May 24, 2019

Servitude Until Death Do Us Part

Share

Some “Science Experts” Studied Cattle Farting

And a clique of fools believes those “experts” say so; Keep in mind that science just means knowledge and they’re claiming they know it all about cattle.. They are pretenders…

So the argument is that cattle are a huge cause of climate change.. These are “educated” adult people, with what we would or might “believe” are impressive credentials.. So the best thing for the climate is feedlot beef. Which is high in omega 6 sick animals, sick meat.. And that meat makes people sick.. Then of course that meat is sprayed down with a chemical wash known as liquid carbon monoxide.. Not to mention other drugs in the feedlot feed, and other tricks of the trade to make that meat taste good, but appear to be healthy meat.. So the anti grazing environmental gurus are pushing diseased meats from feedlots as better for the environment.. Problem is that met is not better for human health.. Acidic meats cause cancer not just in people but in animals.. George Wuerthner would serve you burger and steaks that have had the tumors and puss removed.. Wuerthner is a classic example of playing the game of making many misleading or inaccurate assumptions about livestock production and climate change arguments against other contrary arguments that are possibly just as misleading or inaccurate assumptions about livestock production and climate change. It’s a vicious circle of bullshit by academiac-quacks..

“Cattle are by far and away the most significant source of GHG emissions of any livestock group. The simplest and best way that any individual can reduce their GHG emissions is to stop producing and eating beef.”—George Wuerthner

So apparently even the ranch where I buy grass raised grass finished high in omega 3 non acidic high in alkalinity beef on their own 4,000 acres should shut down their business to please this pseudo science charlatan George Wuerthner..

“Grass fed beef is even worse. “Studies have shown that grass-fed cattle produce 20% more methane in their lifetime than grain-fed cattle. This is due to two different factors:
1) cattle naturally emit more methane when digesting grass. 2) grass-fed cattle reach market weight more slowly than feedlot cattle, so they’re emitting methane over a longer time (Marshall, 2010).” (Marshall, J. (2010, January 27). Grass-Fed Beef Has Bigger Carbon Footprint.

“Even if grazing could, under some circumstances, increase soil carbon, this must be balanced against the GHG emissions that result from livestock production. Depending on what is included in the accounting, domestic livestock are responsible for between 14% to 50% of all global greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Even at the lower 14% figure, this is more than all global transportation from airplanes to cars.”—George Wuerthner

George is crazy as a shit house rat.. Brainwashed fool extraordinaire.. And thats being kind, perhaps he knows he’s pushing deindustrialization for the purpose of depopulation… That then would make him as evil as a shit house rat…

It’s astonishing how the Luciferian’s behind the Global Warming CC=33 Climate Change Hoax have formulated so many twists and turns in the scientific assumptions rhetoric of their UNEP eugenics depopulation agenda..

Stop growing healthy food and eat poison is the bottom line coming out of the environmental cults scientific rhetoric…

The U.N.E.P. United Nations Environmental Policies and “Globalist” Biodiversity Assessment is a Luciferian plan in implementation at this time being an imposed famine designed to smash the middle class, to destroy that class to the maximum extent possible and to starve as many people to death as possible while doing it.. Destruction of the economic model that supports that class.. Of course this operation will destroy the poorer classes as well.. According to that tome the ultimate destroyer of the ecosystems environments is over population of direct drivers and indirect drivers causing all environmental impacts.. Depopulation is their solution.. Including the UNEP clones that advocate for those policies… What we’re observing experiencing is the evolved process similiar to the process of imposed crashing of the economy that caused the Great Depression.. Which was an orchestrated depopulation event.. The advocates of these polices who will be victims of these policies are extremely ignorant people…

An idiot can be defined in rational terms as someone who thinks in terms of “belief” rather than ‘proof’ as in the assessment of known facts. Those who are True Believers, have no use for facts, they simply appeal to the authority of the creed of their choice of scientific texts. Science is another man made religion that is baseless theory taken on faith and has been politicized thus further destroyed by political bias.. There are those who become dogmatic in their fields in science, and leap to unfounded conclusions just like other religious people of other man made up religions do.. The cult of United Nations Environmental-ism Policies of which the WLNs cult are clones of is no exception..

Basically what is being said by George Wuerthner is that over population of average people is the cause of environmental destruction, climate change, more so than the elites owned mega international corporations that essentially make all of the legislated rules used to manage the herd of citizens.. It’s us not the Luciferian elites.. Not their wars of aggression, not their vast array of nuclear power plants, large over populated over grown cities, not their millions upon millions of planes..

Not their NASA rhetoric, not the blasting off of rockets into no where space, not their fossil fuels that we could live without when we know that the technology to go all electric is suppressed, and the steam engine technology that has been suppressed.. It’s your healthy disease free cattle.. It’s those millions of elk those wolves slaughtered that kept most of us away from the toxic meats coming out of the feedlots.. Keep in mind at the same time this clique of cultists preach that millions of farting large carnivores eating millions of elk and buffalo is a healthy ecosystem.. The hypocrisy on display by the UNEPTITARDS of the WLNs clique is astonishing..

The United Nations Environmental Policies and Global Biodiversity Assessment – Sustainable Developments Sustainability’s justification for depopulation, is that there are too many people to harmonize with the earth’s environment, wildlife and therefore depopulation is an absolute necessity. That’s a pretty disgusting philosophy to get behind.. You guys are sick…‘Sustainability and its development’, is a cruel deception in which a vast majority of non elitists average people in the world, as victims of its ‘doublespeak hidden agenda’, work towards their own elimination, with the enslavement of the surviving few, housed in concentration camp ‘smart growth’ community dwellings, serving the rest of their miserable lives as vegan serfs to the ruling elites that dreamed this shenanigan up…

Yep, the WLNs clique is without a doubt a group of UNEP cloned clowns…

Share

No NAZI Philosophy In The U.S. Aye? BS!

And both political parties delivered it to you…

Share

Who Was Edward Abby

Every time I’ve seen pics of Abby I think of John Huston.. I wonder who Edward Abby was.. Which famous actor played the Abby role.. Jason Robards? John Huston? I don’t know, I can only speculate.. The only thing concerning Abby That I’m certain of is Edward Abby was a character played by a very clever and talented actor.. A controlled opposition operative.. Abby was Hayduke.. Abby was Jack Burns.. Abby like most of those infamous writers was fantasizing through his writing about being that hero.. Like L’mour fantasizing about being the bad ass expert with guns and fists hero in his western novels.. It’s all the same..

Thats John Huston in a 007 movie..

Huston again..

Edward Abby..

Edward Abby..

Jason Robards

Edward Abby

Edward Abby









Abby wrote desert solitaire, The Monkey Wrench Gang, The Brave Cowboy, and several other interesting books with clever messages to socially indoctrinate influence whoever read them.. The Brave Cowboy became a movie starring many of Huston’s good friends..

I can prove none of this suspicious speculation.. I can have fun with it..

Hayduke Lived on me thinks… The Brave Jack Burns live on too.. By the way all of these guys careers and passing was by the numbers, gematria.. And part of their “Hermeticism” show is the practice of pseudo-scientific magic adopted by the Masons for their amazingly flawed deceptions show.. Edward Abby was in on it…

Share

Those Priests Are Jolly Good Fellows That Nobody Can Deny

Right there in plain sight too…

Share

Citizen Did And Still Does Mean Subject

CITIZEN = SUBJECT

AMERICAN = ENGLAND By The Informer

    Before getting into the case at hand you MUST understand a little known concept in English writing and the legal term and use of certain words by the court. Failure to understand will result in a poor reading of the case. And, in fact all other cases you read. That is why there is so much misunderstanding amongst people when they read a case. I can read a case and get an entirely different set of facts that most all people do not see. Most people are after a specific thing in a case to prove a point and miss a lot of good material.

Commas are a very important piece of understanding a sentence.

COMMA.n. A segment, to cut off. In writing and printing, this point [,]denoting the shortest pause in reading, and separating a sentence into divisions or members, according to the construction. Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary

RULES OF PUNCTUATION–COMMAS THAT SET OFF.

4.1.1 Commas usually set off words, phrases, and other sentence elements that are parenthetical or independent. Items of this sort are contrasting expressions. <Work, not words, is what is needed.>

4.1.2 Commas usually set off appositional or modify words, phrases, or clauses that do not limit or restrict the main idea of a sentence. <We leave at three O’clock, when the bell rings.>

4.2.2 Whenever in spoken English there is an enumeration of items, a rising or sustained pause separate and distinguishes each member of a series. In writing, a comma likewise separates words, phrases or clauses that occur in a series.<He opened the can, removed the contents, and replaced the lid.>

4.4.2 It is equally important to insert a comma to prevent misreading or ambiguity. <As the car struck, the utility pole fell with a crash.>

WEBSTER’S SEVENTH COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, 1970 PUNCTUATION

    So you can see just how important commas are and where they are placed in a sentence. You may want to refer to this when reading the case.

    Now we come to an all important word that when in law means something entirely different than what you think it means and the courts are well aware of this when they read legal briefs or write determinations. Something the average writ writer has no clue as to how he is using the word. That word is the simple word “OR”. Did you know that the word OR means AND unless a specific word is used in conjunction with it in LAW?

Standard definition Webster’s Dictionary.

OR. Conj.. Used as a function word to indicate an alternative.

So it is a conjunction.

CONJUNCTION. The state of being conjoined; occurrence together in time or space; connective.

Therefore, it can mean the word on either side of “or” are one and the same.

Ballentine’s Law Dictionary 3rd edition. 1969

OR. A conjunction normally in the disjunctive. A conjunction properly used with “either” in stating a proposition in the alternative.

BLACK’S LAW 4th ED

OR, conj.. A disjunctive particle used to express an alternative or to give a choice of one among two or more things. It is also used to clarify what has already been said, and in such cases, means ‘in other words,’ ‘to wit,’ or ‘that is to say.’ Or is frequently misused; and courts will construe it to mean ‘and’ where it is so used. However, where the word ‘or’ is preceded by the word ‘either,’ it is never given a conjunctive meaning.

    Now you are going to see how important that little word is, as well as the comma. Here I just gave you a prime example that the comma in the preceding sentence separated two independent things, word and comma. Look at punctuation rule 4.2.2 and 4.4.2. Apply it to all other law and you will be shocked that you have probably misread or misconstrued every law and case that you have seen. Now I have given you a second example in the preceding sentence where I used the word OR to mean AND. Since I did not use the word either in the sentence the word misread, OR means AND. And you wonder why these kids from age 35 back to age 18 have no concept of what they read and can’t understand a thing about the world today when it comes to a simple contract? And you wonder why I and only a few other researchers see what you don’t see in law or court cases and say we are wrong because you don’t understand punctuation or the word Or means AND?

    Hopefully I will not have to explain after you read the case. You will pick up on the fact that the term citizen of the United States was used well before the 14th Amendment was ever adopted, like pre 1824. You will see that the word ‘either’ NEVER appears in the decision. However you will see the word ‘neither’ used twice. Remember sentence construction from 6th grade where the “neither nor” rule applied like the “either or rule?” How many remember being taught that like I was?

    You will see that citizen subject is one in the same and is what I have been saying since 1990. So you are not and never were a sovereign. Also you will see that they, the sovereigns, your rulers, can naturalize every man woman and child when an area joins the Union in one fell swoop. The people did not join the Union as only fictions called States can join the Union.

