Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Not US natural born without a US Citizen Father

"Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874)
on Page 88 U. S. 167
...Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that
"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,"
and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their

at Page 88 U. S. 168

parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last, they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact, the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization, Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have in substance been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or should be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States were declared to be citizens also."


Just one example of some of the texts in the previously cited Supreme Court Cases that should be used against B. Hussein Obama.

Obama's father was never a US Citizen, and hence, that fact, makes Obama a "lawless one", and a usurper of the Office of the Presidency by fraud. He attained the approval to commit fraud by Nancy Pelosi, and conspired with the Hawaiian Department of Health Director, Valerie Jarrett, and a cadre of others in order to defraud the US Goverment of billions of dollars for their (and their companies) benefit...and the unveiling will probably invovle the prosecution of some 500 or more people, and the theft of hundreds of billions in US Taxpayer monies misappropriated primarily and unaccountably through The Fed.

Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661-666 (1927) uses as well as implies – (re: McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819) implied Constitutional language or intent is justifiable interpretation.) -- that the FATHER (Paternal lineage) as that which confers a "NATURAL born citizen" status, instead of a simple "born citizen" status as through a jus soli birth with maternal citizenship.

Traditional acceptance by the Court for the Christian Biblical sense in the formation of laws and societal basis from which our laws hang, include a religious influence and interpretation of our Constitutional Government (and hence, its founding intent in its founding document language) Rector, etc. of HolyTrinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 465-471 (1892). In other words, the interpretation and meaning of “natural born citizen” as inheritance spring from the loins of the citizen father, as it were.

From the founding document of the July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence citing that the “Creator” [G-D] endows unto man laws from a higher source than mortal governments and kings, to the more recent SCHOOL DIST. OF ABINGTON TP. V. SCHEMPP, 374 U. S. 203 (1963); VAN ORDEN V. PERRY, 545 U.S. 677 (2005); we see that the use of Christianity and Christian Interpretation in US Society and Law has been closely identified with US history and US government.

The reality of interpreting the phrase, "natural born", refers to founding fathers biblical intent in which men, as voting citizens, were those who biblically begat sons, and therefore passed on "natural born citizenship" to their sons. The clear Biblical usage is that of sons and daughters who descend from a man's loins, such as an example that can be surmised from the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 1:2-6.

For the Election of 2008, Barack never submitted any crucial proof citizen documents for review, even to the Courts, in order to run for President. He should have done this when he first announced that he would run in 2007. Never did he show proof that he was even qualified under Constitutional Article 2.1.5. as a child born on US soil to two US Citizen parents. He could not then, and he cannot ever do so. But being a Constitutional Law Professor tied to American Comunists, some tied to Soviets in the Cold War, some tied presently to China's Communist regime, he knew and counted on American apathy and Washington political corruption. The Republican's rolled the dice and played fast and loose allowing John McCain to run, whom if elected, he too would be facing resignation on this very issue as well. Although McCain was born to two US Citizen parents abroad, by being born post May 24, 1934 just hundreds of yards outside a US Territory boundary, McCain too is ineligible to serve as President (it seems).

In 2008, the Federal Elections Commission passed the responsibility of vetting Obama’s “Citizen and Qualification Status” off to the State of Illinois, the State of Illinois passed that responsibility off to the City of Chicago, the City of Chicago and its mobsters who run that city passed it off to the affiliation called Democratic Socialists of America, and the DSA (comprised of conspiratorial Communist-Socialists) simply blew it off.

Senator Feinstein of California states that a 14th Amendment view of Obama serves to qualify Obama. However, contrary to the senator, the intent of the 14th Amendment is summarized by Rep –Ohio, John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)), who states:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [Bill S-61], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”

Barack's Kenyan father, owing allegiances to both Kenya and Britain, disqualified Barack Jr. from a "natural born US status", not a second class status of an anchor birth. Only the Presidency would be beyond his reach...unless he broke the Law to get it, that is.

In looking at the Immigration Laws, we observe three essential recognitions: Anchor, Natural Born, Naturalized.
Anchor birth in the United States or its territories
Natural born birth to U.S. citizen parents (through the Citizen father, or citizens of father and mother, called "acquisition" of citizenship)
Naturalization (obtaining citizenship after an application and exam), or
Naturalization of a minor though through one's parents (called "derivation" of citizenship).

The laws governing natural born are confined to their respective time periods:
prior to May 24, 1934
• May 25, 1934 to January 12, 1941 (under which McCain fell)
• January 13, 1941 to December 23, 1952
• December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986,
(under which Obama falls)
November 14, 1986 to present.


US Constitutional terms:

1. Citizen of the US at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution (archaic, moot)

2. Citizen of the US (three co-equal forms): Born to at least 1 US Citizen legal parent or born in the USA or Naturalized.

Re: 14th Amendment, Section 1. (Second class citizen, one who is NOT able to aspire to be US President. Senator Feinstein of California, illegally and egregiously cited the 14th Amendment in her 07/09/2009 letter to me as justification for Barack Obama's usurpation. A 14th Amendment “Citizen of the US” is simply inclusive of Anchor birth, such as Obama (since his mother was not of legal age. That is, Barack falls under being born to a maternal citizen / denizen parent only birth (since Barack Sr. was a dual Kenyan/British national at the time of Barack Jr.'s birth and until his death). Also in this category should be listed - the "derivation of Citizenship" by a minor child through his/her US Naturalized guardian/custodial parent(s).

3. Born Citizen as it relates to the 14th Amendment, Section 1 (Second class citizen, NOT able to aspire to be US President).

4. Naturalized, not born in USA who by Federal Statutes obtains Citizenship, renounces oaths of allegiances to foreign powers, and falls under the protection of the 14th Amendment, Section 1.
(Second class citizen, NOT able to aspire to be US President).

5. Natural Born Citizen, born in the USA to a father or both parents who are US citizens of any type at the time of the child's birth. (First class citizen, acquisition of an imprimis status of US citizenship, able to aspire to be US President. The natural born status in the US is paternal based, but in running for the Presidency, tradition required both parents to be some type of US citizen).


There is no issue about race or ethnicity. There is no issue about party affiliation or religious beliefs. The issue is straight forward. America has been hijacked by allowing Barry Soetoro, aka. Barack Hussein Obama II, a clearly ineligible candidate, to run for and obtain the Presidential Office of the United States of America.

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Three compartments to a person's spirtitual makeup: case in point, Adolf Hitler

Most people, including educators, are unfamiliar with the ins and outs of history. History today -- at least in the United States -- is most often now being manipulated by liberal quacks in the classroom from elementary school to the graduate school. This trend entered critical mass in the early to mid 1970s with "experimentation". Adolf Hitler is demonized, and equated with "conservatives", while a pass is given to equal and greater impactors for mass murder such as Karl Mark, Vladimir Lenin, and Mao Tse-Tung: their impact has exceeded Hitler's impact more world-wide for evil to mankind by more than ten-fold.

But let's look for a moment through the youthful eyes of Adolf Hitler as a teenager, and as a boy, and what he is taught...what probably happens to him...and what he retained when he fell away. This in no way second step "endorses" Hitler, it simply is the kind of thoughtful examination liberals scream for us to have about "understanding" evil people (in the first step), before they embrace and endorse them (in the dope induced second step). That is the difference betwen a liberal (usually a dope smoker or mentally ill intellectual) and a conservative (pragmatic and sober), in my opinion.

Innsbruck, Austria, from where Adolf Hitler hailed, was an administrative or capital town with a population of about 27,000 people in the 1900-1910 era. Young Adolf was born near here, in April of 1889, the place his mother loved. He was reared by an abusively strict father, and had lost his mother as a boy. Later in life, he would return as a man to Innsbruck, because, although his mother was buried in Linz, her heart was here in Innsbruck near where he was born, along with the maternal side of his family.

We have to remember, people are people. Kardia: Adolf had 3 siblings who died young, and a brother and a sister who were yet living when WWII hit the fan. Had they all lived, he would have ben reared in a family of 6 children. The loss of 3 siblings and his mother death would have played into the abusive psychology of Adolf's father, and to Adolf's own personality. Adolf also had other relatives who were shielded from most biographies concerning him, and very little is now known of them.

Adolf was educated by the Roman Catholic Jesuits, and when his mother died, he actually was considering entering into the priesthood until he got drunk one night at about age 15. It appears that in coded language (in Mein Kampf and elsewhere), that his drunkenness (perhaps on communion wine) cost him to be a victim of priestly molestation at the top of the optimum age range that priests seem to like "virulent" young boys, and thereafter, Adolf swore off alcohol and the "Christian faith" of his mother (Roman Catholicism) as a result.

At the time, there was only about 160 Jews from 40 families in all of Innsbruck, (again, the city of or near his maternal connection), there on a temporary residence permit (if you will) as aliens who were incorporated into the town citizenship, but not as land owners or having the rights of town citizenship. These Jews were not accepted as citizens of Innsbruck, insomuch as of Hohenems (population ca. 4,000 in circa A.D. 1900-1910) living in Innsbruck.

This smaller town of Hohenem was given over to Austria in 1765, having a population of about 118 Jews, and later increasing to over 560 in its Jewish population in the next 100 years, establishing their own community and royal/state sanctioned constitution. Most all at Innsbruck viewed the Hohenems as a large part of the reason why Innsbruck was gobbled up by the Viennese, away from Bavaria Germany, because of their association with powerful Jews in Vienna having influence (especially Jewish law firms such as were Arnstein & Eskeles) with the royal court there.

Alliances of Innsbruck remained fiercely that it was part of the German territory of Bavaria, from which it had been ruled under an given edicts concerning the Jewish question as late as 1813. By 1817, the territorial boundaries had moved Innsbruck out of direct influence from Bavaria, to direct influence and control from Vienna.

The nearby village of Rinn was prominently ingrained as the place where the child Andreas Oxner was said to have been murdered by Jews July 12, 1462. In that case, the story was embellished into folklore by a shrine in 1575, and ever after a constant reminder to future generations. The blood supposedly drained into vessels, like the thigh wounds of criminals in the arenas in Roman times...the blood sold for and drunk for the cure of diseases like epilepsy in that era.

