Cracking The Cult Of The Constitution 3RD PART

 https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/cracking-the-cult-of-the-constitution-part-i/ 

I have to admit I thought I was fairly cognoscente on the discrepancies between what we were taught and what we have experienced with the American Constitution, but this article is a whole new experience that may or may not appeal to you because of our cognitive dissonance. Nevertheless, it is well worth your time, and may open many eyes. You may go to the main site to read it straight through, but for the average reader I am going to post about ten pages per day. It may be the longest read many of you have ever made. My hat goes off to Mr. Richardson!

OLDOG

The question we should be asking is this: If a Corporation Sole is religious or “ecclesiastical” in origin, how is a government that promotes separation of church and state – a government supposedly without a declared central religion – able to form such religious Corporations Sole?

Is there a hidden or “Mystery” religion from which this ability to Ecclesiastically incorporate originates within said United States corporation?

The answer to that question represents the thesis put forward in this essay series; to uncover and prove a theocracy where one seemingly and supposedly does not exist…

Religion:

Man’s relation to Divinity, to reverence, worship, obedience, and submission to mandates and precepts of supernatural or superior beings. In its broadest sense includes all forms of belief in the existence of superior beings exercising power over human beings by volition, imposing rules of conduct, with future rewards and punishments. Bond uniting man to GOD, and a virtue whose purpose is to render GOD worship due him as source of all being and principle of all government of things

Nikulnikoff v. Archbishop, etc., of Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, 142 Misc. 894, 255 N.Y.S. 653, 663.

–Black’s Law: 5th Edition

Are you contractually bonded to the United States’ religion of law;
a government that claims to rule through God?

Perhaps you should read that definition once more…

We will read this legal definition again at the end of Part 1, after the
knowledge contained within will make its meaning much more clear.

In short, these “oaths” taken by United States (not American) soldiers as seen above are no different than the blind pledge of allegiance taken by school children to an inanimate object called a flag. Through the illusion of nationalism and patriotism, the majority of these men and women of the military have no idea that their pledge is to an artificial municipal corporation named Washington D.C, and to the artificial “Corporations Sole” who occupy it. This oath is not to their actual living family, their friends, America, and Americans or to any of “the people”.

Interestingly, all of these oaths include God as their witness, though those who took the German Oath of Loyalty did not have the choice to make an affirmation (an oath not of or under God) as the United States oath offers.

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856, defines these important religious and non-religious acts as specifically opposite from one another:

OATH. A declaration made according to law, before a competent tribunal or officer, to tell the truth; or it is the act of one who, when lawfully required to tell the truth, takes God to witness that what he says is true. It is 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 in other words to punish his perjury if he shall be guilty of it. 2. It is proper to distinguish two things in oaths; (1.) The invocation by which the God of truth, who knows all things, is taken to witness. (2.) The imprecation by which he is asked as a just and all-powerful being, to punish perjury. 3. The commencement of an oath is made by the party taking hold of the book, after being required by the officer to do so, and ends generally with the words,”so help you God,” and kissing the book, when the form used is that of swearing on the Evangelists. 4. Oaths are taken in various forms; the most usual is upon the Gospel by taking the book in the hand; the words commonly used are, “You do swear that, ” & “so help you God,” and then kissing the book. The origin of this oath may be traced to the Roman law, and the kissing the book is said to be an imitation of the priest’s kissing the ritual as a sign of reverence, before he reads it to the people.  5. Another form is by the witness or party promising holding up his right hand while the officer repeats to him,”You do swear by Almighty God, the searcher of hearts, that… “And this as you shall answer to God at the great day.” 6. In another form of attestation commonly called an affirmation, the officer repeats, “You do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that,(i.e. without God)… 7. The oath, however, may be varied in any other form, in order to conform to the religious opinions of the person who takes it

(**Note that these definitions in Bouvier’s and Black’s Law dictionaries include “case law” references, meaning these definitions are paraphrases of actual court decisions and opinions. For the purposes of this essay, those references have been removed for ease of reading and comprehension. See dictionaries for case references.)

