So Barack Obama, supposedly the forty-second person to be constitutionally elected president of the United States, is now a former president. He has been replaced by the next person to be president, Donald Trump.
In this earlier post I suggested a theory I heard years ago about the Bible’s use of the number forty-two and its seeming application to the leadership of the United Kingdom and the United States. Ancient Israel and Judah had a total of forty-two kings before changing form and losing their independence.
In the case of the United Kingdom, William the Conqueror was the first monarch of Britain in its current form and the current reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, is the forty-second monarch.
And in the case of the United States, President Obama was supposedly the forty-second constitutionally elected person and that was going to be it for the United States in its current form (see the older post as to why he is only number 42).
But Obama is no longer president, and Trump is. So what now? I can think of only three possibilities:
1) The whole theory of a nation having forty-two leaders before it changes form is bunk. This theory might be supported by the idea that the US and UK are similar to Israel in certain ways. But it might all just be a big coincidence.
2) Donald Trump is somehow not constitutionally elected and so the United States is already in a changed state. I doubt this one. Trump is president due to the simple reason that people in all those red counties, one after the other, forming a solid mass of red in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania all voted for Trump.
3) Donald Trump is in truth the forty-second person to be constitutionally elected president, and Obama was actually a usurper of the office much the same way Queen Athaliah was a usurper of the Davidic line of kings. This of course lends new life to all the “birther” controversies and naturalized citizen theories. In my own research on the topic, whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya doesn’t matter – the question is, is he the child of American citizens? In the case of the mother, yes, no question. But the father was a British subject – not an American citizen.
According to the Harvard Law Review,
“The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point.”
Was the father a resident of the USA at some point? He was going to college in Hawaii. Does that make him a resident? I don’t know. According to the IRS, which has a regulation applying to American citizens, if you live in one state and your college student child goes to school in another state, his or her “residence” is still with you. If Obama’s father’s short time in Hawaii can be argued as not being an official residency, Obama wouldn’t qualify to be president.
Another issue – not legal – is simply about the man himself – who is he? Just as Queen Athaliah hated Israel in its form as a God-fearing nation, so to Obama hated America as an exceptional nation. He did everything he could to, indeed, “fundamentally transform” America. Read D’Souza’s The Roots of Obama’s Rage or see his movie 2016:Obama’s America. You will see that Obama was raised quite differently than any other president – even differently than all the other leftist presidents like FDR and Clinton – and had a mindset quite in opposition to America’s place in the world.
I say all this not to necessarily argue that Trump is the 42nd man to be president, but simply if there is any validity to the “42” theory this could be the reason. And if this is the case – that Trump is number 42 – than we might see events unfolding that show Trump as the last president of the United States in its current form.
Now, if Obama is indeed a usurper of the office of the president, than all his signed orders and signed legislation should legally be null and void. But the damage has already been done, by, as Mark Levin calls him, the one-man wrecking ball.
Only time will tell if the Trump administration must ultimately deal with an Iran that is emboldened by the disastrous nuclear deal brought about by the prior administration.
Categories: Signpost #2: Iran
This is truly an interesting blog post of the “two-faced” persona of Obama and his coziness with Iran. His public persona was smooth and calculating and I personally found it disingenuous and not to be trusted. Obama truly hoped to turn our nation into a socialist state before he left office, and weaken our standing among the nations as evidenced by everything he could do knowing Trump and not Hillary Clinton was to take over.
Obama’s public hatred for Israel worsen when he was re-elected to his unfortunate second term which is why you have the disastrous nuclear weapon deal with Iran. Obama & Iran’s mutual growing hatred for Israel caused the deal to weaken our ability to help Israel and embolden Iran’s ability to gain regional hegemony in the Middle East when it is ready to do so, and our nation will not be able to stop it because of that nuclear deal, I believe. Obama didn’t care that it disadvantaged America or strengthened Iran, he just wanted to stick it good to Israel.
Even Joel commented recently about your newest release in response to a question from a poster regarding your second signpost stating that readers should give real consideration to what your saying here. Joel is right. It is increasingly obvious, (especially during the Obama years) if you watch carefully (as Jesus clearly commands his followers to do) what Iran is attempting to do. Iran over the years has been slowly stage setting its plans and has stealthily increased its influence in the Middle East arena so as not to alarm the West to cause a western military intervention and sabotaging Iran’s goals. Iran, when it deems ready, will indeed do what you say it will do, Mark…charge forth and succeed with no one to stop them…your new release regarding Iran and your second signpost will be vindicated.
