God and America by C.

Kem December 16th, 2006

Foreword It is not often I endeavor in writing an article. Perhaps earlier in my youth, when I had more to say. Of course having more to say then versus now has not necessarily changed. Trust me, I have always had a LOT to talk about! A lot that I must confess gets me into more hot water than I sometimes wonder if its worth. Though now that the writing style I have has changed from the years past when I wrote more often. I have had several serious accidents, and I lost a lot of my writing & formulation skills. I have been rebuilding that ever since, but it is not complete. So what I write here will sound off kilter when compared to either my past articles or in comparison to writings by more professional writers than myself. I have been with the Universal Church of Cosmos since Spring of 1998, and I was legally ordained as a minister with the Universal Church of Cosmos on December 28th of 2002. I have been through a number of mainstream churches, but never really felt part of them. Having been Mormon for 20+ years, I found it very difficult to adjust to new faiths, new churches, and new ideas. When I first encountered Cosmos, I did not know exactly what to make of it. I have since found it was not just because or without foundation. Instead, it is from the Holy Bible itself. The people I was then attending with and myself chose the name Cosmos, for a very spiritual reason- Cosmos is all. It is everything. And without God none of it would exist. When I speak about Gods Word, I have difficulty remember verses. Again, from those accidents. I have indeed read the Holy Bible through several times, and on top of that I have read the Quoran as well as the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine & Covenants and Joseph Smiths teachings. Because of this when I speak about verses I do not like to refer just to a verse. Even the devil can use a verse for his own good. A verse does not tell the story, or a message or even have a true meaning. A verse is to a chapter what a chapter is to a book as a word is to a sentence what that sentence is to a paragraph. The verse can be abused with ease. But the Chapter is not abused so easy. And the Bible as a whole is beyond the reach of most skilled scholars if they wish to misuse it. That is the glory of Gods work. In this article I am making direct reference to the particular verses involved, though I strongly suggest you read the entire chapters associated. My comments such as this means is my personal interpretations and in no implies that you must see it as I. And this particular article I wrote for my fellow Cosmos members. Now on with the article.... Page 1 of 10

In todays world terrorism has risen to a new level. But it is far more than Muslims and their suicide bombings. It is far more than airliner or cruise ship hijackings. Instead it is on a more personal level for all of us- the use and abuse of our rights as Americans, and more often than not it is by the same people that claim there are there for us- our congressmen, senators, governors and even the President of the United States himself. With these recent changes an emphasis has been made on our privacy. With the increasing need for our Social Security Numbers, Americans have become far too leiniant with who gets it and uses it. Now people just give it out whenever a government agency, someone portraying a government agent, or even if it is just some common person who claims to have authority, no matter if the authority is real, requests it. This has become a problem with identity theft as more and more people are finding out the hard way that more often than not government agencies do not need your number. When you look at it individually, you will see what is clearly a misuse of the system and system resources. But when you look at the whole picture, you see a lot more than that. You see that these are indeed the final days. Let me start off with verses from the foundation of my complaint- Book of Revelations, chapter 13.

Book of Revelations, Chapter 13 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This is, I feel, referring to the national identification system. This is a valid concern as other countries and governments have uncontested access to the same information, as part of the Anti-Terrorism Bill. 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: Sounds to me an awful lot like the Social Security Number as everyone in America has to have it. That is on the local scale. Keep in mind that our records are open to other countries in hopes of find possible terrorists. Not good. Coupled with that the idea of national ID, which also will be accessible by other countries. So in essence you have ZERO privacy. My interpretation of "right hand" is that physical possession is required, and now some form of ID on your person is required, and "in their foreheads" I interpret as mental. That we are being mentally conditioned to believe that we cannot live eat or breathe without it because of the constant persuasion that it is for our protection. 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here reality sinks in. Look at all that you simply cannot legally do without the Social Page 2 of 10

Security Number You literally cannot hold a job without it; or hold any form of investment/retirement or bank account; not to mention own real estate; or own any motor vehicle or any form of mechanized transport; you cannot obtain a hunting or fishing license without it; you cannot vote without giving part of it; nor can you cannot attend college without it; and it is now getting to the point that even some major hotel chains require it (personal experience); I think that alone, and many of you have experienced this, speaks volumes about what the mark of the beast really is. This, my friend, is not my interpretation. This is the law. 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. The bible is full of descriptions. In those days they were not talking about computer chips and spy satellites. They were taking in terms of their knowledge and technology. So honestly, if they talk about flying dragons spitting out balls of fire it could be interpreted as one of our attack helicopters firing missiles (using that as an example only as it says nothing of the sort in the Holy Bible). And that is why I have interpreted this like I have. And keep in mind that Satan can use the bible too. So use a verse and promote "proper" interpretation of THAT verse, and you can misconstrue the entire chapter. I do not see 666 as the mark of the beast, instead I see it as an example. Satan is not bound by any laws I know of to adhere to the bible. Remember, he is one that can deceive. So is Satan really going to stick to the number, "666"? NO! Satan wants to trick us! USE YOUR HEADS! SATAN IS THERE TO DECEIVE US! How many people have rewritten the bible? A lot. How many have written their own version of the bible? A lot. And have they burned up in flames? No! Have they been zapped by lightening? No! God leaves it up to us to read and interpret. I adhere to the bible as much as I can. I confess that I am certainly far from perfect, I make many mistakes, and I even have a lot of bad habits to break. But when it comes to the severe sins, such as accepting the mark of the beast, I do so with extreme prejudice. Now I refer you to the Book of Romans and the Privacy Act of 1974, also known as U.S.C. 552a.

Book of Romans, Chapter 13 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Page 3 of 10

This means that we are bound by the bible to have a form of government. And they are ordained by God. This does not mean they are right or moral, for that is their own choosing. 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. This means that whoever fights the government is in essence fighting the will of God. Kinda. 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: This is saying that we should not fear the government, for the government is supposed to be good. Even then, if the government is not good and expects us to adhere to their writings and not that of God, then they are clearly blasphemous and sinful. In such an event, who will you show your loyalty to? God or the government? You cannot have two masters! And this is the very reason why I am a strong supporter of the Privacy Act of 1974. That governs the government and how it uses the Social Security Number. The Book of Romans, in fact the entire Holy Bible, does not pertain just to the citizens, but to the government as well. They are expected to adhere to the teachings and the Word of God even more so than we are. After all, they are ordained by God Himself, are they not? No law anywhere, in Gods Book that is, ever said that the government are exempt from Gods Word. Now I refer to the Privacy Act of 1974. Actually it is Public Law 93-579 Section 7 which was made as an amendment to the Privacy Act of 1974, which is and of itself properly known as United States Code 552a.

Section 7 of Public Law 93-579 Section 7 of Public Law 93-579, as enacted by the Congress of the United States states that: (a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his Social Security Account Number. (a)(2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to (a)(2)(A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or (a)(2)(B) the disclosure of a Social Security Number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an Page 4 of 10

individual. (b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his Social Security Account Number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.

So now let me dissect this into more understandable terms(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his Social Security Account Number. What this is saying is that it is illegal for the government, and here it specifies the national/federal government and the state government as well as the local government agency to unlawfully discriminate against any individual, and this means anyone living, for refusing to give out their Social Security Number. This is an enhancement of Romans 13:3, as it says ...For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil..... This is a restriction the federal government is placing upon themselves and their affiliates such as the State of Colorado. ...(a)(2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to (a)(2)(A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or.... Here I added a bit to this to make it better understandable (if you wish, feel free to compare it to what the U.S. Department of Justice has so you may understand). This is with the addition of (a)(2) & (a)(2)(A) to better identify the role of the passage. What this is now telling is how they MAY ask for your Social Security Number, but as it says, it must be required by federal statute. Or. Or as in.... (a)(2)(B) the disclosure of a Social Security Number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual. Here it is now identifying the systems allowed to use the Social Security Number, but with a stipulation that the system must have been in use before January 1st 1975, AND if such disclosure was then required before that date. With a number of recent events involving acts of terrorism as well as acts of identity theft, I can understand that certain requirements may be overlooked. But above all else is Section 7(b). This is by far the most ignored part of the Privacy Act of 1974. (b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual Page 5 of 10

to disclose his Social Security Account Number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it. What this is saying is that with all of the above conditions met, they still have to meet those additional requirements to lawfully request the Social Security Number. So they must tell you if the Social Security Number is merely an option, or if it is an absolute requirement. Then they are bound by this very law to tell you by what authority they may ask this. Not because we are <insert name> agency, but instead what law or statue says they can ask for it. Here the authority is not in the title of an individual or an agency, but instead in the written laws that have a meaning, that have a purpose. Likewise when Section 7(b) specifies ...and what uses will be made of it. This is a big misunderstanding by many, as here they fall out of step with this law. I have encountered state agencies that will say they use it for identification. Oppps! Really? Interesting. Now how long has that system been in use, the system that uses this for identification, and what is the law they are enforcing by doing this? My understanding is if its for their system, the law has to have been passed and enacted before January 1st, 1975 as stated in Section 7(a)(2)(b) . There is a chance I could be wrong on this, but even then Section 7(b) states that the law or statute must be identified. One common mistake is the lack of homework done by both businesses and agencies that try to use a generalized law to justify their inquiry. In particular since September 11th, 2001 is the PATRIOT Act. They commonly refer to the PATRIOT Act, not understanding thats a big document! 126 pages, in fact. And out of all of that, the only reference to the Social Security Number I found was in Section 326. And yes, it does say in Section 326 and Section 326a that financial institutions may ask for it. Financial institutions. NOT employers, not colleges and not public schools. Ask them whenever they say it is under the PATRIOT Act, which section. They will not give it! They will not give it because they do not have it, and that is because they really have no idea what they are talking about! They are merely repeating what they were told, believing their source and not reading the laws themselves. They are, quite frankly, LEMMINGS! As a close friend once said in a similar discussion Theyre both idiots & lemmings, Carl! Give them their sign and tell them to go jump off a cliff! They wont know any better! Entertaining thought, though I really do prefer a far more peaceful way. Now this reflects back on the Second In Command, the United State Bill of Rights. In particular the First Amendment. This has been commonly referred to the freedom OF religion amendment, when in reality it is both freedom OF religion as well as freedom FROM religion. And it says thisAmendment I- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; This is saying that the government can neither impose a state religion upon you nor punish you for exercising the religion of your choice. Expecting the government Page 6 of 10

agencies to comply with the law for legal reasons is clearly a legal matter. But when they ignore the law and make the offensive request to us, it is no longer a matter of ignoring the law as much as it is infringing on our First Amendment rights. When they ignore the Privacy Act of 1974, this can be construed as them imposing their religious views upon us and expecting us to adhere to their views. Then it can be interpreted as the agencies punishing you for your religious faith, one they clearly do not honor nor respect. It does not matter if they agree, because they do not have to. But they cannot impose their views on you or I nor can they punish us because they disagree. Now some important quotes to consider and research on your ownNo act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution [see: Almeida Sanchez vs. United States, 413 U. S. 266 at 272; L. Ed 2d 596; 93 S. Ct. 2535 (1973)]. This can only be done by the consent of the people. So long as the people do not speak aggressively against such violations, they will happen and they will continue. And what more can anyone add to this? That says it as simple as it gets. But in the end it is still up to the people to stand against any such usurpations and violations. This is reinforced by the next quotations-

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them [see: Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 at 491]. All laws, which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void [see: Marbury vs. Madison 5 U.S. (2 Crenshaw) 137 at 174,176, (1803)]. An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; and affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed [see: Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425]. Neither the legislative, executive, nor judicial departments of the federal government can lawfully exercise any authority beyond the limits marked out by the Constitution [see: Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 19 How. (60 US) 393; 15 L. Ed 691]. The Prohibitions of the federal constitution are designed to apply to all branches of the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT and cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined [see: Reid vs. Covert, 354 U.S. 1]. The Congress cannot amend the Constitution of the United States by legislation [see: Counselman vs. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547]. Page 7 of 10

"Law is the solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of the state. The Constitution of the state is the law of the state, within the meaning of the United States Constitution [see: 148 U.S. 137]; but a corporation's statute IS NOT [see: 146 U.S. 258]. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose; since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment ... in legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... since the unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it ... a void Act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, in so far as the statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the Land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it [see: 16 American jurisprudence 2nd, Section 177, late at American Jurisprudence 2nd, Section 256]. Neither the legislative, executive, nor the judicial departments of the federal government, can lawfully exercise any authority beyond the limits marked by the Constitution [see: Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 19 How. (60 U.S.) 393; 15 L. Ed. 691]. A regulation, which is inconsistent with law, is invalid [see: Title 5, U.S.C., 301].

You can see that throughout history even the justice system has recognized the power and sovereignty of the United States Constitution. And even then, I reflect again back on the Book of Romans, this time 13:413:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. For the government is indeed the minister that God has ordained for us. The government is there for us. To serve us and to protect us. But that never at any point does any of this say that the federal or state or local governments are ever above God! And again, THAT is reinforced by the First Amendment. AgainAmendment I- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Page 8 of 10

With all of this said, let us now refer to the Constitution of the State of ColoradoPREAMBLE We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, in order to form a more independent and perfect government; establish justice; insure tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the "State of Colorado". I think that when God is recognized in the State Constitution, that alone speaks volumes of who has ultimate authority! And it goes much farther than just the Preamble. Article Two, Section 4 (edited to help you understand)Article TwoSection 4. Religious freedom. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his opinions concerning religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent. Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship. There are somethings in life that are so clear that to misunderstand is not an act of ignorance as much as it would be literally stupidity and blasphemy. And anyone that feels that blasphemy against the Word of the Lord is ok apparently has no true understanding of God or His word OR the very written laws referred to. Here you will find that the Holy Bible, the United States Constitution AND the Constitution of the State of Colorado are not only the finest works ever written protecting us and our rights, but if ever infringed upon, when removed, the entirety of the remaining will collapse like a dung heap from a cow. And this is, if anything, the very reason why we must be as aggressive as possible when stand for our very rights. This is not something we can think about. It is something that must be done. It is far more than just political or legal- this is forcing us to take the religious views of others, views we do not share! The Social Security Number is, in my view, the mark of the Beast forced upon us by our government as appointed by our Lord. This is like walking on a tightrope. Page 9 of 10

- On one side the Book of Romans is saying that we must follow our leaders and obey the laws they make for our protection and care. But it also says THEY must obey the laws they make for themselves regarding the duties and responsibilities they accept when they are appointed to these positions of authority by the Power of God! For if they do not obey those laws and responsibilities, they are now acting outside the authority given to them by us and by God, which is an abomination unto us their followers and God, our Father! And THAT is the other side of the tightrope. With this forced upon us by our God-appointed government, we are bound to adhere to the laws written and enforced by the same government. But that never at any point authorizes the government to ever places themselves above God Himself. And when actions are taken by representatives of the government that places themselves above Him, that is blasphemy, and that is clearly the work of Satan.

So I ask you as I have asked before, Who is YOUR master?

Page 10 of 10