In the post Jerusalem destruction Roman world, from the late 70s to the late 30s A.D., rabbinic Jews hating Christian Jews and their Gentile converts, persecuted Christians with lies spread by a select number of evil counter-missionaries among them; accusing Christians of perversities that included drinking the blood of humans at the Passover/Communion, and were often the first to bring the wood to burn Christian saints at the stake, such as the 116 year old Polycarp in A.D. 156. Now, a millenia later, the spread of pseudo-superstition had come full circle with like accusations starting from about the middle of the 12th century against the Jews at their own Passovers every couple of generations or so.

The process was called coming full circle or kikel...and the derogatory term of "kike" was born out of this as a "dirty circle" initiated by a very few, but now reflecting on the many and the whole. Even before the fall of Jerusalem, three evil non-religious Jewish men, apostates by their actions from their own "Faith", caused Caesar to cast out the Jewish community of Rome in 49 A.D.. Preceding the War of the Jews on three occasions, it was initiated each time by the few thousands who caused War with Rome and annihilations of millions in A.D. 70, 115, and 132. These few thousands who lawlessly and violently schismed, not only destroyed millions of Jews in their own generations, they cursed future generations for over 1900 years more as well. But no one ever blames or curses them as the evil men they were to do harm to the people of Israel, who rightfully deserve to occupy and own every square inch of the Land, East and West Bank, from middle and southern Lenanon to the Red Sea and Gulf of Aqaba.

But getting back to Hitler. So, here in 1895-1903, we have young Adolf living over in Linz and on visits to his maternal family in and around Innsbruck.

Dianoia: He is educated by the Jesuits who teach about the blood-guilt of Andreas Oxner in 1462, which attaches to his psyche because it was near where he was born. He is taught of how the Viennese and nearby Jews conspired to wrest Innsbruck from the beloved homeland of Bavaria (Germany/Deutschland) to simply suit their own convenience in regard to Maria Theresa who expelled them in 1748, and the Jewish reaction was a manipulation of Hohenem becoming a fief of Austria in 1765.
The official transference to Austria not occurring until ca. 1814-1815, but tributes paid to Maia Theresa in 1765 anyway. Hence, the wresting of rightful land patronage (as it was perceived by him) through behind the scenes appeasements, in his way of thinking. He is taught how haters of Christ have wrecked havoc through history (by the Roman Catholic teachers (as exampled above, but in specificity to the histories known and now forgotten in Germany and Austria). It was in Roman Catholicism where Adolf would first educationally learn Jew hatred and Jew blame for the ills of society more than helps, rather than in the 1910s.

Psuche: And Adolf's Catholic faith is destroyed by someone he trusts through alcohol and because he did not impose an iron will to resist, but yielded or something. Rarely would he ever get drunk again, except in the late 1920s, when his incestuous (sexual) relationship with his niece was broken off when he was about 38 years of age.

There are always at least two compartments to the psychology of the individual according to secular scholars, and most often three. Even historians as well as psychologists and psychiatrists fail to truly grasp this. The three compartment makeup of a person's personality (and being) is a biblical concept known for thousands of years.

The Greek words: kardia, psuche, and dianoia are found in Matthew 22:37.

In the Biblical context:
Kardia encompasses the reasoning processes that dive into the emotional attachments and conscience of the individual that sways. Heartfelt loyalty and allegiance is also involved. It usually implies feelings and emotions that can be felt by the physical heart. Once the heart is calloused through constant scarring and pain, the processes can still remain through the determination of will and desire of the individual, even though physical “heart-felt” sensations are no longer experienced.

Psuche is the immaterial soul, the physical likeness of a person in a living ghost-imprint. The exhaling breath, the deportation of what one says and speaks on as coming from the body, is a deportation of the Psuche to the rest of humanity and to G-D, often as it is first reasoned upon and prepared from the Kardia (the heart).

Dianoia is the intellectual faculty, that which has been learned and imagined. Dianoia is accompanied by the ability to fantasize, either correctly or incorrectly, in order to grasp or comprehend or project an understanding. Nous involves the inactivated imagination in the intellect, while dianoia involves the activated imagination. Paul speaks of first renewing the inactivated intellect, one without the creativity of imagination first (Romans 12:2), before moving on into the more mature activated intellect of dianoia. The inactivated being as if only able to discern milk, and the activated mind as if able to discern meat.

In effect, the Trinity of the mind, the Trinity of a person's reasoning processes acting as one in unison needs to be directed to that which glorifies the L-RD our G-D. Or from "Thou shalt love the L-RD thy G-D with all thy heart, mind and soul, to a paraphrased:

Thou shalt love the L-RD thy G-D with all thy emotional and conscience attachments of the heart, with acknowledgement in all thy speaking, and with all thy activated intellect including even the imaginations of the mind being subject to that which honors Him or falls within the boundaries as what He has established as Biblically acceptable.

But in the case of the antithesis, if one runs away from Jesus, the one running away will lash out in fear with all his emotional and conscience attachments of the heart, with denial in all his speaking, and with all his activated intellect. This impulse of denial in the unbeliever is including even the imaginations of the mind, so that they are NOT being subject to that which honors Jesus, and must fall outside the boundaries as what G-D has established as Biblically acceptable.

So to understand the history and to understand the man, history and the Bible must go hand in hand in enabling us to truly understand what went wrong, where it went wrong, and the three primary internal dynamics involved that produced the end results.

We can apply this same understanding of the Psychological Analysis to understand the warped and like arrogant minds of current world personalities such as Barack Obama, and utilize this understanding to recognize how truly dangerous he is to Democracy and our current freedom of Religion not available under Islam.

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Poetry : What is a Home without a mother?

What is a Home without a mother?
An original poem by Brianroy

The autumn leaves are falling,
as the leaves of the trees have turned to their hues of red, orange, and brown.

Somewhere behind them, in the distance, the sun is yawning;
ready to set, as it goes down and down.

There is a little iron gate, that loudly creaks open;
as if shouting, ‘Awake! Awake! Your son is back in town!’

And yet, the expectation of the door opening is met with silence;
the leaves gently rustling as the lonely and so familiar path is trod.

Instinctively, he knocks, and awaits for an answer;
but there is only silence as he bows his head, and begins to nod.

The house is worn with years.
The paint is faded, and run, as though streaked with tears.
The rose bushes are barren, the mailbox lays empty.
The welcome mat is collecting dust,
and the door knob is just starting to rust.

What is a Home, without a mother?
It is just a residence, a temporary place of one or the other.
When a man marries, it is the woman who truly decorates the place;
but until a child is born, her honor feels as outward as chantilly lace.
And wherever thereafter that she goes,
the sense and feeling of “home” goes with her.

It is not with the Father, who might as well treat a piece of land,
to live like a bachelor, but loving “it” as though a woman in his hand.
That is never truly a “home”; it is a property, a pride, and a demand.
But the mother who truly is a mother, she loves and nourishes and respects;
she loves by instinct and kindness beyond normal reason or intellects.

She provides a something beyond what words can describe;
decorating and nourishing as if a gift of G-D,
a taste of the living waters of G-D’s goodness and grace.
It is a sweetness that keeps the heart, mind, and soul of going, as if a heavenly dew;
until the truth of G-D’s Son,
and the Salvation of Jesus upon the Cross,
is revealed upon you.

The door now creaks open, and an ‘oh, so familiar voice’ comes from the other side;
“Come in, my son. As you can see, I am still alive.”

The above poem was written with a mother figure who was widowed and in her 80s. The son, like a prodigal, returns after decades to the house of his youth; perhaps, keeping in contact with sparse letters and phone calls. He has had conflict with the father, which is a normal (or should I say, popular) sentiment in American Society. This poem should serve as a reminder for those who have parents still living.

Keep in regular physical visitation contact, not just by phone, e-mail, or postal mail. Watch out for them. Make sure regularly that they are well and are okay. When you reach an age where you can begin paying them back a small percentage of your pay monetarily, if they are poor, do so. For those without religion, they have no excuse to not tithe to their poor parent's well-being. If the parents are rich and have financial ease, then keep in contact.

If you have only one parent living, the moral responsibility upon you becomes greater as they advance in age. As a society, we need to be reminded and retaught basic values to both respect and take care of our elders in a loving way. For this moral reason, among many others, I oppose the Death Panels being introduced in International Law Courts, and in US Legislation under the guise of "Health Care".

The Most Accurate Dating of The New Testament in the World (to date)

After much careful and meticulous research, this is my dating of the New Testament writings to the times of their authorship. The Bible is a bedrock for reliability in historical and preternatural trustworthiness.

In what order written / Letter or Book that was written / When Written / From where it was written

1) Jude / A.D. 47 / Jerusalem, Israel
2) James / A.D. 47, Pentecost / Jerusalem, Israel
3) Galatians / A.D. 48 / Philippi, Greece
4) Gospel of Luke / A.D. 50 / Corinth, Achaia

5) I Thessalonians / February - July, A.D. 52 / Ephesus, Asia
6) I Corinthians / July - November, A.D. 52 / Ephesus, Asia
7) Revelation / Tishrei 4-9, Sep/Oct, A.D. 53 / Patmos, Aegean

8) Romans / October - November, A.D. 53 / Corinth, Achaia
9) Titus / February, A.D. 54 / Troas, Aegean Sea
10) Colossians / May - November, A.D. 54 / Jerusalem, Israel
11) I Timothy / May - November, A.D. 54 / Jerusalem, Israel

12) II Thessalonians / August - December, A.D. 54 / Ephesus, Asia
13) Gospel of Matthew / May, A.D. 55 - July, A.D. 56 / Jerusalem, Israel
14) Philemon / A.D. 56 / Rome, Italy

15) II Timothy / October, A.D. 56 / Rome, Italy
16) Ephesians / October, A.D. 56 / Rome, Italy
17) Philippians / February - April, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy
18) I Peter / March - April, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy

19) Gospel of Mark / June, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy
20) II Peter / June, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy
21) Acts of the Apostles / July, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy

22) Hebrews / July, A.D. 57 / Rome, Italy
23) I John (severed intro) / August - October, A.D. 57 / Ephesus, Asia
24) Gospel of John / August - October, A.D. 57 / Ephesus, Asia

25) 2 John /A.D. 58 - A.D. 96 / Ephesus, Asia
26) 3 John / A.D. 58 - A.D. 96 / Ephesus, Asia

Saturday, September 26, 2009

The Natural Born Citizen Issue and Barack Obama, continued

US CONSTITUTION, Article 2, Section 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, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows...

