God, The Fed, And The Constitution

I was in discussion yesterday with a seemingly intelligent scientist type, who proclaimed that our present economic system is capitalist because it allows a private party(The Federal Reserve) to create money and loan it to other people at a profit.

I pointed out to him that this was certainly a basic definition of capitalism for private businesses, but the essence of capitalism is that there is free competition among all businesses, and if a monopoly is achieved, it is achieved by the one that provides the best, most efficient service at the most economical prices. This means there should be more than the Federal Reserve Bank.

I am constantly amazed at how proponents of government regulation or socialism will twist the simplest arguments to hammer a square peg into a round hole. I am even amazed that so-called capitalists will nod their head in agreement to such arguments. But the real foundation of his argument was this:

Since the banks loaning money as private institutions are capitalism, this makes government necessary to control runaway capitalism, since unregulated bankers will control all wealth. His argument was seriously flawed, as I pointed out to him, by the simple fact that:
1.If such a system is to be truly capitalist, there must be competition among currency systems
2.If there was such competition, people would naturally turn to that system which best served the interests of each person

When I pointed out that the Federal Reserve was nowhere allowed in the Constitution, that only gold and silver were the recognized tender for all debt, he responded “Sure, go back to gold and silver, and watch our economy collapse”.

This is another red herring argument similar to the one he proposed in definition of capitalism. No doubt the economy would collapse if we went back to gold and silver, but that still doesn’t change the fact that only gold and silver are recognized as legal tender by the Constitution. By that simple definition , the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional.

His next argument was that, since the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, it had sovereign power to declare paper money as legal tender. Where have I heard that before? Oh yes, the “Legal Tender cases” argued just after the Civil War. SCOTUS had clearly declared, in early cases, that paper money was unconstitutional as legal tender. President Grant got elected, and there was some court packing with new justices sworn in, and suddenly paper money was constitutional!

What was their argument? That the Constitution was sovereign, so it could recognize paper money as legal tender. Specifically no authority is given, and the only place mentioned is in restriction to the states, so, argues my deceptively intelligent adversary, only the states are prohibited from issuing paper money.

Of course this has no weight at all, since one only has to look to the 10th amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”.

A simple statement. If a power is not delegated to the United States, it remains to the states or the people. Since the states can only recognize gold or silver as legal tender, the federal government is bound by the same rule. If no power is given, then no such power can be claimed. You might break it down even simpler, but there simply is not and cannot be any federal authority to recognize paper money as legal tender. By obvious and plainly written law, neither the states nor the federal government can declare paper money constitutional.

John Marshall had written, as Chief Justice, that so long as a law promotes an end within the scope of some enumerated power, extraneous objectives do not render it unconstitutional. Unfortunately, there is no enumerated power for legal tender.

The argument for the first central bank, the Bank of the United States, actually was proposed for reasons consistent with capitalism. Hamilton himself had argued that a federal bank could make private loans to augment business capital or satisfy consumer wants. certainly, under a general idea of capitalism, there is no reason why banks should not freely compete for business. But such competition opened up a can of worms in “McCulloch v Maryland”. Could the state tax federal banks? Certainly if it could tax state banks, it ought to have the right to tax federal banks, in the interest of free competition.

Marshall pointed out that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and the Bank of the United States could be destroyed by unregulated power to tax. Therefore, it could not be taxed. The argument from capitalism broke down right there. The fact that the federal banks were not taxed, while state banks were taxed, created a monopoly by the federal banks, who could ignore state taxes as part of their costs. They were immune in their functions to state scrutiny.

Not only is there no power given to create a federal bank, there is no authority given to create a corporation as a federal bank. Marshall had, in one act, given legitimacy to both federal corporations and federal banks with no evidence of any constitutional authority. But keep in mind that there was no argument on the abandonment of gold and silver as legal tender. The only issue was, can a federal bank be taxed by a state?

It wasn’t until the Legal Tender Act of 1862 that gold and silver were gradually abandoned as legal tender. In support of Lincoln’s war efforts, paper money was used to finance the needs of the war, and the confederacy was no different, issuing its own currency to finance the war for the South.

In 1789, the founders had eliminated the clause giving power to congress to “emit bils of credit” for financing its needs. By eliminating this clause, the 10th amendment became the true authority in such considerations, and no such power was permitted.

