable (ben keyama; Mekh., Mishpatim, 4 and see Sanh. 84b and Nid. 44b; see Rashi; ad loc.)…. In the view of R. [Rabbi] Ishmael, only a Gentile [non-Jew], to whom some of the basic transgressions applied with greater stringency, incurred the death penalty for causing the loss of the foetus (Sanh. 57b)…. Abortion is permitted if the foetus endangers the mother’s life. Thus, ‘if a woman travails to give birth (and it is feared she may die), one may sever the foetus from her womb and extract it, member by member, for her life takes precedence over his’ (Oho. 7:6). …when the mother’s life is endangered, she herself may destroy the foetus—even if its greater part has emerged—‘for even if in the eyes of others the law of a foetus is not as the law of a pursuer, the mother may yet regard the foetus as pursing her’ (Meiri, ibid.). …the majority of the later [Jewish] authorities (aharonim) maintain that abortion should be permitted if it is necessary for the recuperation of the mother, even if there is no mortal danger attaching to the pregnancy and even if the mother’s illness has not been directly caused by the foetus (Maharit, Resp. no. 99)…. A similar view was adopted by Benzion Meir Hai Uziel, namely that abortion is … permitted ‘if intended to serve the mother’s needs … even if not vital;’ and who accordingly decided that abortion was permissible to save the mother from the deafness which would result, according to medical opinion, from her continued pregnancy (Mishpetei Uziel, loc. cit.).” (“Abortion,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, Israel: Encyclopaedia Judaica Company, 1971) Volume 2, pp. 98-100)
Source Notes
107. For evidence that the Constitution is biblically seditious, see Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective, in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible, at bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/blvc-index.html.
See also audio series “Bible Law vs. Constitutionalism,” beginning at bibleversusconstitution.org/tapelist.html#T742.
108. Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,
bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt9.html
109. Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Poly-theism” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,
bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt11.html
110. See Thou shalt have no other gods before me, the first in a series of ten free online books on each of the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments, bibleversusconstitution.org/onlineBooks/first-commandment.html.
111. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vols. (New York: NY: The Colonial Press, 1899) vol. 1, pp. 36-37
112. Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,
bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt9.html
113. Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1966) p. 32
114. Leo Pfeffer, “Shaping Our Legal History: Jews, Jewry and the American Constitution,” Jewish Digest, condensed from American Jewish Archives Pamphlet Series (Cincinnati, OH: American Jewish Archives, June 1983) p. 5
115. Capital Punishment: Deterrent or Catalyst?,
bibleversusconstitution.org/onlineBooks/capital-punishmentBLVC.html
116. Thou shalt have no other gods before me, the first in a series of ten free online books on each of the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments, bibleversusconstitution.org/onlineBooks/first-commandment.html
117. Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Poly-theism” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,
bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt11.html
118. For more on how the Bible’s immutable/unchanging moral law applies today and should be implemented as the law of the land, see Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant at
bibleversusconstitution.org/law-kingdomFrame.html.
See also A Biblical Constitution: A Scriptural Replacement for Secular Government at bibleversusconstitution.org/biblicalConstitution.html.
Click Here to Read Chapter 10
