Did William the Conqueror Kill
Any of Your Ancestors?

In the fall of 2000 when I was living in Houston my mother came to town for a visit. On a Saturday morning I had a sudden thought, “I ought to take Mom to the Clayton Library today.” When I asked her she said, "Sure, I’d love to go." Three hours later we were doing family history research in Houston’s Clayton Library, one of the best genealogy libraries in the country.

Clayton Library has a collection of over 15,000 family histories from throughout the entire USA—all placed on shelves in alphabetic order by last names. We went our separate ways down different aisles. Just a few minutes later Mom broke the silence saying, “Francis Marion Woodruff. Francis Marion Woodruff. I’ve been looking for you for 20 years.”

With the addition of Francis Marion Woodruff (1837-1912) to our family tree I was eventually able to trace our Woodruff line back to Matthew Woodruff (1616-1682). I had hit a jackpot. Matthew Woodruff is a common ancestor of Wilford Woodruff (1807-1898) and of my great-grandmother, Nettie Lee Woodruff. Wilford Woodruff’s family has been avidly doing family history research for nearly 200 years. By adding Wilford Woodruff’s ancestry to our Woodruff line, we can trace our ancestry back to Roman times prior to the birth of Christ.

I am, for example, a 27^th great-grandson of William the Conqueror (1028-1087) and his wife, Matilda of Flanders (1031-1083). I am also a direct descendant of most of the Plantagenets.

Looking back through these names you get the idea that European royalty were truly the jet-setters of medieval times. One generation would be born in England, the previous generation in Italy, the one before that in Russia, the one before that in Egypt, and the one before that in Paris.

One Saturday I sent a copy of my updated genealogy file to my cousin, Lynnie. I pointed out that both she and I were 27^th great-grandchildren of William the Conqueror.

The following Monday evening Lynnie called me. She had told three of her fellow teachers in the teachers’ lounge that morning that she is a 27^th great-granddaughter of William the Conqueror.

“Who’s that?” two of them asked.

Lynnie was practically speechless. Her immediate thought was, “Helloooo! You’re educators! You should know who William the Conqueror was.”

In typical Lynnie fashion she related, “I just told them, ‘Well, he probably killed half your ancestors’…and then I thought, ‘Thank goodness...fewer idiots in the world!’”

#     #     #

Orem, Utah—January 21, 2021—©2021 Daniel Kemper Lubben

 When Government Thugs Come to Your Door, Remember This...

Imagine you an armed guard, a real tough guy. Your job is personal body guard for a prominent political figure. You know your employer is highly corrupt—but he pays you well.  

You are sent with a small legion of men—including your superiors—to arrest a controversial figure by night, out of the public eye. You have your misgivings but your personal code of ethics is to just do your job. The work you do helps establish order in a turbulent society, after all. And besides, you're proud of your prowess, your skills, your dedication. You're never afraid to be front and center when coming face to face with lawbreakers and troublemakers.

Your name is Malchus. The year is 33 A.D. The place of the arrest is an olive orchard on a steep hillside facing Jerusalem's eastern wall from across the Kidron Valley.

An unexpected turn of events causes your name to be memorialized in scripture for thousands of years into the future:

And being in an agony he [Jesus] prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found them sleeping for sorrow, 

And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.

And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.

But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?

When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?

And one of them [Peter, the chief apostle] smote the servant of the high priest [Malchus], and cut off his right ear.

And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?

When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.

Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest’s house.

If you were Malchus, how would you feel? What would be your thoughts? How might your life be changed?

We can't point a finger of blame at Peter whose bold instinct is to defend his best friend from armed thugs. Against all odds Peter flashed his sword in defiance of the contemptible cowardice displayed by low-lifes in high positions in the cover of night. 

Jesus has just suffered excruciating emotional pain. His clothes are stained red with his own blood. One of his chosen insiders has just betrayed him to his worst enemies—less than one minute ago. The full weight of massive power is about to crush down upon Jesus. And you are an integral party to his suffering.

But in response to Peter cutting of your ear, Jesus (this man you have come to arrest) isn't thinking about himself. Instead, he picks up your ear and miraculously rejoins it to your head. His actions and words show pure love and utter compassion for your own pain and suffering—just as much as if you're an innocent babe. But you know you're not.