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

...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."

In 1833, in Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. § 1473

“ It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for 14 years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen [to speak of those to who fought the Revolutionary War] to become President is an exception [read: "the only exception" -- Brianroy] from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits and painful to their sensibilities.

But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.”

See Story’s bio: http://www.constitution.org/js/js_001.htm

If Story is correct as to Constitutional Intent, Obama is disqualified in allegiance and residence in a foreign country, i.e. Indonesia, even as a boy, in that regard.

Treaty Obligations:
The NY Times stated that it was investigated and ruled that FDR JR. “never can carry that great name back into the White House”, because he was born in Canada, despite being born to two natural-born US Citizens themselves. This FDR Jr. was the second so named, born in 1914. Because of a Treaty with Canada, FDR Jr. was never to have anything near a "natural born" status, no matter how liberals abuse and manipulated the wordings of naturalized with native-born ( NY Times, May 26, 1946). Because of Treaties with Great Britain, there must be a legal distinction made in regard to Barack Obama's multi-national status. He was born a natural born citizen of Kenya in 1961, with an "anchor birth" second class US citizen status IF: 1) his mother was of age 19 under 1961 US Law (which she wasn't); and, 2) no foreign power could lay claim sole nationality upon him.
In Kenyan Law, the only recognized citizen status is that of Kenyan with a British Commonwealth duality. Kenya does not allow dual national citizenry with any other nation than the United Kingdom. In Indonesian Law, the step-father adopted Barack to an exclusive Indonesian citizenry that does NOT recognize dual US, Kenyan, or British nationalities. To be a citizen of Indonesia, is to be a loyal and allegiant Indonesian. Each day, Barack pledge loyalty to the Dictator and Nation of Indonesia at school. The mother under US Law abandoned allegiance to the US by marrying a foreign soldier in a foreign army, and moved to that one's home country. She abandoned her US Citizenship by that act. Barack atended the same school as the grandchildren of Indonesia's dictator, meaning a written and verbal pledge of fidelity with a loyalty background vetting was conducted. If Ann Dunham-Obama-Soetoro had married a Russian Communist Army Officer and moved Barack to Moscow, USSR, and that step-father adopted Barack, would the Communist-Socialist Left still have a problem electing Barack to be President? Really? A Communist zealot with anarchist tendencies against Democracy and Christianity would have any reservation electing a Communist to subjugate the US? Obama is equally as guilty a traitor and foreign usurper as if he had been taken to Moscow and adopted instead of Jakarta, Indonesia under US Law. The same US Law that those Quislings in power will not allow to be openly presented in a Court of Law, or in a nationally televised US Senate hearing on the matter.

A Partial Listing of Relevant Material Involved in stating the Illegality of Obama, focusing on the Natural Born Status and related material:
Supreme Court Cases that would be cited:

1. THE UNITED STATES v. VILLATO, 2 U.S. 370 (1797)
2. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)
3. Jackson ex Dem. People of State of New York v. Clarke 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 1 (1818)
4. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)
5. Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 (1830)
6. Dred Scott 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 (1856)
7. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)
8. Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
9. Rector, etc. of HolyTrinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
10. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)
11. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
12. Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)
13. Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915)
14. Weedin v.Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)
15. Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944)
16. Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654 (1946)
17. McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950)
18. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
19. Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958)
20. Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958)
21. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)
22. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961)
23. School Dist. of Abington TP. v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963)
24. Kennedy v .Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)
25. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)
26. Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253 (1967)
27. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, (1969), dissent
28. Rogers v. Bellei 401 US 815, 826 (1971)
29. Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)
30. Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 307 (1981)
31. Steel Co. v. Citizens, 523 US 83 (1998)
32. Nguyen ET AL. v. INS, 533 US 53 (2001)
33. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)
34. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

District Case

Documents that would be cited:
1. Charter of Georgia: 1732
2. Resolutions of the Continental Congress October 19, 1765
3. Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress OCTOBER 14, 1774
4. Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777
5. Letter of John Jay to George Washington July 25, 1787
6. Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788
7. 113 Congressional Record 15,880 (1967) (Brief of the Hon. Pinckney G. McElwee): note 15
8. DoD 5220.22-M, "National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual," 2/28/2006
9. Dunham /Obama divorce decree (missing Barack's Birth Certificate on p.11)

Acts and Codes:
1. US Constitution, Article 2
2. US Constitution Article 5
3. US Constitution, Article 14
4. The Logan Act (est. 1799)
5. Hawaiian Act 96 (effective 1911-1972)
6. The Act of May 24, 1934, ch. 344, 48 Stat. 797
7. 11CFR 9036, Campaign laws
8. 2 USC 437, Campaign laws
9. 2 USC 438, Campaign laws
10. 8 USC 1401(a)(7) {repealed in1972}
11. 8 USC 1401 (a)(1)
12. 8 USC 1481(a)(2)
13. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 @ 301

What is natural born in American Law? In America, I would argue that this is understood as an archaic Christian term. Natural Born is a status term, as far as the US Legal definition is concerned, that is rooted in our nation's founding history and Protestant Christianity.

This nation was founded through Christian pilgrims, Christian migration, and Christian refugees more than on any other in the first century of its founding. Perhaps the first mass migrations beginning after King Charles dissolved Parliament in 1629, sparking an exodus pioneered by the Puritans in 1630 with another 1200 vessels of people and ships that soon followed after.

In 1632, taxes first began to appear in Watertown, and with it, began the rise of American colonists to demand to be represented in all matters, with the implementation starting in 1634. Roger Williams taught that civil government has not the power over man’s conscious duty to G-D or to his relationship with the Deity, or words to this effect. The only difference between Church and State was that worship should not be “forced”…because “forced worship stincks”, he wrote. By 1639, the lands of Connecticut were being settled, and the formation of local government quickly organized the inhabitants of recognized towns into voting 4 town representatives to meet and represent their interests at the general assembly of the Commonwealth, now already having their own constitution.

The representatives were to be those who lived among and would intimately know and represent the interests of the town they were sent from. The representation was to be a natural representation from the view of wilderness survival, which is what Connecticut still essentially was at the time.

Because these were extremely Biblically literate societies being raised up, mixing Christianity in their Government until well after the 1790s, they would have used a Biblical over a Civic or Secular definition of ”natural born” as it has been idiotically agnosticated in our day.

The natural born definition as opposed to unnatural born, is derived from the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. In Genesis 3:15, we find that Christ is born supernaturally, of a virgin…of a woman. A natural born child then receives his origin from the seed of his father.

The theology then points to a coming Christ or Anointed One in the Bible, who is a natural born descendant of the fathers of a particular lineage until the supernatural or unnatural birth through a final daughter whose fathers were of such a lineage. Religiously, then, “natural born” follows the lineage of the fathers, even as Jesus Christ was able to claim to be of the seed of David through his natural born mother, He himself was NOT natural born but supernaturally born.

If Israel had a Constitution that declared only a “natural born” citizen of the tribes of Israel had the right to be President or Prime Minister, Christ would be disqualified by that language from that office. He was born supernaturally by only the mother, and had no citizen father, or the seed of one in Him. Since Christ is theologically the rightful King of Israel, he wouldn’t need to be its President or Prime Minister anyway. So on the America’s time period of 1609 to 1790, Congress issuing Christian Bibles to read and study in school, the Ivy Universities being mostly untainted seminaries and the like, natural born is an easily understood term by those NOT Biblically unknowing or illiterate.

Barack Obama’s father was not a civic leader or representative of Honolulu, Hawaii
or anywhere in the United States or of one of its territories. He did not vote; he did not own land; he did not file papers to in anyway attach himself to the United States or any part of it. Barack Sr. had NO natural attachments to the US or any part of it. Any offspring he had, would never be “natural born” in regard to a US citizenship in 18th Century American or US Constitutional interpretation, regardless of the race or ethnic aspect.

In at least 24 Supreme Court Cases, as cited in the first 29 above, not once is there a natural born US citizen outside the presumption of being birthed from the seed of a US Citizen Father or one who is presumed to be a US Citizen Father. If Barack's Kenyan Father was not known, the issue would rest on his Indonesian status v. US status, because the father would have been presumed as a US Citizen Father. This is not the case. Because Obama's father is known as a foreigner with foreign allegiances his entire life, it is impossible to call Barack Obama a US natural born...he can only be a natural born of the country of his father, which is Kenya. Hence, Barack has illegally obtained the US Presidency and needs to resign immediately, be arrested, tried, and convicted. That conviction sentence in severity or lightness would be up to Justice Roberts and the US Senate, apparently.

By Constitutional Law, we have the right to demand the dismissal of BOTH Barack Obama and Joe Biden, as cited in the opening of this post. It seems that this is our only recourse, pending an emergency election. Because Nancy Pelosi was complicit, she should also face prison time and Felony Charges, including Conspiracy - Fraud - Treason, along with Barack and Joe. It will be a new experience in US Politics, and untrodden ground.

In Romans 13:1-3, we find that the Scriptures allow us to challenge Obama peacefully and legally within the Law of Ordinances, the "diatage", that have been given us. We
therefore, when faced with someone who has atained power by unlawful means - conspiracy - and deception, are called to take legal and peaceful recourse, and are allowed by US Law and (if it please Him) by Almighty G-D to challenge Obama in such a manner. We show respect to the Office and extend the proper courtesy, but we...like Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael in ancient Babylon in Daniel chapter 3... will not bow to Satan's ambassador nor sing his praises, even if it means a violent death for peaceably obeying G-D. That is my input.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Netanyahu's speech at the UN will echo into the future

On September 24, 2009, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to the UN. The illegitimate government of the Arabic terror state of "Palestine", represented only by a liberal fashion model babe note-taker, walked out about two-thirds into the speech. The Iranian delegation was absent. And the only mild applause during the speech came from delegations like Peru and other poorer countries when the Prime Minister spoke of living side by side with a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.

As a born-again Christian, and a fundamentalist conservative one at that, I declare the Biblical mandate that every square inch of Israel belongs to the Jews, both East as well as the West Bank of the Jordan. Southern Lebannon is Jewish homeland. The East Bank of the Jordan Valley into the mountains are Jewish homeland. Jerusalem, all of it, is exclusively Jewish homeland. The Dome of the Rock and all things Muslim needs to be wiped clean from the Temple Mount, and given over to the Jews to rebuild their Temple, and reinstitute their religious service to G-D...the G-D of Israel, who created the Heavens and the Earth and all that therein is...if if they do not readily know Him or His Son, Yeshua / Jesus.

Here is an exerpt of Netanyahu's speech:
"Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland. I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people. The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events. Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth.

Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie? And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie?

One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?
Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame?
Have you no decency? A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

…Ladies and Gentlemen, The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”
I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachability of mankind" is for once proven wrong. I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time."

Netanyahu's speech at the UN will echo into the future. For us, it will be like the words of Neville Chamberlain holding a paper of Peace from Adolf Hitler in 1938, and proclaiming it assures "Peace, in our Times"...or words to this effect.

The UN and the world has no shame. Obama advances the designs of Satan, the great Deceiver, who masks himself in pragmatism when it suits him, in Islam when it suits him, in political hero worship when it suits him. On September 24, 2009, Israel as a nation stands alone. They have the scattered support of grass-roots Christians and Jews, who if they united with zeal and fervor as one, might for a while make a difference.

The political integration of Barack Obama's agenda of hate isn't so superficial as Barack's skin color, or of a skin color like that of Castro and Chavez, or like that of the dead Marx and Lenin, or Mao...the skin color of the man just does NOT matter. It is rather the evil inclination, and the destructive influence that these people wield to do evil against man and the Creator, G-D, that matters.

It is not a man's skin color that pushes Communism and world oppression, and to remove G-D from even a child's conscience that they may grow up to become twice the child of Hell as they. It is the evil inclination.

Politically, as at the Cairo Speech and on September 23, 2009; Barack Obama has signalled to the world in coded language, he wants to be Mohammed's Baraq...he wants to be the jack-ass that will lead the 12th Imam to the heavenly heights. That is, to those versed in the Quran and Islamic verses and teachings: he wants destroy the US and Israel by fire and blood, bring Islam into a status as a one world religion, and be hero worshipped for it. This is the insanity and psychological quirk of Obama's political ambition beyond Communist-Socialism.

We have the state of Israel on the brink of a nuclear war launched by Muslim fanatics. Once they launch on Israel, there can be no stopping there. The entire world must submit to Islam, and 100% Satanic / evil oppression, or undergo what we in the 1980s called a Mutual Assured (atomic) Destruction. Live or die, those who love freedom and the G-D of the Bible, must make their martyr's stand against Communism, against the evil religion of Islam (in peace if at all possible), and stand with G-D and stand with Israel.

Even with this foreknowledge, the Bible prophesies a world-wide blood-bath that will remove over 6/7ths of the world population, by a variety of man-generation and supernatural means.

As I understand it...and this is just simply my view...it seems that according to Bible prophecy, the end-time will go something like this:

A 7 year Peace Treaty involving Israel will be put forth. Perhaps preceding this, a mysterious and unseen disappearance of tens of millions of Christians worldwide will have occurred. The World, fearing an alien / ET invasion, using some sort of pseudo-complicity rationale, all Jews will be hatefully removed from all nations and sent to Israel. A Temple (of appeasement) will be built in Jerusalem by the Jews.

At day 1290-1291 of the Treaty, there will be a visible "rapture" or ascension of Christ believers into the clouds of less than 6,000 feet...and a claim of extra-terrestial alien abductions and UFO invasions will unite the Islamic world and its allies to attempt to annihilate Israel conventionally. The nuclear weapons will likely be exclusively used by Iran and its Russian and German / French allies upon the USA. The reason will be premised on it's UFO, Sci-Fi, and "alien" knowledge displayed in fantasy sci-fi movies; with the rationale that real aliens must be most strongly among them there, and as dangerous as in the movies they were portrayed in.

1335 days after this nuclear holocaust begins (mid-Treaty), Jesus will return from Heaven to Earth, and restore humanity and the earth to the original intent that man proved he was not worthy or intelligent enough to keep.

If these events come off as I have stated, then Netanyahu's words will indeed echo into the future:

"Have you no shame?
Have you no decency? A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Obama removed Missile Shield from Europe for 4500 short-cut flights to Afghanistan, and because he's a Communist, too.

On September 17, 2009, the Obama Administration betrayed a simple 10 anti-missile "missile shield" defense of Poland, on the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland. For 3 days now, as the White House raises a Chinese Flag to cast a shadow over the south White House lawn to commemorate the 60th aniversary of the Chinese Communist Revolution under Mao, the Left Fringe "Mainstream Media" still doesn't have a clue on the Communist tendencies of Barack Obama.

In exchange for some 4500 annual shortcut flights in Russian airspace, on or about July 6, 2009, the Obama delegation agreed to abandon the Polish and Czech Missile Shield for those 4500 shortcut flights through Russian airspace to Afghanistan.

In Reuters, under "Obama agrees arms cuts, Afghan transit with Russia", on "Mon Jul 6, 2009 4:41pm EDT"

Matt Spetalnick and Oleg Shchedrov and others reported from Moscow, Russia that:

"At a cordial, formal news conference in the Kremlin's vast, gilded St Andrew's Hall the two leaders spoke of their resolve to put differences behind them and focus on cooperating to solve ...Russia's opposition to Washington's plans for a missile defense shield in central Europe....

Obama praised Medvedev ...adding:

"We have resolved to reset U.S.-Russia relations so that we can cooperate more effectively."

...Russia will allow 4,500 flights a year carrying U.S. troops and weapons to the war in Afghanistan to cross its vast territory free of charge, a move hailed by the U.S. side as showing Moscow's willingness to help in the war on the Taliban.

Other accords covered the resumption of U.S.-Russia military cooperation, the creation of a new joint government commission, and an exchange of information on prisoners of war, according to texts released by officials.

...Noting that Obama had listened to Russian objections on missile defense, Medvedev used markedly softer language on the issue than Russian officials have done to date.

No one is saying that missile defense is harmful in itself or that it poses a threat to someone," he told the news conference."

When Obama claims to be doing one thing, he is undermining, or lying, or betraying America or its allies with the other.

The date of September 17 to remove a Missile Shield -- even if it were only simply one DOD truck team with 10 anti-missile missiles -- will be as much an act or pattern of betrayal as raising the Chinese flag is on September 20 at the White House. This event has been known some two months in advance also, and was designed to be come off at about the same time.

The China daily url that was removed after exposure: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-07/13/content_8422505.htm in fact, all 07/13 mention of the 09/20 ceremony was purged within last week to 10 days or so.


See especially WorldNetDaily @ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108907

Do we have a Manchurian Sponsored Candidate, as well as a Shia Muslim, in the White House?

The Obama Administration has pledged to celebrate Communist Mao Tse-Tung's 60 years of Chinese Communism, with 1,000 guests to party on the White House South Lawn.

Is there a DNC infiltration pattern that we should have been following?

Chinese money in the hundreds of thousands was paid in cash manipulating and assisting Al Gore, (a Shinto Temple in CA, if I remember was one occasion) but that was backed by a two decade relationship between Al Gore’s family ties and China. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20775

4 years later, Chinese money may have been passed manipulating in the (pro-Marxist) John Kerry 2004 Presidential campaign and back-trailed to the stop-gap cover as what was then thought as merely being Korean bribes... http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=10766

but maybe they were "North Korean". That is, if we were to accept the insider words of Weather Underground Terrorist Bill Ayers wife, Bernardine Dohrn, friend to Barack Obama, whom, while active with the Weather Underground, she imparted these anti-American loyalty principles:

"We support the national liberation struggles of the Vietnamese, the American Blacks and all other colonials. We support all who take up [the] gun against U.S. imperialism. We support the governments of China, Albania, North Viet Nam and North Korea."
(see Document 4 - http://martinrealm.org/documents/radical/sixties1.html )

Bill Ayers and Jeff Jones, co-founders of the Weather Underground (US home grown terrorists), and friends to Barack, wrote this in the 1960s, and it describes the current Communist-Socialist power system disguised as Social Democrats, Progressives, and Liberal Democrats:

You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows"
Revolutionary Youth Movement, 1969

"...So the very first question people in this country must ask in considering the question of revolution is where they stand in relation to the United States as an oppressor nation, and where they stand in relation to the masses of people throughout the world whom U.S. imperialism is oppressing.

The primary task of revolutionary struggle is to solve this principal contradiction on the side of the people of the world. It is the oppressed peoples of the world who have created the wealth of this empire and it is to them that it belongs… The goals is the destruction of U.S. imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism.
... We have pointed to the vanguard nature of the black struggle in this country as part of the international struggle against American imperialism, and the impossibility of anything but an international strategy for winning…

This will require a cadre organization, effective secrecy, self-reliance among the cadres, and an integrated relationship with the active mass-based [read community organized] movement. To win a war with an enemy as highly organized and centralized as the imperialists will require a [clandestine] organization of revolutionaries, having also a unified "general staff"; that is, combined at some point with discipline under one centralized leadership. Because war is political, political tasks -- the international communist revolution -- must guide it….”
(see Document 5 - http://martinrealm.org/documents/radical/sixties1.html )

We now can legitimately suspect that some of the many unaccounted for tens of millions in Obama's 2008 campaign were perhaps Chinese (and Saudi Arabian as well, via Obama's infamous low bow debacle at the G-20).

Obama and his Campaign refused to account for the monies, and to this day has had NO TRANSPARENCY on the sources of tens of millions, listed as 30 million to Lyle J. Rapacki’s March 2009 White Paper charge of potentially 300 million, of what clearly should be labeled as “bribes”.



So where is Obama's transparency? We should make him repetitiously read and hear and eat his words. At Obama's National Archives Speech in May 2009, he demands 4 times that the Congress, the Courts, and "we the people" watch over him and hold him and His Administration accountable:


The quotes on C-Span are found at:

1) "I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.” @ 37:10-37:23 on the C-Span video link

2) “…whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions - by Congress or by the courts.” @37:54-38:07

3) “…in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers - especially when it comes to sensitive information.” @38:28 – 38:39

4) “I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why." @ 40:44-41:01

A US "natural born" citizen cannot be a US "natural born citizen" without being of the seed of the US Citizen father, as well as a birth on US Soil or in a recognized US sovereign territory. Obama may be labeled as a 14th Amendment citizen by members of Congress, by an anchor birth through his underage mother (by 1961 US Law); but he is not a "natural born" US Citizen because his father NEVER became a US Citizen. Hence, he is unfit for office and violates Constitutional Artcle 2.1.5., by NOT being a US "natural born" citizen. It is that simple.

Obama, according to Kenya's own embassy in Brussels, was born as what Vattel's Law of Nations would have called a natural born citizen of Kenya, via his father,


and as stated through Kenya's Constitution Section 95(1) and the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 2 (1)(a).


We know and verify this by the expert testimony of two perfectly competent New Jersey lawyers who are able to now show that Obama also may presently be a British Commonwealth citizen.



And counting the Indonesian adoption, where he was legally known as Barry Soetoro, Obama has had now at least 4 allegiances legally tied to him at some point in his life...Kenya and Britain via his natural born status following his biological father, a US anchor birth through his mother, and Indonesia by legal adoption through his step-father serving in the Indonesian Army...certainly not a Constitutional Article 2.1.5 "natural born" qualification.

Obama's loyalties do not seem to have America's best interests at heart, but beat to a Communist agenda. Obama's philosophy seems to merge Maoist as well as Marxist-Leninist philosophies. To verify this, one need only check out Mao's quotes:


...one need only check Karl Marx's own witings, such as his critique of the Gotha Programme in 1875: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

...one need only check out the Communist-Socialist Contract that Obama signed with the Democratic Socialist of America as to advocate in any political office he seeks or will hold: http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html

...and how the Communist newspapers themselves brag that Barack is their "mole": http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/12302/1/405

Obama is the best hope of the enemies of the US to win the "not yet forsaken empowered 60s and 70s Communist cadres Cold War" and those allies in Shia and Sunni Islam, seeking the destruction of the United States. If Obama smiles...especially then, put your guard up, and don't trust him.

O villain, villain, smiling, damn├Ęd villain!
My tables—meet it is I set it down
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain...!
Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 5

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Poetry by Brianroy: "Angel Cloud"

This poem is written by me, and inspired (in part) by the reading of a passage from Josephus:

“I Suppose the account… would seem a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities.” Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 6.6.3.
(listing supernatural signs before the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem)

ANGEL CLOUD by Brianroy

Have you seen an angel cloud? In times of Peace, they are small and white or small and gray.

The angels are dressed in flowing garb, oft with what seems to be reed pen and open papyrus scrolls;
Faces of serious consternation and focus, in distant stares, as if looking specifically off into the horizon far, far away.

Some run, and blur, and skip time and space;
From little angel cloud to angel cloud they jump, as if in a race.

You see them pick up speed, on one cloud, and on the other cloud stop;
As if entering into a transport beam or mini-cosmic worm-hole, with a just jump or a hop.

Have you seen an angel cloud? Hovering low to the earth.

They are certainly in the low thousands of feet up, sometimes only hundreds from the ground.

Composed of light or dense cloud mist, and if you look elsewhere for but a single second,
It seems they notice, because they no longer are around.

They are noticed best in open blue skies of a late morning and early afternoon day;
So that when you know that you spotted one, you don’t want to look away.

Have you seen an angel cloud, and wonder if those thereon record your every word?

As if a special time for them to relay your prayer to G-D in Heaven,
And make your prayer especially be heard?

If but for now, we see the angels garbed and robed in clothes of Peace;
There is yet hope from national Judgment and War.

But there are some storm angels who as if cherubim, they fly;
They lead dark clouds of strong and wind and rain;
They lead them in gusts that ahead of the storms, they go before.

These are sensitive to the thoughts of men who G-D allows to momentarily see them.

Do not dare to yourself as a champion to defend your mortal nation in sin.

Turn ye your back, and without the slightest hesitation, repent to G-D when they turn upon you;
Lest they strike you down, and in this Land of the Living you meet your end.

Have you seen an angel cloud? Are they yet garbed for war?

Pass ye on the message for man to receive the Gospel of Jesus Christ and repent,
That from the Day of G-D’s coming Judgment and Wrath upon the ungodly,
And into a place of Heavenly safety, you might be sent.

Have you seen an angel cloud? You will know when you do.
A moment it is clearly there, and then it is completely gone.

Know then, while you were watching the angels,
They were also watching you.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Redating the New Testament (Revised), Part 4

In ca. 190 A.D., Clement from Alexandria, Egypt, supplements (Irenaeus) writing:
“The Gospels containing the genealogies were written first {32} …
[Then] as Peter had preached the Word at ROME publicly,
by the Spirit declaring the Gospel, many who were present
requested that Mark …should write them out.
And having composed the Gospel,
he gave it to those who had requested it…
Last of all, John…being persuaded by his friends, but inspired
by the SPIRIT, composed a Spiritual Gospel.”

So what can we learn in these quotes from Irenaeus and Clement?

1) That Matthew was the 2nd written Gospel, and that by inference, Luke was written prior to Peter and Paul being in Rome. {34}

2) Mark’s Gospel is actually the 3rd Gospel, not sourcing from either Luke or Matthew, but from Peter himself (who was the sole source of Mark’s material): all this occurring in ROME. Twice, Mark is listed as the next to last Gospel, and twice John’s is listed as the last Gospel to be written.

3) John’s Gospel is written AFTER the deaths of Peter and Paul.

4) The letter of Hebrews is clearly distinguished as “Paul’s Gospel”, penned by his student Luke.

This book, now known as Hebrews, which bears the message to Ephesus from Luke, “the brother Timothy [might we add, your (at one time) bishop] is set at Liberty” (Hebrews 13:23), is understood in the light that Mark indeed, did hand to John, in Ephesus of Asia, in writing, the Sermons of Peter and the Gospel of Paul. We receive further affirmation that Luke penned it, and was called as “Luke’s Digest, even though men [such as Irenaeus] usually ascribe it to Paul” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.5).

A Limit set by the death of Mark in 62 A.D.

"Mark,” says Eusebius "dies in the 8th year of Nero’s reign, in Alexandria of Egypt." {35}

This, we would reckon as A.D. 61-62. In the First Century, the optimum travel time between Alexandria and Rome was a minimum of 12 days. However, if Mark ran a circuit tour of visiting various Churches, say Corinth and Philippi and Ephesus and Antioch and Caesarea and Jerusalem, for example, then his travel would have taken him months before he would have reached Egypt.

This pushes us back a year to 60-61. Then, it would have taken time for a non-Apostle like Mark to establish the Church at Alexandria, especially among 400,000 Jews who lived there, and to ensure its foundation. That Church Organization still exists from Antiquity to this Day, being only younger than the Roman Church by what is counted on one hand for a difference of years. And in order to establish and build such a Church, Mark alone would then need twice the time it took Peter and Paul to establish Corinth or Rome together. This gives us an additional subtraction of 3-4 years from the death and martyrdom of Mark, pushing us back to Mark leaving Rome somewhere around 57-58 A.D.

Church Tradition dating to the Third Century, in Rome, strongly adheres to the day of Peter and Paul's martyrdom as being on June 29 of an unknown year. {36}

The rolls of the bishops would have still been present in Rome in that period, and therefore, the veracity of the day and month -- being left unchallenged, is probably an attempt at authentication by its citation. Therefore, we should accept the date of June 29 of 57 or 58 A.D. {37}

Other Considerations: Separating History from Myth-making

Now, in the mid-Second Century, someone wrote in the Anti-Macionite prologues that: “Mark…after Peter’s death, wrote down (his) Gospel in the region of Italy.” In other words, he wrote down perhaps more copies of the original, but NOT in ROME. This answers the dual testimony of Mark's copying down his Gospel both before and after the death of Peter in ROME. Then comes the question, “Why did Mark feel compelled to leave ROME to either make more copies of, or to finalize, his Gospel?”
Ancient Roman historians warn of an out of control Nero, with his raging hormones, whom in the 50s and 60s A.D. repetitively demonstrated an inability to sanely and rationally to rule as Caesar. {38}
Tiberius moved to Caprae (Capri) in circa 26-27 A.D. to exercise total dominion and to shield his perversity, but Nero remained in Rome. Nero was much the more insulated by the Praetorian Guard than perhaps any Caesar before him, and as a reckless youth, he gradually became increasingly sociopathic. However, he soon found that much like Tiberius (who had to beg for the Senate to send Laodicea earthquake relief ca. 17 or 23 A.D) {39}, he, Nero, (but for the Senate) held near absolute power in only one province, wherever Caesar resided. And for Nero, that province was ROME. Not in Asia, where the Apostle John resided. Not in Gaul. Not in Briton. Just in ROME. Nero’s oppression and vices were at times so horrible, that even as one passed from inside ROME to outside the city, (unless you ran into the Camp of the Roman Legion), it probably felt as if you were being liberated.

For, as Tertullian writes,
“…Nero…assailed with the Imperial Sword – the Christian Sect – making progress especially then at ROME.” {40}

So, unless Nero traveled somewhere else -- such as Corinth, --his power and focus was not “near-absolute” anywhere where he was not. In jurisprudence, Nero specifically saw cases that were under his “sphere” only in the years of 55 (for 2 months), then in 57 (for 6 months), then in 58 (for 4 months), and lastly in A.D. 60 (for 6 months). {41}

Therefore, Paul could only have been executed in one of two years, A.D. 57 or 58. Jerome, who had access to the most ancient manuscript copies of the Church at the time, in A.D. 392, agrees and writes in “On Illustrious Men” in chapters 1, 5, and 9:

55 A.D. "…In the 25th year after our LORD’s Passion, {42}

55-56 A.D. that is the 2nd year of Nero, {43}
at the time Festus procurator of Judea, {44} succeeded Felix,
he [Paul] was sent bound to Rome, {45}

57-58 A.D.: and remaining for 2 years in Free Custody, [Acts 28:30]
disputed daily with the Jews concerning the Advent of Christ.”

