God progammed Computers?

Just introducing some ideas here, and they might seem weird, but the question is worth pursuing. One of the big problems in emerging science today is in the field of nanotechnology.  This science deals with those sub-atomic robots that can build virtually anything from the atomic level, using electrons to organize and construct anything you wish to be built,  from steel girders to steak.

 One little problem: in order to do this, the nanobots must first build enough of themselves to be able to create sufficient quantities of whatever they’re supposed to create for you.

 Suppose, for example, you want them to build you a nice 1966 full-scale, operating model of a Ford Mustang. Assuming they could do this, their first program would be to build enough of themselves to create the Mustang in a reasonable time period. But something happens in their replication. They become cancer-like, and suddenly they start replicating themselves with no means of stopping them. The begin to scavenge electrons from everything available, including grass, dirt, animals, and even you, and still they keep on building more of themselves.

 This is pretty much the problem considered in nanotechnology.  Once you enable them to start replicating, how do you keep them from going crazy?

 In the field of biology and environment, Philip Slater writes of a similar process describing cancer-like systems:

 “Imagine a mass of cancerous tissue, the cells of which enjoyed consciousness. Would they not be full of self  congratulatory sentiments  at their independence, their more advanced level of development, their rapid rate of growth? Would they not sneer at their more primitive cousins who were bound into a static and unfree existence, with limited aspirations, subject to heavy group constraint, and obviously ‘going nowhere’?  Would they not rejoice in their control over their own destiny, and cheer the conversion of more and more normal cells as convincing proof of the validity of their own way of life?  Would they not, in fact, feel increasingly triumphant right up to the moment the organism on which they fed expired?”

 In short, Slater is describing a basic replication process that is involved with self-reference, of determining its success simply by means of its own expansion.   The nanobots, however, would likely not possess consciousness or self-awareness, but their programming would entail replication as a prime requirement to build larger, more complex systems.

 Did you ever read the Tower of Babel story found in the Bible, Genesis chapter 11? Interesting similarity. There’s this large group of people, capable of both consciousness and self-awareness. Using this self-awareness, they select a goal for themselves collectively.  They said “Why don’t we get together and build a tower, whose top will be so high, we can see what God is doing?” Forget the possibility that there really is no God. What is interesting is that suddenly a group forms that is capable of deciding goals for itself as a collective. So they focus completely on this one project, to build a tower that will enable them to see what God is doing.

 Of course, this person called God is alarmed by the process, and for some interesting reasons. He says “Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do, and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do”.

 Here we see a variation of the problem established in nanotechnology. A really big group of individuals capable of technology and self-awareness, all focused on one singular goal to the exclusion of all other goals. What could it harm?  Well, if they actually did discover what God was up to, and if there was a God, it might not harm anything. But what if they built, and built, and built some more, and never found what they were looking for? This is what is known as accelerated entropy.  You know about entropy, right? If you take energy from one section and use it for organizing some related system, you cause chaos in the system from which you borrow. The more you borrow from that system, the more chaos results. Eventually, you will no longer be able to borrow from that system, so you range a little farther, and borrow from other systems, until you are gong so far you’ve destroyed all the systems that once provided your sense of order in the world.

 Accelerated entropy leading to your total destruction, because you’ve destroyed the very environment on which you depend.

 So what did this person called God decide to do? Very interesting solution:

“Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”

 Think about that. If each person operated from a specialist system of language, that person would have to re-integrate his behaviors with his environment so that there would once again be a balance between the individual and the environment on which he depended.

 Suppose you take nanobots and create specialist language in the form of programming that enables them to do certain things but no  more. You limit their functions so each of them can do simple things which, when added together produce synergy, a system in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

 But what if the system overcomes the language barriers and begins to organize by more complex systems? Sooner or later it has to happen, and how would you program them so they divided into smaller groups?

 When you talk of programming, you’re talking of algorithms, and when you talk of algorithms, you’re talking of decision procedures.

 If individuals can breach their specialist language by developing a language according to unifying concepts that allow “unconscious” organization, you have the problem of the nanobots and the tower of Babel all over again.

