What is Natural about the "State of Nature"?

The more I have encountered libertarianism and all that that broadminded ideology embraces the more often I have needed to review and examine what underpins my own political philosophy. I find much solace in my growing certainty that nothing I hold to be true is founded on libertarianism but upholds it instead. It just goes to show that even if a man builds a stick hut on solid rock, it will last much longer than a mansion built on sand. In my position, however, I happen to have a mansion built upon a solid rock foundation.

In time, I hope to publish more thorough examinations of the libertarian sophistical system, but for the present, I wanted to put down a few thoughts on one fountainhead of modern liberalism (from which source individualism and libertarianism likewise grow), the "state of nature".

The "state of nature" supposedly is one in which man is removed from―existing prior to and without aid of―political society, i.e., government, law and pre-established social connections. While in some cases that isolation is complete, not every theory requires the abolition of all natural connections and bonds. As expounded here, for example, marriage and family contracts are not held to be under the penumbra of the political "social contract" in some cases. The theory is a thought experiment trying to discern what rights a man possesses before he opens political negotiations with his fellow man. Its aim is to discover the natural rights of man by giving him a political blank slate. In more extreme cases―Hobbes comes immediately to mind―it isolates him completely when man is demonstrably incapable of living an isolated life. It always amused me that mothers seemed to be no part of Hobbes' natural state: after all, what would every mother think of her child if he proved incapable of peaceful negotiation except wherein he needed to preserve his own life. It seems perfectly normal to assume that these men are, like Adam, created without mothers, but not created, unlike Adam, with an inherent need for friendship and community―even community with God. Perhaps Locke's state of nature more closely resembles reality than does that of Hobbes; however, a less-than-personal approach to God also distorts the natural need in man for communion.

It is no accident that Locke and other social contract theorists stumbled upon the fundamental rights of life, liberty and property which happen to coincide with three undeniable instincts an individual has to live, to choose the good and to possess things. It would have been more remarkable had Locke insisted that these three impulses did not constitute three such natural rights, as they had been recognized not only by the ancient rationalists, but also had been divinely sanctioned in the Old Testament ("Thou shalt not murder", "Thou shalt not steal", "Love thy neighbor as thyself"), reaffirmed by Christ during His ministry and maintained and defended by His Church for seventeen centuries. It could be argued instead that Locke chose those three natural rights because he could not escape the rational tradition of the West.

The search for natural rights is limited by those who chose to examine what man has in a state of nature rather than what man is by his own nature, to discover what a man does in pristine conditions rather than what a man is which manifests itself regardless of his circumstances. One can more accurately observe what a man is by how he acts in every circumstance than by how he acts in one protean situation. That man is endowed with certain natural rights should be evident through nature, not constructed by nature.

Railing on Trump's "Wall": Part IV

To my knowledge, this issue has not yet arisen, but as I have mentioned above, it may yet make an untimely appearance. The validity of Trump's powers in this regard (previously explained) notwithstanding, such advocates may argue that international law safeguards a "right to immigrate" and a "right to asylum" which Trump now has abrogated.

The Supreme Court has increasingly appealed to international law as a measure to judge the legality and even the morality of legislation challenged under the authority of Constitutional law. This disingenuous and necessarily disastrous juris-imprudence clearly reveals a bias in favour of international law, as if the will of Europe's governments were of more consequence to American law than either the will of the American people or even the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" upon which this Constitution is rightly founded. Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., guts the internationalist practices and biases which the Supreme Court has gradually adopted in his excellent book How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary.

A more reasonable critic could rightly claim that international treaties may influence the legality of the President's executive order. Article VI of the Constitution states that "all Treaties made...under the Authority of the United States, shall be [part of] the supreme Law of the Land[,]" and the United States has subscribed to both the Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  One question must be entertained here: does the Treaty or any part of it violate the Constitution or require any sworn official to disregard his essential duties to "preserve, protect and defend" this Constitution? If the answer were affirmative, then the offending part of the treaty―possibly even the treaty in total―would be null and void without needing further declaration.

If the treaty is entirely legitimate, then one might further ask what the parameters of these international protections might be? How specific are they? How are they worded?

Marine le Pen, a front runner in France's current Presidential race and Member of the European Parliament, deftly answers this query. I need not add anything to her statements here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sfhc_e5P88 (beginning at 8:30). The strict terms apply to all emigres and to every subscribing nation.

If it comes down to it, Trump's best response would be to imitate the mighty Andrew Jackson and ignore the ruling of the Court. The law, if it stands acquitted by a common-sense reading of the Constitution, must continue to stand, especially if the Justices rule that it should fall because they prefer to stand by vapid international standards which justify their position, rather than uphold the Constitution.

"The world must construe according to its wits; this Court must construe according to the law."
              ~Thomas More: A Man for All Seasons

Railing on Trump's "Wall": Part III

"The best laid schemes o' mice and men
   Gang aft a-gley. ~ Robert Burns

It appears that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the Temporary Restraining Order issued by the District Court in Washington State to halt enforcement of President Trump's executive order until it has been reviewed and deemed lawful.

Following the arguments of the plaintiffs, the Court dismembers the executive order remotely, preferring again to relate immaterial motifs that depend more on conjecture than on what the Executive Order stipulates: it prefers the interests of non-immigrant and immigrant visa holders to those of citizens, it prefers the interest of private institutions to the public welfare, and it prefers the arguable interests of the States to the explicit rights and duties of the Federal Government.  It also prefers to reserve judgment on the Constitutional issue relating to the Establishment Clause, not because the accusation is groundless both in fact and in law, but "in light of the sensitive interests involved", whatever that means.

All this while it continues to ignore the material claims of the relevant statutory law.

Such an oversight is striking particularly in Section VI of the appeal decision which reviews the Government's likelihood of success in countering the State's due process claims. Not once is 8 U.S.C. 1182 (f) mentioned in connection with the duty to provide due process, nor is it regarded as an integral part of due process. And since the President has the authority and the duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed", a statute which provides immediate and effective power to the President to halt all immigration or any part of it that he deems in the national interest at any time and for any period of time would seem to be sanctioned by his constitutional authority. (One may even argue that the Executive authority in 1182 (f) is especially intended for national emergencies, when due process may be altered according to the demands of the general welfare.) Nor does it regard the statutory right of the President to stop immigrants from entering the United States in any way relevant; it focuses instead on aliens who are already on this soil. It challenges the Executive's authority to enforce this Order upon aliens immediately and without notice or chance of reply as a violation of due process. It should be noted that the Order does not in any way require the deportation of undesired aliens, immediately or otherwise. It merely suspends their entry for ninety days, which provides them ample time to appeal their cases, and does not recommend any further action until the period of review and report has been completed.

And of course, pace this great authority, "due process" does not mean that undocumented aliens cannot be deported. It means merely that the government authority must have proof of an alien's undocumented status in order to enforce upon them compliance with national immigration laws. Illegal aliens are de facto and de jure criminals. Proof of illegal entry demands deportation. End of story.

As it is, I am still primarily concerned that this case will make its way to the Supreme Court, and that that august body will decide against the statutory power of 8 U.S.C. 1182 (f) without once considering it on its own constitutional merits. And that will be the end of border control, of defense against multi-cultural invasion and, in the end, the last nail in the coffin of the sovereignty of the United States.

Railing on Trump's "Wall": Part II

Word is spreading.

Fifteen states and the District of Columbia under the signed names of their attorneys general (allegedly supported by this familiar face) have filed an amicus brief alongside Washington and Minnesota's federal lawsuit contesting Donald Trump's Executive Order. The original lawsuit has been upheld in one Washington court and denied in one Massachusetts court. (This opinion piece compares the conduct of the two cases well).

In summary, the Washington court judge enjoined a temporary restraining order against Trump's Executive Order without any argument based on the relevant statutes. Massachusetts' court did consider the ramifications of statutory law and executive-legislative prerogative in this matter and decided against a temporary restraint.

So naturally, the former judge's brief relies on some rather stunning legal gymnastics.

The first three observations do not offer any valid objections to the order or support the legal cause against it. If they serve any purpose, it is as red herrings and sob stories aimed at reducing what should be a legal issue to an emotional appeal.

The latter two objections raise the central problems projected by these states, claiming that the order violates the Establishment Clause and inflicts "irreparable harm" on the amici states and further arrogates their legal prerogatives.

However, the amici in the case are not so circumspect as to provide evidence of the violation. They claim a priori that a violation has occurred and argue instead that the alleged violation inflicts irreparable harm on them. Nonetheless, the argument could only take a few directions and maintain any validity. 

The Establishment Clause uses very precise language regarding the relationship between the federal government and religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]" What does it mean to "establish[]" a religion? At the time, Colonists knew of only one established religion, the Anglican Church, which received tax revenue from Parliament and was under the control of the political head of the nation, the king. The Continental Congress realized that such a union of religion and state policy would have disastrous consequences not unlike the persecutions and wars that ravaged England barely a century earlier; so, they cut all ties between the state and an officially funded, politically managed religion.

More recently, however, "establishment" has been colloquially reinterpreted as "endorsement" or "preference", and bans on praying in public schools and bible reading for example have swiftly followed with "protected" satanic clubs hard on their heels. A much vaguer term, "endorsement" allows for a broader swath of contrary actions such as simultaneously demand protection of Muslims and disenfranchisement of Christians.

Accepting that the advocates of this lawsuit have no claim that Trump has "established" a religion in the strict (and therefore only proper) sense, one must assume that they instead claim he has in some way "endorsed" one religion over another. Several relevant paragraphs of the order are referenced as proof of the order's anti-Muslim bent:

   1) Sec. 1, par. 3 refers to "hostile attitudes" and "violent ideologies" that should not be allowed to enter into the United States. It further references "honor killings" and other rights violations that should not be countenanced;

   2) Sec. 5(b) directs the Secretary of State to "prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality". Of course, in the seven targeted countries, Islam is the majority religion;

   3) Sec. 5(c) specifically denies entry to Syrian refugees "until such time as...sufficient changes have been made...to ensure that admission...is consistent with the national interest[]"; and

   4) Sec 5(d) restricts the entry numbers of refugees in general to 50,000 until such entries are deemed in accord with the "national interest."

Now unless the litigants want to argue that Islam is the only religion with "hostile attitudes" and "violent ideologies", that it is the only religion that could ever endorse "honor killings" and other rights violations, that Christians and other non-Islamic religions are not being actively targeted in Islamic countries and that Syria is not an active war zone endangered by the Islamic fundamentalists known as ISIS, they have no grounds to suppose that the order singles out Muslims for scrutiny because of their religious beliefs. 

If, on the other hand, as presented in another amicus brief filed by law professors across the nation, the executive order violates 8 U.S.C. 1152 (a)1(A) which forbids preference or discrimination based on "race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence", then it remains to be seen what is illegal about preference or discrimination based solely upon religion or political persecution. This becomes even more problematic if, as this brief claims, 8 U.S.C. 1152 (a)1(A) supersedes the presidential prerogative provided in 8 U.S.C. 1182 (f) [see pg. 10-11 (35-36/62)] as Trump would have been restricted by law to consider religion or political affiliation as the only legal bases upon which to enforce his immigration ban. A Muslim ban it should have been then! 

Why assume that 8 U.S.C. 1152 (a)1(A) supersedes 8 U.S.C. 1182 (f)? Why assume that because a statute was passed after another related statute that the latter repeals the former or even amends it? Statutory laws are repealed, revised or amended specifically by other statutes, or they are proven to be at variance with the Constitution through judicial review. 8 U.S.C. 1152 (a)1(A) makes no mention of 8 U.S.C. 1182 (f) and as such leaves the preceding powers intact. The broad language of 8 U.S.C. 1182 (f) is not used by accident; it implies high levels of power and discretion in the President's hands and his alone. To limit the preference or discrimination in one place while leaving intact the power to discriminate against "all alien or any class of alien" flies in the face of reason.

Even the brief filed by the "Constitutional scholars" cannot avoid the fact that "every President over the last 30 years has issued at least one Executive Order pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182 (f) and that many of those order excluded aliens on the basis of nationality"; however, these scholars attempt to justify their objection by observing that those orders were "not categorical exclusions of broad classes deemed to pose a risk" but restricted "individuals that had engaged in culpable conduct". [See pg. 6 (12/25)]

False. False. False.

Honestly, the Left should be ashamed of their own proponents and their own arguments. They play the Constitution as if it were a chip in their game, when they could make far more headway by openly disowning the Constitution instead. Perhaps they have not noticed that those who take hard stances on the core issues have more clout than those that take coy stances on the hard issues.

What is next? Will a court expound the illegality of Trump's order based on a survey of international law and practices and opinions of the international community? Before they attempt it, I shall provide arguments against such juris-impudence in the next installment.

Railing on Trump's "Wall"

Much fuss is being made over President Trump's recent executive order to temporarily halt immigration from certain countries with incidents of Islamic extremism or terror-related unrest. People from the left and the right question the morality, legality, propriety and even the sanity of this measure. One-time Secretary of State Madeleine Albright gushed to CNN that the Statue of Liberty now has tears in its eyes. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts went so far as to implore her fellow senators to reverse the order, to condemn what she called an "illegal, unconstitutional and immoral" measure.

Setting aside the question of the timing and promulgation of the order which have more to do with the circumstances surrounding the measure than the measure itself, it is worth examining the basic complaints leveled so clearly by Senator Warren: that Trump's order is "illegal, unconstitutional and immoral."

Perhaps Warren has engaged in repetition for effect, but calling a measure "illegal" implies that that measure is also "unconstitutional", at least as far as American law is concerned. The reverse is also true: any measure proven to be unconstitutional is also de facto illegal and has no binding force whatever. So arguing that any measure can be both "illegal" and "unconstitutional" either indulges rhetorical redundancy or misrepresents the terms. It may be that Warren intends "illegal" to mean "unstatutory," which simultaneously interprets her statement with more nuance and bankrupts it of all legitimacy, as we shall see. All that she could mean, then, is that Trump's order either follows no current statutory regulation or defies such regulation: plainly, she means the same thing by "unconstitutional."

The Constitution, however, contains a trio of clear references regarding the Executive's role in immigration. Article I, section 8 gives Congress the duty and power to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization"; thereafter, Article 6 clearly states that "this Constitution, and all Laws made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme Law of the Land"; and finally, Article II, section 3 ordains that the President shall "take care that the Laws be faithfully executed". The relationship is clear: Congress legislates the rules governing immigration and insofar as those laws conform to the "supreme Law" the President is obliged to enforce them.

Now, the President already has Congressionally delegated powers regarding the control of immigrants and visitors to the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) states:

  (f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

In pursuance of such aims Trump enacted his temporary halt on immigration from countries deemed to host political elements detrimental to the interests of the United States.

Either Senator Warren is unaware of the existence of this statutory protection of such Executive action, or she disregards it. In no way can she claim it legal to bar the President from acting on such laws made in pursuance of the Constitution. It is his duty to faithfully execute precisely such laws, and so he has done however unsystematically or surprisingly. To obstruct the President in the execution of the law—the measure for which Warren ultimately advocates—would itself be an illegal act.

Concern for those immigrants with previously approved visas currently held in airport custody should not be blown out of proportion either. Immigrants with pre-approved visas will undoubtedly be released quickly and without further bother. I also find the hysterical tweets by Senators Chris Murphy and Diane Feinstein over children in Syria hypocritical to say the least. Their party has overseen and protected the murder of tens of millions of innocent children in the safest space that should ever exist: the womb. And if that were not enough, the idea that the United States can hold all displaced persons from any country without consequence has been roundly disproved (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DFPKNdYFkE&t=441s).

CNN cannot avoid hearing the conclusion that Trump has the law on his side, and that any court which has a respect for rule of law investigating this order would find his ban legal and non-discriminatory (pace whatever Al Jazeera and Harvard Law might suppose http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/01/wrong-trump-immigration-ban-170130102549929.html). Moreover, anyone who reads the "ban" cannot miss the leniency of Trump's measures. No ban on the Muslim religion (which Trump could have enacted under the statutory banner of "any class of aliens"), no ban on all immigrants from all Middle Eastern countries, and the halt itself is to last no longer than ninety (90) days. Three months from now, this measure will expire, unless further legal measures are needed.

As for the morality of the order, Senator Warren must answer one simple question: which is truly immoral, to temporarily halt the influx of immigrants, many of whom are already forbidden from entering the United States by virtue of the preceding sections of 8 U.S.C. 1182 (particularly 4a, "Public Charges"), or to disregard the safety and security of those citizens of the United States who are and continue to be the primary concern of the President of the United States?

It seems Warren would prefer to permanently prejudice the President against the citizens of the United States rather than rein in or review their suicidal open-door policy.

In the Hall of the Joyful King

     "One who fights for victory and not the truth will have only one ally, that is the devil.  Not the defeat of the intellect, but the acceptance of the heart is the true object for wielding the sword of the spirit."

     The sword of the Spirit, like the scythe of the harvester, hews untruth from under the good and the bad. One is wise to be certain of his own position, motives and arguments before he comes to the test. If he is not so prepared, he should listen and conduct inquiry to avoid becoming a victim on the scaffold of truth: a man who proves that he cannot explain his own position is more likely to search for answers than the man who believes he has explained it without challenge. It is foolish to oppose things that do not work against the Truth, and it is ridiculous to assume a man's position without assuming his posture. One must hear a man through, dig the truth from whatever depth it has been buried and expose it. Little more is needed in argument or evangelization; often, the seed is found to have been left untended, not unplanted.

    One need not fight to win. The victory is won. Now one must fight to conquer hearts which remain at odds with the rightful King. Defeat is for the lost.

  The faerie sight that sharpens the faculties to readily spot incongruities must walk with the affection that the human heart holds for all things true and all things lovable. A true sense of humour bonds inner sight (to see the inside of a song, as it were) and humility; it adores the hidden preternatural side of life. It is Joy, a presentiment of things eternal, a sign of what is to come. It is a sacrament of the hidden side of Christ, the side that delights in all creation, in all Good, in Himself, in the Spirit and in the Father. Perhaps that is why it is so important to live a life of Joy: it is the face of God that Christ asks us to reveal to the world. He remains with us so that our Joy might be complete. It is for us to revel in it. Catholic Joy springs from certainty that comes with sight, even of things seen "in a glass darkly" to be revealed in their fullness at a later time.

   Certainty, because it is rational and well-examined, is not bigotry, the result of a blind faith in opinion. The true bigot not only claims faith as his cornerstone, but as his whole foundation, if not his entire structure of belief.  He makes himself the arbiter of his reality. If he ceases to believe, not only does his belief die, but all that he believed in dies with it. The validity of belief is the difference between the man who holds up a house and the man who lives in one. The first destroys his house if he leaves it, the second leaves either to find the house well-founded or weak; whoever the man may be, however great his faith, only the strength of his will can maintain such a structure; the mind lends it no aid of certainty. If that will is broken, the structure of belief will fall, with the weight of all reality following fast upon it. If his house stands without him, he never loses that sense of longing for what he has made his own.

  Certainty is built upon the foundation of reality, the bedrock that does not sway under pressure from men. Arguments leap forth like buttresses to hold the walls and roof firm to protect the interior from the elements of dissent. Even if one stops believing in what is certain, it remains to touch his mind. He may even forget it exists until he catches the familiar "scent." Then he will unearth it eagerly and show it to his friends, no matter how dirty or dilapidated it has become in his absence. Its original magnificence can be restored and refined through care. Then the house can ring again with the laughter of true Joy, firm and prepared to stand the rumblings even of the laughter of God.  

What is the Ultimate Question?

I have just had the pleasure of reading an article by Grant Freeman entitled "The Ultimate Answer". It was published by Those Catholic Men and is available here: http://thosecatholicmen.com/articles/the-ultimate-answer/. Mr. Freeman's article fired my interest and gave me several thoughts upon which I would like to elaborate. In the film adaption of Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a race of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings (known on earth as mice) build a supercomputer called Deep Thought to calculate the ultimate answer to "life, the universe and everything." Later, when they confront Deep Thought, they receive an unlikely response to their important question.

        "The answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything is forty-two."

        "Forty-two!?"

        "Yes, yes, I thought it over quite thoroughly. It is. It's forty-two."

        "Rubbish!"

Here, Freeman stops, explaining that Douglas Adams may have unwittingly pointed to Christ as the numerical centre of "life, the universe, and everything," as forty-two generations elapsed from the time of Abraham to the birth of Christ in Matthew's genealogy. While Freeman expresses this hint at God's marvelous sense of humour—at the "gracious hand [that] gives not only without, but even against [one's] plans and inclinations" (http://thosecatholicmen.com/articles/how-to-be-a-humble-hero-in-2017/)—the  dialogue continues. Deep Thought defends its answer.

        "It would have been simpler of course to know what the actual question was."

        "But it was the question. The ultimate question. Of everything!"
        "That's not a question! Only when you know the question will you know what the answer means."

        "Give us the ultimate question, then!"

        "I can't. But there is one who can. A computer that will calculate the ultimate question. A computer of such infinite complexity that life itself will form part of its operational matrix, and you yourselves shall take on new, more primitive forms and go down into the computer to navigate its ten million year program. I shall design this computer for you and it shall be called [Earth]."

Douglas Adams hits upon a tremendous insight. We all have the answer to life before our very eyes; we are not asking the right questions. Perhaps the trouble is that we are asking the questions. We may become frustrated with answers that we do not reasonably conclude ourselves, but ultimately, the answer is right in front of us. We do not understand that we need it. Like children, we ask "why?" when given a straightforward response. This is neither wrong nor bad, it is profoundly human. But like children, sometimes we need to accept the answer without an explanation or experience to prove the point. Although "the burnt hand oft teaches best," we could avoid the pain by obeying.

Many people are leaving the Church because they feel unfulfilled, unanswered, and unencountered. They live searching for what they want out of life. They fish on the sea, unaware of the current that inexorably draws their boat homewards. They do not listen to the questions that life poses for them. They do not answer what life asks, give what life demands, or follow what life instructs. Their faith does not seek understanding, but to be understood. How many people waste their lives trying to "find themselves" instead of trying to find another? Ultimately, Douglas Adams is right: life is about living for another.

At the end of the film, before the mice can harvest Arthur Dent's brain to complete the reconstruction of the Earth program up to the moment it was destroyed, Arthur desperately tries to dissuade the mice from killing him.

        "You want a question that goes with the answer forty-two? Alright, well, what about what's six times seven? Or how many Vogons does it take to change a light bulb? Here's one: how many roads must a man walk down?"

        "Hey, that's not bad."

        "Fine, fine, take it! Because my head is filled with questions, and I can assure you no answer to any one of them has ever brought me one iota of happiness. Except for one. The one, the only question I ever wanted an answer to: is she the one? And the answer isn't bloody well "forty-two," it's "yes." Undoubtedly, unequivocally, unabashedly, yes. And for one week, one week in my sad little blip of an existence, it made me happy."

In short, Dent exposes the core of life, the ultimate question that beats upon everyone's heart: who will you love? No Catholic could disagree with this question. What is the purpose of life? To be happy. How does one achieve happiness? By living for another. Who is that other? Here, paths diverge. We choose either created things or their Creator. Dent chooses Trillion, and if we are generous to him, he is not entirely wrong. Each spouse through marriage brings the other closer to the ultimate answer. We can hope that Dent and Trillion help each other reach "forty-two." If Freeman is right, then "forty-two" has a more familiar name, one that is "above every other name": Jesus.

Jesus is the answer. What is the ultimate question? Will you give me your heart?