The court decided, in regard to paper as legal tender, that, “the degree of the necessity for any congressional enactment or the relative degree of its appropriateness, if it has any appropriateness, is for consideration in congress, not here”.

Passing the buck, not acting on plainly written laws, but simpy looking the other way. That’s what SCOTUS did in the interest of winning the war for the North, and later for giving almost unlimited power to the North for monetary expansion.

SCOTUS had not one law to support paper money as legal tender, so they threw it to congress. In “Knox v Lee” SCOTUS held that the government’s monetary power was inherent in its sovereigny; thus it need not be enumerated in the Constitution.

IOW, the federal government could do precisely what the constitution said it could not do!

In dissent, Justice Stephen J. Field declared:
“If there be anything in the history of the Constitution which can be established with moral certainty, it is that the framers of that instrument intended to prohibit the issue of legal tender notes by the general government and by the states; and thus prevent interference with the contracts of private parties”.

So, if the power of the Fed to issue paper money is capitalism, then so can other parties issue paper money as a competitive enterprise.

But the issue, as presented by my pseudo-intellectual friend, completely ignored the difference between “legal tender” which presents a monopoly on all transactions, and free competition among systems of “tender” for private contract. If, as he said, the Fed is a private banking business, the best it can offer is “tender” for payment, and not legal tender, since it is not an agency of government. If it IS an agency of government, all notes would of necessity be backed by gold and silver, since the Constitution plainly declares that only gold and silver are recognized tender.

These are simple arguments; logical, consistent with law, and presented many times, yet SCOTUS, which originally offered no resistance to congress to create legal tender, and now enforces congress on legal tender, actually refuses to look at the plainly written law itself and make a ruling on constitutionality. In fact, SCOTUS has forfeited all claim to judicial authority in that act alone, by their own statements!

You can’t actually call them a lawbreaker, since they stepped back and let congress decide on what was obviously unconstitutional, and then forfeited all authority to a private banking institution, but you CAN call them irresponsible and incompetent, and by law, you can simply ignore them.

Where does “God” come in on all of this? Even God has declared no monopoly on our actions. He has shown no claim on one belief over another, nor has He determined that any one system of government or religion has a power over any other, yet our states and federal government declare themselves “under God” doing exactly what God himself has never done!

“We Don’t Know What Jesus Taught!”

“Any record of the teachings of Jesus or the disciples were not kept at that time. All we know is what was written and recorded at least seventy years later”.

Is that a valid argument? of course it is. Jesus himself didn’t seem intent on having scribes follow him around and recording every word, and the disciples didn’t seem to care about laying down specific rules and regulations to pass to fuure generations.
All conclusions about what Jesus or his disciples taught would be based on human reasoning, speculation, and logic.

But if that’s the case, then anybody can derive the truth from reason and logic, and we do not need revelations from special teachers. It should be available, without doubt, to anybody who chooses to look into it.

But it’s not.

Therefore, we enter into a kind of double trap. We have no way of knowing exactly what Jesus or his discples actually taught, and we can’t put the truth together by reason or logic. Te logical result of this dual trap is thousands of different interpreations of what actally was taught.

Does this prove the New Testament is wrong? No, it actually proves the New Testament is correct! We can see this easily established by teachings which are attributed to Jesus, as in Matthew 24, for example. When Jesus’ disciples came and asked “When shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”(Matt.24:3)

If you notice, the very things Jesus said would come to pass are exactly the type of things that logically occur if there is no way of determining the true prescriptive content of Jesus’ teaching.

Verse 4: “And Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ, and shall deceive many’ “.

If any number of people are looking to true answers to questions, but can’t locate that truth, you will see a confusion of interpretations coming from all directions, seeking as many avenues as possible to determine that truth. Evolution, for example, had many would be discoverers, until Darwin provided what looked like the most obvious answer. The theory of relativity had been proposed by a number of physicists who were very close, until Einstein developed the most plausible.

If we look at it scientifically, therefore, Jesus was merely predicting a process that had to occur if no one really knew the truth of the matter. Based on the importance of the question, competitors would emerge and propose their own theories of what is the actual truth of Jesus and the disciples. If a few of those theories were successful, socially and economically, they would tend to be copied by others who wished to share in that success. In time, christianity would discard theories that had no social or reproductive value, and absorb those ideas which produced social, reproductive, and economic value.

