You can help this website by saving it as a favorite Bookmark on your web browser.

New Addition September 5, 2015: The United States Unmasked by Gabriel Manigault is in the Free Book Downloads section. This book provides more insight into US history prior to and thereafter the Civil War. This is essential reading.

New Additions: History of the 39th Congress of the United States by William H. Barnes, A.M. is in the Free Book Downloads section and Corruption of Blood is in the Essays section.

This is a revival of the Behold! Newsletter. Access to this website is free but the Newsletter will eventually be sponsored by subscriptions, book and media sales. Some frank comments will be made about THE SYSTEM, the patriot movement(s) and the general public. There is so much to say - where should I start? - and it would be impossible to lay it out in an order particular to each reader so please read as much as you can to get the general idea. Some topics are cross-linked within the texts for your convenience to additional relevant topics.

Some very touchy subjects will be presented on this website. I wouldn't bring them up unless I thought you could benefit from the discussion. Although the subject matter will seem to re-open old wounds, I assure you that new light will be shed upon the subjects which will lead to a greater understanding of the issues. We might come to a mutually beneficial conclusion as to what's ailing us; wouldn't that be nice? There is a sliver of truth which runs through a lot of confusion in this world; it has been evaded by politicians, judges, administrators, historians, commentators, preachers, theologians, scholars, reporters ... and it can be found on this website.

Is everything proceeding smoothly in your life? Are you on the road to prosperity? Do you perceive any social problems today? Have you ever been puzzled by judicial decisions? Would you like to have another insight to the workings of a judge's or politician's mind? Are you ready for a completely different take on the forbidden subjects of political discussion? Keep reading!

In the early days of Behold! (Republic v. Democracy: Redress // Status: The Book // their association with other fledgling "patriot" groups), this research was related in public appearances before some pretty big crowds. One speaker would get up and warm up the crowd, touching on social, moral and economic troubles; then another speaker would get up and relate the legal research they had done. This website initially plays the front man for the legal research. I am trying to gather up people from all walks of life and introduce them to this beneficial information. When this "front end" of the website is filled out some, I hope to relate new legal research to continue the wonderful work of the authors and editors of Behold! as well as reprint selected articles and refer the readers to the original writings and research materials.

An enormous amount of legal and historic research has been done, and is available, but it doesn't do any good for a People who will not study the basics enough to recognize their worth.

May God bless you for your interest.

(This page contains many subjects under developement which are not yet linked to other pages. Please check back for further progress. The underlined words DO link to other pages.)

Kansans to vote on gun ownership amendment. Also listed on infowars.com and the Kansas City Star.

The original article appeared in the Wichita Eagle Sunday - March 29, 2009 and in the Kansas City Star on Monday - March 30, 2009.

This response was written up as a pamphlet and circulated:

Kansans to Vote on Gun Ownership Amendment

For 144 years, politicians have misled the public about the effects of constitutional amendments. Whether proposed to benefit the People or address a social problem, the wording of amendments has been carefully chosen to produce far-ranging, unrecognized and nefarious results. This amendment to alter the Kansas Constitution is yet another example of their misrepresentation.

The present Constitution of Kansas, Bill of Rights, Article 4 states "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security;" The proposed amendment states "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose."

Originally, the People possessed the right to keep and bear arms as a whole, as State militias and as single Citizens. When the US Constitution and their State Constitutions were ratified, the People placed several restrictions on those governments to not infringe this right. The words People and Citizen were used in those documents to denote themselves as the sovereign body over the governments they restricted.

Laymen think of the word person as describing a living man, a Citizen who is a member of the sovereign body which created the several governments; lawyers know that the word person can be a legal fiction, an artificial contrivance created by the legislature which can be regulated outside the relation of Citizens and the governments they created.

"This word 'person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding of the word in all the phases of its proper use ... The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar reference to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individuals ... A person is here ... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons ... The law of persons is the law of status or condition.

"A moment's reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; This is his personality ... that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fictitious and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations." American Law and Procedure, (1910) Vol. 13, pp. 137-162.

After the Civil War, the legislative bodies of the US desired to bestow citizenship on those previously excluded. Yet, they carefully chose the words all persons in the 14th amendment to create something different than the Citizens of the several States. After these Reconstruction Amendments, courts gradually explained the type of citizenship these persons had. The case of Twining v. New Jersey [211 U.S. 78, page 98 and supporting cases] contains an overview of the limits of their privileges and immunities including the statement that 14th amendment persons have no right to keep and bear arms. The original Citizens of their respective States have since assumed an artificial legal character as persons when they were induced to participate in legislative programs.