 The problem is not one of unity and organization, but of continual splintering and speciation, of necessary adaptation t more specialized needs within the environment.    

 How would you do that? Would it be possible to set up a system that operated so that unity would constantly be thwarted by another system that drove people toward speciation?

 In fact, such a process has been discovered as a mathematical theorem developed by Kurt Godel in the 1930s. Godel developed a theorem which is gaining increasing popularity for discussion in the computer world of today.

 The fascinating application of Godel’s theorem, you see, is the result of the conscious attempt of people to do what I described above. In that same time period, the dominating mathematician of the day was David Hilbert, and Hilbert, along with other mathematicians, began to wonder if they could actually develop a formal system of number theory that could simply avoid such things as intuition and “meanings”, and create a formal system so basic that it would only require a system of marks on a paper, each of which,  by their connective structure, would lead us mathematically to one complete, consistent system. Imagine! One complete, consistent system that could dispense with the need for human error of thought, with human frailties such as greed, desire, envy, power-seeking, all the things that cause destruction, to be replaced with a completely formalized system that only required following the prescribed functions!

 Alas, Kurt Godel came along and showed that such things were forever doomed, at least in every predictive sense. Godel had demonstrated a metamathematical system with all the rigors and formalism of  mathematics, which proved once and for all that in any consistent axiomatic formulation of number theory, there exists undecidable propositions.

 Doesn’t sound so impressive, does it?  And yet,   it applies to all formal systems, from computers to neural networks, to perhaps even human brains, and it tells us that if we try to devise any formal system to capture all truth, we can never, in any predictive fashion, hope to succeed! In terms of truth, “Big ‘T'”, we just can’t get there from here!  

 We simply can’t define any “higher” reason to show why we should unite, and if we DO propose such a reason, we can;t prove that we have a right to deprive anyone who might disagree with our goals.

 In terms of one united truth, we can’t get “there” from “here”. And if we propose a God who is consistent with, and the source of all truth, we cannot,  by any decision procedure of our own, get from “here” to “God”!    

 In all formal endeavors, no matter how complex, the very complexity of the system itself will force us toward an infinity of undecidable propositions!      We can’t do it, and the most powerful computers can’t do it!

 The entire structure of our thinking seems to have a built -in “failsafe” that keeps us   from organizing in such a way as to accelerate our own destruction.

 In religion, we have parallels to this in New testament teaching. Jesus tells us in Matthew 10:34-38, that all attempts to follow him will result in continual division and splintering, until our own families will be against us. In Romans 8:7, Paul writes that the natural mind is enmity against God, and cannot be subject to Gods laws, which would mean that every attempt to organize in God’s name will have the same effect as trying to organize according to one unifying truth.Today, as evidence of that fact, we have over 38,000 versions of  Christianity alone!      

  It would seem that we are embedded in an environment of constant change, and we must adapt to that change consciously, to grow in knowledge, so that we may continue to survive on this planet.

 God or no God, the mathematical evidence now suggests that we are literally programmed by the very nature of mathematics itself, to be unable to succeed by our own efforts, and that seems to be what Paul says in Ephesians 2: 8-10, among other  scriptures.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Is The United States Under Martial Law?

There are blogs and web pages all over the internet claiming that we are under martial law. How can we know for sure?

Certainly you won’t find a court or government agency that would ever admit it, if it were true. But we can get a good idea by simply looking at some real obvious clues.

 Pull out one of the Federal Reserve Notes and look at it. On the note, you will see “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private”.

 If it is legal, then it must have some authorization by law. If it is to be used as tender for payment of debt,  there should obviously be some law we can see that shows the full authorization. If you look through the US Constitution regarding legal tender, you will see Article 1, Section 10, which says that no state shall make anything but gold and silver coins tender for payment of debt. That is still in effect now.

 If Federal Reserve Notes(FRNs) are legal tender, there should be some law overriding the provision of Article 1, Section 10. If you assumed it was your right to only use gold and silver coin as payment for all debt, would that be your right?