Propaganda: Paul was dismissed by Nero that the Gospel of Christ
might be preached also in the West.

67 A.D.: …He, then, in the 14th year of Nero,
same day: on the same day with Peter, was beheaded in ROME
for Christ’s sake, and was buried in the Ostian Way

57 A.D.: the 27th year after the LORD’s Passion.” {46}

Jerome, earlier in his opening in chapter 1 of "On Illustrious Men,” cites a beginning of 42 A.D. for Peter’s reign, and an ending of 67 A.D. Obviously, this is impossible if he and Paul are co-founding Corinth, or if Peter is to also visit Asia’s Churches. {47} However, the specific analysis I want you to see is this: where Jerome evokes “the LORD’s Passion”, (which is on a March 23 according to Lactantius’ Letter to Donatus, .2), Jerome holds vehemently to a dating of 55-57 A.D. for the presence of Peter and Paul in ROME!

Also of note, in Chapter 9 of “On Illustrious Men”, Jerome also dates John’s death as “68 years after our LORD’s Passion.” Hence dating both John the Apostle’s death in 98 A.D. and the Passion as 68 years plus, before Trajan became Caesar in Rome after that transition period of Nerva (who followed Domitian).

A possible answer to Jerome's 2nd year of Claudius for Peter's arrival in ROME

Emperor Nero was also named “Claudius” after that his uncle had adopted him as his son, as stated earlier, so that his name was Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus.

So if Peter came in the 2nd year of the reign of this Nero Claudius, that is following June 1, 55 A.D., (when his second year would start, even after only a partial first), it would square with the historical record we have just examined throughout.

But let me clarify this one point: I hold Peter to arriving in Rome about a month following Paul, in the second year of Nero Claudius, but not Simon the Samaritan.

I believe the literary historical record is rigid on these two points:

1) Simon the Samaritan came to Rome in the second half of Claudius Caesar’s reign, between 48-53 A.D., and
2) Simon Peter, also called Cephas, arrived around June (or not much later) of 55 A.D.

It is extremely important that we can distinguish these two facts of the historical records which were in existence, but apparently misconstrued in later times because much of the information was rarely readily at one’s fingertips, due to the times in which they lived and the persecutions which they suffered.

“Simon Peter…in the 2nd year of the reign of [Nero] Claudius, pushed on to Rome, to overthrow Simon Magus.” says Jerome.

Again, according to the statement by Jerome, Peter came to Rome for what purpose? Not to head the Churches of Christianity...but to fulfill a personal mission...to take on Simon Magus.

Clearly, Jerome identifies, along with other evidence as we have seen, that Christ was crucified in A.D. 30. Now, such is the character of Jerome: when evoking the Passion, he refuses to lie, fearing loss of his eternal soul. Others after him also, refuse to change the utterance of Jerome where the Passion of Jesus is evoked. This speaks volumes, and tells us, that even as late as 392, there was a clear knowledge or information still available, that specifically dated the persecutions and deaths of the Apostles Peter and Paul as being quite early in Nero’s reign.

To Jerome, when the name of G-D was evoked in such a way as to evoke “the efficaciously atoning Passion”, not even the Pope (or should we say, Bishop of ROME) could persuade him to "fudge" Church History. Claudius Nero becomes Claudius, except where the “Passion” of the LORD is evoked: then the truth is told! Perhaps in A.D. 392, there was a rivalry with the Church in Alexandria, and therefore a need for a 25 year leadership by Peter to counteract the Church started by a de facto successor of Peter, Mark. Who knows?

So, Jerome now identifies A.D. 57 for us. And the point of this, as at the beginning, that in dating John’s Revelation, even from the crucifixion do we see historical testimony from out of the ancient past. This reinforces that which Caius tells us specifically, how that Paul approved the Apocalypse before he died, and confined the number of his letters to his Churches, based solely on the number of Churches written to in the Apocalypse. Therefore, we are limited to a book of Revelation that was written only within Paul’s lifetime and after the founding of the Churches of Asia by Paul and other apostles of Jesus Christ.


32 Luke’s was completed in Corinth of Achaia in 50-51 A.D., approximately 5 years before Matthew’s in Jerusalem.

33 Eusebius, History of the Church 6.14 – citing Clement of Alexandria

34 This can be further supported by Jerome. In 398 A.D., in his preface to Commentary on Matthew, Jerome tells us “Luke the physician…composed his book in Achaia and Boeotia.” That is: Corinth of Achaia, and near Athens in Boeotia. Prior to going to Athens in Acts 17:16, Luke goes to Berea in Acts 17:10. I believe that he is so impacted, as his statement in Acts 17:11-12 tells us, that he meets Theophilus in this city of Berea, and by the time Luke reaches Athens in Acts 17:16, it appears that Luke may have begun to piece together his rough draft Gospel outline (in part) from the parchments and scrolls of Paul (cf. 2 Timothy 4:13). These are they, which probably contain eyewitness testimonies and teachings as early as Acts 13:1 from Antioch. Luke then would then have conducted various apostolic interviews in Corinth, confirming, adding, and editing source material, before finally completing his Gospel in either A.D. 50 or by the Spring of 51 A.D.

35 Eusebius H.O.C., 2.24. In 2.16, Eusebius lists Mark as being the “first” who was sent to Alexandria, and the “first” to establish churches in that particular Egyptian city.

36 Roberts, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 8. p. 485, “Acts of the Apostles.” Although the story appears to be just that, there is little or no reason to doubt that such an odd date as June 29 would have been made up, but rather the author would have wanted to close on one well known fact as if to justify the reason for observance of the date that was being observed already. This date of June 29 falls very closely with Paul’s 2 whole years in his own hired house (Acts 28:30). Had he arrived in May of 55, followed by 2 whole years, and then receiving “a 30 day reprieve for the condemned” dating from Augustus (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Augustus .32) or the later Senatorial reprieve of 10 days for the condemned issued in A.D. 21 (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius .75). And as Eusebius cites in H.O.C. 5.21, that once any man is brought to trial before Caesar and the Senate, …”once led to trial, and that would by no means CHANGE their purpose, should not be dismissed.”

One example that I have not seen anyone yet use in Roman history to date the trials of Peter and Paul, is that we do know with fair certainty, before even beginning to research the date of Peter and Paul's trials in Rome, that Peter and Paul were NOT executed in either November or December of any year, as the Court Calendars were dark in those months in Rome since the time of Augustus (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Augustus, .32). Further, they would not have been executed in A.D. 56, because in that year, Seneca -- not Nero -- was Consul in ROME (Grant, Michael The Twelve Caesars, N.Y.: Barnes & Noble, © 1975, 1996 reprint, p.155).

Suetonius tells us that Nero held 4 consulships, which limits his interactions with the Apostles to these times:
1) Two months (in A.D. 55)
2) Six months (in A.D. 57)
3) Four months (in A.D. 58)
4) Six months (in A.D. 60) (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, 6.14)

37 Re: Bruce, F.F. “The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, © 1943, 14th Edition 1980, p.83 Now, if F.F. Bruce’s assessment is correct, that the Ephesian riot took place in 54 A.D., the entire dating of the N.T. as I lay out must be bumped up a year. This could account for Paul’s expectancy of death in and desertion at 2 Timothy 4:16; but this could just as easily be explained as Paul simply referring to Jerusalem and his trial before Festus and Felix as the context of what he tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:16.

38 e.g., Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Nero, .20 - .29

39 Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius, .8 the earthquake relief / petition of funds was also made in behalf of Thyatira, and Chios also. Some historians have reckoned this earthquake at 17 A.D., while other opinions appear to be 23 A.D.

40 Tertullian, Apology, .5

41 Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Nero, .14

42 Lactanius, "On the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died", .2, tells us that Jesus was crucified on March 23, "the tenth of the Kalends of April". He also goes on to explain that only "25 years" lapsed, "until the beginning of the reign of Nero", before Peter and Paul came to ROME.

43 Claudius died on October 13, 54 A.D. (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius, .45) This is perfectly in line with the account given by Epiphanius, as stated earlier, in which John was both exiled to Patmos, and returned WHILE Claudius was emperor.
Nero was installed almost as soon as the news of Claudius’ October death was made public (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Nero,.8. Roman Emperors could appear to reckon their reign, like governors, from June 1 to May 31. Hence Nero’s 1st year could be reckoned in one of TWO ways: the actual calendar year of 365 days from when he took office in mid-October 54 A.D (Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius, .45; Nero .8; or by reckoning the time up to June 1, followed by the 365 days thereafter.

44 Josephus, 20.8.9. If Nero sent Festus straightway with a Legion in November 54, Paul would then have been sent from Jerusalem and on his way to ROME no later than January of 55 A.D., about one to two months prior to the death of Festus, who used his extra Legion to wage a swift winter campaign in the Israeli countryside. This still falls well within the timeline needed for a 53 A.D. Revelation authorship, and a death of Peter and Paul in Rome in A.D. 57.

45 More correctly, Paul arrived in Rome in 55 A.D. Luke records his stay as 2 whole years in a rented house, in which Paul awaited to stand before Caesar. Since Paul died on June 29 of 57 A.D., and if we subtract a 30 day imprisonment in bonds from June 29 in which he and Peter had time to change their minds toward the deities of Rome -- we reach an arrival date for Paul in Rome in the latter part of May 55 A.D. By February or early March of 55, Festus was dead. The martyrdom of James, the bishop of the Christians in Jerusalem, occurs on Passover in A.D. 55 just weeks after the death of Festus. (Re: Hegisippus’ account in Eusebius, H.O.C. 2.23; and Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.1.). Paul was on an island for about 3 months, subtracting to April, then March , then February. Then, allotting travel by ship and by pedestrian means, we are looking at a date no later than the first week of February, probably mid-late January 55 A.D. for Paul’s shipwreck experience.

