She Who Wants to Be Loved – She Who Must Be Obeyed – Equals the Devil – Prince of the Air:

Within this narrative, the Prince of the Air delights in conflict rather than peace. He stirs nations toward war, celebrates division, and encourages people to place their confidence in instruments of destruction instead of reconciliation. The weapons of the sea and the weapons of the air become symbols of his influence—representing military might, fear, and the pursuit of domination. Wherever pride, violence, and the lust for power are exalted above justice and mercy, his shadow appears to grow stronger. As the story unfolds, readers witness how the desire to be loved without accountability and obeyed without question can open the door to deception. The battle is not merely between kingdoms or political powers but between truth and falsehood, light and darkness, and the choice every person must make concerning whom they will ultimately follow.

Aeisha - Represents Alive in Well: She -Who-Must-Be-Obeyed by Force. Show me your love, your loyalty to me, or die. Aeisha represents the beauty of evil.

What Is an Obelisk?

An obelisk is a tall, four-sided monument that gradually tapers toward the top, ending in a pyramid-shaped point known as a pyramidion. First created by the ancient Egyptians, obelisks were sacred monuments that symbolized the sun, divine power, and eternal life. Today, they are commonly used as memorials, monuments, and striking architectural features around the world.

Key Characteristics

Structure:
An obelisk rises from a square or rectangular base and gradually narrows as it ascends, culminating in a pointed pyramidion.

Materials:
Ancient Egyptian obelisks were carved from a single massive block of stone, most often red granite. Modern obelisks are typically constructed from multiple stone sections, concrete, steel, or other building materials.

Symbolism:
To the ancient Egyptians, obelisks were closely associated with the sun god Ra. They represented the sun's rays, divine protection, strength, and the enduring legacy of a pharaoh. Many were erected at temple entrances as symbols of devotion and royal authority.

Historical and Famous 

Ancient Egypt

Egyptian pharaohs commonly erected pairs of obelisks at the entrances of temples dedicated to their gods. One remarkable example is the Hanging Obelisk of Ramses II, displayed at the Grand Egyptian Museum. It is uniquely elevated so visitors can view inscriptions carved on its underside—details that would normally remain hidden.

Washington, D.C., United States

The Washington Monument is the tallest obelisk in the world, standing approximately 555 feet (169 meters). Built to honor George Washington, it remains one of America's most recognizable landmarks.

New York City, United States

Cleopatra's Needle, located in Central Park, is an authentic ancient Egyptian obelisk carved more than 3,500 years ago during the reign of Thutmose III. It was presented to the United States by Egypt in the late nineteenth century and remains one of the oldest man-made monuments in North America.

Rome, Italy

Rome contains the greatest number of ancient obelisks anywhere in the world. Many were transported from Egypt by Roman emperors as symbols of imperial conquest and prestige. Among them, the Lateran Obelisk is the tallest standing ancient Egyptian obelisk still in existence.

Deuteronomy 10:14: Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it."

1 Chronicles 29:11: Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours.

A colony is a territory or settlement under the political and economic control of a distant parent country. The term also broadly refers to a group of individuals (people, animals, or microorganisms) of the same species living together in close association

On May 14, 1607, approximately 105 colonists from the Virginia Company settled on a peninsula along the James River, where they founded Jamestown. It became Britain's first permanent settlement in the New World and the first capital of what would later become the colony of Virginia.

What followed was a struggle among European powers for control of the territory that now forms the eastern United States. England, the Netherlands, France, and Spain all sought to establish and expand their North American colonies. Ultimately, the British emerged as the dominant colonial power. They seized New Netherland—including present-day Delaware, New York, and New Jersey—from the Dutch, limited Spanish expansion northward from Florida by establishing the colony of Georgia, and took control of France's vast North American territories following the French and Indian War.

1. Virginia (1607)
2. Massachusetts (1620)
3. New Hampshire (1623)
4. New York (1624)
5. Maryland (1634)
6. Connecticut (1635)

Deuteronomy 10:14: Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it."