    This case shows where one can be a subject (citizen) of a state and still not be a citizen of the United States despite the 14th Amendment. All the 14th did was to put all under the military rule and was designed for corporations as evidenced by the fact the first time it was used to defend a black man was in the early 1930’s. Come on now, from 1868 to 1933 that no case ever used it for a man, either white or black, should tell you something. In here you will see that those sovereigns give subjects (citizen) only privileges and it is considered a GIFT. Yes you will catch it when reading. Keep searching for the word RIGHTS as you read the case. Are they natural or conferred? Also, if all the so-called “Christians” use the definition as a follower of “Christ,” then they are not “Christians.” When you read what you have to give up to become a SUBJECT (citizen) of another sovereign and renounce all allegiance, I dare say we have no “Christians” in America whatsoever, save a very, very, few. It is all hype as they are all fence sitters. And they wonder why the Lord Almighty doesn’t come down and clean the mess up? Because they are a big part of the mess. Look how many call themselves citizens of the United States or a citizen of the political subdivision of the corporate United States, namely a State? Look for the dates April 14, 1802 & March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 731,) and see what they declared way before the 14th Amendment. Yes dear reader, read this case well especially since I highlighted those words and punctuation for clarity. Now after reading this, do you think all those tons of cases you read have to be reread because the courts are not taking them with any seriousness because you misread them? I wonder what they really said in all those cases? Especially since after reading this case you will immediately see where you placed yourself, by claiming the Constitution is yours. And you probably said, I took an oath to defend it, even though it is not protecting me like I thought it said and by golly, as a citizen of this great state of the Union I am not a United States citizen, even though I voted either for or against Clinton. Now look what the court stated it had claiming jurisdiction over this alien because of what he did, not whom he said he was. Make sure you find the word “contract” in the decision. Every time you see “or” replace it with “AND”. As I have said all along, especially in my New History of America, we are nothing but slaves on the Plantation, never were the sovereigns you thought you were, and have no control over any State officer of the corporation although they like you to think you do. The Constitution they speak of is all rhetoric and meaningless. Plantation does not mean a farm either. So with all this knowledge of English and punctuation lets read what I scanned.
 

THE

FEDERAL REPORTER.

VOLUME 56.

CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED

IN THE

CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND CIRCUIT
AND .DISTRICT COURTS OF THE
UNITED STATES. PERMANENT EDITION,
JULY–OCTOBER, 1893,

WITH TABLES OF FEDERAL REPORTER CASES PUBLISHED IN VOLS. 3, C. C. A. REPORTS; 4, U.S. APPEALS REPORTS
 

A TABLE OF STATUTES CITED AND CONSTRUED IS

GIVEN IN THE INDEX

ST. PAUL:
WEST PUBLISHING CO.
1893.

Pg 576 FEDERAL REPORTER, vol 56.

CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS v. REUM.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. May 29, 1893.) No. 211

1. ALIENS–Who Are–EFFEC’T OF STATE LAWS.·
A foreign-born resident of the United States, who has merely declared his intention to become a citizen, but has never complied with any other provision of the naturalization laws, is none the less an alien because of the fact that the constitution and laws of Minnesota, wherein he resides, have conferred the elective franchise and other privileges of citizenship on foreign subjects who have declared their intention to be naturalized, and that he has actually voted for member of congress and state and county officers.

2. SAME–Naturalization Laws. ·
Nor is his status altered by reason of the fact that, when he so declared his intention, he was entitled, by reason of length of residence, to be naturalized, under Rev. St. § 2167, for that section merely dispenses with the two-year delay between the declaration of intention and the actual admission to citizenship which is prescribed by section 2165.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota. Affirmed.
Statement by SANBORN, Circuit Judge:

On October 7, 1891, Frederick Reum, the defendant in error, brought this action against the city of Minneapolis, the plaintiff in error, for a personal Injury that resulted from its negligence. He recovered Judgment, to reverse which this writ of error was sued out. In his complaint he alleged that he was an alien, and a subject of the King of Saxony, and this allegation was denied by the defendant. The evidence disclosed these facts: The plaintiff was born in the kingdom of ‘Saxony in 1859. His father and mother were natives of that kingdom, and the former resided there until he died, in the Infancy of the plaintiff. In 1863, after his father’s death, the Plaintiff and his mother came to the state of Minnesota, where they have since resided. In 1885 he was married, and has since that time owned and occupied a farm in that state. On October 25, 189O, he made a declaration of his Intention to become a citizen of the United States in the circuit court for the district of Minnesota; but he has never been admitted, or applied to be admitted, to citizenship under the second and third paragraphs of .section 2165 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, or under any provisions of the acts of congress. The state of Minnesota has conferred upon all foreign subjects resident within its borders who have declared their intention to become citizens the elective franchise, the privilege of holding any office within its gift, and practically all of the privileges of citizenship in the power of that state to confer. In November 1890, the plaintiff voted for a member of congress and for state and county officers in Minnesota. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved the court to dismiss the action for want of Jurisdiction, on the ground that the evidence failed to establish the allegation that the plaintiff was an alien. The court denied the motion, and this ruling is the supposed error assigned.

David F. Simpson, (Robert D. Russell, on the brief,) for plaintiff in error.
John W. Aretander, for defendant in error.

Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and THAYER, District Judge.

SANBORN, Circuit Judge, (after stating the facts as above.) In Lanz v. Randall, 4 Dill. 425, Mr. Justice Miller, who was then presiding in the circuit court for the district of Minnesota, held that a state could not make the subject of a foreign government a citizen of the United States, and that a resident of Minnesota who was born a subject of the grand duke of Mecklenburg, had declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States many years before he brought his suit, had resided in the state of Minnesota for 15 years, had several times voted at elections held in that state where the constitution of the state authorizes such residents to do so without naturalization, but had never applied to be or been admitted to citizenship under the federal naturalization laws, was still an alien, and a subject of the grand duke of Mecklenburg. This decision has been followed by the courts, and acquiesced in by the profession. It is now vigorously challenged by counsel for plaintiff in error.
    Section 2, art. 3. of the Constitution of the United states, provides that the judicial power of the nation shall extend to “controversies between a state or the citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects;” and the acts of Congress of March 3, 1887, (24 Stat.552,) and of August 13, 1888, (25 Stat. 433,) confer jurisdiction of all these controversies in cases involving over $2,000 upon the circuit courts. Every person at his birth is presumptively a citizen or subject of the state of his nativity, and where, as in the case at bar, his parents were then both subjects of that state, the presumption is conclusive. To the land of his birth he owes support and allegiance, and from it he is entitled to the civil and political rights and privileges of a citizen or subject. This relation, imposed by birth, is presumed to continue until a change of nationality is proved. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167; Vatt. Law Nat. p. 101; Morse, Nat. 61, 125. A change of nationality cannot be made by the individual at will. Each nation has the right to refuse to grant the rights and privileges of citizenship to all persons not born upon its soil, and, if it determines to admit them to those rights and privileges, it may fix the terms on which they shall be conferred upon them. Naturalization is the admission of a foreign subject or citizen into the political body of a nation, and the bestowal upon him of the quality of a citizen or subject.
    The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” As the plaintiff was born in the kingdom of Saxony, of parents who at the time of his birth were subjects of the king of Saxony, he is not a citizen of the United States unless he has been naturalized therein. The United States, in the exercise of their undoubted right, have prescribed the conditions upon compliance with which an alien may become a citizen of this nation. The act of Congress of April 14, 1802, (2 Stat. 153, c. 28, § 1; Rev. St. § 2165,) provides that “an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner, and not otherwise. First. He shall, two Years at least prior to his admission, declare before a proper court his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce his allegiance to the potentate or sovereignty of which he may be at the time a citizen or subject. Second. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare, on oath, before some one of the courts above specified, that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty; and particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he was before a citizen or subject, which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court. Third. It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting such alien that he has resided within the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held one year at least and that during that time he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; but the oath of the applicant shall in no case be allowed to prove his residence.”

    By the act of May 26, 1824, (4: star. 69, c. 186, § 1; Rev. St. § 2167,) it is provided that:
    “Any alien, being under the age of twenty-one years, who has resided In the United States three years next preceding his arriving, at that age, and who has continued to reside therein to the time he may make application to be admitted a citizen thereof, may, after he arrives at the age of twenty-one years, and after he has resided five years within the United States, including the three years of his minority, be admitted a citizen of the United States, without having made the declaration required in the first condition of section twenty-one hundred and sixty-five; but such alien shall make the declaration required therein at the time of his admission, and shall further declare on oath, and prove to the satisfaction of the court, that, for two years next preceding, it has been his bona fide intention to become a citizen of the United States; and he shall in all other respects comply with the laws in regard to naturalization.
    There is no other provision of the acts of congress under which this plaintiff could have been naturalized. The counsel for plaintiff in error, however, alleges that he became a citizen of the United States (1).because at the time he declared his intention to do so he might have been admitted to citizenship, under the provisions of section 2167; (2) because various acts of congress have conferred certain privileges, and some have conferred all the privileges, of a citizen upon foreign-born residents who had declared their intention to become citizens; and (3) because the state of Minnesota has granted to such residents practically all the privileges of citizenship in its power to bestow.
    Before this plaintiff could become a naturalized citizen, the contract of allegiance and protection that the relation of a citizen to his nation implies must be made between him and the United States. The United States have prescribed the conditions under which such an alien may make this contract, the place where, and the manner in which, it shall be made, and have declared that it can be made on those conditions, and in that manner, and not otherwise. Rev. St. § 2165. The conditions are that he shall declare on oath, that he will support the Constitution; that he does renounce all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly to that one of which he was a subject; that it shall be made to appear to the court that he has resided in the United States five years, and in the state where the court is held one year; that he has behaved as a man of good moral character during all of this time, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. The place where these conditions must be complied with is in one of the courts of record named in the acts of Congress, and the method by which the contract is to be made is by plenary proof to that court of a compliance with these conditions, which must be evidenced by its judgment. The plaintiff has complied with none of these terms. He has not even applied to any court to be admitted to citizenship. He has not consented to become a citizen of the United States on the terms they offer to him, or on any terms, but he still insists he is not a citizen, and that he is still a subject of the king of Saxony. On the other hand, the United States have not consented to accept the plaintiff as a citizen, on any terms, much less to waive all the essential conditions without a compliance with which Congress has declared an alien cannot be naturalized. The minds of both parties must meet to make a contract, and, where neither party consents, there can surely be no agreement.
    That the plaintiff, on October 25, 1890, had resided in Minnesota, as boy and man, long enough to qualify him to become a citizen under section 2167, is not material. The conclusive answer to the argument here urged is that the declaration of an intention to enter into a new relation for whom parties are qualified does not establish the relation. A man and woman who declare their intention to be married at some future time do not thereby become husband and wife. On the other hand, a declaration of intention to enter into a relation or to do an act at some future time is very persuasive evidence that the relation was not entered upon, and the act was not done, at the time the declaration was made. It must be borne in mind that the only effect of section 2167 was to relieve the plaintiff from waiting two years after filing his declaration before being admitted to citizenship. That section expressly provides that in all other respects he shall comply with the laws in regard to naturalization. The plaintiff’s declaration on October 25, 1890, when he was qualified to be naturalized, that he intended at some future time to become a citizen, coupled with the fact that he did not then apply to be admitted to citizenship, nor comply with any of the conditions prescribed by law for his naturalization, compels the conclusion that he did not then denationalize himself, but that he still remained a foreign subject. That Congress, in various acts, has conferred certain privileges and imposed certain burdens upon “persons of’ foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens,” at the same time that it conferred like privileges or imposed like burdens upon our own citizens, as in the act of March 3, 1863, (12 Stat. 731,) where all able-bodied male citizens of the United States, and “persons of foreign birth who shall have declared their intention to become citizens under and in pursuance of the laws thereof,” between certain ages, are declared to constitute the national forces, and as in the patent laws, (Rev. St. § 4904,) the pre-emption laws, (Id. § 2259,) and in the mining laws, (Id. § ,2289,) where certain privileges are conferred on citizens of the United States, and “those who have declared their intention to become such,” in no way militates against, but strongly supports, the correctness of our conclusion, because, if foreign-born residents, by declaring their intention to become citizens, could ipso facto become such, it would have been futile to name them in all of these acts as a class distinct from our citizens. That Congress has, by various special acts, many of which are referred to in the opinion of Chief Justice Fuller in Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 158, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375, naturalized certain classes of persons who had not complied with the terms of the general laws on this subject, is not important here, because the plaintiff is not a member of any class thus naturalized. Nor is the decision in Boyd v. Nebraska, supra, in point in this case because Gov. Boyd was there held to be one of a class of foreign-born residents that was naturalized by the acts of Congress admitting the state of Nebraska into the Union. These acts conferred the rights of citizenship upon foreign-born residents of Nebraska who had declared their intention to become citizens. The plaintiff was a resident of Minnesota.
    A single argument remains to be noticed, and that is that the state of Minnesota has conferred on plaintiff the elective franchise, the right to hold any office in its gift, and, in reality, all the rights and privileges of citizenship in its power to bestow; and therefore it is said he is a citizen of that state, and not a foreign subject, and the federal court has no jurisdiction of this action. It may be conceded that a state may confer on foreign citizens or subjects all the rights and privileges it has the power to bestow, but, when it has done all this, it has not naturalized them. They are foreign citizens or subjects still, within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the jurisdiction of the federal courts over controversies between them and citizens of the states is neither enlarged nor restricted by the acts of the state. The power to naturalize foreign subjects or citizens was one of the powers expressly granted by the states to the national government. By section 8, art. 1, of the constitution of the United States, it was provided that “the congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Congress has exercised this power, established the rule, and expressly declared that foreign-born residents may be naturalized by a compliance with it, and not otherwise. This power, like the power to regulate commerce among the states, was carved out of the general sovereign power held by the states when this nation was formed and granted by the Constitution to the Congress of the United States. It thus vested exclusively in Congress, and no power remained in the states to change or vary the rule of naturalization Congress established, or to authorize any foreign subject to denationalize himself, and become a citizen of the United States, without a compliance with the conditions congress had prescribed. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 405; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Minor v. Happersett, 21 How. 162; Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 U.S. 135, 160, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375,
    In like manner, the states granted to the judiciary of the nation the power to determine a controversy between a state or citizens thereof and foreign states, citizens, or subjects, (Const. U.S. art. 3, § 2,) and Congress conferred that power upon the circuit courts. The extent of the jurisdiction of those courts is measured by the Constitution and the acts of Congress. A foreign-born resident, who has not been naturalized according to the acts of Congress, is not a “citizen” of the United States or of a state, within the definition given by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, but remains a foreign subject or citizen; and any controversy between him and a citizen of a state which involves a sufficient amount is thus clearly within the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, under any fair construction of the Constitution and laws of the United States. The jurisdiction thus conferred it is not in the power of any state, by its legislative or other action, to take away, restrict, or enlarge, and the action of the state of Minnesota regarding the citizenship of the plaintiff was not material in this case. Toland v. Sprague, 12 Pet. 300, 328; Cowless v. Mercer Co. 7 Wall. 118; Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270, 286; Phelps v. Oaks, 117 U.S. 236, 239; 6 Sup. Or. Rep. 714; O’Connell v. Reed, 56 Fed. Rep. 531.
    The result is that the power granted to Congress by Article 1, § 8, of the Constitution of the United States, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, is exclusive; and the naturalization laws enacted by Congress in the exercise of this power constitute the only rule by which a foreign subject may become a citizen of the United States or of a state, within the meaning of the federal Constitution and laws. It is not in the power of a state to denationalize a foreign subject who has not complied with the federal naturalization laws, and constitute him a citizen of the United States or of a state, so as to deprive the federal courts of jurisdiction over a controversy between him and a citizen of a state, conferred upon them by article 3, § 2, of the constitution of the United States, and the acts of Congress.
    A foreign subject who is qualified to become a citizen of the United States, under section 2167 of the Revised Statutes, does not become such by filing his declaration of intention so to do. That section requires that he shall renounce allegiance to the sovereignty of which he is a subject, take the oath of allegiance to the United States, and comply with the other conditions prescribed in the second and third paragraphs of section 2165 of the Revised Statutes, in order to become naturalized; and until he does so he remains a foreign subject.
    The court below was right in denying the motion to dismiss this action for want of jurisdiction, and the judgment below is affirmed, with costs.

    Well I hoped you learned something from reading this case with the correct understand of punctuation and the word OR. Karl Granse gave me this case when we were researching citizenship way back in ‘93 or so. I just decided to dig this out when I saw this type argument posted on the internet the first week in February that was close to this. Wow, just think, the word “either” never appeared once in the decision therefore every time the word “OR” was used it is a conjunction meaning AND. Since all citizens of the United States have renounced allegiance to the Sovereign Lord Almighty and given up His citizenship, Eph. 2:19, for another king/sovereign they are neither Christians for they gave up following the Lord nor sovereign with any unalienable rights, only conferred rights by the political establishment. It is that simple. Notice that nowhere were The Lord’s unalienable Rights ever mentioned, only conferred political Rights which are always inferior to Natural rights and is the only reason the country runs, on political rights. Ever hear either the term “politically correct” or “this court cannot decide your tax case argument because it is a `political issue’?”
    Nothing is an unalienable right because the Crown’s corporation of England still rules American “citizens” as it did its “subjects” in England. Only the term changed, i.e. we still are slaves to the feudal (federal) system.

Sincerely,
The Informer

Share

“I have said, Ye are gods, and ye all are children of the most High. But ye shall die as a man, and ye princes shall fall like others.”

Psalm 82 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV){{All Churches and all English Bibles have taught us all a terrible lie}}

82 1 The Prophet declaring God to be present among the Judges and Magistrates,?2 Reproveth their partiality.?3 And exhorteth them to do justice.?5 But seeing none amendment,?8 He desireth God to undertake the matter and execute justice himself.

A Psalm committeth to Aspah.

God standeth in the assembly of [a]gods: he judgeth among gods.

How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the [b]wicked? Selah.

Do right to the poor and fatherless: do justice to the poor and needy.

Deliver the poor and [c]needy: save them from the hand of the wicked.

They know not and understand nothing: they walk in darkness, albeit all the [d]foundations of the earth be moved.

I have said, Ye are gods, and ye all are children of the most High.

[e]But ye shall die as a man, and ye princes shall fall like others.

O God, arise, therefore judge thou the earth: for thou shalt inherit [f]all nations.

Footnotes:

  1. Psalm 82:1 The Prophet showeth that if princes and judges do not their duty, God whose authority is above them, will take vengeance on them.
  2. Psalm 82:2 For thieves and murderers find favor in judgment, when the cause of the godly cannot be heard.
  3. Psalm 82:4 Not only when they cry for help, but when their cause requireth aid and support.
  4. Psalm 82:5 That is, all things are out of order either by their tyranny or careless negligence.
  5. Psalm 82:7 No title of honor shall excuse you, but you shall be subject to God’s judgment, and render account as well as other men.
  6. Psalm 82:8 Therefore no tyrant shall pluck thy right and authority from thee.
Share

Anticipation Keeps Making Us Wait – Orwell, Call Your Office

Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress upon Human Life and Thought, generally known as Anticipations, was written by H.G. Wells at the age of 34. He later called the book, which became a bestseller, “the keystone to the main arch of my work.” Wikipedia
Originally published: 1901
Author: H. G. Wells
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19229/19229-h/19229-h.htm

Sample:
VIII
The Larger Synthesis

We have seen that the essential process arising out of the growth of science and mechanism, and more particularly out of the still developing new facilities of locomotion and communication science has afforded, is the deliquescence of the social organizations of the past, and the synthesis of ampler and still ampler and more complicated and still more complicated social unities. The suggestion is powerful, the conclusion is hard to resist, that, through whatever disorders of danger and conflict, whatever centuries of misunderstanding and bloodshed, men may still have to pass, this process nevertheless aims finally, and will attain to the establishment of one world-state at peace within itself. In the economic sense, indeed, a world-state is already established. Even to-day we do all buy and sell in the same markets—albeit the owners of certain ancient rights levy their tolls here and there—and the Hindoo starves, the Italian feels the pinch, before the Germans or the English go short of bread. There is no real autonomy any[Pg 246] more in the world, no simple right to an absolute independence such as formerly the Swiss could claim. The nations and boundaries of to-day do no more than mark claims to exemptions, privileges, and corners in the market—claims valid enough to those whose minds and souls are turned towards the past, but absurdities to those who look to the future as the end and justification of our present stresses. The claim to political liberty amounts, as a rule, to no more than the claim of a man to live in a parish without observing sanitary precautions or paying rates because he had an excellent great-grandfather. Against all these old isolations, these obsolescent particularisms, the forces of mechanical and scientific development fight, and fight irresistibly; and upon the general recognition of this conflict, upon the intelligence and courage with which its inflexible conditions are negotiated, depends very largely the amount of bloodshed and avoidable misery the coming years will hold.

The final attainment of this great synthesis, like the social deliquescence and reconstruction dealt with in the earlier of these anticipations, has an air of being a process independent of any collective or conscious will in man, as being the expression of a greater Will; it is working now, and may work out to its end vastly, and yet at times almost imperceptibly, as some huge secular movement in Nature, the raising of a continent, the crumbling[Pg 247] of a mountain-chain, goes on to its appointed culmination. Or one may compare the process to a net that has surrounded, and that is drawn continually closer and closer upon, a great and varied multitude of men. We may cherish animosities, we may declare imperishable distances, we may plot and counter-plot, make war and “fight to a finish;” the net tightens for all that.~HG Wells

Share

John 9

John 9 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) With special attention to verses 39; 40; 41. But read the entire chapter 9.

1 Christ giveth sight on the Sabbath day, to him that was born blind.?13 Whom, after he had long reasoned against the Pharisees,?22, 35 and was cast out of the Synagogue,?36 Christ endueth with the knowledge of the everlasting light.

And [a]as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Jesus answered, [b]Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be showed on him.

[c]I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is [d]day: the night cometh when no man can work.

As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

[e]As soon as he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and anointed the eyes of the blind with the clay,

And said unto him, Go wash in the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore and washed, and came again seeing.

[f]Now the neighbors and they that had seen him before, when he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?

Some said, This is he: and others said, He is like him: but he himself said, I am he.

10 Therefore they said unto him, How were thine eyes [g]opened?

11 He answered, and said, The man that is called Jesus, made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam and wash. So I went and washed, and received sight.

12 Then they said unto him, Where is he? He said, I cannot tell.

13 ¶ They brought to the Pharisees him that was once blind.

14 And it was the Sabbath day, when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.

15 Then again the Pharisees also asked him, how he had received sight. And he said unto them, He laid clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.

16 [h]Then said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner, do such miracles? and there was a dissension among them.

17 Then spake they unto the blind again, What sayest thou of him, because he hath opened thine eyes? And he said, He is a Prophet.

18 Then the Jews did not believe him (that he had been blind, and received his sight) until they had called the parents of him that had received sight.

19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, whom ye say was born blind? How doth he now see then?

20 His parents answered them, and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:

21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not: or who hath opened his eyes, can we not tell: he is old enough: ask him: he shall answer for himself.

22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had ordained already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be excommunicated out of the Synagogue.

23 Therefore said his parents, He is old enough: ask him.

24 Then again called they the man that had been blind, and said unto him, [i]Give glory unto God: we know that this man is a [j]sinner.

25 Then he answered, and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I cannot tell: one thing I know, that I was blind, and now I see.

26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?

27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye have not heard it: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?

28 [k]Then reviled they him, and said, Be thou his disciple: we be Moses’ disciples.

29 We know that God spake with Moses: but this man we know not from whence he is.

30 The man answered, and said unto them, Doubtless, this is a marvelous thing, that ye know not whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.

31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him heareth he.

32 Since the world began, was it not heard, that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.

33 If this man were not of God, he could have done nothing.

34 They answered, and said unto him, [l]Thou art altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? so they cast him out.

35 [m]Jesus heard that they had cast him out: and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe in the Son of God?

36 He answered, and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe in him?

37 And Jesus said unto him, Both thou hast seen him, and he it is that talketh with thee.

38 Then he said, Lord, I believe, and worshipped him.

39 [n]And Jesus said, I am come unto [o]judgment into this world, that they [p]which see not, might see: and that they which see, might be made blind.

40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him, heard these things, and said unto him, Are we blind also?

41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should not have sin: but now ye say, We see: therefore your sin remaineth.

Footnotes:

  1. John 9:1 Sin is the beginning even of all bodily diseases, and yet doth it not follow, that God always respecteth their sins, whom he most sharply punisheth.
  2. John 9:3 Christ reasoneth here, as his disciples thought, which presuppose that there come no diseases but for sins only: whereupon he answereth that there was another cause of this man’s blindness, and that was, that God’s his work might be seen.
  3. John 9:4 The works of Christ are as it were a light, which lighten the darkness of the world.
  4. John 9:4 By (day) is meant the light, that is, the lightsome, doctrine of the heavenly truth: and by (night) is meant the darkness which cometh by the obscurity of the same doctrine.
  5. John 9:6 Christ healing the man born blind, by taking the sign of clay, and afterward the sign of the fountain of Siloam (which signifieth Sent) showeth that as he at the beginning made man, so doth he again restore both his body and soul: and yet so, that he himself cometh first of his own accord to heal us.
  6. John 9:8 A true image of all men, who as they are of nature blind, do neither themselves receive the light that is offered unto them, nor suffer it in others, and yet make a great ado amongst themselves.
  7. John 9:10 This is an Hebrew kind of speech, for they call a man’s eyes shut, when they cannot receive any light: And therefore they are said to have their eyes opened, which of blind men are made to see.
  8. John 9:16 Religion is not assaulted by any means more than by pretence of Religion: but the more it is pressed down, the more it riseth up.
  9. John 9:24 A solemn order, whereby men were constrained in old time to acknowledge their fault before God, as if they should say, Consider thou art before God, who knoweth the whole matter, and therefore see thou reverence his majesty, and do him this honor, rather to confess the whole matter openly, than to lie before him, Josh. 7:19; 1 Sam. 6:5.
  10. John 9:24 He is called a sinner in the Hebrew tongue, which is a wicked man, and maketh as it were an art of sins.
  11. John 9:28 Proud wickedness must needs at length break forth, which in vain lieth hid under a zeal of godliness.
  12. John 9:34 Thou art naught even from the cradle, and as we use to say, there is nothing in thee but sin.
  13. John 9:35 Most happy is their state, which are cast furthest out of the Church of the wicked (which proudly boast themselves of the name of the Church) that Christ may come never to them.
  14. John 9:39 Christ doth lighten all them by the preaching of the Gospel, which acknowledge their own darkness, but such as seem to themselves to see clearly enough, those he altogether blindeth: of which sort are they oftentimes, which have the highest place in the Church.
  15. John 9:39 With great power and authority, to do what is righteous and just: as if he said, These men take upon them to govern the people of God after their own lusts, as though they saw all things, and no man but they: but I will rule far otherwise than these men do: for whom they account for blind men, them I will lighten, and such as take themselves to be wisest, them will I drown in most gross darkness of ignorance.
  16. John 9:39 In these words (of seeing and not seeing) there is a secret taunting and check to the Pharisees: for they thought all men blind but themselves.
Share

Jeremiah 31

Jeremiah 31 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

31 1 He rehearseth God’s benefits after their return from Babylon.?13 And the spiritual joy of the faithful in the Church.

At the [a]same time, saith the Lord, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people.

Thus saith the Lord, The people which [b]escaped the sword, found grace in the wilderness: [c]he walketh before Israel to cause him to rest.

The Lord hath appeared unto me [d]of old, say they: [e]Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with mercy I have drawn thee.

Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin Israel: thou shalt still [f]be adorned with thy timbrels, and shalt go forth in the dance of them that be joyful.

Thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of [g]Samaria, and the planters that plant them, [h]shall make them common.

For the days shall come, that the [i]watchmen upon the mount of Ephraim shall cry, Arise, and let us go up unto [j]Zion to the Lord our God.

For thus saith the Lord, Rejoice with gladness for Jacob, and shout for joy among the chief of the Gentiles: publish praise and say, O Lord, save thy people, the remnant of Israel.

[k]Behold, I will bring them from the North country, and gather them from the coasts of the world, with the blind and the lame among them, with the woman with child, and her that is delivered also: a great company shall return hither.

They shall come [l]weeping, and with mercy will I bring them again: I will lead them by the rivers of [m]water in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is [n]my firstborn.

10 ¶ Hear the word of the Lord, O ye Gentiles, and declare in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel, will gather him, and will keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.

11 For the Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand [o]of him, that was stronger than he.

12 Therefore they shall come, and rejoice in the height of Zion, and shall run to the bountifulness of the Lord, even for the [p]wheat and for the wine, and for the oil, and for the increase of sheep and bullocks: and their soul shall be as a watered garden, and they shall have no more sorrow.

13 Then shall the virgin rejoice in the [q]dance, and the young men and the old men together: for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and give them joy for their sorrows.

14 And I will replenish the soul of the Priests with [r]fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, saith the Lord.

15 Thus saith the Lord, A voice was heard on high, a mourning, and bitter weeping. [s]Rachel weeping for her children, refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.

16 Thus saith the Lord, Refrain the voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord, and they shall come again from the land of the enemy:

17 And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own borders.

18 I have heard [t]Ephraim lamenting thus, Thou hast corrected me, and I was chastised as an [u]untamed calf: [v]convert thou me, and I shall be converted: for thou art the Lord my God.

19 Surely after that I was converted, I repented, and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my [w]thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.

20 Is Ephraim [x]my dear son or pleasant child? yet since I spake unto him, I still [y]remembered him: therefore my bowels are troubled for him. I will surely have compassion upon him, saith the Lord.

21 Set thee up [z]signs: make thee heaps: set thine heart toward the path and way, that thou hast walked: turn again, O virgin of Israel: turn again to these thy cities.

22 How long wilt thou go astray, O thou rebellious daughter? for the Lord hath created [aa]a new thing in the earth: A WOMAN shall compass a man.

23 Thus saith the Lord of hosts the God of Israel, Yet shall they say this thing in the land of Judah, and in the cities thereof, when I shall bring again their captivity, The Lord bless thee, O habitation of justice and holy mountain.

24 And Judah shall dwell in it, and all the cities thereof together, the husbandmen and they that go forth with the flock.

25 For I have satiated the weary soul, and I have replenished every sorrowful soul.

26 Therefore I awaked and beheld, and my sleep [ab]was sweet unto me.

27 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will sow the house of Israel, and the house of Judah [ac]with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.

28 And like as I have watched upon them, to pluck up and to root out, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to plague them, so will I watch over them, to build and to plant them, saith the Lord.

29 In those days shall they say no more, The fathers have [ad]eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.

30 But everyone shall die for his own iniquity, every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

31 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a [ae]new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, the which my covenant they [af]brake, although I was [ag]an husband unto them, saith the Lord.

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, After [ah]those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall [ai]teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sins no more.

35 Thus saith the Lord, which giveth [aj]the sun for a light to the day, and the courses of the moon and of the stars for a light to the night, which breaketh the sea, when the waves thereof roar: his Name is the Lord of hosts.

36 If these ordinances depart out of my sight, saith the Lord, then shall the seed of Israel cease from being a nation before me, forever.

37 Thus saith the Lord, If the heavens can be measured, [ak]or the foundations of the earth be searched out beneath, then will I cast off all the seed of Israel, for all that they have done, saith the Lord.

38 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the [al]city shall be built to the Lord from the tower of Hananel, unto the gate of the corner.

39 And the line of the measure shall go forth [in] his presence upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath.

40 And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, and unto the corner of the horsegate toward the East, shall be holy unto the Lord, neither shall it be plucked up nor destroyed anymore forever.

Footnotes:

  1. Jeremiah 31:1 When this noble governor shall come, meaning, Christ, not only Judah, and Israel, but the rest of the world shall be called.
  2. Jeremiah 31:2 Which were delivered from the cruelty of Pharaoh.
  3. Jeremiah 31:2 To wit, God.
  4. Jeremiah 31:3 The people thus reason as though he were not so beneficial to them now, as he had been of old.
  5. Jeremiah 31:3 Thus the Lord answereth that his love is not changeable.
  6. Jeremiah 31:4 Thou shalt have still occasion to rejoice: which is meant by timbrels, and dancing, as their custom was after notable victories, Exod. 15:20; Judg. 5:2 and Jer. 18:34.
  7. Jeremiah 31:5 Because the Israelites, which were the ten tribes never returned to Samaria, therefore this must be spiritually understood under the kingdom of Christ, which was the restoration of the true Israel.
  8. Jeremiah 31:5 That is, shall eat the fruit thereof, as Lev. 19:23-25; Deut. 20:6.
  9. Jeremiah 31:6 The Ministers of the word.
  10. Jeremiah 31:6 They shall exhort all to the embracing of the Gospel, as Isa. 2:3.
  11. Jeremiah 31:8 He showeth what shall be the concord and love of all under the Gospel, when none shall be refused for their infirmities: and everyone shall exhort one another to embrace it.
  12. Jeremiah 31:9 That is, lamenting their sins, which had not given ear to the Prophets, and therefore it followeth that God received them to mercy, Jer. 50:4. Some take it that they should weep for joy.
  13. Jeremiah 31:9 Where they found no impediments, but abundance of all things.
  14. Jeremiah 31:9 That is, my dearly beloved, as the first child is to the father.
  15. Jeremiah 31:11 That is, from the Babylonians, and other enemies.
  16. Jeremiah 31:12 By these temporal benefits he meaneth the spiritual graces, which are in the Church, and whereof there should be ever plenty, Isa. 58:11, 12.
  17. Jeremiah 31:13 In the company of the faithful, which ever praise God for his benefits.
  18. Jeremiah 31:14 Meaning, the spirit of wisdom, knowledge, and zeal.
  19. Jeremiah 31:15 To declare the greatness of God’s mercy in delivering the Jews, he showeth them that they were like to the Benjamites of Israelites, that is, utterly destroyed and carried away, insomuch, that if Rachel the mother of Benjamin could have risen again to seek for her children, she should have found none remaining.
  20. Jeremiah 31:18 That is, the people that were led captive.
  21. Jeremiah 31:18 Which was wanton and could not be subject to the yoke.
  22. Jeremiah 31:18 He showeth how the faithful used to pray: that is, desire God to turn them forasmuch as they cannot turn of themselves.
  23. Jeremiah 31:19 In sign of repentance and detestation of my sin.
  24. Jeremiah 31:20 As though he would say: No, for by his iniquity he did what lay in him to cast me off.
  25. Jeremiah 31:20 To wit, in pity him for my promise’s sake.
  26. Jeremiah 31:21 Mark by what way thou didst go into captivity, and thou shalt turn again by the same.
  27. Jeremiah 31:22 Because their deliverance from Babylon, was a figure of their deliverance from sin, he showeth how this should be procured, to wit, by Jesus Christ, whom a woman should conceive and bear in her womb. Which is a strange thing in earth, because he should be born of a virgin without man, or he meaneth that Jerusalem, which was like a barren woman in her captivity, should be fruitful as she, that is joined in marriage, and whom God blesseth with children.
  28. Jeremiah 31:26 Having understood this vision of the Messiah to come, in whom the two houses of Israel and Judah should be joined, I rejoiced.
  29. Jeremiah 31:27 I will multiply and enrich them with people and cattle.
  30. Jeremiah 31:29 The wicked used this proverb, when they did murmur against God’s judgments pronounced by the Prophets, saying, That their fathers had committed the fault and that the children were punished, Ezek. 18:3.
  31. Jeremiah 31:31 Though the covenant of redemption made to the fathers, and this which was given after, seem divers, yet they are all one, and grounded on Jesus Christ, save that this is called new, because of the manifestation of Christ, and the abundant graces of the holy Ghost given to his Church under the Gospel.
  32. Jeremiah 31:32 And so were the occasion of their own divorcement through their infidelity, Isa. 50:1.
  33. Jeremiah 31:32 Or, master.
  34. Jeremiah 31:33 In the time of Christ, my law shall instead of tables of stone be written in their hearts by mine holy Spirit, Heb. 8:10.
  35. Jeremiah 31:34 Under the kingdom of Christ there shall be none blinded with ignorance, but I will give them faith, and knowledge of God for remission of their sins and daily increase the same: so that it shall not seem to come so much by the preaching of my ministers, as by the instruction of my holy Spirit, Isa. 54:13, but the full accomplishing hereof is referred to the kingdom of Christ, when we shall be joined with our head.
  36. Jeremiah 31:35 If the sun, moon and stars cannot but give light according to mine ordinance, so long as this world lasteth, so shall my Church never fail, neither shall anything hinder it: and as sure as I will have a people, so certain is it, that I will leave them my word forever to govern them with.
  37. Jeremiah 31:37 The one and the other is impossible.
  38. Jeremiah 31:38 As it was performed, Neh. 3:1. By this description he showeth that the city should be as ample, and beautiful as ever it was: but he alludeth to the spiritual Jerusalem, whose beauty should be incomparable.
Share