46 Acts 28:30. The emphasis is that Paul stayed in his own rented house. Like Ignatius, in later times, he would have been chained to a special guard, and allowed to move about the city of ROME on rare occasions from time to time. The important thing to remember is that Paul’s house became an instant Church, in which others congregated and or met with him (Acts 28:17 ff.).

47 Jerome, “On Illustrious Men”, .545 Eusebius, H.O.C. 2.25, cites Dionysius of Corinth writing Soter of Rome, “…Peter, and Paul both sowed in Romans and Corinthians alike. For both of them sowed in our Corinth and taught us jointly: in Italy too, they taught jointly in the same city, and were martyred at the same time.” Cf.: I Corinthians 1:12, and I Peter 1:1.
In 44 B.C., Corinth was rebuilt into a “New Corinth”, a forced retirement settlement of former Legionnaires, Knights (L. “equestor ordo” -those of an upper social class who were senatorial financiers and contacts), and freedmen. There was an intense connection between Corinth and Rome when Peter and Paul arrived and stayed just 93-94 years later. It also tells us why that after the evangelism of Asia, funded by the Corinthians, the next effort was in Rome. Asia was home to the temples of Emperor Worship. Once the Gospel was clearly victorious in Asia, the Corinthian sponsors of the missionary efforts felt confident of their ambitions toward converting the people of Rome also. The noble Erastus was most likely of the “equestor ordo”, a Roman Knight, and financial sponsor of the Senator of Achaia as well as that of the Christian Churches funded by Peter and Paul in that region. The success of the evangelism of Asia probably relied quite heavily on Erastus’ position of influence in the Empire at the time, and an unspoken relationship with those around Emperor Claudius.

Redating the New Testament (Revised), part 3

History from Nicene Era Thyatira tells of a 53-54 A.D. Apocalypse

The post-Nicene 4th century apologist, Epiphanius (ca. 310-402 A.D.), in Against Heresies / Panarion, declares that John wrote his Apocalypse during the (end of the) reign of Claudius Caesar. The following is my reconstruction of the passages, in order to encapsulate what is being declared.

“Even the people of Thyatira testify this is to be true … [that]… (The Holy Spirit) did foretell (the Apocalypse) through the mouth of John (the Apostle)… who indeed did prophesy… during the reign of Claudius Caesar…when he was upon the isle of Patmos.” Epiphanius, Against Heresies, 4.33.8

“…after his (John’s) return from Patmos, under Claudius Caesar…the Holy Spirit [not much later] compelled John to publish forth his Gospel…several years into his residing in [Ephesus of] Asia.” Epiphanius, Against Heresies, 4.12.1

Although this tradition was given through Thyatira of Asia to Epiphanius in the post-Nicene era; it was something that could be verified in the manuscripts of more than one Presbyter of Thyatira’s possession at that time. Epiphanius also tells us in these same two passages (excised here for clarity), that John died above the age of 90. If John was recruited by Jesus in late 26 A.D., and died in ca. 96-98 A.D.; then, according to recruitment requirements among Torah lawyers, John would have had to have been a minimum of 25 years of age for religious service under his Semikah rabbi.

That is, John the Apostle's birth can now be calculated to the first 7 months of the Julian year of 1 A .D. or within two years before that date. Hence, a death above 90, but not yet 100, and a fulfilling of what Epiphanius tells us, is that John was 95-97 at the time of his death. Not, as some translators of Epiphanius have misrepresented in translating Epiphanius’ passage here, that John was above 90 when first coming to or from Patmos, or above 90 in the reign of Claudius Caesar (41-54 A.D.).

Clement of Alexandria, in saving the historically based tale of “A Rich Man who finds Salvation”, appears to support an early dating of the Apocalypse, saying:

“…This is not a myth, but a Word [logos], handed down and
committed carefully to memory, regarding the Apostle John.
When the tyrant died,

[tou turannou teleuthesantos – “the tyrant came to a lesser End” …perhaps implying natural causes like a heart attack in his sleep]

he [John] returned from the island of Patmos to Ephesus,
and (then) being invited, went away to the neighboring
Districts of the nations:
appointing bishops here, setting Churches in order there,
and ordaining such as were (made known to him) by the Spirit.”

{Clement of Alexandria, “Who is the Rich Man who shall find Salvation?”, .42)

So how old and lacking of vitality is John, when he indeed returned to Asia? At the first entering of Asia from his banishment by the tyrant (which is lingo for Procurator), John does not go about like an old man at the end of his life. John vigorously runs a circuit tour, and visits and reorganizes and appoints beyond Asia, like a ‘man on a mission’, ‘full speed ahead’.

The word “tyrant” speaks clearly that John’s persecutor was a local Procurator, and NOT a distant Caesar who would have banished to Pontia, off the Italian Coast.
In Suetonius, 12 Caesars, Tiberius, .54 and Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.18; we see that the isle of Pontia, off the Italian Coast, was in use from at least the 20s to the 90s A.D. as an isle of banishment. Caesar would not have allotted John to some obscure island, living almost comfortably in a fishing village, (which is what Patmos was and is still today), somewhere in the Aegean. So, we ask, is there more to point to a local Provincial Official as tyrant, and a local Ephesian or Asian persecution than that of an Emperor?

In the example of the grandsons of Judas, half-brother of Messiah, these were brought to ROME by the EVOCATUS in Domitian’s reign, but then were despised by the Emperor as “ignorant” and set free. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.20)

We do not have John preserved in any Early Church historical tradition as being known to have come to Rome and be tried before Caesar as were the grandsons of Judas. Since John was eminently more important in status to the Early Church, and one of Christ’s three closest disciples, had the event occurred, it WOULD have been clearly and historically referenced in the Patristic record. Instead, Tertullian tells us that before being banished from Asia,
“…The Apostle John [in Ephesus] was first plunged, unhurt,
into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island exile.”
(Tertullian, On Prescription against the Heretics, .36)

and thereby indicates, along with the abovementioned quote of Clement of Alexandria, the extreme likelihood of this specific persecution as being the action taken by a local or provincial ruler.

A matter of history being taken literally

The word “history” comes from the Greek “historia” -- which means, “To investigate” and “to diligently seek out.” Simple referencing to commentaries, for example, is not a reasonable attempt to research. The failure to “thoroughly search out” would not have preserved us a Herodotus from Antiquity. Like with the students and teachers of the Talmud, those who accept commentaries appear to -- more often than not -- put the opinions of men ABOVE the Words of GOD. That is the danger we must avoid. We are all accountable to attempt the greatest accuracy on important issues, and this requires both time and laborious effort. Time and effort, which is often relegated to students and others, with the “scholar” behaving more like an editor than a researcher on his own merits.

Most scholars and laity are deficient in the proper and full reading of Irenaeus. They oft cite him as the authority for dating John's Apocalypse, and then ignore his other writings. Why? Perhaps they are too busy copying the endnotes of their colleagues...perhaps they are too busy...perhaps philosophic arguments are simple a dinner exercise, and academic truths are as intangible as a good dinner conversation.

Irenaeus is a third generation witness from Jesus, and a second generation witness from John the Apostle. When discussing Church history in these first two centuries or the first 150 years of development, it is ludicrous to leave Irenaeus out.

Irenaeus clearly states that at all points of the Empire in 178-181 A.D., Christianity clearly was an organized, developed, and communicating religious system. Germany communicates with Egypt and Spain; the Eastern provinces communicate with Libya and Italy. Gaul communicates with Greece and Asia...and all the Christians provinces communicate one with another, and testify faithfully that history - tradition - faith that has been passed down to them from the Apostles.

And what NT documents are communicated them? If we judge from Irenaeus own quotations in Against Heresies, we at least have the entire Roman Empire saturated with:
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians,
Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians,
I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians,
I Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus,
Hebrews, James, I Peter, 2 Peter,
I John, II John, Jude, and Revelation.

In the dating of Revelation to 95 A.D., using Irenaeus as the primary source, name one commentary which cites all three of Irenaeus’ relevant quotes concerning the dating of John's Revelation to justify its date. Do they even at least expose any serious reader to a possibility of an early New Testament completely written before A.D. 70?

The noted author, and Christian Lecturer-Evangelist, Josh McDowell, in “Evidence That Demands A Verdict” and “He Walked Among Us” (San Bernardino: Here’s Life Publishers © 1972, 1988, respectively) points even the casual lay person to 3 points of interest in considering the N.T. Dating.

1) Over 40 years ago, William Foxwell Albright dared to tell the world, in 1963, that all the books of the New Testament were written no later than the 80’s A.D. Albright declared that every N.T. book was written by a baptized Jew in the First Century A.D. {18} “Every N.T. book”, means even the Apocalypse of John as being pre-90 A.D.

2) 13 years later, a scholar from Cambridge, John A.T. Robinson, released his work showing the New Testament was written entirely prior to 70 A.D. {19}

3) This same N.T. Scholar, Robinson, was interviewed by Time Magazine the following year, where he reiterated his claim, and challenged the academic world to prove him wrong. {20}

Most Academic scholars will lazily use only one quote from Irenaeus to “prove” 95 A.D. as an earliest possible date for Revelation. Therefore, I will use this same author and other early witnesses to show that they easily fail to invest a proper amount of time and effort on even just this one particular and most important topic -- in the dating of the New Testament.

Because the early dating of the New Testament clearly points to the power and effect of the Cross, and demonstrates down through the ages the veracity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Caius speaks from the past

Caius was a contemporary to Irenaeus, who along with Hippolytus, and others, probably was exposed to -- and learned directly from -- Irenaeus.{21} Caius, a ca. 190 A.D. Church Leader in Rome, {22} was what we consider a Third generation hearsay witness. John transmitted his teaching to Polycarp, who taught Irenaeus, who taught Caius. {23}

What is Caius’s historical or chain-of-custody witness? That Paul wrote to only 7 Churches out of respect and acceptance of Revelation. That is, Revelation was written before the deaths of Peter and Paul!

“…The blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than 7 Churches by name, in this order:
1) to the Corinthians, 2) to the Ephesians, 3) to the Philippians,
4) to the Colossians, 5) to the Galatians, 6) to the Thessalonians,
7) to the Romans.
Moreover, though he writes twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for
their Correction, it is yet shown – that is, by this Sevenfold Writing -- that there is One Church spread abroad through the whole world.
” {24}

Now, while we can debate the order which Caius presents {25} – what is irrefutable is the repetitive declaration that John’s book of Revelation was the reason why Paul limited himself to only 7 Churches, both having read and having approved the Apocalypse prior to his own death in Rome.