The first objection to the proposed Kansas amendment is the word People would be replaced by the word person.

The People did not have to justify specific uses for their arms nor have them defined. In the second objection to the proposed amendment, the supposedly lawful uses of arms are enumerated and the general statement of "other lawful uses" would enable the legislature to statutorily define and restrict the use of arms under these and future "lawful uses." Who will write these laws but the legislatures themselves? And what type of law will they utilize but the law regulating persons? This amendment trades a State Constitutional limitation on government for mere statutory privileges granted by the legislature.

This can only be a brief introduction. Severe legal problems can be found in the amended constitutions of the US and of the former States; these have led to severe social and economic problems with more to come. Voting for this Kansas arms amendment will not worsen an already dire situation but will add yet another layer of problems to figure out and then require rescission at a later date if the People ever want their Nation back or survive long enough to try. Nor will voting against it settle the issue in light of other present constitutional defects but at least its defeat will not add to Kansans' legal burden. This proposed amendment is just another in a series to get the People of Kansas to further "dumb down" their State Constitution.

04-2009 More at www.beholdonline.info (end of pamphlet)

See also, Better Information about the Second Amendment.

For an understanding of what 99% of all current legislation is, read Cummings v. Missouri. Not only was the right to keep and bear arms protected from the Federal Government by the Second Amendment and not only was the right to keep and bear arms protected by your original State Constitution's provision, but it was personally protected by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the US Constitution wherein "No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder." A Bill of Attainder is a legislative enactment which charges the Citizen with incompetence of some sort (to travel, conduct business, keep and bear a firearm, etc.). General non-specific evidence is entertained such as statistics indicating some amount of random accidental injuries, a finding of guilt is entered and the right is permanently suspended for an entire class of persons, all without a trial under the judicial function of the State. As long as 1.) you are a Citizen of your 2.) State and the Federal 3.) Judicial Power to enforce the Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 restriction is available, your personal right to keep and bear arms is recognized. But go back and re-read Better Information about the Second Amendment to see that the Legislative branches of the governments have long ago induced you to separate yourself from these three pillars of good government.

Yahoo! News Story: Court says detainees have rights, bucking Bush

Story Highlights

• WASHINGTON - In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.
• Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the 5-4 high court majority, acknowledged the terrorism threat the U.S. faces Ñ the administration's justification for the detentions Ñ but he declared, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Have you ever wondered how illegal aliens and enemy combatants can have rights under the US Constitution? It would seem that a country's government would be set up for the benefit of its citizens and not for the automatic benefit of anyone who drops in illegally or is captured as a enemy combatant.

However, perhaps we are looking at this Constitutional issue from the wrong perspective. Perhaps these foreigners' status is not being elevated to qualify for benefits under the US Constitution but perhaps the quality of any perceived citizenship under the US Constitution has been lowered?

When illegals and foreign enemy combatants are able to get access to the US Constitution, it is because the quality of US citizenship, actually subjectship, has been previously degraded to match the status of any other subject of non-US powers.

The better discussion is to examine how Citizens have been converted to subjects pursuant to the supposed 13th and later amendments. If someone believes the 14th amendment created his citizenship, perhaps he should examine, for the first time, what kind of citizenship he was granted?

14th amendment citizenship was not an expression of a sovereign People; instead, it was a limited grant of privileges and immunities, not rights, issued by only one branch of government to a certain class of persons. If you are not pleased with the direction the country is going, perhaps a personal examination of the original relationship between a citizen and his government is in order.

For an historical review of the original US Citizenship, please read Preamble to the United States Constitution - Who are the Posterity?.

For an historical review of the concerted effort to convert US Citizenship through supposed amendments to the US Constitution, please read TO LOSE OUR SOVEREIGNTY or THE DISMANTLING OF A CHRISTIAN NATION.

A term mentioned in the above article is civilian which is to distinguish that type of court from a military court, tribunal or military commission. This does not reveal the full scope of the meaning of the word civil when applied to courts. During the Civil War, Union troops occuping regions within the States set up military courts and commissions; however, they also used the regular civil courts and civil administrators to carry out military process, giving the appearance that the civil courts were still open and operating under the civil judicial power of the State. After the Civil War, the 14th amendment continued the perceived need for these kinds of courts, which were not civil, but were only enforcing the post-Civil War amendments. This can be very confusing to a Citizen of a State who thinks the local civil judicial authorities are mistaken in their interpretation of the original US and State Constitutions but who are actually enforcing the post-Civil War amendments on the Citizens of the States. Read the extended arguments in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), available in PDF form at The University of Chicago Law School for an insight into the hazards a Citizen faces when he is before a military commission.

Prior to the Civil War, State Constitutions had two provisions written into them to prevent the military from taking over the State. One was the outright statement that, "The military power is subservient to the civil power." The other was, "The courts are always open." This did not mean that the courts, judges, clerks and recorders were open around the clock, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, but that the civil courts were always open for civil remedy so that the military would not have to take charge and impose martial law or in our case today martial law rule. Are these two provisions still written in your new and improved (sic) State Constitutions? Did they quietly go away like several other provisions which limited the growth of government and preserved your liberty? Dear reader, you have much to learn.

At least a few people are upset about a non-homicide ruling on a not-yet-born baby:

• Emergency C-section at 8.5 months delivers 'non-person'
• A Colorado judge has dismissed charges against a man who caused a fatal car crash, because the victim, at 8.5 months of a pregnancy, had only been scheduled for a C-section to be born, and that had not yet happened at the time of the crash.
• "'Person' is a defined term for purposes of the homicide statutes," wrote Judge Richard Gurley in a March 20 [2008] decision in the case involving the death of Lileigh Lehnen, the born-alive daughter of 26-year-old Shea Lehnen.
• "The definition states that 'person,' when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who had been born and was alive at the time of the homicidal act," the judge said.

See WorldNetDaily for the entire article.

In response to this ruling, people are proposing legislation and amendments to the Colorado Constitution to "declare the term 'person' shall include 'any human from the time of fertilization.'" Little do these people understand that the US Constitution had already protected the unborn by using the words, "and our POSTERITY" in the Preamble of that document. Without protection of the unborn, there would be no posterity. The government offices and officials at that time depended on a continuation of the People, through their Posterity, in order to continue the legal authority for the continued existence of those offices. It was in the interest of those politicians and administrators to protect the unborn in order to keep their jobs going. Furthermore, the sanction of non-person/no-homicide statutes and pro-abortion statutes would be cause for their trial and conviction of violating their oaths of office, wherein they swore or affirmed to uphold and protect all provisions of the US Constitution.

What has happened since that time? In the supposed interest of freeing the slaves, Congress and the State Legislatures gave themselves new powers, not found in the US Constitution, by their addition of Section 2 to the 13th Amendment wherein, "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Congress already had its powers enumerated in Article I and had the general power clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 wherein Congress has power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, ..." Congress was careful to choose the words appropriate legislation in order to create the 13th amendment outside the scope of the original US Constitution. See U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866), wherein the Court declared that Congress was shrewd in selecting the words of this power clause because it removed all judicial review from the Acts which Congress would pass under this amendment (as well as all subsequent amendments with the same power clause).

When Congress desired to give these freed slaves citizenship, Congress could not bestow upon them the kind of Citizenship which the white People of the several States possessed. Nor did Congress want to. In the deliberation on the proposed 14th amendment, the word natural was taken out of the proposed amendment so it would not read, "All natural born persons ...," but would read, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ..." By removing this word, Congress created its own citizens, actually subjects, outside the natural inheritance of Citizenship set forth by the People in the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America. Congress needs a discontinuity of Citizenship, a gap in the inheritance process, so the natural rights of the parents will not descend to their posterity, in order to legislate on these persons outside the scope of the original US Constitution.

Now the rule of Citizenship is purported to be reversed; Congress and the State Legislatures claim they can exist on their own authority and they can decide who will be a subject citizen as well as when the life of that person begins. Through simple words, the principle is supplanted; thereafter, the interpretation of every law will change to conform.

"The plan also has earned the support of one-time GOP presidential candidate former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and members of the Colorado Legislature. State Sen. Greg Brophy Wray told a Denver television station, 'Clearly it's always the right time to take the stand for the sanctity of life.' Does the informed reader now see that such statements by politicians indicate either ignorance or outright deceit?

"Colorado's plan would grant personhood to the unborn from the moment of fertilization, meaning state and local laws protecting any individual life would be applied to the unborn. It targets a loophole the U.S. Supreme Court created when it issued the original Roe v. Wade opinion. The opinion said: '(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.'"

However, personhood [of the preborn] can never be established as long as the 14th amendment is assumed to be a valid amendment to the US Constitution because that amendment clearly says, "All persons born ..." The effort in Colorado would be for naught.

Again from the above WorldNetDaily article, "I'm not happy at all," District Attorney Pete Hautzinger told the newspaper. "It's a very murky part of the law." Okay, government official with superior knowledge who leads The People by the nose into this mess, frankly explain how the 14th amendment works so The People can address the issue that amendments of that ilk are not valid amendments to the US Constitution.

The People had better do some independent study. Get a head start by reading the

• PREAMBLE to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION: Who Are the Posterity?
• TO LOSE OUR SOVEREIGNTY or THE DISMANTLING OF A CHRISTIAN NATION and
• Baby Killers!

in the Essays section of this website for historical and legal records with added commentary about the supposed 13th and later amendments to the US Constitution.

Home Schooling is in the news again.

• "I have sincerely held religious beliefs," he said. "Public schools conflict with that. I have to go with what my conscience requires me [Phillip Long]."
• "Parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children," wrote Justice H. Walter Croskey in a Feb. 28 opinion signed by the two other members of the [California] district court.
• "I want to have control over what goes in my son's head, not what's put in there by people who might be on the far left who have their own ideas about indoctrinating kids," he said [Glenn - last name withheld].

See the Los Angeles Times and Fox News.

Although parents might argue that they have the right and responsibility to teach directly to or otherwise obtain the proper schooling for their children, they overlook a few technical problems standing in the way of effecting this belief. Today, parents routinely obtain a marriage license from the State; this makes the State a third party in the marriage and gives the State obvious interest in the products of that marriage, specifically the children, but also the wealth generated during the marriage and the disposal of it when the State allows its marriage to be dissolved. Why would such a license be required for an otherwise right mandated from Almighty God to procreate? Under the 14th amendment version of citizenship, no person subject under this amendment can do anything as a matter of right but must first have the function sanctioned by the government formed after the Civil War. This includes every major function of life: from working, to ownership of real estate, ownership of automobiles, travel, marriage, the raising of children.

Matters this serious deserve your independent study. You may obtain a head start by reading the Essays section of this website for historical and legal records with added commentary about the supposed 13th and later amendments to the US Constitution.

The life of John Adams is in the spotlight lately with an HBO miniseries on his life and a tie-in to a US Postal Service (which is not the US Post Office described in the original Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 7) promotion. To learn more about the Forefathers, please see the Essays section of this website for historical and legal records with added commentary about that period of time, with the bonus of discovering how the work of the Forefathers has been replaced after the Civil War and might be forever lost.

Frankly, the public of today is not up to the task of liberty. Government administrators understand that The People have discarded, in a legal sense, the virtues of the Forefathers and sought refuge in the empty promises of atheistic socialism. Once the people have discarded their birthright, the administrators discourage, and prohibit when they can, any meaningful discussion of what the Republic was, how it was subverted, what it is today, and where it is going. But if these administrators still pretend that the likes of John Adams has any relevancy in what they do to the public today, that somehow any part of the original republic exists to limit their unlawful expansion of power through the post-civil war amendments, that the same Republic still exists but in a benevolently modified form, that The People in their temporary stupor can indeed awaken themselves with the help of the God of Israel, the same Father of the New Testament, and have the right/duty to do this, then "Let us dare to read, think, speak and write" to reveal that fraud!

CNN Story: Groups criticize McCain for calling U.S. 'Christian nation'

Story Highlights

• Sen. John McCain says Constitution established U.S. as a "Christian nation"
• McCain later said U.S. founded on Judeo-Christian tradition of human rights
• Arizona Republican says comments not meant to exclude other religions
• Muslim and Jewish groups critical of GOP presidential candidate's remarks

However, for an historical review of the US originally being a Christian Nation, please read

• Preamble to the United States Constitution - Who are the Posterity? and
• FIRST ARTICLE IN AMENDMENT

And furthermore, for an historical review of the concerted effort to convert the US into a non-Christian Nation through amendments to the US Constitution, please read

• TO LOSE OUR SOVEREIGNTY or THE DISMANTLING OF A CHRISTIAN NATION