 As recently as the 1960s, the Supreme Court ruled that “Where  rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them”.(Miranda vs Arizona).

 Anything that would abrogate such prohibition of the Constitution would have to take the form of a constitutional law or amendment. There is no such amendment. No legislation can alter it, so how can a FRN be legal tender for ALL debts, public and private?

 Can it be a substitute in place of gold and silver? Not according to the constitution, in regard to states. Can there be any process within constitutional law in which it CAN be used in place of gold and silver?

 Yes, and that place is found in Article 1, Section 8, in what is known as the “enclave clause”. In addition to Washington, DC, congress can “exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever…over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings”.

 IOW, the federal government can exercise exclusive legislation and jurisdiction over those territories which are officially assigned to it and those which are purchased by the consent of the states.

 In those areas, and ONLY in those areas, can a Federal Reserve Note have exclusive jurisdiction as legal tender over all debts. Any place outside that, within a state, legal tender is recognized only as gold and silver.

 Since those places listed in the enclave clause mention specifically military uses, then a Federal Reserve Note would be used entirely as military scrip. Its power to be accepted would be limited specifically to those places owned by the federal government. In the states, it would have to be convertible to gold and silver coins.

 But what about the militia? Isn’t legal tender, paper money, acceptable in the militia? Only to the extent that the soldiers used in the militia are employed by the United States federal government.

 Here is the law applicable to that:

“To provide for organizing, arming(the federal government must arm the militia),and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States…

 How far does government power extend? Only to those who may be employed  by the federal government. We can compare that to the enclave clause. As long as the soldiers of the militia are used for federal purposes, they “belong” to the federal government to the extent that they are employed for that purpose. They can be issued Federal Reserve Notes, but when their employment ceases, those notes are convertible to gold and silver, or they are not acceptable as tender.

 Can this be changed by congress? No, because this is part of the “necessary and proper” powers of congress, and is directly associated with the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…shall not be infringed.”

 There is the word “necessary’ in connection with the N & P clause of Article 1, Section 8. The right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a well regulated militia, shall not be infringed. That amendment, by using the word “necessary”, becomes a limitation on the war-making powers of congress!

 This means, quite simply, that if congress is to institute a standing army, according to constitutional provision, taxes to support that army are subject to congressional review, which means that all Federal Reserve Notes issued must be due to consideration for renewal every two years!

 “But no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years…”

 As to appropriations for a Navy, that is accepted, but Navies do not occupy territory. They are part of the protection of borders. Under Article 3, the judicial power extends to “all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction…”, but congress can raise taxes for the Navy, and all necessary ands provided for national purposes can be paid in “legal tender” as determined by the federal government.

 But in the courts, we see that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over states is limited very strictly. There is no jurisdiction given, in any degree, over the official tender which is to be accepted by the states. They are bound constitutionally to make only gold or silver coin as tender in payment of debt.

 From this, we can only come to one logical conclusion: if you are accused and defend yourself in court, the court cannot charge you and expect payment in the form of Federal Reserve Notes. There is no jurisdiction given to the states to declare such a ruling. All courts in the states are subject to “due process” and due process is defined by Justice Joseph Story as COMMON LAW, not federal law. In fact, as Chief Justice John Marshall declared in “US vs Aaron Burr”, SCOTUS has no general jurisdiction over common law.

 Guess what? Common law only recognizes gold and silver as tender for payment of debt.

 If the court accepts payment in the form of Federal Reserve Notes, it is accepting what can only be termed military scrip, and we are not subject to military authority, except under martial law.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“Necessary and Proper”?

If you happen to have libertarian tendencies, as I do, you’ve looked at this “necessary and proper” power of congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution quite often.

 When the constitution was ratified, a group called anti-federalists claimed that congress would run wild with this one clause. Turns out they have, but with the approval of Supreme Court rulings.

 As the clause says, congress shall have power to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of he United States, or in any department or officer thereof”

 The most famous early test of those “N & P” powers came in a Supreme Court case called “McCulloch vs Maryland”.

 It actually revolved around two issues. 

1. Can the federal government form corporations?

2. Can states tax a federal bank which operates from within that state?

 Pulitzer Prize winner Jack N. Rakove writes in his book “Original Meanings“, that “Franklin, Wilson, and Madison attempted to give congress  authority to build canals and to grant charters of incorporation when the national interest warranted, but this effort failed…”

 To understand why it failed, we may look at the constitution as it was finally ratified, and those amendments we know as the Bill of Rights.

 Where did corporations come from, in law, as the colonies understood it? Since they were students of Blackstone, they realized that a corporation was an entity created by authority of the king of England as a “legal person” for whatever function the king deemed necessary.

 The reason why this power was reserved exclusively to the king, as Blackstone pointed out, is that corporations were products of Roman civil law, and common law rejected Roman civil law as an authority over common law. As both Blackstone and Edward Coke, England’s Chief Justice explained it, a corporation became par of common law only by “baptism” or “christening” of he king as a legal person. As such the corporation was subject to the king and King’s Court.

 Since the ratification of the constitution, and the Revolutionary War recently fought had rejected the authority of the king of England, it is easy to recognize that he delegates would not be eager to give kingly powers to the federal government for any reason.

 In fact, there was a great uproar among the anti-federalist regarding civil law, since powers given to federal courts under civil law did not include trial by jury, a  staple of common law.

 One who wrote as “A Democratic Federalist” said “It is a word of foreign growth and is only known in England and America in those courts which are governed by the civil or ecclesiastical law of the Romans.”

    The fear of the early colonists was that the federal courts, under Article 3 jurisdiction, would take the judiciary power and place all civil suits under the civil law as developed in Europe, and consistent with Roman law, or “corpus juris civilis“, whose authority was not recognized by common law.

 Had this been permitted, two national sovereign powers would have been given to congress and the courts:

1.Sovereign power to form corporations, considered a “kingly” power

2.To create civil law in recognition of that corporate power.

In protection against such power, the 7th amendment was added:

“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law”

 What must be understood from this is that, as historian St George Tucker pointed out, and also established by Chief Justice John Marshall in “United States vs Aaron Burr“, neither the courts nor congress had  general jurisdiction over common law.

 Since all suits were at common law, and since no fact tried by jury could be re-examined by any US court except by common law, then all federal courts were subject to the rulings of the jury under common law, which eliminated any civil law or corpus juris civilis power.

But who did have jurisdiction over common law? Quite simply, and plainly written in the constitution; the states. How do we know?

1.Under 5th amendment provisions, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by due process of law.

So what is “due process of law”?  The colonists had two authors they recognized in law. One was William Blackstone, whose “Commentaries” shaped legal thoughts among the states, and English Chief Justice Edward Coke, who wrote “Institutes of the Laws of England“.

 It was Coke who had given the definition of due process as common law. Therefore, what we see in the 5th amendment, and as understood  by the founders, is that  no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by common law.

 As Roger Sherman proposed in ratification, and approved  by the House, the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, pertained to the states, and were kept separate from the body of the US Constitution itself. These, said Sherman, would be a bill dealing with the states, while the Constitution referred to the body of the people.

 It was understood by the colonists, therefore, that every person within any state was protected from intrusion of the federal government by “due process”, or common law.

 Further proof? How about the “Commentaries” of US Justice Joseph Story? Due process of law, wrote Story, in quoting from Edward Coke, said “by the law of the land, mean  by due process of law, that is, without due presentment or indictment, and being brought in to answer thereto by due process of the common law.”

 The power of congress, and of the courts, as we see, was prohibited from exercising general jurisdiction over common law. Could the federal government create a corporation as a “legal person”? No, since that had been reserved to the king only under common law, and since the courts themselves had to respect common law, and since common law was restricted to the jurisdiction of the states, only the states had authority to create corporations.

 That, in fact, is just what Tench Coxe told the people at ratification of the constitution. Notice this distinction:

“The several states can create corporations civil and religious..”