Here we see that the oath is in all accounts a religious test and sacrament. And it is important to note that one who does not fear God or who swears to another god or Deity will not be at all worried about lying under oath upon the Bible, for if the devil truly exists, that “lord of lies” would surely require perjury from its followers.

AFFIRMANT, practice. One who makes affirmation instead of making oath that the evidence which he is about to give shall be the truth, as if he had been sworn. He is liable to all the pains and penalty of perjury, if he shall be guilty of willfully and maliciously violating his affirmation.

AFFIRMATION, practice. A solemn declaration and asseveration, which a witness makes before an officer, competent to administer an oath in a like case, to tell the truth, as if be had been sworn. 2. In the United States, generally, all witnesses who declare themselves conscientiously scrupulous against taking a corporal oath, are permitted to make a solemn affirmation, and this in all cases, as well criminal as civil. 3. In England, laws have been enacted which partially relieve persons who, have conscientious scruples against taking an oath, and authorize them to make affirmation. In France, the laws which allow freedom of religious opinion, have received the liberal construction that all persons are to be sworn or affirmed according to the dictates of their consciences; and a quaker’s affirmation has been received and held of the same effect as an oath. 4. The form is to this effect: “You, A B, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm…” For the violation of the truth in such case, the witness is subject to the punishment of perjury” as if he had been sworn. 5. Affirmation also means confirming; as, an affirmative statute.

The Hypocritical Affirmation Of
The Mormon Corporation Sole

For the purposes of this research, remember that to affirm in the Untied States jurisdiction is to purposefully not swear an oath under the Biblical Christian “God”, and more specifically to not be under the punishment or wrath of that “God” for perjury in this life and/or in the “after-life”. Of course, religious leaders and politicians with no irony or hesitation often choose to be affirmed in court cases and in congress instead of being sworn in under “God”. This is no irony, but a purposeful deceit to purger or withhold information from a government that protects that act of purger through the act of affirmation. Affirmation is dishonesty masked under a false legal status of credibility, and it is a choice often made by men who take the mark of Corporations Sole.

It is one thing for a random man to affirm due to his contentions with organized religion, it is a whole other can of worms when it is the leader or president of a corporate religion who chooses to affirm in court instead of swearing to tell the truth with God as his witness and accept His wrath for perjury…

In the case of the corporation called the Mormon Church, we have the incredible revelations of the Reed Smoot Senate hearing as a perfect example…

7-13-2016 11-55-38 AM

When then president of the Mormon “church”, Mr. Joseph F. Smith, was called to testify before Congress in 1906, he was requested by the Senate to “swear in”. Instead, he is quoted below as stating in the congressional record that “I prefer to affirm, if you please.” In other words, the supposedly Christian Mormon President and current “Prophet” of God incarnate wished not to swear to that God that he would tell the truth under God’s wrath. Of course he was likely doing so as an artificial “Corporation Sole”. The record then directly states, “Joseph F. Smith, having duly affirmed, testifies as follows…“.

Having avoided the wrath of God for perjury, the clever “prophet” Smith was free to lie and obfuscate without God in the name of his Corporation.

The following is from the official transcript of that Senate hearing and makes for a very interesting read:

7-13-2016 11-56-43 AM

7-13-2016 11-57-40 AM

“We… protest: that Apostle Reed Smoot, Senator elect from the State of Utah…
ought not be permitted to qualify by taking the oath of office or to sit as a
Member of the United States Senate, for reasons effecting the honor
and dignity of the United States and their Senators in Congress.”

Why?

“Ruling Authorities” of the Mormon Church claim:
“…Supreme authority, divinely mentioned, to shape the belief and control
the conduct under them in all matters whatsoever, civil and religious,
temporal and spiritual, and who uniting in themselves
authority in church and state…”

**In other words, a Mormon’s oath to the Church takes
precedent over their oath to the country, the same reason that those
in the know today do not wish Mitt Romney to obtain the seat of President.

How?

“Men who hold the (Mormon) priesthood possess divine authority to act for God,
and by possessing part of God’s power they are in reality part of God
those who reject it (the priesthood bestowed by the church), reject God.”

7-13-2016 11-58-54 AM

7-13-2016 11-59-40 AM

Mormon Church (Assembly Hall)  inside of “Temple Square”,
The Mormon corporate headquarters or “Vatican” of Salt Lake City

Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon speaks of the restoration of Israel:

“And it came to pass that I, Nephi, spake much unto them
concerning these things; yea, I spake unto them concerning
the restoration of the Jews in the latter days.”

“And I did rehearse unto them the words of Isaiah, who spake
concerning the restoration of the Jews, or of the house of Israel;
and after they were restored they should no more be confounded,
neither should they be scattered again.”

                                                       –=–

During the 1930s and 1940s, Mormon Senators William King and
Elbert Thomas were both Democrats from Utah.
Both men were fervent Christian Zionists.

**Zionism is support for the illegal “State” of Israel.
Clandestinely though, Zionism’s goal is to reestablish the
“Kingdom of Jerusalem” and rebuild Solomon’s Temple.

For the Star of David is actually the ancient Seal of Solomon…

As we will soon realize, this is the goal of all
Masonic religions and societies worldwide.

Senator Thomas visited Jerusalem in 1912.
According to his diary, he sat on the Mount of Olives and read from the
writings of early Mormon leader Orson Hyde about the Jews:

“Consecrate this land for the gathering together of Judah’s
scattered remnants, for the building up of Jerusalem again
after it has been trodden down by the Gentiles so long.
Restore the kingdom unto Israel, raise up Jerusalem as its capitol.”

Mormon Senator William King was one of the founding members
of the American Palestine Committee – an organization set up
in the 1930s to rally Christian support for Jewish statehood.

Sen. Thomas developed close ties to Benzion Netanyahu,
who in those days was director of the
Revisionist Zionists’ American division.

David Ben Gurion, first president of the Israeli “State” from 1948 stated:

“You know, there are no people in the world
who understand the Jews like the Mormons.”

–=–

As part of the Reed Smoot case, it was necessary to ascertain for the record the incredible monopolies of private corporations that were held and operated by the Mormon Church and its leadership, including Union Pacific Railroad, and that was also acting as the government of Utah. It is shocking to consider the power of this religious incorporation then, especially when considering how much it has grown in the last 100 years. For instance, the Mormon corporation named “Bonneville Communications” just a decade ago owned a virtual monopoly on every talk radio station in Washington D.C. before selling (privatizing) them to other Mormons – members by blood in that Masonic Brotherhood of the Church – to give the appearance that the corporation of the Church no longer held that monopoly.

In government, this is called privatization.

We read this incredible admission in the senate record, as stated officially by the affirmed and arrogant president of the Church Joseph F. Smith. Note that Smith is the “Successor” of the previous “prophets” and presidents of the church, signifying the passing of not only the Corporation Sole, but the claim of divinity and rule by and through God, as stated below, “…endowed with all the powers that they were possessed of”:

7-13-2016 12-03-47 PM

7-13-2016 12-04-23 PM

7-13-2016 12-05-25 PM

7-13-2016 12-06-26 PM

Not Ironically, the Sheriff of Salt Lake County is none other than a Mormon descendent named Jim Winder of the aforementioned Winder in this case, whose brother is a City Mayor, and whose Mormon family have 10 generations in politics in Utah.

You can read about my personal battles to try and expose what Sheriff Winder has done to Salt Lake County in my research article and documentary below:

Article – “The Sheriff Who Sold His County”

Link–>https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/the-sheriff-who-sold-his-county/

And also view my lecture about special districts
taking over lawful government in a County near you.

MORE TOMORROW

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM

 

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: