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!