We know from the scriptures what happens during the next 24 hours and during the next three or four days. 

But how are you changed, Malchus? And what would you want to say to all the rest of us?

#     #     #

Orem, Utah—January 20, 2021—©2021 Daniel Kemper Lubben

 Who Owns Western Public Lands?

Conflicts in the southeastern corner of Nevada in 20214 centered around the question of who owns public lands.

First and foremost, we should keep in mind that public lands and government-owned lands are two different things. Public means of, by, and for the people. Public land belongs to the people—not to a monarch, and not to a far-off governments or governmental bodies.

Who should decide how public lands are used? Certainly those people who have lived locally and who have been established for generations have a far more legitimate interest in how public lands should be used and how public resources should be allocated than a handful of distant bureaucrats.

Unfortunately, the meaning of the word public has shifted over the years. Nowadays we have public schools—meaning schools that are owned and controlled by the government. In England, public schools, however, are schools that are privately owned. So, originally public meant belonging to the people—as opposed to being owned by a monarch or by a government.

As societies become corrupted, meanings of words shift. This is by design. Orwell wrote about how corrupt governments purposely corrupt language in order to usurp power and extend their control. See especially chapters 4 and 5 of his famous book, 1984, where he describes the abominable principles of Newspeak.

We Americans have been conditioned to believe that all public lands in the United States are owned and should be controlled by federal agencies centrally located in Washington, D.C. This idea is a very wrongheaded idea and one that is dangerous to our most basic freedoms.

A righteous, free, and benevolent society will always have great respect for local customs as well as for the private ownership of property. In times past, our federal government has often failed to respect established, local customs. But the federal government used to at least pay lip service to the idea of local customs and individual property rights.

At the conclusion of the Mexican-American War, the federal government of the United States formally signified that ownership of property in lands ceded by Mexico to the US would not change. A commenter to a recent article regarding the Cliven Bundy affair in Bunkerville, Nevada posted the following explanation.

“The relevant treaty is the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), which concluded the Mexican-American war. What does it say about title to (i.e. property in) land? To the extent it talks about title (i.e. property in land) at all, rather than transferring any 'property' rights to the United States, it confirms the property of existing owners! See Article VIII: 'In the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans not established there, shall be inviolably respected. The present owners, the heirs of these, and all Mexicans who may hereafter acquire said property by contract, shall enjoy with respect to it guarantees equally ample as if the same belonged to citizens of the United States.'

"Search as you may, you will not find one sentence in that treaty transferring title or ownership of one square inch of land to the United States. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was peace treaty, and as such it merely adjusted the jurisdictional boundaries between the two belligerents. It was transfer of jurisdiction; no transfer of property was involved. According to the international law of 1848, neither cession nor conquest conferred title (i.e. a property interest) in the conquered land on the conquering sovereign. What the conquering power acquired is jurisdiction (hint: the U.S. federal government doesn’t own us or our land, it merely exercise jurisdiction over both). The U.S. government’s claim to title is built instead on its massive, systematic, and intentional seizures of land in, violation, of its treaty obligations, international law, and incidentally the constitution. The last time in human history when mere conquest conferred on a conqueror both jurisdiction (imperium) and property (dominium) was in antiquity. The Roman republic, e.g. obtained title over both the moveable and immoveable property as well as the persons of the conquered, meaning it could enslave them. This doctrine, however, has NOT formed part of international law for at least a millennium.”

The poster, who posted under the moniker Menschenrechte, makes an important point when he alludes to the fact that American law is not based on brutal, dictatorial, anti-freedom Roman law but rather on divine laws originally handed down to prophets among our ancient forebears by God himself, then shaped over thousands of years by Anglo-Saxons into English common law, and more recently codified into the law of the land as the Constitution of the United States.

#     #     #

Note: The post by Menschenrecte appeared at www.washingtonsblog.com on 14 April 2014.  

Orem, Utah—January 19, 2021—©2021 Daniel Kemper Lubben

 J. Reuben Clark’s Optimism Regarding Constitutional Law

J. Reuben Clark saw that the United States was on the road to destruction. As explained in my previous article, How J. Reuben Clark Became Enmeshed with Anti-Constitution Conspirators, he knew that powerful forces were well on their way to destroying constitutional law. He had witnessed firsthand that conspirators had set in motion an unstoppable force. He knew that their goal was the complete destruction of constitutional law. But Clark was certain that the conspirators would ultimately fail and that the Lord’s purposes in establishing the Constitution would ultimately triumph. Speaking of J. Reuben Clark and Clark's views, Skousen explained as follows.

“...the Lord isn't going to allow this government to be destroyed. Although administrations may destroy themselves, systems may destroy themselves, this country's going to survive. J. Reuben Clark knew how it would survive: build track two. Don't get in front of that train on track one, it will just run over you. You quietly build track two.

“Sometimes people say, ‘Dr. Skousen, you spent your whole life studying these things that have gone wrong, with the attack on the Constitution and everything. Why are you so optimistic?’”

“I say to them, ‘I read the book, and in the end, we win.’ Now, it's on track two that we win. J. Reuben Clark never lost confidence in having a generation finally become alert, and finally doing its homework, and getting into a position where they would do what God and the Founding Fathers intended that we should have been doing all the time.”

“So, I bless his memory. I bless his integrity. I bless his tenacity. I'm so grateful for that man. He's been my inspiration, I've learned to love him. I knew him, but not well. I received counsel from him two or three times. One of my books became a national best seller, and he gave me a little bit of counsel about what God was doing, and what to expect, and I was very grateful for that.”

You and I and all those who strive to love the Lord, understand his laws, and follow his commands, and help his kingdom roll forth in the latter days until it fills the whole earth, have a responsibility to study, honor and uphold the principles of Constitutional law. Perhaps there's not much we as individuals can do right now to stop that train barrelling down on Track One, or in other words, to stop our nation's headlong rush toward utter calamity. But as we study the principles of constitutional law and the ways of the Lord as delivered to us through the scriptures and through the Lord's prophets, we—and/or those who follow—will at some future day be in a position to help establish constitutional law when the time is ripe.

How can we then not take courage at the words of J. Reuben Clark regarding the quiet building of Track Two? Meanwhile, just in case, aren't there those who may be working on Track Three, or Track Four, or Track [fill in the blank].

I end this segment on J. Reuben Clark and his vision of our time by quoting words that the Lord gave to Joseph Smith:

"How long can rolling waters remain impure? What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven..."   
~Doctrine & Covenants 121:33

#     #     #

Orem, Utah—18 January 2021—©2021 Daniel Kemper Lubben

 How J. Reuben Clark Became Enmeshed with Anti-Constitution Globalists

The story of how J. Reuben Clark came to realize the magnitude of the threat to the US Constitution (and the freedoms that that document purports to protect) was put forth by W. Cleon Skousen. An Internet search eventually led me to the following fascinating details.

In 1916, Willard Straight of J. P. Morgan & Company (now JPMorgan Chase—currently the largest bank in the US) came to J. Reuben Clark and made him an amazing proposition: Would Clark be willing to partner with Straight in promoting the interests of a grand conglomeration of the world’s most powerful industrialists—and thereby help the US win World War I?

Skousen recounted the conversation between Straight and Clark as follows.

"Well," he said, "where would we have our office?"

“Oh, in New York."

"Where in New York?"

"Well, we have a skyscraper there, and we'll be on the lower floor. Everything above you will be our client."

"Just one client?"

"Yes, just one client."

"What's it called?"

"The American International Corporation, the first international conglomerate of industrial power that was ever organized in the United States."

"What are we going to do?"

"Well, we're going to use our money that all our people have, and we're going to start buying up the industries and get things kind of organized together."

Among others, members of the American International Corporation included the following industrialists and ‘luminaries’.

•Frank A. Vanderlip (1864-1937), Founder of the American International Corporation (AIC) and president of National City Bank of New York (now Citibank) from 1909 until 1919. The National City Bank of New York was the largest bank in the US at the time.