In short, christianity would follow the same processes of evolutionary adaptation as any system, and that process would gradually be accepted as a standard of truth for any proposed christian teacher.

In spite of all that, however, we are plagued with the same issue as the original: we don’t know what Jesus and his dicsiples actually taught, so we assume that his doctrines and ideas had to be at least parallel to those doctrines that have emerged over time.

Christianity, therefore, tends to discard the “content” of its message in favor of the “process”, which is to get as many as possible to believe the “truth”, even if we can’t clearly define what the truth is.

Yet this very process can lead us to deception! Jesus had warned us to “take heed that no man deceive you”!

How do we know that the basic “message’ of christianity, to get people “saved”, is not actually a lie? If we have no standard of truth, we really can’t know for sure, can we?

What IS the truth? If we can’t understand any prescriptive content of what Jesus taught, and if we assume that we must get people “saved” by some process, we are caught in the process of preaching an empty and useless doctrine that has no earthly purpose, except, of course, to make a lot of ministers and TV personalities rich.

it is most interesting that christianity, which remains the enemy of evolution, survives by the very tautology that drives evolution: that which survives, survives. Every species of successful adaptation adopts those processes that ensures survival, and christianiy is no exception. Stripped of evidence, christianity declares ‘faith”. Stripped of all possibility of prescriptive truth, salvation for the sake of salvation becomes the only prescription, with the demand that more and more people support the “work”, financially and prayerfully.

Yet the very things we claim as the foundations of christian doctrine are the very things Jesus told us NOT to do!

While Jesus logically showed the results of confusion, christians embrace that same confusion as the foundation of their truth. While Jesus taught scientifically verifiable reslts, christianity claims anti-scientific ideas as their proof!

Matthew 24:11: “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” For the second time Jesus showed the logical result of confusion, and clearly defined it as deception!

While christianity proclaims exactly he opposite of what Jesus taught as truth, every single one of them proclaims they are the fulfillment of Matthew 24:14:

“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come”.

Which gospel of the kingdom? One true gospel, or many confusing and deceptive gospels? it really doesn’t say, does it? yet we assume that Jesus was referring to one specific, true gospel. yet the scripture leading in to that verse says that many false prophets will arise to deceive many. The scripture after that says there will be an “abomination of desolation ” to occur.

Would there be an “abomination of desolation ” following the recognition of truth, or would it be more likely to occur after a doctrine of confusion and falsehood? I have never heard anyone consider that question. All of them claim to be the gospel of Matthew 24:14, but none have proven that they are a true gospel!

And what is the result if this claim by all these people?
Verse16: “Then let him which be in Judea flee in to the mountain”.
Verse 21: “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world, to this time…”

So if all the major christian religions are preaching truh, and if millions of people are correctly following that truth, why would the result be tribulation and destruction?

That simply makes no sense! What DOES make sense is that a doctrine of confusion and falsehood will lead so many into a tailspin of despair that no one can ever arrive at truth, leading to death and destruction.

Verse 22: “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved(alive), but for the elect’s sake, those days shall be shortened”.

Elect? Who? How do we know who they are How do we prove this? of all the confusing doctrines of christianity, what is the truth?

I am about to tell you that truth. You will not believe it, but it is the only possible logical truth to believe, precisely consisent with the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 24. I wll tell you now that not one of the 38,000 versions of christianity even remotely teach it!

So what is this remarkable truth that has so eluded the whole world? And how can I hope to prove something that other religions can’t prove?

The answer to that is the most simple logic possible, and because it is so simple, no “true believer’ will ever believe it! Jesus himself plainly gave us that answer, and all I have to do is simply quote his statement, which everybody claims to believe, yet all reject the one statement that would set them free!

If 38,000 versions of christianity all argue over truth, what is this simple truth that Jesus plainly taught?

Matthew 24:23: “Then, if any man shall say unto you, ‘Lo, here is Christ, or there, BELIEVE IT NOT”.

Nothing could be simpler. nothing could be plainer, yet it the one thing Jesus told us that even the most dedicated believer refuses to believe! They won’t believe it because they are convinced it can’t be that simple!