1 Chronicles 29:11: Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours.

In the early twentieth century, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., asserted that, while the judiciary’s power to strike down acts of Congress was not essential to the national government, “the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several states.” Fletcher v. Peck (1810) was the first time the Supreme Court asserted that important power, striking down a statute passed by the Georgia legislature. In holding that the state law violated the Contracts Clause of the Constitution, the Court also embraced a broad interpretation of that provision, protecting business interests from some forms of state interference.

Legal Debates before Fletcher

While the Constitution contemplated that the courts might hear cases “arising under” its provisions, it did not explicitly mention whether federal judges had the power to invalidate state statutes. During the Constitution’s ratification, some prominent figures argued that it implicitly required courts to strike down unconstitutional legislation. In Federalist no. 78, for example, Alexander Hamilton asserted that “[n]o legislative act . . . contrary to the constitution can be valid” and defended “the right of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void.”

 In 1788, future Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth assured delegates at Connecticut’s ratifying convention (a body formed to debate the adoption of the Constitution) that “upright, independent judges” would guard the Constitution by striking down laws violating its protections. Future Chief Justice John Marshall, who would later write the Court’s opinion in Fletcher, made similar statements to the Virginia convention. Some critics of the new Constitution also suggested that judges would invalidate state and federal legislation, though they saw this as a flaw in the document’s design. The Antifederalist “Brutus,” for example, referred to this authority as an “uncontroulable power.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court invalidated part of a federal law for the first time. While it may seem to follow logically from that result that the federal courts had the power to strike down state legislation, this was not entirely clear at the time. Most of the Constitutional restrictions on government power only applied to the federal government, in part because many worried about the potential for the centralized federal government to impinge on the powers of the states, many of whose governments were older and more democratic than the federal system.

The Case

Fletcher arose from a complex and corrupt land deal. The state of Georgia claimed sovereignty over a massive area of land in modern-day Alabama and Mississippi known as “Yazoo.” Although native tribes also claimed sovereignty over much of the land, and had settled parts of it before Georgia’s statehood, property speculators wanted to invest in the land and sell it to European-American settlers and businesses. In 1795, the state legislature sold 35 million acres of land in the region to private speculators at a very low price.

Shortly after the state sold the lands, it was discovered that most of the legislators voting for the land-grant law had been bribed or owned stakes in the businesses purchasing the property. After several lawmakers were voted out of office in response to these revelations of corruption, the legislature declared the earlier grants void. This declaration was different from most legislative acts because it did not merely repeal the earlier sales; it declared that they had—at least in legal terms—never happened. Indeed, the new legislators ordered the original law publicly burned to emphasize this point. However, this second law arguably implicated one of the few constitutional restrictions on state power prior to the Civil War, as the Contracts Clause of Article I, section 10 prohibited states from passing any “law impairing the obligation of contracts.”

Several years after the legislature revoked the land grants, John Peck, a speculator from Massachusetts, purchased some of the land in question and subsequently sold it to Robert Fletcher, a colleague from New Hampshire. Fletcher sued Peck for breach of contract, alleging that Peck had falsely represented that he had good title to the land. Peck defended the suit by arguing that the Georgia legislature had violated the Contracts Clause by improperly interfering with the original land grant contract. Since the law was invalid, he claimed, he had held good title to the land and had every right to sell it to Fletcher. In fact, both parties likely wanted the titles ruled valid so they could profit from the transaction and, perhaps, defeat other native claims to Yazoo lands.

The parties voluntarily postponed their case in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts for several years while Congress debated a plan to compensate speculators whose land grants had been revoked. After nothing came of this proposal, however, they resumed the suit, which the court decided in Peck’s favor, ruling that the Georgia legislature’s attempt to void the original land sales violated the Contracts Clause. Although this was the result for which Fletcher had likely hoped, he appealed, apparently believing that a Supreme Court decision on the matter would carry more weight and apply to claims on the Yazoo lands made by speculators nationwide (much of the property originally included in the corrupt land grants had been sold to out-of-state speculators).