•George Herbert Walker (1875-1973), who according to Wikipedia was “a director of the W.A. Harriman & Company; Harriman Fifteen, American International Corporation (AIC); Georgian Manganese Corporation; Barnsdall Corporation; American Ship & Commerce Corporation; Union Banking Corporation; G.H. Walker & Company; Missouri Pacific Railroad; Laclede Gas and the New Orleans, Texas and Mexico Railroad.” Walker was also the grandfather of George H. W. Bush and grandfather of George W. Bush. Walker served as Director of the AIC. (Dates unknown.)

•Pierre S. du Pont (1870–1954) who according to Wikipedia was “an American entrepreneur. He was president of the E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company from 1915 to 1919, and served on its Board of Directors until 1940. He also managed General Motors for some time.” 

•Percy Rockefeller (1878-1934), founder of Owenoke Corporation and sat on the boards of many large industrial corporations including Anaconda Copper, Bethlehem Steel, Biltmore Hotels, National City Bank of New York (now Citibank), New York Edison, and Western Union. He was a nephew of John D. Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil Company.

•J. Ogden Armour (1863-1927), of Armour & Company, who according to Time magazine once said, "I don't suppose I shall ever be happy. Perhaps no one ever is. But the thing that would make me happiest just now would be to know that I could get roaring drunk and wander about the [Chicago] loop for two days without anyone paying any attention to me."

•James J. Hill (1838-1916), of Great Northern Railway. Wikipedia quotes Hill as saying, "Give me snuff, whiskey and Swedes, and I will build a railroad to hell."

•Otto Kahn (1867-1934), of Kuhn, Loeb and Co.,

For an in-depth explanation of the significance of this group, see Dr. Carroll Quickly’s book, Tragedy & Hope, or W. Cleon Skousen’s book, The Naked Capitalist.*

J. Reuben Clark was considered the foremost American expert on international law at the time. He had law offices in both New York City and Washington D.C. He accepted the offer and with Straight and the American International Corporation. He was highly effective in helping AIC and its partners buy up their competition. Clark felt this was a worthy effort. It would position America as the world's strongest economic power. Constitutional freedom would spread globally.

By 1923, however, J. Reuben Clark realized that he had been working for a group of men whose true objective was to undo the Constitutional government of the United States. They, like their man Woodrow Wilson, preferred a dictatorial government. They chose war and crisis as their most effective tools. They reasoned that during war and crisis people will tolerate centralized, dictatorial mandates and authority.

In a speech in the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City in 1923, J. Reuben Clark said of the Constitution, "I'll tell you, it is in jeopardy. I see forces rising all around us today that have as their goal and objective, the destruction of the very thing that made the United States the greatest nation in the world!"

During the next few years, J. Reuben Clark returned to the US State Department where he worked as Assistant Secretary of State. Later he was appointed US Ambassador to Mexico by President Calvin Coolidge.

In 1933, J. Reuben Clark received a letter from the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at his office in Mexico City. They requested that he serve as counselor to President Heber J. Grant of the Church. This request was perhaps the greatest surprise of his life. He had never been a leader of any kind in the church. He’d never served as a stake president or even as a bishop. In fact, he had only infrequently attended church meetings during most of his adult life because his law practice and other professional responsibilities usually required him to work long hours seven days a week.

But J. Reuben Clark accepted the call, resigned from being US Ambassador to Mexico, and relocated to Salt Lake City where he served as one of the two counselors in the First Presidency of the Church for 28 years—longer than anyone else had ever served in that position.

Cleon Skousen published an apocryphal story that he picked up from people who were closer to J. Reuben Clark than he was. Here is Skousen’s account.

"J. Reuben Clark said to President Grant, 'Don't you make these choices by inspiration?'"

"President Grant said, 'Yes, we do.'"

"J. Reuben Clark said, 'I can understand why a lawyer of international prominence and so forth, like myself, may add to the prestige of the church. But I don't know what I an doing here. I am doing things that I never was trained to do. I'm instructing people. I feel very inadequate.'"

"Well, according to the story that I was told, President Grant said, 'That's not why you were chosen as a counselor.'"

"'Well, why was I chosen?'"

"'You were chosen because the Constitution of the United States is in jeopardy. The church needs to be aroused, the country needs to be aroused, and we've got to start training our people to defend that Constitution before it's shredded and lost.'"