Jesus said you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. You can’t be free if you are enslaved to doctrines of men who proclaim “works” that you must perform for them. You can’t be free if you are enslaved to a perpetual search for a truth that you can never prove, but must accept on faith in the teachings of a man. Yet people would rather enslave themselves to ideas of men, doctrines without proof, rather than simply accept the simple idea that they are free from ALL such doctrines, here and now, if they simply choose to be free! It is the one simle and truthful answer that is counterintuitive to human logic!

So, if there is an “elect” who will not be deceived, how can they NOT be deceived? Matthew 24:25 says they CANNOT be deceived! it is not possible!

Why? The simple logic of Matthew 24:23. One cannot be deceived by any person if one does not follow or believe any person!

The most dedicated and devout of christians will not believe this. They can’t believe it, because they are convinced by their leaders that works MUST be performed, people MUST be saved, christianity MUST grow to reach all the world. Yet Jesus  said that! After this “witness’ is preached, all hell breaks loose!

That is the logical culmination of confusion, not the preaching of truth! The “elect” of which Jesus taught cannot be deceived because they will simply refuse to get involved in the confusion. They will choose the only logical teaching that separates them from the world. They will choose individual freedom, yet the false teachers will proclaim liberty.

2 Peter 2:19: “While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage”!

Any doctrine, of church or state, that preaches “works” without proof, sacrifice without understanding, is a doctrine of enslavement. It will result in an end of destruction that will embrace the whole world. The solution is not to “join in”, but to “come out, and be ye a separate people”, the true art of revolution!

Germs Make Us Proselytize

“Man is a form of expression who is traditionally expected to repeat himself…” ___Marshall McLuhan, “Understanding Media”

“Man” is actually a form of expression of muh smaller life forms, that use him to express themselves. Each person is a collective expression, and therefore a collective.

Richard Dawkins made the simple connection between germs and behavior by pointing out that when we have a cold germ, we sneeze. We sneeze because sneezing is the best process by which to spread airborne pathogens to other persons. A cold germ invokes behavior from us, and therefore we are the collective form of expression of our “creator” the germ and the genes.

If we are the behavioral expression of germs, then what we call mechanization, as McLuhan points out, is, “a translation of nature, and of our own natures, into amplified and specialized forms”.

We are, in fact, amplified and specialized forms of the germs and the genes, the tiny mocrorganisms that inhabot(I inadvertently created an interesting word there by my mispelling; “inhabot”, a robot that inhabits us, composed of “in” and “habit”) our bodies. That makes us, in essence, machines. But machines in amplified and specialized forms are not alive. What seems to separate life from non-life is the urge to reproduce at all levels, and to invoke behavior that ensures such reproduction is maximized if possible. Life not only reproduces, but it reproduces by strategy, and the strategy, from amoeba to civliizations, is not all that different.

Certainly genes influence behavior, and the limited number of genes in a cold germ can hi-jack our own bodies to invoke behavor of its own for reproduction. As long as a reproductive strategy works, there is no reason to alter it.

It’s not a grand stretch from that to propose that proselytizing, and the strong zeal we feel for conversion of others, comes from those microorganisms, or rather algorithms bred into us from our evolutionary past, causing us to seek not only those that are like us, but to create a larger pool of selection by making others more like us. The more people of the opposite sex who share our worldview and opinions, the more we can reproduce ourselves. “Ourselves” in this case is not an actual description of “me” specifically, but of a pool of similar “me’s” to maintain the same gene expression.

What the germ does to our bodies by invoking behaviors, the proselytizing meme does to our mind by invoking a similar strategy. For example, the religious person is not so much convinced by truth, but by the idea that “all those people can’t be wrong”. It becomes a statistical process by which we can eliminate enough differences within ourselves that we can sacrifice our individual self for the ‘greater good”. Anything that reproduces random individuality, therefore, is selected against, and behaviors that invoke cohesion and unity for reproductive purposes is selected for.

Religion, for example, does not seek individuality, but ecumenicism, the process by which differences can be tolerated for a greater reproductive unity. The question is, toward what end? There seems to be no answer, except that unity allows more people to live, while individuality provides less certainty for reproduction.

The strategy for reproduction, however, can follow strange destructive behaviors, with a reproductive algorithm becoming of less and less use for reproductive emnlargment, often resulting in self termination, like those religions who take poisons because they are convinced that they will get their reward only by the sacrifice of their lives.