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The parties were represented before the Supreme Court by two of the great lawyers of the early republic. Fletcher’s attorney was Luther Martin, who had been one of the leading Antifederalists during ratification debates over the Constitution. Despite his reputation as a talented lawyer and political speaker, however, Martin had succumbed to alcoholism by the time he argued the case. Indeed, Chief Justice Marshall had to postpone proceedings at one point to allow Martin to sober up. Peck was represented by Joseph Story, the brilliant young lawyer from Massachusetts who would soon become the youngest Supreme Court justice in history and is now widely regarded as one of the primary shapers of constitutional law before the Civil War.

Although Marshall initially expressed some reluctance to hear what appeared to be a “feigned” case, he wrote an opinion for the Court that ultimately delivered the result for which the speculators had likely hoped. The initial land grants, Marshall reasoned, were contracts between the state and the purchasers and the legislature could not invalidate those contracts without impairing their obligations in a manner that violated the Contracts Clause. 

While he acknowledged the concern that the original legislative process had been infected by bribery, Marshall reasoned that courts should be wary of interpreting the motives of lawmakers. Moreover, he suggested that it would be unfair to punish innocent purchasers of the land for the corruption of legislators. Marshall also reasoned that “general principles” of law prohibited legislatures from passing retroactive laws. Though he did not fully explain the sources of these principles, many scholars assume that Marshall referred to “natural law,” a body of inherent moral principles. He compared the Georgia statute to an ex post facto law, which retroactively punishes someone for an act that was not a crime when he committed it. Such laws, he reasoned, led to governmental instability and were unfair to citizens, who could not rely on the law as it stands.

Justice William Johnson, Jr., wrote a separate concurring opinion that, while reaching the same result as Marshall, argued that the Georgia legislature had not violated the Contracts Clause. Nevertheless, he reasoned that the law voiding the land grants had violated the general principles of law Marshall had laid out. Johnson also lamented the apparently collusive nature of the lawsuit, but determined (based on Martin’s and Story’s eminent reputations) that the suit had not been brought for illegitimate purposes.

Aftermath and Legacy

Although the Court’s decision rendered Georgia’s attempt to void the initial land grants unconstitutional, it did not resolve the complex issues of disputed ownership or set the appropriate level of compensation for dispossessed landowners in Yazoo. Indeed, those issues were not truly resolved until Congress passed legislation compensating speculators in 1814. Nevertheless, two of the central legal principles the Court established in Fletcher v. Peck remain important to this day. 

The federal courts have used the power to strike down unconstitutional state legislation on several occasions. The Court’s desegregation ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and its decision protecting a woman’s right to end her pregnancy in Roe v. Wade (1973) are prominent examples. Similarly, the Court’s broad interpretation of the Contracts Clause played an important part in the development of its corporate jurisprudence. In Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), for example, the Court determined that corporate charters are a form of contract with the state and that states could not alter the terms of the charter at will.

"What goes around comes around" is an idiom meaning that your actions, whether positive or negative, will eventually return to affect you.

Being "1/3 Black" refers to having approximately one grandparent of African descent. In genetic terms, this equates to roughly 33.3% African ancestry, often resulting from a multiracial background where one parent is biracial and the other is not.

One-third of the heavenly angels joined his rebellion against God, causing them to fall from heaven and become demons.

One-third of all the people on earth were killed by these three plagues—by the fire and smoke and burning sulfur that came from the mouths of the horses. Revelation 9:18.

Mark 7:26-27 reads, “He [Yeshua] replied, 'It is not right to take the children's bread [the favor being applied to the house of Israel] and toss it to their dogs [the Gentiles].

Trey Knowles Gives the Parable of Judas and Satan

Time Stamp: June 19, 2026

In this parable, Trey Knowles reflects on the partnership between Judas and Satan as a warning about greed, betrayal, and the misuse of resources. Judas desired silver more than righteousness, and through his actions he opened a door for destruction. Satan used that desire to create a path that led not only to the betrayal of Yeshua but also to suffering for many.

The parable teaches that when people sell what is sacred for personal gain, they can unknowingly become participants in a larger destructive plan. Just as Judas exchanged his loyalty for pieces of silver, individuals, leaders, and nations can trade away truth, justice, and valuable resources for temporary rewards. What begins as a profitable transaction can become a road that benefits evil and harms entire communities.

Trey Knowles compares this to the sale of resources that should be used to strengthen and uplift people. When resources are surrendered to greed, corruption, or oppression, the result can be poverty, division, and destruction. Satan's influence is portrayed as working through the love of money and selfish ambition, encouraging people to value profit above righteousness.

The lesson of the parable is that every generation must choose whether it will follow the path of Judas or the path of faithfulness. The path of Judas seeks immediate gain but ends in regret and ruin. The path of righteousness may require sacrifice, but it preserves truth, justice, and the well-being of future generations.

Moral of the Parable:
"What you sell for silver today may become the chain that binds tomorrow. Guard your heart, for greed can build a road that destruction gladly travels." — Trey Knowles, June 19, 2026.

Trey Knowles: Risala 9 – Image of Choice

Why do you leave what is good to pursue what is harmful? Why do you spend money on what my Father in heaven has already given to you freely?

Is it not written in Genesis 1:29–30 that my Father said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food”? And it was so.

What has happened to you? Why do you pay for what God has already provided? You were made in the image and likeness of God the Father. What kind of person have you become? Who colonized your thinking? Who made you different?

My Father created you in His image and likeness, yet you have changed. You no longer depend on my Father in heaven, and you no longer live according to His image and likeness. I now see you walking in spiritual idolatry.

What was given to you freely by the Father in heaven, you now labor for—enslaved and controlled by your colonizer. You work and, in doing so, support your enemy. You pay taxes to your enemy. You invest in systems that enrich your enemy, making them wealthier while you receive little in return—if anything at all. You cannot even count your own days; you do not know whether you will be here tomorrow or the next.

You continue chasing the ways of your colonizer. In fact, you have begun to resemble your colonizer—one not living according to the image and likeness of God, but after another likeness, the likeness of the evil one. 

So I, Trey Knowles, remind you of the words of Yeshua in Mark 8:36–37:
“For what shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world, yet loses his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”

Qur’an 8:36 – Surah Al-Anfal

إِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا۟ يُنفِقُونَ أَمْوَٰلَهُمْ لِيَصُدُّوا۟ عَن سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ ۚ فَسَيُنفِقُونَهَا ثُمَّ تَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ حَسْرَةًۭ ثُمَّ يُغْلَبُونَ ۗ وَٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوٓا۟ إِلَىٰ جَهَنَّمَ يُحْشَرُونَ ٣٦

Surely the disbelievers spend their wealth to hinder others from the path of Allah. They will continue spending until it becomes a source of regret for them. Then they will be defeated, and the disbelievers will be gathered into Hell.

Look at yourselves. I observe you with pity. What causes fights and quarrels among you? Do they not arise from your desires battling within you? You desire and do not have, so you harm. You covet and cannot obtain, so you quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive because you ask with wrong motives, intending to spend what you receive on your pleasures.

You adulterous people, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Whoever chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. Or do you think Scripture speaks without reason when it says that He jealously longs for the spirit He has caused to dwell in us? Yet He gives more grace. That is why Scripture says:

“God opposes the proud
but shows favor to the humble.”

Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the colonizing devil, and he will flee from you. If the devil were imaginary, you would not be told to resist him—how can you resist what does not exist? What is outside the likeness of God? You will recognize it by its character.

