“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”
                                                                                       1^st Corinthians 13:12 

This article is about government - not politics. This article is about Christianity - not religion. The bottom line is this however; this article is about Christianity - not Christianism!  

 “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias (aka Isaiah) prophesy of you, saying, this people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” [Math. 15: 6-9]  

The preceding paragraph, in our real and practical physical “world”, is how Jesus described the forthcoming religion of Christianism. Here is something else Jesus once stated: “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” [John 10:27] Was it merely “coincidence” that Paul stated, “I am known” and Jesus stated, “I know them”? [Cf. Math. 7:23]  

Do you believe in and practice Christianism or Christianity? Perhaps the following will give you a clue: “Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith. Or ministry let us wait on our ministering: or he that teaches, on teaching; or he that exhorteth, on exhortation…” [Rom. 12:6-8]  

For a number of months the issue of Barrack Obama’s U.S. Constitutional eligibility to be and remain the President of the United States has been the topic of hot discussion within the “patriotic community”. There have been numerous legal challenges regarding that topic and issue as well.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of such challenges have been “shot down” by the “judicial” system. When it comes to Obama’s “eligibility issue”, it seems to be a legal - not lawful - chess board game, i.e. the defendant’s lawyers/attorney’s (Obama’s) against those of the various plaintiffs’.  

So what’s the difference between the legal side and the lawful side of the aforementioned “chess game”? Here is but one example of that difference. Article three of the U.S. Constitution - the supreme law of the land - states in part: “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior…” 

An obvious question, at least to this researcher and writer was this one: “Who or what determines “good Behavior”? Did you notice and realize that the question applies to the nine judges of the U.S. supreme Court and all other “inferior” federal Courts? It is also rather interesting, perhaps more then what meets the natural eye, that the same phrase of “ordain and establish” (in Article 3) was also used in the Constitution’s Preamble. Why wasn’t this order instead, “establish and ordain”? 

Better yet, why not leave out the word “ordain”? Perhaps there is some type of correlation to these two words, “supreme” and “inferior”? There is also this phrase interesting phrase as well, “good behavior”. Lest one forget, there is this phrase - “in the year of our Lord” - at the signatories conclusion of the Constitution. Just how “un Godly” is the U.S. Constitution? 

There is also something else that is very interesting concerning the words of, “unanimous consent” - a political and religious technical point of interest, with regards to Article Seven. On September 13, 1788 the Continental Congress proclaimed (declared) that the Constitution was ratified by “unanimous consent of the States present” (i.e. represented).  

However, “technically” and “Spiritually”, the Constitution was only physically ratified by just twelve of thirteen “original” state’s “representatives”. There was no Rhode Island delegate (representative) present at that ratifying convention. Furthermore, the State of North Carolina did not “officially” (i.e. the state government) ratify the Constitution until November 21, 1789. On May 29, 1790 the “state” of Rhode Island followed suit, i.e. “officially”  ratified that Constitution.

While twelve “State” representatives out of thirteen States were present at that ratifying convention, only eleven States had “officially” ratified the Constitution prior to September 13, 1788. Nevertheless the Constitutional requirement, under Article Seven, was met, i.e. “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”  

Thus the Constitution was not “technically” and “unanimously” ratified by all the States - not just their delegates - until May 29,1790. However, the “law”, i.e. Article Seven, stated that just nine States out of thirteen were all that was necessary (required) to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless, the U.S. Constitution was ultimately, technically, eventually and “unanimously” ratified by all the thirteen State governments.  

The key word, for purposes and understanding of this Christian [Cf. 1^st Cor. 12:25] and governmental [Cf. 1^st Cor.12:28] article, is the word “unanimous” [Cf. Eph.4:4-6] aka unity. [Cf. Luke 11:17] Within this article, thus far, is a premise that separates the physical world of reality from the spiritual world of speculation, The key word, (premise) up to this point, that separates those two “worlds” (realms) regarding this article is “unanimous”. Again, it’s all about the words folks - not just some of the words, via the “Connecting the Dots”, “Assessment” and other articles on this website . 

Here are some words from a “founding father”, former U.S. President John Adams, who once stated: (pay attention to the words that have been emphasized by this writer) "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."    

“Our (the Christian nation) Constitution” contains these words - per Article Two, section one: “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.”  

The legal battle over Barrack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to remain as the President of the United States focuses in on these words, “No person except a natural born Citizen”, but specifically these words “natural born Citizen”. Thus, the continuing legal and court challenges focuses on this one proof, “birth certificate”, as well as the legality of such proof - which up to the writing and posting of this article - has not been provided by Barrack Obama and/or any of his “associates”. Oddly, on January 21st, 2009, his very first day in office, Barack Obama implemented and signed into law an item known as an “Executive Order”, specifically order number 13489.  

Once again, this article is about Christianity first, not Christianism, which is a type/form of religion. This article is also about constitutional government, not politics. For the record, the distinction between Christianity and Christianism has been stated in this manner by this writer: “You learn about God, (Christianism) but you experience the Creator (Christianity).” 

Paul stated the premise of “You learn about God, but you experience the Creator” in this particular and peculiar manner: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” [Eph. 6:12] This article is primarily intended for those who have “Truly” experienced the Creator, not just learned about God.  

Nevertheless, it is this writer’s hope, prayer, and purpose that this article will inspire and provoke all of “we the people”, but especially those that consider themselves “Christians” and those that actually and truly are “unanimous Christians” into “action”, per these words: “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” [James 2:17] The key word in that verse is “faith”. But what or who is “faith” however? [Cf. Heb.11:1]  

Is the Obama “birth certificate” a valid issue for people to get their “panty hose in a wad” over? This article will offer you the opportunity to decide that question for yourself, especially if you consider yourself a “Christian”.  

“Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he”, so stated Jesus of Nazareth. [Math. 11:11 – Cf. Luke 7:28] The first simplistic question to be considered, (pondered) and the answered by any reader is this one: “Was Jesus of Nazareth the son of man, the son of God, or a combination of both?”

Here is the next question: “Were the people of Jesus time period so stupid that Jesus had to tell them from whence individuals originated from?” In case you didn’t see it, that question is derived from these three words: “born of women”. Jesus and John the “baptizer” were both born of women, i.e., natural born; both individuals had different mothers however - hence the use of the word “woman”, with regards to mothers. [Cf. Gen 2:18, 22, and 23]  

Incidentally, have you ever figured out who and “what” the physical father - not step-father - of Jesus was? [Cf. Rom. 8: 13-16] When and if you ever figure out the actual and “Spiritual” answer to that question [Cf. John 14:6], you’ll understand why this individual has stated “The institutionalized church’s trinity doctrine is a farce”. [Cf. Math. 15:9 and Col.2:8]  

Perhaps you might also figure out and realize why this individual (writer) also has stated: “Christians know who Jesus is, but not what he is.” Maybe, just maybe, you’ll “get a grip” on why these words, and their order, are found in the U.S. Constitution as well: “…ordain and establish…”  

The next question; why did Jesus state “…there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist”? Now there “Christian”, wasn’t Jesus the greatest prophet, greater than John the Baptist? Perhaps the Wisdom for answering that question is the word “risen”, provided one uses the LORD’S method [Cf. Isa. 1:18 and Isa.28:10] for understanding the Bible, instead of, rather then, mankind’s methods? [Cf. 2^nd Tim.3:7] 

For example, why was the word “risen” used by the Bible translators and the interpreters thereof? Perhaps part of that the answer is found in the book of Revelation, chapter 16, verse 13: “…and out of the mouth of the false prophet.” What if these words from Jesus are considered too: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” [Math.7:15 - Cf. Deut. 18:15 and 18] 

Here’s an example of “sheep’s clothing”. Barack Obama has claimed to be a “Christian”; however he has also stated that “America is no longer a Christian nation”. His two statements are a prime, a classic example of the distinction between a country and a nation, freedom and Liberty. Both of his statements are prime, classic examples, of the difference between government and politics, and half truths - but not necessarily outright lies.  

Furthermore, Obama’s statement “America is no longer a Christian nation” is also a prime and classic example of a dangerous half truth, once you “get a grip” on “It’s all about the words folks” and “It’s about all the words folks”. For example, the latter phrase and the use of these two words ordain and establish, found within the U.S. Constitution.  

Before continuing with this article, this individual will forewarn you that the distinction between thinking you are a “Christian” and knowing you are a Christian might become evident – but not necessarily “self-evident”. In other words, “God” is not a “person”, but rather a “Spirit”. There are many other articles on this website by this individual, - who may or may not be a believer, follower, disciple of the Word of God [Cf. Rev. 13:13 - Prov.30:5] - which follow other highways and avenues (premises) to truth and then physically, ultimately, and “Spiritually”, to “THE Truth”. [Cf. John 8:36]  

Therefore this individual writer, and researcher, doesn’t want you to believe, trust, and/or accept what shall now follow. Do not think that putting “faith” in this individual equates to belief and trust either! The following statement is one that you must decide for yourself, someway, somehow, one way or another with regards to this writer: “I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” [Rev. 19:10]

 

You can now consider the past, present, and futuristic possibilities of what follows, in conjunction with Ephesians 6:12, as well as the Obama legal “birth certificate” topic and issue. What shall follow is a basic Christian premise. To some folks, this premise will merely be a theory based on Bible speculation. Bottom line; YOU will have to decide the possibility of the premise (prophetic warning); no other person should do such for you.  

Now for that “premise”; in 1868 an amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution. A number of years ago, while Biblically and Constitutionally comparing, a portion of Article two’s, section one, with section one of the 14^th Amendment, an obvious omission “smacked me in my face”. That omission was the word “natural” in section one of the 14^th Amendment.  

When the word “natural” was considered by this individual, along with the Bible’s phrase “born of women”, a “floodlight” was turned on within my thinking process. However, it wasn’t until the 2008 election process, and subsequent election of Barack Obama, that the actual prophetic reality of the two “eye witness” accounts, Mathew and Luke, politically “hit home”.  

Here is how Matthew “heard” and “wrote” the words of Jesus: “Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he”, so stated Jesus of Nazareth. [Math. 11:11] 

Here is how Luke “heard” and “wrote” the words of Jesus: “For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” [Luke 7:28] 

The common phrase in both of those just cited “eye witness” accounts is the phrase, born of women. Again, when comparing a portion of Article two’s, section one, with section one of the Constitution’s 14^th Amendment I noticed and then realized the omission of the word “natural” within in that specific 1868 Amendment. How come? At that time, which was many years ago, a “light bulb” had gone on within my thinking process. [Cf. John 8:12]  

By comparing and connecting the “accounts”, the words, (dots) of Matthew and Luke, along with other statements (more dots) within the Bible, I figured out - all by myself - that Jesus was the greatest prophet - not John the Baptist. Then I began wondering (thinking), why did Jesus use the phrase “born of women”. Were people that stupid back then?  

Then the reality of Paul’s written experience “came home”; “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” [1^st Cor.2:9] Bottom line; it wasn’t that the people of Jesus time were “stupid”. “Reality wise” Jesus gave a prophetic, futuristic warning and message. That warning and message (premise) was given to me by the LORD; I did not figure it out all by myself. [Cf. 1^st Cor.2:12 - also verses 11 and 10]  

Time now for the “floodlight” part - aka the prophetic, futuristic, warning - as well as the reason for the omission of the word “natural” in the (our) U.S. Constitution’s 14^th Amendment [Cf. 1^st Cor.2:14]. Oh yeah, you can also decide if the Obama birth certificate topic/issue is merely and only physical in “nature”, using Ephesians 6:12, as a starting point. [Cf. Rom.13:1] 

At some point in time, there will “rise” a false prophet that will not be born of a woman. Such a person - not an individual - will be a clone, a genetically “engineered” person that will circumvent God’s system of/for procreation; that creation of a “person”, which has not been “born of women”, will be a result of mankind’s desire to become “god” - or is it “God”? Perhaps now you’ll figure out the religious and political debate over stem cell “research”. 

Is Barack Obama a genetically engineered “clone”? Perhaps, but this researcher/writer doubts that possibility for numerous reasons. Nevertheless, he could be “paving the way” for a “Presidential” person which will not be born of a woman. From a “birth certificate” issue, is there more to that then what meets the “natural eye” - politically and religiously? [Cf. 1^st Cor.2:14] 

Is Mr. Obama a “Christian” as he once claimed? Absolutely not, again for numerous and varied reasons. Here is one reason for “Not”; if Obama is actually a “Christian” why has his legal team fought off, and successfully defended this question: “Where’s the Proof”? [Cf. Math. 7:15] 

One example of “proof” is his lawful - not legal - birth certificate. There are numerous and various other reasons and examples, this individual could expound upon regarding Obama’s qualifications to be classified (qualified) as the U.S. President, and accepted as a “Christian” by “We the People”. Religiously and politically Mr. Barack Obama is not, can not be, one of the “sheep”. [Cf. John 10:14] Obama is a ravenous wolf wearing sheep’s clothing, aka a “bad tree”. [Cf. Math. 7:15 and 18]  

If you think and believe the aforementioned basic premise is merely my “wild-eyed” speculation, so be it; nevertheless you have been forewarned as to what to look for, as well listen for, via the Spirit of God. Let’s “get real” here, what is the “big deal” that is “politically” stopping, or preventing Barack Obama from producing a “birth certificate”, and/or other documentation, to validate his Constitutional qualifications to remain as “President”, let alone have been a qualified candidate for that office? 