 Who was not permitted to make such laws? Congress, under the First Amendment!

 It was the common law which gave the king of England power to create corporations of a civil or religious nature. It was that same jurisdiction over common law that gave ONLY the states jurisdiction to create corporations, whether civil or religious in nature! Congress could make no law recognizing an establishment of religion, because it had no jurisdiction over common law!

 The states, however, having jurisdiction over common law, had every common law right to create religious corporations! This was not taken away by the 14th Amendment! It merely gave every person right to “free exercise” of religion by due process protection!

  By restricting all due process to , the states, therefore, gave the states sovereignty that the federal government or the courts could not possess!

 All protections of life, liberty, or property, was reserved to the states by due process, which means that any state can declare, in spite of Supreme Court rulings, the power to create religious corporations!

 How do we know it was reserved to the states? How about James Madison’s statement in “Federalist 45”:

 “The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people…”

 We can simply overlap this onto the 5th amendment, which tells us that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by due process of law.

 As Tench Coxe pointed, and as understood by the founders, the states retained jurisdiction over common law by due process, and by that same law, they retained power to create  both religious and civil corporations!

  Could this power be overcome by any “necessary and proper” power of congress? No since the N & P clause sat directly under what is called the “enclave clause” of the Constitution:

“To exercise exclusive legislation…over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.”

 Unless the federal government owned the property, by consent and purchase from the states, it had no exclusive legislation over the states.

 Under the 1st Amendment, however, it had  no power of legislation at all! This can ONLY mean  that the power of religious incorporation remained with the states by due process of law!

 Under the 14th Amendment, this protection is given to individuals from the state itself, which makes due process of law a complete right of individual conscience!

We are left here with a fundamental conclusion: Only the states have jurisdiction over corporations, whether civil or religious in  nature, and congress cannot say otherwise.

 Since  neither congress nor the courts have general jurisdiction over common law(see Brandeis, Erie vs Tomkins), the states retain sovereign power of regulation over all corporations.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What About This “Holy Spirit”?

Christian religions run around everywhere  nowadays, over 38,000 versions last time I looked, and all of them claim to possess something given by God called the Holy Spirit.

 Problem is, they all have different definitions.  Can they actually possess this spirit, whatever it is?

 A man named Alan Turing, lo ng before we actually had computers anything like what we have, created a “Turing Machine” that would operate according to universal principles. One of the first things established right off was called the Turing halting problem.  What Turing realized in this little “thought experiment” was that there exists questions which a universal Turing Machine simply can never solve. Certain mathematical questions reach toward infinity, and the computer simple will be unable to give us an answer one way or another as to what is the correct answer on certain questions.

 Then he developed this test which is now generally called the Turing test. Suppose, said Turing, you had a man and a woman behind a curtain, and you asked another person to sit on the other side of the curtain, and by passing written questions back and forth, the person could determine, purely by the answers of the questions, which was a man and which was a woman.

 From that, Turing proposed a similar test. Suppose a person sat on one side of the curtain, and on the other side, there was a computer. The person would type questions to the computer, but would not know whether he was asking questions of a computer or a real person.

 The computer would then send typewritten answers back “pretending” to be a real person. If this computer could answer questions so that, to all intents and purposes, the person on the other side of the curtain could not tell by those answers whether he was questioning a computer or a real person, then to all intents and purposes, the computer would be the equivalent of a real person.

 Let’s propose, then, a similar “Turing test” for the “Holy Spirit”.

 Suppose there could be a way of defining what the Holy Spirit is, and the definition could be written in such a way that a person could ask questions of a computer(without knowing it was a computer), showing whether that computer could properly answer the questions.

 Wait a minute, you say, there is no such test or a process by which we can ask a computer to define the Holy Spirit. Of course not, because if there was, we could all know exactly what it is, and we could define it for ourselves.

 But if we could define it ourselves, then we could take that definition and program it into a computer, so that any computer would know as much about the Holy Spirit as we do.

 THEN, if we asked a computer questions about the Holy Spirit, to all intents and purposes, that computer would “possess” the Holy Spirit!