Religions, like viruses, will select strategies that allow them to live as parasites, only affecting behavior to the degree that it maximizes reproduction, while minimizing the possibility of the death of its host. In this sense, church and state are alike. Government and religion takes as much as it can safely take from you while allowing you enough to survive reproductively as an individual for the greater good.

Church anbd state, like the human body, will select and maintain a library of different members for future reference, as “junk DNA” is stored for future reference tro similar attacks. Conversion of many members, therefore, serves as a reference a junk DNA collection, Borg-like(from Star Trek) to select the best strategy for a new attack.

The language reflects this need. “I was once just like you”, “I was lost, but now am found”. Found by whom? The new collective that closely resembles the reproductive needs of that individual.

A s Hoffer points out in “The True Believer”, mass movements are interchangeable. We can select new movements that better fit our reproductrive needs and provide adaptive strategies that may create modified versions in new forms.

As Hoffer writes:

“Since all mass movements draw their adherents from the same types of humanity, and appeal to the same types of mind, it follows that (a)all mass movements are competitive, and the gain of one in adherents is the loss of all the others.(b)all mass movements are interchangea ble. One mass movement readily transforms itself into a nother. A religious movement may develop into a social revolution or a nationalist movement; a nationalist movement into a social reviolution or a religious movement.”.

Hoffer writrs that while the content of various movements are different. the actual causes of the proselytizing zeal that drives them to unite are basically the same. Another way of putting it is that if the purpose of life is to reproduce, the algorithms driving the decision -making process of life will follow a similar strategy that selects for certainty and minimizes uncertainty. The more available in the pool, the less need for careful consideration of the effects of loss. The strategy becomes tautological: “that survives is that which survives”.

If a machine-like ehavior in the face of danger had no value until men began to make war on each other, it is easy to see how a reproductive algorithm can become stressed to the point that it focuses on reproduction of one set of traits at the expense of all others. The greater the army of machines, the greater the chances of reproduction of related traits, which will be modified and selected in future generations, etc.

It boils down to algorithms, patterns of decision-making that become statistical and operate according to the same general principles. Terms like “greater good” make sense to us because we are programmed to think that way at the most basic levels.

The amplified extensions of ourselves, even computers, have no need to reproduce themselves, so we seek to reproduce ourselves through them. They are extensions of us, even to the point that we plan on “uploading” ourselves in to them at some future date.

Church and state were merely the process of “uploading” ourselves into a greater system, but now the algorithms themselves can be the driving force of a machine which is the full extension of ourselves. If “narcissus” comes from the same root as “narcosis”, the final uploading of ourselves into machines is the complete narcosis, the numbing of all response to our environement for the applications of algorithms that represent the environment to us. no more need of life, no more need of reproduction.

The IRS And Self Incrimination

Respected legal hstorian Leonard Levy writes in Origins of The Fifth Amendment that:

“…In 1774, the legislature(in the colonies)…passed a liquor excise requiring consumers to give an account to tax collectors, on oath, if necessary, concerning the amount spent by them for liquor.”

A group including Sam Adams and John Hancock, supported the efforts of Boston schoolmaster John Lovell that its practice would enslave the country. Samuel Cooper, minister of the Brattle Church, pointed out that if an accounting of any part of one’s innocent conduct could be so “extorted”, then “every other part will with equal reason be required, and a political inquisition, severe as that in Catholic countries, may inspect and control every step of his private conduct”.

The complaint centered around the right against incrimination, going to ancient times, and part of the protection of man’s conscience against human authority. No man can be forced to accuse himself. “Taxation without representation” therefore, was more than just getting the approval of your representative in the legislature, but even the legislature could compel no man to give personal accounting of the money he spent, if that same compulsion was used to incriminate him.

Taxes are, as admitted recently by a IRS official, voluntary. We know this because no man can be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself. If any person is held criminally accountable for not reporting taxes, then the report itself becomes the basis for in criminal action, which is not allowed by the 5th Amendment.

This was understood as part of the Bill of Rights itself. The 4th Amendment was not considered seriously unil Madison pointed out that the power of the federal government to tax was plenary, but suppose, said Madison, the government wanted to look into our accounts witout warrant? The result immediately was the 4th Amendment.

Levy writes in Origins Of The Bill Of Rights that:

“James Madison…recalled that the legislative powe constituted a great danger to liberty; in Britain, he noted, ‘they have gone no further than to raise a barrier agains the power of the Crown. The power of the legislature is left altogether indefinite’. ”

The 4th Amendment, therefore, was intended as a protection against the federal legislature. But it is the wording of that amendment that needs to be examined:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”.