Perhaps this is one reason. Remember the big to-do over John McCain’s place of birth and his Constitutional eligibility - before the November 2008 election? How come there wasn’t that same type of to-do as well, regarding Barack Obama - before his being elected as the U.S. President?  

Look here folks for yourself, aka the Bible says, “A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies.” [Prov.14:25] Obama has stated, among other promises, that he will bring forth “Change you can believe in.” Exactly what type of “change” does our alleged President, and his Congressional cronies, and others, actually believe in?  

Is their uncontrolled spending and legislation delivering “We the People” from debt, or plundering the country and its lawful, legal citizens into further bankruptcy? Did Obama’s Congressional cronies listen to “we the people” on the economic crisis and those bailouts? How about Obama’s “transparency promise”, with regards to his birth certificate?  

And then there is this “Constitutional issue” as well: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States… shall be eligible to the Office of President.” What sort of “change” will be forthcoming with regards to those words, hmmmmm? Could that change be the prelude to the previously mentioned “wild-eyed” speculation OR a prophetic “Word” and warning as to the destiny and fate of America, and its people?  

You see, the Bible says, “There is a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” [Prov.16:25] Let’s not forget this saying to; “Righteousness exalts a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.”  [Prov.14:35] Then too, “Pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.” [Prov.16:18]  

So while all the attorneys and lawyers are attempting to sort of Obama’s Constitutional Presidential eligibility and qualifications through “our” (per the previous assessment of John Adams) Constitutional judicial system, I once again ask this Constitutional question: “Who or what determines ‘good Behavior’ whereas ALL the ‘federal’ judges, can or ‘shall hold their offices during good behavior’?” (Article Three, section one)  

Perhaps the answer is found by connecting some more “dots” aka, “It’s all about the words folks.” From the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment: “…and to have the assistance of counsel…” Why did the founding father’s agree to use the word “counsel” rather then, instead of, the words attorney or lawyer? Perhaps the answer to that question, and many other “Constitutional” questions and premises as well, is found in these “Prophetic” words:  

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” [Isa.9:6] 

The key word, the single dot, in that aforementioned verse from the Bible is the word “Counselor”. Who and/or what is that “Counselor” to you, as well as each and every other lawful and legal American citizen? Have you experienced the answer to that question via the “systems of God”? Some of those “systems” are seen by physically reading the words of Isaiah 9:6, most of which are not perceived (Spiritually) nowadays by most “evangelical Christians” [Cf. Math.13:13], and connecting the available dots (words).  

Nevertheless, here is a phrase, some words - “The government shall be upon his shoulder” - which were perceived by most of this nation’s “founding fathers”, as well as the 1892 U.S. supreme Court, as evidenced by these (their) words: “These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.” But then, “What is a Nation” folks? 

As the attorney’s and lawyers “Constitutional”, physical legal battle continues over Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility, using the same ole - same ole “legal” methods within the judicial systems, consider these words: “All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weighs the spirits.” [Prov.16:2] Hmmmm, what or who is a “spirit”? Oh yeah, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”  [John 4:24]   

Here’s the final question of this article for the reader to figure out, and anyone else for that matter. Is this writer and radio personality merely an old, “dumb”, former trucker and heretic, and/or a teacher or Teacher, a false prophet or a True Prophet, an attorney/lawyer or a Counselor?   

Here are but two reasons to figure out that last question. 

1) “Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counselors they are established.” [Prov.15:22]  

2) “Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.” [Prov.11:14] 

In the meantime, as the pieces and dots are being figured out, we’ll all have to await the answer, in more ways then just and only the Obama issue, regarding this physical and “spiritual” (Spiritual) question:  

“Where’s the proof folks”? 

Mr. Obama, this article is merely one starting point, the “tip of the iceberg” regarding “Where’s all the proof” for “We the People”? 

“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” 

                                                                                          2^nd Chronicles 7:14

“Checkmate”