Dear Harry,

I'm going to call the bluff of the modern American Christian. We will not be blessed by protecting Israel. I can demonstrate why this is true by asking a few simple questions. The point of all this is that God has appointed us to be good stewards of all that he has given us including our Christian Heritage, including the law of the United States. It is not possible to protect Israel as we are doing without destroying our own United States heritage. It is not necessary that we prevent God's prophecies from unfolding. It is necessary that we live in the truth. We therefore need to take another look at everything we do in America.

  1. Did God in the Old or New Testament protect the Jews when they disobeyed God? Were the people that executed God's wrath good people?
  2. Will the United States or any other nation or group of nations be able to protect the Jewish Religious State of Israel when they continue to reject the Lord of Lords sent to them first and then to the Gentile?
  3. Can there be such a thing as a Judeo-Christian? Or is the redemption available in Christ Jesus some how deficient without the sacrifice of the redeemed on the alter of Mosaic Customs?

Now you ask what has the Christian American lost and what will we continue to lose as a result of our defense of Israel?

  1. The United States of America has been corrupted by the Jewish influence through the illegal monetary system that we presently use. Jewish world banks illegally seized the property of every American citizen between 1913 and 1933 in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
  2. "The money will be worth 100 cents on the dollar, because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and other property of all the people in the Nation. The money so issued will not have one penny of gold coverage behind it, because it is really not needed."1

    Did you or your family receive any money for your property in 1933 or since for the government to seize your private property and use it for collateral on the issue of worthless paper money? Then the federal government is in constant violation of the Fifth Amendment against all the American citizens.

    "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."2

  3. What makes the "war against terrorism" illegal?
  4. One way to establish an illegal war upon another from the United States is to make it without having it declared by the Congress of the United States. President Bush cannot call up the military, as he has said he did. The power to raise, call and send forth the military was considered monarchial by all the forefathers and forbidden to the President in the Constitution.

    Therefore, no citizen or their representative has declared the war upon terrorism or Afghanistan or any other people or nation. This truly is President Bush's war. And he is therefore responsible for any damage done any party related to this affair called "war against terrorism."

    Further, Mr. Bush, having no power even as President to do such acts, he now is responsible for the damage not as a President but as an ordinary citizen acting under the color of law but without any.

    Alexander Hamilton clarified the limitations of power on the office of Commander-in-Chief in his Federalist Letter # 69:

    "The President is to be the "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....In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these: - First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions....Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies - all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature." 3

    All this means essentially that Mr. Bush; acting under the color of law has sent your family into a war of his own with out you having authorized it through your representatives.

  5. What real right is gained by a conquest achieved by illegal means?

It is not always a visible act of aggression that can place one at war with his neighbor. He that would move against their neighbor to take his possessions, liberty or life has placed himself at war with those he moves against. This may not be as large an act as the bombing of Pearl Harbor or colliding with the World Trade Center by two large jet aircraft. But as mentioned here the usurpation of power under the laws of the land are a move against your possessions and liberties. Certainly the confiscation of all the property of Americans to be used as collateral for worthless paper money is a most extreme move against the people of a nation and constitutes an act of war against them.

The sole purpose of government is to protect the possessions, liberty and life of each of its citizens. It follows that he, who has a design to take my possessions, has a design to take my liberty and use me as he wishes or to take my life if it suited his fancy. This is where intrigue comes into play. Therefore we can rightly conclude, under the Christian logic of the forefathers, that the centralized federal government of today is in a state of continual war against its own citizens. This is so because they have seized property without just compensation or right to it and taxed the real owner to use it. And if they will do this thing, what prevents them from embroiling us into intrigues to use our bodies and lives to execute their designs upon the whole world?

The shot heard around the world was in Concord but the motivation that caused it was in a long succession of abuses that are written for the whole world to see in the Declaration of Independence. Who was the real aggressor, the state militia or the King?

An unlawful conquest actually transfers no power at all and no legal rights at all:

"That the Aggressor, who puts himself into the State of War with another, and unjustly invades another Man's Right, can, by such an unjust War, never come to have a right over the Conquered, will be easily agreed by all Men, who will not think, that Robbers and Pyrates have a Right of Empire over whomsoever they have Force enough to master, or that Men are bound by Promises, which unlawful Force extorts from them."4

Now you ask, are you comparing the destruction of the World Trade Center and the damage to the Pentagon with aircraft filled with citizens to the undeclared war brought by Mr. Bush and the mere removal of gold from the backing of our currency? Yes, indeed! I am doing this because they are very similar activities as we can see from John Locke:

"As Conquest may be called a foreign Usurpation, so Usurpation is a kind of domestick Conquest, with this Difference, that an Usurper can never have Right on his side, it being no Usurpation, but where one is got into the Possession of what another has Right to. This, so far as it is Usurpation, is a Change only of Persons, but not of the Forms and Rules of the Government: For if the Usurper extend his Power beyond what of Right belonged to the lawful Princes, or Governors of the Commonwealth, 'tis Tyranny added to Usurpation."5


We can now see how all the citizens of the United States have been conquered by usurpation inside our own government. We see how there is not a real distinction between those that conquer from outside or inside. We see how our government steals from us and why we may suspect them of every other intrigue against us, including self-inflicted harm to use our bodies, as they will.


  1. Mr. McGugin, Congressional Record, Emergency Banking Act, 1933, Exhibit 40 War And Emergency Powers (American Agricultural Movement, Campo, Colorado, 81029,) 83.
  2. The Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, Article V.
  3. Alexander Hamilton, The Federalists Papers, ed., Clinton Rossiter (Mentor, Penguin Group, New York, NY, 1961) 417, 418.
  4. John Locke, Second Treatise Of Civil Government, The Christian History of the United States of America: Christian Self-Government, compiled by Verna M. Hall, ed., Joseph Allan Montgomery (Foundation for American Christian Education, San Francisco, California, 1978) 106.
  5. Ibid., 111