"'Oh, really?!'"

"'You are the best Constitutionalist in the church.'"

J. Reuben Clark spent the rest of his life serving in the First Presidency of the Church. Whenever he felt it appropriate he spoke out in support of the US Constitution and the righteous principles embedded in it. He was sometimes accused of bringing politics into the Church. In fact, he was once booed as he began a speech at the University of Utah. Of that incident, Skousen says that Clark just smiled at them and said, “Well, I don't mind you calling me old-fashioned, because I am…I don't even mind you calling me antediluvian…but…I am a little sensitive about you calling me pre-historic!" The audience laughed and then sat back and listened.

J. Reuben Clark died in 1961 at the age of 90. Ten years later the new law school at Brigham Young University was named for him: The J. Reuben Clark School of Law.

J. Reuben Clark left a great and noble legacy and one that graduates of that law school—and one that all lovers of our divinely-appointed and Constitutionally-affirmed freedoms—would do well to honor and to emulate.

#     #     #

*I was a student of Cleon Skousen at Brigham Young University while he was writing The Naked Capitalist. I had the privilege of speaking with him one-on-one about this book in his office during that time. The Naked Capitalist should be considered a must-read by those who want to know about a major threat to Constitutional government.

Orem, Utah—15 January 2021—©2021 Daniel Kemper Lubben

 J. Reuben Clark—and How to Save the Constitution

The story of J. Reuben Clark is the story of how a barefoot farm boy growing up on the shores of the Great Salt Lake in the late 1880s came to run U.S. foreign policy while still in his 30s, became a widely loved US ambassador to Mexico, and finally served as a counselor to three presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

The J. Reuben Clark story is greatly significant to lovers of freedom.

Every American who is alarmed at events unfolding in America—and who wonders if the Constitution will be saved, and how—needs to know the J. Reuben Clark story:

•How J. Reuben Clark became one of the greatest legal experts of international law of the 20th Century,
•How J. Reuben Clark unwittingly became enmeshed with the most powerful industrialists ever assembled,
•How J. Reuben Clark came to realize that this same group represented a grave threat to the Constitution and to freedom,
•How J. Reuben Clark’s views will help guide lovers of freedom the world over to the final and permanent establishment of Constitution principles. 

This three-part video does an excellent job of portraying the honesty, integrity, and intelligence of J. Reuben Clark. Unfortunately, it leaves out the most significant details illustrating Clark’s road to becoming one of the greatest champions of the US Constitution in our time.

I'll provide more insight on that topic in my next post. In the meantime, please try to find 35 minutes to view this fascinating video. It does an admirable job of introducing the man, J. Reuben Clark.

 #     #     #

Orem, Utah—14 January 2021—©2021 Daniel Kemper Lubben

 Donald Trump and Cousin Lynne

Before she passed away, Aunt Jeanne gave Aunt Kay some money and asked her to take Lynne (Jeanne's daughter) out for a nice dinner after she died.

So in December of 1992, Aunt Kay took Lynnie to Manhattan’s Plaza Hotel for a memorable dinner. Kay and Lynne were seated near the band. 

When she had a chance, Aunt Kay asked the band leader to play When the Saints Go Marching In in memory of her deceased husband, Walter. Afterwards Kay encouraged Lynne to make a request in behalf of her mother. But Lynne deferred to the band leader for a selection. He chose Unforgettable—which, as it turns out, was one of Jeanne's most favorite songs.

That’s why, Darling, it’s incredible,
That someone so unforgettable,
Thinks that I am Unforgettable, too.

As the band played a few tears rolled down Lynne’s face.

She looked up and saw Donald Trump sitting at a nearby table. He looked directly at Lynne and mouthed to her:

“Are you ok?”
“No…I’m sad.”
"Don’t be sad. Be happy.”

A few minutes later a waiter presented Lynne with a bottle of fine wine, compliments of Mr. Trump.

When Donald Trump first announced he was running for president in the 2016 election, Lynne told me, "I don't know yet whether I'll vote for him or not, but I gotta tell ya this: the man has heart."

#     #     #

Orem, Utah—13 January 2021—©2021 Daniel Kemper Lubben