My people, if you desire a way out, draw near to God, and He will draw near to you. Be born again. 

Grace and Peace,
Trey Knowles

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him

The At-sik-hata Nation of Yamassee Moors identifies itself as an Indigenous and sovereign tribal nation with ancestral ties to regions that include present-day Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee. The Nation asserts that it possesses inherent rights of self-determination, self-identification, and tribal sovereignty under domestic and international legal principles.

According to the submission, historical events such as the 1715 Yamassee Uprising and the Trail of Tears resulted in the forced displacement of numerous Indigenous peoples, including the Yamassee, Choctaw, Cherokee, Seminole, Yuchi, and others from their ancestral territories. The report argues that these removals caused lasting harm to Indigenous communities and contributed to the loss of land, culture, and political autonomy.

The submission further contends that descendants of Africans and Indigenous peoples in the United States have faced historical barriers to recognition, citizenship, and cultural identity. It asserts that many individuals of African descent possess Indigenous ancestry through historical relationships, intermarriage, adoption, and shared community ties with Native nations throughout North America.

Historical Context

The report references historical records and congressional acknowledgments concerning slavery, forced assimilation, and the removal of Indigenous peoples. It argues that African Americans were often stripped of their names, languages, cultural identities, and ancestral connections during slavery and subsequent discriminatory periods. The submission maintains that these actions contributed to the loss of knowledge regarding Indigenous heritage among many descendants.

The report also highlights historical accounts suggesting the presence of diverse populations in the Americas prior to European colonization and argues that conventional narratives concerning Indigenous identity should be reexamined through a broader historical lens.

Alleged Human Rights Concerns

The At-sik-hata Nation of Yamassee Moors alleges that the United States has failed to fully recognize and protect the rights of individuals and communities who identify as Indigenous descendants outside of federally recognized tribal structures. The submission asserts that individuals who claim Indigenous heritage may face discrimination, skepticism, social exclusion, and legal obstacles when attempting to exercise rights associated with self-identification and self-determination.

The report further alleges that government institutions have not consistently honored commitments relating to Indigenous rights, tribal sovereignty, and international human rights standards. It argues that these shortcomings have contributed to ongoing social, cultural, and political disadvantages for affected communities.

According to the submission, the failure to adequately recognize Indigenous identity, cultural heritage, and self-governance rights has resulted in conditions that the authors characterize as continuing forms of discrimination and marginalization.

Legal and International Framework

The submission references various domestic and international instruments, including executive orders, congressional resolutions, human rights treaties, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It argues that these authorities support the rights of Indigenous peoples to determine their own identity, maintain their cultural traditions, exercise self-government, and preserve their ancestral heritage.

The report maintains that Indigenous identity should not be defined exclusively by government institutions and that communities possess the inherent right to identify, organize, and govern themselves in accordance with their traditions, history, and cultural heritage.

Conclusions

The At-sik-hata Nation of Yamassee Moors concludes that Indigenous peoples and their descendants continue to face significant challenges in obtaining recognition, protection of cultural rights, and meaningful implementation of self-determination principles. The submission argues that greater compliance with international human rights standards is necessary to address historical injustices and ongoing concerns.

Recommendations

1. Fully implement the principles contained within the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in domestic law and policy.
2. Strengthen protections for tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and Indigenous cultural identity.
3. Promote accurate and comprehensive education regarding the history, diversity, and contributions of Indigenous peoples in North America.
4. Review historical grievances and claims involving Indigenous communities and establish mechanisms for accountability, dialogue, and reconciliation.
5. Ensure that individuals and communities who identify as Indigenous are afforded equal protection, respect, and access to human rights guaranteed under domestic and international law.

The submission respectfully requests that relevant human rights bodies examine these concerns and encourage measures that advance Indigenous rights, cultural preservation, self-determination, and equal treatment under the law.