Notice that the amendment does not estabish such a right. It acknwledged that such a right already existed, and would not be violated. The people had a right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. So, what was “unreasonable” as they understood it?

We know that taxes could be collected, but the taxes could not be based on compelled testimony from the people. The right against self incrimination prohibited it. While the power of the federal governmen to tax was admittedly plenary, the right to collect those taxes could not violate pre-existing rights of securiy against unreasonable search and seizure.

What did the law say was unreasonable? The definition for that came from English common law, decided by Lord Camden, in a case called ” Entick v Carrington”. Camden stated that the law required no one to incriminate himself, for that would be ‘cruel and unjust’ to the innocent and guilty alike. “And it should seem, that search for evidence is disallowed upon the same principle“.

If the right against unreassonable search and seizure already existed, it was based on the 5th amendment right that no person, in any criminal case, can be compelled to be a witness against himself.

What we are not told is that there is a distinction between the “right against self in crimination” and the right against being a witness against yourself. The right agains self incrimination assumes that a person can be a witness in any case as long as that person is not the accused. At any point in testimony under oath, the witness may “plead the Fifth” on the grounds that an answer may tend to incriminate him. That is, the person may answer all questions except those questions that may incriminate him/her.

But the 5th Amendment declares that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. The principle goes back to ancient times, and says that no man may be forced to accuse himself. If your punishment, therefore, is based on your voluntary compliance to report your taxes, there can be no prosecution against you if you fail to report them, because no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself.

While SCOTUS has ruled in “Miranda” that you must be informed of such rights upon arrest, the right always exists, whether you are arrested or not.

So, what is an arrest? By law, an arrest is any process by which you are detained by law enforcement with a warrant. Any detainment, including license checks, is a violation of “seizure” as SCOTUS clearly ruled in “Delaware v Prouse”. There can be no general warrant to stop or “seize” people. If people are stopped, then by law, no criminal penalties can be enforced, because no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself. No person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, and “due process’ means courtroom time. The instant any deprivation comes into the courts, all evidence is disallowed(Entick v Carrington) because the accused was compelled to provide the evidence.

How does the government get around this? The government is not required to inform you of your rights unless you are arrested. That’s “Miranda”. Notice that, when you are given a traffic ticket, there is no arrest. If there were, the officer would be required to inform you of your rights. But when you do get a ticket/citation, notice that you can waive your rights and simply send payment in to he courts! The government avoids due process with your permission! It does the same when you fill out a 1040 form!

But, can we consider a taxpayer a “witness” under the terms of tax payment? In fact, we can.

In “Miranda”, the courts have staed that “The Fifth Amendment provision that the indiidual cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself cannot be abridged”.
Further, the court ruled that: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them”.

The legislature, therefore, cannot compel any person to report taxes, and then hold them criminally liable for not doing so! How do they get away with it? They don’t have to inform you of your rights unless you are arrested. If you are not arrested, they can do anything by statutory(not common law) law that you do not challenge. If the IRS says “WE can do this by statutory law”, they are correct, but statutory law does not override common law rights guaranteed by the Constitution!

Notice further, in “Sullivan v. United States”, that :
“There can be no question that one who files a tax return under oath is a witness within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment“.

That is the ruling of SCOTUS! In 1976, SCOTUS further ruled:

“The information revealed in the prparation and filing of an income tax return is, for Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a ‘witness’ as that term is used herein”.

SCOTUS has clearly verified the right against self incriminatin regarding a 1040 form! No person, in ANY criminal case, can be compelled to be a witness against himself! There can be no criminal penalty for refusing to fill out a 1040 form!

I recently had a conversation with a North Carolina Department of Revenue official who was careful to tell me that, by statutory law, I could be penalized for not filliing out an income tax form. But he knew I could NOT be penalized by constitutional law, either the NC Constitution or the US Constitution!

How do they get away with it? First, because a large number of people are convinced they should report taxes, and second, because it simply costs more than it’s worth to fight them! They are happy to quote statutory law, and the people are too ignorant to know better!

But let’s look at the “Sullivan” case from which I quoted earlier. Manley Sullivan was an auto dealer who supplemented his income by selling moonshine during prohibition. Since he could not report illegal income, he simpy did not file a tax return. He was charged with willfully failing to file a tax return. He was convicted by a lower court, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, rulng that:
1. Requiring Sullivan to file a tax return would be “in conflict with the Fifth Amendment”.
2.The language of the Fifth Amendment must “receive a liberal interpretation by the courts”
3.No one can be compelled “in any procedings to make disclosure or guive evidence which would tend to incriminate him, or subject him to fines, penalties, or forfeitures”
4.The Fifth Amendment “aplies alike to civil and criminal proceedings”
5. “There can be no question that one who files a return under oath is a witness within the meaning of the Amendment”.

The Court of Appeals understood it correctly. They recognized “Entick v Carrington” and the complete protection against self incrimination!
But notice, Sullivan did not file under the Fifth Amendment protection of being a witness against himself, but under the right against self incrimination. That technciality is exactly how SCOTUS overturned the Appeals Court decision! By filing his defense under the right again st self in crimin ation, Sullivan had implied that he WAS required to be a witness, not havig been yet accused, but that he only had to refuse certain information! The right against self incrimination does permit compelled testiomny, up to the point that the witness might incriminate himself. From that point, the witness may selectively answer questions that will not tend to incriminate him/her.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr penned the response, and notice how he worded it:
“If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all.”

Notice that Holmes ruled on the right against self in crimination, saying specifically that the defendant could not simply refuse to file a tax form based on the right against self incrimination. Sullivan had used the wrong defense! He should have declared that no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself! Since he had based his defense on the right against self incrimination, he was admitting that he should have filled out the form EXCEPT for certain information that would tend to incriminate him!

Notice further what Holmes stated:

“We are not called on to decide what, if a nything, he might have withheld. Most of the items warranted no complaint. It would be an extreme if not extravagant application of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime.”

Strictly and tehnically, based on above information I have provided, Holmes was correct! The right not to be a witness a gainst one’s self did NOT include the point of self-incrimination, but was, as Lord Camden had said, a protection against BOTH innocent and guilty!
Holmes admitted as much!

“But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon”.

Sullivan had misapplied his defense! Crime can not be used as a defense in regard to the Fifth Amendment! Holmes correctly asserted that the 5th Amendment was never intended as the specific protection of crime. It was intended as a complete protection of both innocent and guilty, with the weight of evidence being provided by the goverment itself! That is precisely what Holmes said! The court therefore applied his defense as if he were a subpoenaed witness who failed to appear. But Sullivan was NOT a subpoenaed witness who had failed to appear, because a filer CANNOT be subpoenaed to be a witness against himself!

The Court of Appeals had given Sullivan a “break” by admitting that the Fifth Amendment demanded a liberal interpretation, but Holmes had techically and legally forced Sullivan to correctly state his defense, which he had not. He was not allowed to use the amendment in protection of crime.

“Sullivan” therefore, was NOT the test case for the 5th Amedment right againast being a witness against one’s self, but against the right against self incrimination concerning a subpoenaed witness.

On such technicalities, the American people are enslaved.

What Is This “Holy Spirit”?

Actually what the Bible says about this “Holy Spirit” is nothing like what the christian churches tell us.
Over 38,000 estimated versions of christianity, and each of them claim to have the “Holy Spirit”. But here’s the problem logically, if the “Holy Spirit” is the spirit of truth: In any set of conjoined propositions, if one proposition is false, the whole set is false.
If we look logically at the more than 38,000 versions of the “true church” and their versions of the “Holy Spirit”, we would logically have to conclude that, as part of the one true church, they would have to be false, since they would contain false propositions.

None of them can be correct, because if you multiply error, you just get more error. In continuation of my last two essays, we can see that the Bible focuses on two “covenants” from God:
1.The promise, made between God and Abraham
2. The law, given at Sinai.

Many have assumed that the creation of the nation of Israel was actually fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham, but in fact, they are not!

The promise made to Abraham, and the law given to Israel, actually represent two separate covenants!

Notice that Jesus brings up this subject with Nicodemus in John 3. In fact, he is speaking of two births. Jesus said, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit”(verse 6). Two births, one of flesh, one of spirit.

People assume, quite naturally, that Jesus is referring to all people who are born. After all, we’re all born of “flesh”, right? W e reach that point when we “accept Christ”, and then we may be baptized and “born again”.

That, however, is not what what Jesus meant. As explored earlier, the phrase translated as “born again” is actually “born from above” , from the Greek word “anothen“. In fact, Jesus was saying “unless a man is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God”.

That’s what baffled Nicodemus. He was familiar with the terms “born again”, since the Jews had practiced baptism along with circumcision for converts to Judaism. Once circumcised and “purified” in the baptismal waters, the new convert was “born again” as a Jew. Yet here was Jesus telling Nicodemus that he, Nicodemus, would have to be born of “water and the spirit”.(verse 5)

Is such a birth a matter of freewill choice? If so, why didn’t Nicodemus realize it? If it is there for all to choose, why was Nicodemus blind to it? Jesus said to him “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?”(verse 10).
Here was a man who was a rabbi, a master of Israel, and had no idea what Jesus was talking about.

What exactly did Jesus and his disciples “see” that Nicodemus could not(verse11)?.
The next scripture is most interesting: Verse 13:
“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man which is in heaven”.

This is in regard to Ephesians 4:9, but it also points back to the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 30:11-12:

“For this commandment, which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it?”

Jesus was referring Nicodemus to that very scripture. The truth was there, written in the commandments, in the law, and no man had to ascend to heaven to get it. It was there for anyone to see, but Nicodemus missed it. If Nicodemus, a master of Israel, missed it, why would we think we have any better understanding than he did?

Paul even refers to this in Romans 10:6-8. “The word is nigh(near) thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that is, the word of faith that we preach”.

What “word”? The same one to which Jesus referred in conversation with Nicodemus; the Old testament. It was there for all to discover if they looked. There is a birth of ‘flesh”, and a birth of ‘spirit’, and both are recorded in the Old Testament.

It is very simple: the birth of “flesh” is the birth of the nation Israel at Sinai. Tat is one covenant with God. The birth of the “spirit” is the birth of Isaac, who was born of promise to Abraham.

How do we know this? Paul explains it clearly in Romans 9:7-11:
“Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, ‘but in Isaac shall thy seed be called’.”

A key verse, right there. Those born as Isaac are born of the promise. Switching to RSV, verse 8, we see:

“This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as descendants”.

Notice the implications of that statement. The children of the promise are  both descendants of Abraham  AND the children of God!

So Jesus came as fulfillment of the law, but his baptism represented, not the birth into Israelite law, but the birth of the promise given to Abraham! In fact, the birth of Isaac to Abraham was merely a kind of “down payment’ on the promise, with Jesus being the fulfillment.

What Paul is clearly saying here is that the nation of Israel was never a part of the promise given to Abraham. The creation of Israel at Sinai was for a completely different purpose. They were the birth of “flesh”.

So, if the children of the promise are “reckoned” as children of God, what promise are we talking about?

Next verse: “For this is what the promise said, ‘About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son’.”

Verse 11 brings it into focus: “Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works, but because of his call”.

In Galatians 3:29 we see this: “And if you are Christ’s, then are you Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise“.

If one is baptized, one is ceremonially “born again” into that same promise as Isaac. But here’s the catch: you can’t choose it. It is simply not a part of human decision-making ability. It is not dependent on “works”, but on the guarantee that God made to Abraham.

Notice also, Galatians 4:28: “Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are children of the promise.”

Did this promise have anything to do with what Isaac did? No, because Isaac wasn’t even born when it was made. Isaac was foreknown, predestined to be born, and called by name in advance of his birth! Isaac fulfilled the conditions of Romans 8:29-30!

Does that mean a few go to heaven and the rest go to hell? Of course not. Paul clearly refutes this in Romans 11:32.

Look at Galatians 4:29: “But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh(Ishmael)persecuted him who was born according to the spirit(Isaac) so it is now”.

The birth which Jesus represented was the birth of promise to Abraham, a promise that did not include the covenant with Israel at Sinai. The birth of Isaac is a birth which was forenown and pre-planned, as written in Ephesians 1:4:”Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world.”

Certain inividuals are chosen to be servant/leaders in a kingdom here on earth. They are foreknown, predestined, and called, as Isaac was. And they are NOT part of the world religious or government systems. When you are baptized, you are born in to the hope of that promise, free of all human authority systems. You have the right to claim that freedom by your faith.