The questions are…what or who will cause Iran to “charge forth” ? Is it Turkey, Saudi Arabia, both mortal enemies of Iran. And the proverbial, “when”? Will it be during the first term of Trump or beyond?
Your blog has helped us keep our focus.
You should have stuck to interpreting the Bible and stayed out of politics.
I appreciate your comment. Sorry if I have offended, but this should be about the extent of it – I prefer Bible prophecy.
One reason I brought up this topic is that since the USA was the primary driver of the First Signpost, there might be a fair chance it will be involved with the Second Signpost. Also, please know that anything I say about the USA is far more speculative than what I might say about Daniel 7 and 8.
Elizabeth, regret to say your opinion is exactly why almost all churchgoers in the UK have been left very upset, even disturbed, over the EU referendum!
It’s caused by their leaders’ – and their own! – sheer ignorance of the Lord’s plans, especially for UK and USA! I know of over 20 prophecies in the last 15 years indicating the Lord’s deep desire for us to be out of the EU and thereby realign with His purposes. This is deeply challenging to churches – as were the ancient prophets! [This from global tv satellite company http://wp.me/p1Y1yB-9qm refers]
Most church leaders (especially Anglican bishops) side-lined biblical and contemporary prophecy in preference for their ‘politico-social gospel’ and voted in Parliament to hinder our return to being a sovereign nation.
Knowing scripture is pointless if not applied to our daily lives! Therefore, your rebuking Mark is rather remiss.
This is fun, but William the Conqueror was king of England (only, not even Wales) in really exactly the same form as his predecessor Edward the Confessor, and several before him, starting arguably with Alfred the Great.
Having said that, traditional History-of-England teaching always used to begin with William the Conqueror – he definitely does mark a sort of line in the sand. I think it’s hard to justify him as the first king of England in its present form though…
Granted, and I agree with you. And yes, with time the realm changed from England alone to include Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. But any line of 42 monarchs will take a few centuries at least and things in a country can change in that time.
The America of Trump is not the America of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson.
Imagine, too, the Jewish kingdom under David, the second monarch, and Zedekiah, the forty-second – the former kingdom was God-fearing and a military power; the latter was a small city-state completely infiltrated by idolatry.
Yes indeed – my main point was really about the numbers. According to the all-knowing Wikipedia (!) the first real king of England was Æthelstan, who was 13th before William. That would make Elizabeth II the 55th monarch of England.
Like I say I suspect there is some rationale you could use for starting with William, but I’m not really sure what it is. He was the last leader to conquer England – that is perhaps the best one.
I like that – the last to conquer would be it.
Just like Ireland today really came to be only in the late 17th century, after four waves of migrations/invasions over the millennia, followed by Cromwell’s conquest and the Flight of the Earls.
Of course, if what you say is the deciding factor that may bode ill for both the UK and USA – they change due to a coming invasion.
By the way, since we don’t have too many contributing from the European countries, I have appreciated having the perspective of another Brit on this blog.
I was interested in your 42nd concept. With what is happening at the moment with Trump looking to be impeached/alignment with Russia etc, there might run the chance of Trump being forced from the office based on accusations that took place prior to him taking office…just second (or third or fourth) guessing here…which could then align back to Obama…however, have you considered ‘removing’ from the list of 42 those presidents that were formally impeached/removed from presidency during their tenure. I must admit that I don’t know american historical presidencies enough to know if that is relevant or not.
Im interested in any consideration of the number of judges that Israel had, compared to Supreme Court nominees and if there is anything in association there.
Keep up the great work. Between you, Joel R, and the odd article (when we are not arguing about the Eucharist etc) from Walid Shoebat, the end times workings are thoroughly exciting.
Yes, watching the end times is exciting.
Regarding the “42”, in my two posts I believe I mention the qualification for being part of the list – being elected per the constitution. I don’t take out those who might have been impeached because they were elected to begin with.
I realize this is a three year old post, but with events spinning out of control in 2020 I feel this is relevant. Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that half of Oklahoma belongs to Indian tribes!
Click to access 18-9526_9okb.pdf
I feel this last two months are a political Pearl Harbor against America and we are not done yet! The anti-God/ anti-clear thinking side of the culture war is advancing more rapidly than the Germans advancing on France and Russia at the start of WW2 and the North Koreans advancing on South Korea in 1950. I don’t have the gift of prophecy. It looks like God is giving “sign posts” to America on how close we are to God shutting down the country. It is possible that God could send another cold winter to freeze the enemy (Stalingrad analogy) or Trump could make a political Inchon Landing (Korean War analogy), but I wonder when God will get tired of protecting America. If I were an insurance agent I would not write America an insurance policy.
There could have been another interruption before Obama. George Washington set the two-term precedent, and every president up to Franklin Delano Roosevelt kept the precedent, after which time the Twenty-Second Amendment formally limited presidents to two elected terms. Going by that rule, FDR was the exception.
In part, from National Constitution Center (US)
Blog February 27, 2020 by NCC Staff
On this day: Term limits for American Presidents
Between 1796 and 1940, four two-term Presidents sought a third term to varying degrees. Ulysses S. Grant wanted a third term in 1880, but he lost the Republican Party nomination to James Garfield on the 36th ballot. Grover Cleveland lacked party support for a third term but was a rumored candidate. Woodrow Wilson hoped a deadlocked 1920 convention would turn to him for a third term.
Even the popular Theodore Roosevelt couldn’t get by party objections to a third term. Roosevelt passed on running for office in 1908, fully aware of the Washington precedent. But after a fallout with President William Howard Taft, he sought a third nonconsecutive term in the 1912 presidential election. He lost the election as a third-party candidate but came in second ahead of Taft.
Franklin Roosevelt broke the third-term unwritten rule in 1940 after World War II broke out in Europe and Nazi Germany overran France. The move caused some key Roosevelt supporters within the Democratic Party to leave his campaign. Roosevelt insisted that he was in the race to keep America out of war in Europe, and he easily defeated Wendell Willkie on Election Day.
After Roosevelt died in 1945, momentum built quickly for a presidential term-limits amendment. But even after the 22nd Amendment was ratified, two Presidents held aspirations of a third term within the amendment’s limitations. Harry Truman was President when the amendment was proposed and ratified, and its language allowed for Truman to run for office in 1952. But a loss in the New Hampshire primary led to Truman’s withdrawal from the race.
And in 1968, President Lyndon Johnson was eligible to run since he assumed the presidency in late 1963. Johnson also dropped from the 1968 presidential race after a disappointing showing in New Hampshire amid poor poll numbers.
Since 1951, some members of Congress have introduced efforts to repeal the 22nd Amendment, but they haven’t made it out of committee.”
Andrew Jackson broke the established practice of allowing appointed civil servants to continue indefinitely in their posts and dismissed many hangers-on appointed during previous administrations, preferring to reward political supporters in the practice known as patronage. He said that serving in an office created for public benefit is not a matter of right. As it is, the theory that lifetime appointments would keep judges apolitical has proved to be bunk.
FDR was constitutionally elected in each of his four elections. Before the amendment the constitution allowed anyone to run for as many terms as they wished.
FDR was never elected outside of the constitution. The “42” is by person, not administration as well.
“FDR was constitutionally elected in each of his four elections. Before the amendment the constitution allowed anyone to run for as many terms as they wished.”
“FDR was never elected outside of the constitution.”
Mark, I already said that.
The point is that Washington established the form of American government in unwritten precedent by his choice not to run for a third term, thereby demonstrating the character and conduct appropriate for the office, not just technicalities written in the letter of the law. FDR flouted that precedent by running for four (!) terms, as well as dramatically expanding the federal government into other areas, and fighting with the other branches of government and seeking to change their form when they became inconvenient for his agenda. He rocked the boat so much that Congress and the state legislatures wrote the 22nd Amendment, a law imposing term limits that hadn’t been needed until that time because no one had been quite so brazen as FDR, or at least not done so and been quite so successful at it. He considered it something of an extraordinary emergency measure fit for an extraordinary man in extraordinary times, since he had more confidence in himself than in anyone else to see America through the crisis with Germany and her allies. Other men ran for third terms, but none of them won.
“The “42” is by person, not administration as well.”
Are you referring to Grover Cleveland here? The mention of Grover Cleveland that I posted above was in the text of the article from the National Constitution Center, pointing out that there were rumors in his lifetime that he was considered a party favorite for the nomination for a third term, in part because he was already a record-setter for having been the first man to be elected to two non-consecutive terms. Grover Cleveland was certainly a unique fellow, but even he wasn’t special enough to be counted twice for the purpose of numbering America’s leaders, again by the number of men, as you say, not by administrations.
Is Oliver Cromwell counted in the list of Britain’s monarchs? I would think not.