 Not possible? Why? Because the Holy Spirit must come from God? But how do we know that, if we can’t define it, and if we CAN define it, then we can program a computer to have it exactly the same as ourselves. If we can define it, we can program it. If we can program it, a computer can have it exactly the same as we do.

 This would seem to leave one of two options:

1.There is no Holy Spirit

2.There may actually be a Holy Spirit, but we have no way of defining or controlling it, which means that there is no proof whatever, from proposition (1) or proposition (2), that any religion, any church, any doctrine, any dogma, actually represents the Holy Spirit, which means that every attempt will simply result in infinite splintering of ideas as to what he Holy Spirit is.

 While this may not disprove the existence of a Holy Spirit, it certainly leaves no room for any religion to claim authority over the Holy Spirit.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Federal Reserve Notes Aren’t Constitutional

It doesn’t take a genius to read the plain statements of the constitution. Article 1, Section 10:

“No state shall….make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts”.

 There it is, no need for interpretations, no executive Supreme Court rulings. The constitution said it, the states can’t do it. Why? The Tenth 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”.

 There is simply no power given to the states to accept anything other than gold and silver coin as tender in payment of debt. Notice there is not one jot or tittle in the Constitution giving power to create “legal tender’ other than gold or silver. It is not ‘delegated” to the United States government, and it IS prohibited to the states.

 It must therefore be “reserved to the states” under specific direction of the constitution, as to what will be accepted as tender for payment of debt. Gold and silver coin. Nothing else.

 Without getting all involved and technical, let’s assume you were fifteen years old in 1945, and you were lucky enough to get a job which stated that you will receive, as salary, a one ounce gold coin every week, and that salary would not increase as long as you held your job.

 Since gold was held arbitrarily at a value of around thirty five dollars an ounce for several years, it might not be such a good deal. Yet if gold were allowed to adjust to market demand, as it finally was allowed to do, your salary, assuming you were healthy and continued to work that long, would equal around fourteen hundred dollars a week on January 1, 2011.

 What that means, quite simply, is that no matter how stupid your federal representatives were in debasing the currency, that ounce of gold would compensate for their stupidity.

 Of course, had the constitution been honored, the North could not have fought a Civil War for the liberation of slaves, nor maintained the Union, and confederate states could not have fought their war without issuing confederate notes. Further, the North, as victors, could never have continued to enforce their demands on the South except by financing their power with “legal tender”.

 The unfortunate consequence of paper as legal tender is that the government, in order to enforce its value, must be able to keep winning against all comers. If it is to keep winning, it must extend its power over the lives and properties of those who are under its jurisdiction.

 Every law, every rule, on the part of congress, must follow in pursuit of that goal if paper money as legal tender is to remain successful. Are such laws legal?  The Supreme Court ruled in “Miranda vs Arizona” that where rights and immunities are granted by the constitution, there can be no rule-making or legislation to abrogate them.

 By what constitutional authority are Federal Reserve Notes printed as “legal tender”?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Running For Office? Watch For Govt Fraud!

 Several years ago, I was asked to run for state office. I’m not a great believer in government, since I’m Libertarian, but I agreed, just to have a “Lib” name on the ballot.

 In filing to run, I was given a number of forms to fill out, including statements about income, investments, and private statements that were completely protected by Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights!

 As the alarm bell began ringing in my head, I was further informed that if I did not comply and report all sources of income, all campaign spending, I could be fined or imprisoned!

 Think about this from the viewpoint of the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment:

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

 Yet here was the government telling me that I must give them a full report of my income, my investments, and all money spent on my campaign, or I would go to jail!

 I wondered how the government could blatantly violate the Fourth Amendment, and then threaten me with imprisonment, in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment?

 As I looked through the various forms, I saw the culprit that empowered the state to violate rights guaranteed to me by  my own constitution! The form was called “Committee To Elect…”

 In signing the form, I changed my identity from “citizen” to “committee”, and, as a committee, I was fully subject to the rules and regulations of the state! The form was not an open contract, saying, “I, Doojie23, agree to abide by the agreement herein declared as a “committee to elect form”.  No, it was not made out as a direct agreement between me, the candidate for office, and the government. I was merely an agent representing the committee, and my signature was on the back of the form as an agent of the committee!