The Trail of Tears was one of the darkest chapters in American history. Between 1830 and 1850, the United States government forcibly removed approximately 60,000 Native Americans from the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations, collectively known as the Five Civilized Tribes. Thousands of enslaved Black people, Freedmen, and others who lived among these nations were also forced to leave their homes and travel westward.

The removals followed the passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, signed by President Andrew Jackson. The law enabled the federal government to negotiate land exchanges and relocate Native nations from their ancestral homelands in the southeastern United States to designated lands west of the Mississippi River in what became known as Indian Territory, present-day Oklahoma. Although some government officials described relocation as voluntary, many Native people were pressured, coerced, or forcibly removed from lands they had occupied for generations.

White settlers, land speculators, and state governments increasingly demanded access to Native lands. The discovery of gold in Georgia in 1828 intensified pressure on the Cherokee Nation, leading to the final large-scale removal of the Cherokee people in 1838. Families were gathered into camps and then forced to march hundreds of miles under military supervision. The journey was marked by harsh weather, inadequate food supplies, disease outbreaks, and poor living conditions. Thousands died from starvation, exposure, and illness before reaching their destination or shortly after arriving.

The Trail of Tears was not a single event but a series of removals affecting multiple Native nations over several years. The Choctaw were removed first in 1831, followed by the Seminole, Creek, Chickasaw, and finally the Cherokee. While some members of these nations managed to avoid removal and remained in their ancestral homelands, the vast majority were displaced, opening millions of acres of land to white settlement and the expansion of agriculture and slavery.

Today, the Trail of Tears is remembered as a tragic example of the suffering caused by federal Indian removal policies. Historians and scholars widely recognize it as an act of ethnic cleansing, and many argue that it meets the definition of genocide because of the deliberate displacement, loss of life, and destruction of Native communities and cultures. The Trail of Tears remains a powerful symbol of the resilience of Native American nations and a reminder of the consequences of injustice and forced removal.

Trey Knowles Quote. "Life is nothing but vanity. But this is what I have learned about America: lovers of the Western way are content with lust and evil. Men who follow that way deserve injustice. They deserve their cruel priests and evil founding fathers, for they are vile, no more than a crawling disease on the face of the earth. The grave is the only cure for their vileness. Sand conquers all at the end. Every grain of sand will outlive every man." As for me, I am like filthy rags, that cleans the dark under the surface.

When I wrote this. I’m stepping into the voice of someone who sees the world with prophetic clarity and brutal honesty. I’m admitting that life, in all its striving and illusions, is ultimately vanity—nothing we build lasts, and nothing we cling to can escape decay. When I talk about “lovers of the Western way,” I’m not attacking individual people but exposing a mindset built on greed, domination, and moral blindness. I’m saying that those who embrace such a system inherit its consequences: corrupt leaders, violent origins, and a spiritual sickness that spreads through everything it touches. My harsh language about vileness and disease isn’t meant to strip anyone of humanity; it’s meant to reveal how deeply injustice can infect a culture when it becomes normalized. When I say the grave and the sand outlast every man, I’m reminding myself that no empire, no ideology, and no human power can escape the erosion of time. And then I turn the judgment back onto myself. By calling myself “filthy rags,” I’m refusing to stand above the corruption I see. I’m taking the posture of a servant—one who cleans beneath the surface, who exposes hidden darkness, who does the work no one else wants to do. In this voice, the entire passage becomes my confession, my warning, and my humility all at once.

For your sake, I say that I am a Christian. For your sake, I say that I am a Muslim. But I tell you, I am none of these things. I am of the faith of Abraham. You say that you are a Christian with your mouth, but your heart is far from it. You say that you are a Muslim, yet you make my Master's Kingdom violent. For I tell you, I am none of these things. I am of the faith of Abraham. To you Christians: If the Antichrist claimed to be a Christian and shared the Word, yet was not a doer of the Word, how great is your faith if you cannot discern the difference?