The question then becomes, if we accept the witness that Revelation was written PRIOR to the death of Paul, could we accurately pinpoint the year Paul died as an early year?

The academic culture believes we need a post 85 A.D. Revelation, because Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in A.D. 60. They reason that until its full restoration in A.D. 85, Revelation could not have been written. That is, if Revelation was written, it was penned before A.D. 60, {26} or after A.D. 85; with no room in between. So then, what is the historical witness?

Testimony from Irenaeus
In ca. 181 A.D., Irenaeus, a second-generation hearsay witness from John, writes:

“We have learned from none others than from those whom the GOSPEL –
the Plan of our Salvation -- has come down to us, which they at one time,
did proclaim in public; and at a later period, by the will of GOD,
handed down to us, in the Scriptures – to be the ground and pillar of our
Faith. Matthew indeed issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their Own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching in
ROME, {27} and laying the FOUNDATIONS of the CHURCH. {28}

After their departure, {29} Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us {30} in writing, what had been preached by Peter - – and Luke as well, that companion of Paul,
Who had recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. {31}

Afterwards, John, the Disciple of the LORD – who also leaned upon His breast, -- did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus of Asia.”
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1.)

How soon did John arrive in Ephesus? Was it before or after Paul’s death? In Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3., we read:
“Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles”

Latin: Sed et quae Ephesi ecclesia a Paulo quidem fundata Johanne autem permanente apud eos usque ad Trajani tempora testis est verus Apostobrum traditionis.

Loosely translated and reiterated by me, for more impact:
“Indeed, what is more, those Ephesus called out ones --
of Paul, certainly founded --
John however /moreover permanently in the presence / house of
advanced all the way up to the times of Trajan
as one who gives credible evidence as a true witness,
testifying of the true Apostolic Tradition.”

The purpose of the loose translation with reiteration is to see where the drive of the testimony is. Irenaeus in the Ante-Nicene Father translation and in the Latin, is claiming veracity and soundness based on a continued, unbroken, permanent presence of John...pushing an island exile back to a pre-Neroian era, and to a matter of months of separation between Paul and the Church of Ephesus. Certainly less than one year.

Further, we find from Irenaeus that he also had access to and learned from other unnamed elders and presbyters (beside Polycarp) who had conversed with John for many years. In Against Heresies 5.30.3., (e.g, compare http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/images/ah5p052.jpg )

"...it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

Reading from the Greek text "Oude gar" - "Not for", we see that there is a continuum of the expressing John's presence to be asked about the Revelation "alla schedon epi tas hameteras geneus" / "up alongside against but opposite to, almost nearly upon our own daylight / time of life".

The which is reiterated and qualified as until "pros to telei tas Domitianou archas" / "up alongside the end/completion of Domitian's reign."

This is interpretation is verified by looking at context in the preceding sentence's "di ekeinou an errathe tou kai tan Apolkaluphin eorakotos," which continues into the oft misquoted Irenaeus, to force-fit a late date to Revelation. We are clearly talking about "that one there" or a "he"...not an "it". The Revelation wasn't some cloud or floating-floaty that haunted Patmos...it was a proclamation by he who was at Ephesus until his spirit was no more in his head, as it were -- cf. Gen. 2:7 -- (or body).

Notice the text in the Greek directs us to view "the announcement" in regards one who was he who "announced" the Apocalyptic Vision in the sense of being one who was "stimulated into action to proclaim forth or feel the need to tell the truth."

For John, the Apocalypse wasn't simply a vision; it was as if part of the Gospel proclamation and ministry of testifying of and about Jesus Christ.

If this is indeed the intent of the wording, then, according to the Asiatic view, we must accept that the Asiatic elders who knew and succeeded John felt that Revelation was part of the package that included the later Gospel of John (written post Peter and Paul's departure from this life day: June 29, 57 A.D.).

We, like our predecessors, may take such a view to task (at the first)...but the concept does deserve some consideration. It may also tie in to a later doctrinal conflict between Asia and Rome less than 100 years after John's demise.

It appears that we may liken the differences from the Roman and Asiatics, not only in regard to whether or not they observed the Passover --(Ephesus/Smyrna did, Rome did not except for the Passover Communion accepted from Polycarp in the 150s) -- but also in principal as to whether we were looking for a kingdom of G-D on Earth physically now, or one like Revelation and Paul in Colossians 3:1ff. and I Corinthians 15:51 (et al.) in which "the Church" (the body of all Christian believers as a whole) is "raptured" or "snatched away" in a deliverance to the Heavenlies until Judgment and the Day of HASHEM purges the Earth.

This theological difference is foundational to understand why the Roman branch evolved into what it did, and why they felt a need to artificially create a Papal Office that was non-existent to the time of Against Heresies' first publication.


18 Christianity Today, magazine, January 18, 1963 “Toward a More Conservative View.”

19 Robinson, John A.T. Redating the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 1976.

20 Time, March 21, 1977.

21 The importance of Irenaeus is that he probably has two direct links to John in his Instruction. The first is obviously Polycarp, who John declares he saw and learned from in Smyrna (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4.).
The second link to John was through Papias. Irenaeus had probably met and learned from Papias, and if he did not, he had access to those who had; and Irenaeus had possession or regular access to the complete works of Papias’ 5 books and those sayings and teachings of the Apostles and Jesus that did not make it into the New Testament, but should have (e.g. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.33.3-4).

22 There may be debate as to Tertullian being a Fourth Generation witness, having learned from Proculus who learned from Irenaeus, etc. However, the insight granted us by Tertullian in his work “Against the Valentinians” 3.5. perhaps can be taken either way. Either that Tertullian met Irenaeus the man, and despised his abrasiveness; thus, elevating Proculus as a better role model. Or that it was Proculus that had met the meticulous Irenaeus, and transmitted his teachings to Tertullian. What is important to note, is that by 190 A.D., there was an agreement in ROME (and perhaps other major Churches) as to the completion of the New Testament canonization.
Caius and other Church Leaders were involved in the Canonization of the New Testament by the close of the Second Century. Such was his position in ROME among the Christians. For he writes in the Muratorian Canon, how that no more books may be added to the prophets or the Apostles to the end of time, as the number is made complete for those works which ought to be read in public among the Churches. The one point that shouldn't be missed in all of this is that when Caius and his contemporaries speak of Christianity being proclaimed in ROME, they speak of doing so in private meeting places, and not in public streets or squares in ROME. The fact that Peter and Paul at one time spoke publicly in the streets or wherever, freely, appears to just blow their minds that such a day ever was.

23 We also have the probability of a secondary transmission of Polycarp to Pius, bishop of Rome, who also passed along the teaching and book of the Apocalypse in the 150’s A.D, verifying the veracity of Irenaeus’ teachings. When Polycarp came to Rome, he would have been a very healthy and well above 110 years old, when he made the trip by ship and donkey drawn carts.

24 Caius, Fragments 3.3. Clearly the “rule” is established by a manuscript of John’s Patmos Apocalypse. This is only possible if it preceded John’s 44 year unbroken stay in Asia, as defined by Irenaeus, whose teacher Polycarp, was one of John’s bishops. (Re: Irenaeus 3.3.4. Cf., Clement of Alexandria, The Rich Man who finds Salvation, .42).

25 My general evaluation on these Church letter dates correspond as:
1) Corinthians 1 & 2 in 52 –53 A.D. from Asia.
2) Ephesians in October 56 A.D. while under house arrest in Rome.
3) Philippians in 57 A.D. while under house arrest in Rome.
4) Colossians in 54 A.D. from captivity in Israel.
5) Galatians in 48 A.D. (unknown location at this time).
6) Thessalonians in 54 A.D. from Asia.
7) Romans in 53 A.D. Unknown. Possible locales include from either Macedonia or the isle of Troas in the beginning of the year to as late as Israeli imprisonment before being shipped out to his Caesarian trial from Israel in the Fall. The Communication is heavily to past Corinthian Church members, to those who co-evangelized Asia with Paul, now in Rome.
Therefore, the phrase, “in this order”, may actually appear to mean: “received among the Churches as part of the Canon in this order.” If that is the case, and the intent, then we see that by 190 A.D., many of the epistles of the New Testament were already well tested and established in both its makeup and distribution. We therefore see a 190 A.D. Roman Church, when examined through Irenaeus, as being familiar with the entire New Testament, with the exceptions of Philemon and 3 John. Philemon is familiar to Ignatius out of Antioch of Syria, and 3 John probably only among the Asiatic Churches at the time of Caius’ above evaluation.

26 This thesis was written by me, and as my work product (i.e., my primary manuscript was copyrighted 03-31-2006). So far, in the contacting of “evangelical” or “apologetic” “Christians”, I found myself fulfilling Isaiah 53:1’s “Whom shall believe our report? And to whom is the ARM [YHVeH Messiah] of the LORD revealed?”

27 Matthew is traditionally said to have died on November 16 of an unknown year in Macedonia according to the Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew the Apostle. If the date of death were correct, then Matthew would most likely have died in A.D. 56 on that date of November 16.
28 That is, laying the ground and pillars of the Scriptures. This will have occurred, as we shall see, between 55-57 A.D.

29 Their deaths -- in ROME. Another indicator to the early dating of Revelation: In A.D. 62 or 63, Clement, bishop of ROME, tells the Corinthians that Paul had already preached the West (by inference, ROME, I Clement 5:6-7), and that the purpose of evangelizing was toward achieving the set number of “elect” {or Israelites}, which would indicate the knowledge of Revelation’s 144,000 quota (I Clement 2:4).

30 Generically “to us in Asia;” Specifically, “to John in Ephesus of Asia.” John is called the disciple of the LORD, an Apostle, an elder, and is identified as the evangelist by Anatolius as being the “evangelist John, who leaned on the LORD’s Breast” in Anatolius, Paschal Writings, .10.

31 The Book of Hebrews. Contrary to later speculation that Paul claimed Luke’s Gospel as his own.