 Once I signed that form, I was no longer a “citizen” with the guarantee of Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. I was a “committee” subject to any rule the state wished to impose, and I could be imprisoned for the least violation!

 The form, which took the form of contract, was clearly fraudulent. It held no authority, because there is no government authority given that can violate my rights as a citizen of the United States. BUT, if I became simply an agent of a “Committee To Elect Doojie23”, then I, as merely an agent, would be fully responsible, and punishable, notified in advance of my liability!

 Can any state enter into any contract that violates your rights? No. Yet here was the state, declaring upon my decision to run for office, that I would be forced to give evidence against myself, in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment, without due process, for which I could be imprisoned!

 Here, by the way, is that part of the Fifth Amendment guarantee, repeated also in the Fourteenth Amendment against the states under “due process”:

 “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

 The Fourth Amendment says I cannot be compelled to give any private papers or effects, and the Fifth Amendment says I cannot be compelled in any criminal case, where I am the defendant, to offer evidence against myself.

 Simply by threatening me with imprisonment for such offense, the state itself is in direct violation of my rights as a citizen and person of the United States.

 Do you realize the implications of this? Every candidate who signed such a form, who ran for office and gave personal records due to threat of his/her government, has run for office under a fraudulent agreement with the government, which makes that government itself fraudulent!

 All the laws they passed? Fraud. All the taxes they raised? Fraud.

 Every state that practices this has perpetrated fraud on its own citizens!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Church Or State?

 Which one is the best? Church, or state? Religion has made a mess, but so has the state.

 “Oh, but the church represents God!” you may say. Really? Prove it. Here’s the problem: if you can prove it, you;re relying on the power of human reason to demonstrate the authority of the church.

 If you can do that, then there’s no reason for the state, is there? After all, if you can prove that the church has authority from God using human reason, you can simply combine church and state, since truth is consistent with all truth.

 I had a teacher in the 8th grade who convinced me that conscience doesn’t tell you right from wrong. He pointed out that our conscience is shaped by the culture in which we live. From that, he drew a strange conclusion: If conscience can’t tell us right from wrong, then religions must be wrong, and therefore we should make government a replacement for religious power.

 Here’s the problem: if no individual conscience can tell us right from wrong outside of our culture, why would government have any greater success at guiding us morally than religion?

 More scientific?  Even granted that, science can no  more tell us right from wrong in any absolute sense than religion. If it could, we could then place all moral decisions under the framework of science and simply eliminate the necessity of church or state.

 Everything, every decision, every algorithm, could be determined by the reasoning of science.

 But that won’t work, since in every single case, we’re talking about the human mind as the origin of our sense of right and wrong.

 If we support religion, we’re supporting religion according to our reasoning. If we support the state, we’re still supporting human reason as the foundation, and if we propose science, same thing.

 If no human mind can arrive at such a conclusion individually, there is no reason to assume that a collection of human minds would more accurately determine morality for every individual.

 The answer must be that neither church nor state can determine morality for individuals.

 If we assume that right and wrong in an absolute sense can be represented by either church or state, then it can be represented just as well by any computer of sufficient programming. If a church can do it, it can be programmed. If the state can do it, it can be programmed. If science can do it, same thing.

 If right and wrong could be controlled either collectively by church or state, and if it could be just as fully programmed into a computer, what do we need for human minds and human life?

 Did you ever notice that throughout history, neither church nor state put too much importance on individual lives? Both of them killed human beings into the millions.

 Ayn Rand referred to church and state as “Attila and the Witch Doctor”. The bible takes a similar position by referring to them as “beast and false prophet”.

 The simple fact is, both church and state are two heads of the same beast, which happens to be us. As the often quoted comic strip “Pogo” said, “We have met the enemy and he is us”.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment