How America’s 26 USC 501(c)(3) churches are responsible for the so-called “financial tsunami”

Yes, you read the title of this blog correctly. America’s 26 USC 501(c)(3)1 churches are responsible for the so-called “financial tsunami” because they have allowed America’s culture of individualism and individual rights seriously decline by systematically facilitating the destruction of what Thomas Paine called the “reciprocal justice between man and man” — this in direct contradiction of their biblical mandate. This anti-biblical behavior by modern day 26 USC 501(c)(3) Pharisees constitutes both spiritual and political fraud. It is long past time for a serious discussion on the subject of the role of religion in the political fraud which steal the labor of the productive classes.

Despite such Bible verses as Ex 1:17, 1 Sa 8:5-20, Jg 8:22-23, Jg 9, Ps 118:8-9, Ps 146:3, Jer 17:5, Da 3:18, Mt 17:24-27, Acts 4:19, Acts 5:29, Ga 5:1,14,18-23, Php 3:20, 2 Tim 3:5, Jas 2:25 to the contrary, 26 USC 501(c)(3) churches have routinely misused such cherry-picked Bible verses as Ro 13:1-7; Tit 3:1; Heb 13:17; 1 Pe 2:13; 2 Pe 2:10 (“obey ‘government’ no matter how evil it is”), Jesus’ famous “render unto Caesar” quote2 (Mt 22: 21, Mk 12:17, and Lu 20:25), and Jesus’ parable of the talents (Mt 25:27, Lu 19:23) to facilitate the systematic systemic violation by “government” of the express biblical prohibitions against the self-evidently UNsustainable human behaviors of 1) fluctuating mediums of exchange (Lev 19:36, Deut 25:13, Pr 16:11, Pr 20:10, Pr 20:23, Mic 6:11, 1 Thes 4:6), 2) usury (Ex 22:25, Lev 25:35-37, Deut 15:6, Deut 23:19,20, Ne 5:7-11, Ps 15:5, Pr 22:7, Pr 28:8, Isa 24:2, Eze 18:13,17, Eze 22:12), and 3) debt (Pr 22:7).

Various lying U.S. Supreme Court majorities have usurped countless rights from the people (both as individuals and collectively) by unilaterally rewriting the social contract (U.S. Constitution) via "interpretation". It unconstitutionally usurped power over the freedom of speech in the case of Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919), using a specious "What if they cry 'Fire! in a crowded theater?" argument. You might be amazed to see the 1st-Amendment-protected pamphlet titled "Assert Your Rights!" which poor Charles Schenck was sentenced to 10 years in prison for distributing. I sure was! Schenck's pamphlet was SO clearly protected by the plain language of the 1st Amendment (as explained by Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)), and imprisoning Schenck was SO clearly an injustice of such incredible magnitude and hubris that, in my opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes deserved to be tried for treason, found guilty, and executed.

The lying U.S. Supreme Court also usurped power over the freedom of religion in the case of Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878), using a specious "What if they engage in human sacrifice?" argument. My response to that fraudulent question is "Oh yeah — well what if the scum3 who call themselves "government" decide to make themselves rich by unilaterally rewriting the U.S. Constitution, de facto abolishing the Bill of Rights, and enslaving the people they allegedly "serve" so they can "legally" steal their labor? What then?

On page 795 of my Amplified Bible by Zondervan, there is a reference footnote at Ps 15:5. At the bottom of the page is found:
“’Israel was originally not a mercantile people, and the law aimed at an equal diffusion of wealth, not at enriching some while others were poor. The spirit of the law still is obligatory — not to take advantage of a brother’s distress to lend at interest ruinous to him — but the letter of the law is abrogated — and a loan at moderate interest is often of great service to the poor. Hence it is referred to by our Lord in parables, apparently as a lawful as well as recognized usage. (Matt. 25:27, Luke 19:23)’ (A.R. Fausset, Bible Encyclopedia and Dictionary).”
(Emphasis added.)

Notice that the operative words are: "The spirit of the law still is obligatory, but the letter of the law is abrogated." That statement is complete bologna, complete deception, complete illogic, complete sin - and obviously designed for the express purpose of violating God's will in the name of God, and stealing the "other guy's" labor. That is calling evil good and good evil, which is specifically condemned by Isaiah 5:20.

The rule of law is this: "A case may be within the meaning of a statute and not within its letter, and within its letter and not within its meaning. The intention of the law-maker constitutes the law." "It is undoubtedly a well established principle in the exposition of statutes, that every part is to be considered, and the intention of the legislature to be extracted from the whole," "A legislative act is to be interpreted according to the intention of the legislature, apparent upon its face. Every technical rule, as to the construction or force of particular terms, must yield to the clear expression of the paramount will of the legislature." "In doubtful cases, a court should compare all the parts of a statute, and different statutes in pari materia, to ascertain the intention of the legislature." "In the construction of statutes, one part must be construed by another. In order to test the legislative intention, the whole statute must be inspected." Stewart v. Kahn, 78 U.S. 493 (1870), United States v. Babbit, 66 U.S. (1 Black) 55 (1861), United States v. Freeman, 44 U.S. 3 Howard 556 (1845), Wilkinson v. Leland, 27 U.S. 2 Pet. 627 627 (1829).

Regarding the operative words, "The spirit of the law still is obligatory, but the letter of the law is abrogated," the "spirit" of the law at issue IS THE INTENT of both the law and the "legislature" (Law Maker), in this case of usury, the Almighty Creator of the Declaration of Independence, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

So it become self-evident how willfully stupid it is to say the so-called "intent of the law" regarding usury is "still obligatory" and in full force and effect, while the so-called "letter of the law" has been "abrogated" and is null and void, and of no force and effect. This nonsensical deception violates all the rules of logic and interpretation of both law and scripture.

God doesn't change (Mal 3:16). Good and evil do not change. In a nutshell, "sin" is unsustainable human behavior, disobedience to God, and treating other people the way you would not want to be treated yourself. The human critter has not changed since the days of Jesus and the prophets. Whatever has been sin from the beginning of time is still sin today. Whatever is not sin today was never sin from the beginning of time. Contrary to the irrational beliefs and false teachings of modern 501(c)(3) money-serving government churches, God does not change, the Bible does not change, just so a few wannabe-clever scumbags3 can steal the labor of their fellow human beings.

I believe Jesus of Nazareth was an — what the evil legal profession culture has long referred to with the deception-based euphemism — "anarchist." I agree 100% with the 1887 words of Princeton Professor A.A. Hodge: The deception-based State “is the most appalling enginery for the propagation of anti-Christian and atheistic unbelief, and of anti-social nihilistic ethics, individual, social and political, which this sin-rent world has ever seen.” I believe the deception-based State engages in more theft, murder, and kidnapping than any other group of humans, including the stupid so-called “blue-collar” criminals from which the State promises to protect us. I believe the deception-based State is, without remotely close competition, the greatest con artist, thief, terrorist and mass murderer on Earth. I believe the bureaucratic violence of the State depersonalizes all of our lives and fatally stunts the spiritual and intellectual potential of every individual who believes in it and trusts it. I believe REAL ChristianGolden Rule” living becomes all but impossible in the face of "the banality of evil" (a phrase credited to Hannah Arendt) which any State by definition creates and promotes.

Consistent with traditional Golden Rule "thou shalt not steal" Biblical morality, an earlier more honest U.S. Supreme Court said, "To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms." See Citizens’ Savings & Loan Ass’n v. City of Topeka, 87 U.S. 655 (1874). See also Calder v Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dallas) 386 (1798): "An ACT of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles, must be determined by the nature of the power, on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act, which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a Judge in his own cause; or a law that takes property from A and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit, of our State Governments, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The Legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid, and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right, and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract; or the right of private property. To maintain that our Federal, or State, Legislature possesses such powers, if they had not been expressly restrained; would, in my opinion, be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments." See also Wilkinson v. Leland, 27 U.S. 2 Pet. 627 627 (1829): "We know of no case in which a legislative act to transfer the property of A. to B. without his consent has ever been held a constitutional exercise of legislative power in any state in the Union. On the contrary, it has been constantly resisted as inconsistent with just principles by every judicial tribunal in which it has been attempted to be enforced."

The acceptance of usury as anything other than sin by the ecclesiastical politicians in control of the modern 501(c)(3) money-serving government churches is NOT God's will, it is NOT scriptural mandate, it IS the sinful traditions of man being falsely taught as "the Word of God" (see Isa 28:13, Mt 15:6, Mk 7:13). That is calling good evil and evil good (Isa 5:20). That is blasphemy and anathema.

If the Bible is opposed to usury and debt, just imagine how much it is opposed to the current fraudulent "monetized debt" money system where a corrupt Congress gave a group of private transnational "globalist" banksters the "legal" power to create money out of thin air under fraudulent circumstances where 1) the U.S. prints the "Federal Reserve" - (the fraudulently named Federal Reserve is no more "federal" than Federal Express) - banksters' paper notes for them so the people will think the money is United States Treasury currency, 2) the debt-based money only exists when it is borrowed into existence, by the consumer, 3) the banksters charge the U.S. government interest for the use OF ITS OWN CURRENCY. The excellent videos, "Money As Debt" and "Money As Debt II" explain how the evil process of thievery functions.

Under construction . . .


Does the Government Control Our Churches? - Peter Kershaw

Bernanke is worried! S 604 & HR 1207 to Audit the Federal Reserve is Gaining Momentum FAST!

Part 1: 06/10/2009 Freedom Watch 18 w/ Ron Paul, Dan Hannan, John Stossel, Nick Gillespie, more

Part 2: 06/10/2009 Freedom Watch 18 w/ Ron Paul, Dan Hannan, John Stossel, Nick Gillespie, more

Part 3: 06/10/2009 Freedom Watch 18 w/ Ron Paul, Dan Hannan, John Stossel, Nick Gillespie, more

Part 4: 06/10/2009 Freedom Watch 18 w/ Ron Paul, Dan Hannan, John Stossel, Nick Gillespie, more

Part 5: 06/10/2009 Freedom Watch 18 w/ Ron Paul, Dan Hannan, John Stossel, Nick Gillespie, more

Part 6: 06/10/2009 Freedom Watch 18 w/ Ron Paul, Dan Hannan, John Stossel, Nick Gillespie, more

Rev. Jeremiah Wright says "Jews" are keeping him from President Obama

Can Resveratrol extend life?, Morley Safer reporting - 60 Minutes

Know thy enemy: This is not your mother's Democratic Party, by Andrew Breitbart - Washington Times - "Democrats long ago jettisoned America's melting-pot ideal - E Pluribus Unum ('Out of Many, One') - because it imperils their campaign for permanent rule. Splitting the country into separate identity groups and playing them against each other works a lot better. And anyone who disagrees is a racist."

Rick Santelli: Geithner Is "Lying To The American Public" - YouTube video

Restore the Republic's Sponsor a Patriot Program - YouTube video

Gary Franchi Exposes Federal Reserve on PBS - YouTube video

Fair tax is a "fair share" tax, by Ken Hoagland (National Director of Americans for Fair Taxation, Houston, TX) - Joplin Independent

Why the FairTax Might Actually Happen - Right Wing News

Late-term abortion doctor killed at church - USA Today

Doctor accustomed to threats - USA Today

World Bank President Warns Stimulus ‘Sugar High’ Won’t Stem Unemployment -

Sustenance: The Small Farmers Journal - YouTube video

Path To Freedom - Getting Started Growing Food - YouTube video

Homegrown Revolution - Radical Change Taking Root - YouTube video

Self-sufficient Small Farms - YouTube video

An Experiment in Back Yard Sustainability - YouTube video

The Farmhouse - A wonderful slide show of a GORGEOUS 250-acre farm in North England. Their website is They are also on Twitter/farmingfriends.

Gary Franchi Exposes Federal Reserve on PBS - YouTube video

Jesse Ventura,Willie Nelson,Alex Jones"The Gathering"1/2 - YouTube video

Jesse Ventura,Willie Nelson,Alex Jones"The Gathering"2/2 - YouTube video

Willie Nelson & Jesse Ventura"Ask Questions Damn It!!"1/2 - YouTube video

Willie Nelson & Jesse Ventura"Ask Questions Damn It!!"2/2 - YouTube video

Willie Nelson: You're Either In Luck Or You Ain't P1 - YouTube video

Willie Nelson: You're Either In Luck Or You Ain't P2 - YouTube video

Inside USA- Jesse Ventura- 01 Aug 08- Part 1 - YouTube video - " . . . last week, the Democrats who are supposedly the opposite of Republicans . . . I don't believe that. I think it's like pro wrestling. I think that in front of the public, they make us think they're all angry at each other, but the reality is behind the scenes they're all in rooms cutting deals and they're all the best of buddies." "In my opinion, we have to destroy these two political parties that are destroying our country, and I'm not alone in that thinking. If you back to our founding fathers, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, they all stated clearly that the downfall of the United States wouldn't come at the hands of an outside entity, that it would come from within. And they said it would come when political parties took over the government."

Is Anyone Minding the Store at the Federal Reserve? - YouTube video - This video of Congressman Alan Grayson (D) questioning Elizabeth A. Coleman, the Inspector General of the Federal Reserve is absolutely stunning! Read the transcript of this incredible stonewalling scum! - JRW

China warns Federal Reserve over 'printing money' - - "China has warned a top member of the US Federal Reserve that it is increasingly disturbed by the Fed's direct purchase of US Treasury bonds."

Federal Judge Rules LifeLock’s Fraud Alert Service Illegal - WIRED Magazine - Read U. S. District Judge Andrew Guilford's Order Granting Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Because so many judges are such notorious liars and activists, it is easy to question Guilford's motives because his order is so stunningly anti-consumer. Guilford took "judicial notice" of House of Representatives Report 108-263, but refused to do the same with the information on the webpage of the Governor of Connecticut. If the order holds up, that is, if Guilford interpretation of relevant law is correct, Congress should be seriously lobbied to change the law in Lifelock's favor. In my opinion, the likes of Experian are arrogant blood-sucking scum, while Lifelock and its competitors are rendering a valuable service to the consumer. - JRW

Twitter poses risks for papers - Miami Herald - "What Drudge's scoop really exemplified was the declining ability of news managers to control their staffs' access to the public. Today, 11 years later, thanks to the Internet most every journalist here can reach independently an audience immeasurably greater than the star reporter on the biggest newspaper or top-rated newscast could a generation ago. Now the traditional news business is built, one way or another, on a promise of exclusivity: What we've got you won't get elsewhere. So the idea that a media company's biggest threat may come from its own newsroom is hard for news managers to swallow."

Microsoft and the great netbook price-fixing scam of 2009 - InfoWorld - "On the surface, the whole situation reeks of the worst kind of collusion, with Microsoft helping certain at-risk hardware vendors to deny their customers choice by letting them hide behind the straw man of software licensing costs. Do you like that shiny, new netbook on the shelf? Want one with the same general specs but a slightly larger screen? Then get ready to go with a second- or third-tier vendor and pay through the nose . . . And if you, like me, find yourself retching at the thought of this latest Microsoft money grab, there's always the Ubuntu netbook remix."

6-1 Court upholds Prop. 8 but lets marriages stand - San Francisco Chronicle - "The 6-1 decision upholding Prop. 8 was issued by the same court that declared a year ago that a state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violated the right to choose one's spouse and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. Prop. 8 undid that ruling by reinstating the definition of marriage that the court had struck down, this time as an amendment to the state Constitution. The author of last year's 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Ronald George, said today that the voters were within their rights to do so. "

Towns Rethink Self-Reliance as Finances Worsen - Wall Street Journal - "As the recession batters city budgets around the U.S., some municipalities are considering the once-unthinkable option of dissolving themselves through 'disincorporation.' Benefits of this move vary from state to state. In some cases, dissolution allows residents to escape local taxes. In others, it saves the cost of local salaries and pensions. And residents may get services more cheaply after consolidating with a county."

Climate change “morality”, by Paul Driessen - - "The climate 'crisis' is a 'moral issue that requires serious debate,' Al Gore proclaimed in an April 27 blog post. His conversion to the Anglo-American tradition of robust debate came a mere three days after the ex-VP refused to participate in a congressional hearing with Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Republicans had invited Monckton to counter Gore’s testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. But Gore froze like a terrified deer in headlights, and Chairman Henry Waxman told the UK climate expert he was uninvited." - This "global warming" crap is no different than the oil gouging crap: it's about the "right" people making tons of money off of lies, political manipulations and the general society-wide ignorance of "the masses"! - JRW

Dollar hits '09 low on rating fears; stocks dip - "The dollar fell to a 2009 low on Friday as fears intensified that the United States could lose its triple-A rating, while renewed caution about the world economy and banks prompted Asian and European stocks to slip. The dollar's latest decline started when ratings agency Standard & Poor's cut its ratings outlook on Britain to negative from stable, stoking fears other AAA-rated countries which are running huge debt levels could share a similar fate."

Britain's debt outlook lowered to negative from stable by Standard & Poor's - Associated Press - "A lower credit rating would make the government pay higher interest rates to borrow money on bond markets. An S&P study found that 37 percent of its negative outlooks were followed by a downgrade. 'Pressure on the rating will raise concerns regarding the ability to issue the record amount of gilts (British government bonds) required over the coming year to fund the deteriorating fiscal position in the U.K.,' said Hans Redeker, an analyst at BNP Paribas."

CBO: Unemployment will keep rising through 2010 - Reuters

The Climate-Industrial Complex - Wall Street Journal - "Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets. The tight relationship between the groups echoes the relationship among weapons makers, researchers and the U.S. military during the Cold War. President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned about the might of the 'military-industrial complex,' cautioning that 'the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.' He worried that 'there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties.' This is certainly true of climate change. We are told that very expensive carbon regulations are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test. We must ask whether a 'climate-industrial complex' is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain."

Computer virus strikes US Marshals, FBI affected - - "'We too are evaluating a network issue on our external, unclassified network that's affecting several government agencies,' said FBI spokesman Mike Kortan. He did not elaborate or identify the other agencies . . . In addition to their external networks, most federal law enforcement agencies have an internal-only network to prevent cyber-snoopers from sensitive data."

Day of reckoning looms for the U.S. dollar - - "The U.S. dollar's day of reckoning may be inching closer as its status as a safe-haven currency fades with every uptick in stocks and commodities and its potential risks - debt and inflation - are brought under a harsher spotlight." "Ashraf Laidi, chief market strategist at CMC Markets . . . said economic recovery would weigh on the greenback as real demand for commodities, coupled with improved risk appetite, caused investors to seek higher yields in emerging markets and commodity currencies. This would draw investment away from the U.S. dollar, which was dragged down by growing debt and the risk quantitative easing would eventually spark a surge in inflation."


1. The history of the restrictions contained in this provision is fascinating. It appears they were adopted after almost no discussion in Congress, to advance no stated public purpose or policy, other than the silencing of then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson’s political enemies. See generally, e.g., Politics at the Pulpit: Tax Benefits, Substantial Burdens, and Institutional Free Exercise, by Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer, Notre Dame Law School, The Pulpit Initiative: Fighting To Return America's First Freedom To Her Churches, by David Abbandanza, RFRA, Churches and the IRS: Reconsidering the Legal Boundaries of Church Activity in the Political Sphere, by Chris Kemmitt, Politics and the Pulpit 2008, A Guide to the Internal Revenue Code Restrictions on the Political Activity of Religious Organizations, by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Randy Lee, When a King Speaks of God; When God Speaks to a King: Faith, Politics, Tax-Exempt Status, and the Constitution in the Clinton Administration, 63 Law & Contemp. Probs. 391, 392 (2001), Patrick O’Daniel, More Honored in the Breach: A Historical Perspective of the Permeable IRS Prohibition on Campaigning for Churches, 42 B.C. L. Rev. 733 (2001), Anne Berrill Carroll, Religion, Politics, and the IRS: Defining the Limits of Tax Law Control on Political Expression by Churches, 76 Marq. L. Rev. 217, 228 (1992).

See also IRS Document 557. On page 19, the document says, in pertinent part: "Political activity. If any of the activities (whether or not substantial) of your organization consist of participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, your organization will not qualify for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3). Such participation or intervention includes the publishing or distributing of statements."

"Whether your organization is participating or intervening, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office depends upon all the facts and circumstances of each case. Certain voter education activities or public forums conducted in a non-partisan manner may not be prohibited political activity under section 501(c)(3), while other so-called voter education activities may be prohibited."

"If your organization is uncertain as to the effect of its voter education activities, you should request a letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service."

2. Christ’s “render-unto-Caesar” quote is generally misunderstood. It becomes clearer in light of the events set forth in Mark 11: 27-33. The question asked of Christ about taxes was a trick question designed to elicit a self-destructive answer which the Pharisees could use against Jesus with the people. Very obviously, a “yes” answer could not have been used against Jesus. Since a “yes” answer is what today’s crop of Pharisees read into Christ’s response, why didn’t Jesus just say “yes?” Obviously he did not mean to say “yes.” Of course a “no” answer was what the Pharisees were hoping for, because it would be considered treasonous and they could get the Romans to kill Jesus and get him out of their hair.

Jesus knew better than anybody that according to such biblical passages as Psalms 24:1, 50:10-12, 89:11, and Haggai 2:8, everything belongs to God, even all the silver, all the gold, and any other metals coins might possibly be made of. Under these scriptures, Christ’s answer could have been that the coin in question belonged to God. Yet he did not give either a “yes” or a “no” answer. So what exactly was it he did?

Jesus simply gave a political non-answer to the tax question, just as he did to the forgiveness-of-sin question in Mark 11: 27-33. He knew better than anybody that in a society which had long since been brainwashed into not seeing the differences between true self-government and coercion/domination, whoever tried to precisely define what actually did belong to Caesar and what actually belonged to God would be in big trouble. So he didn’t oblige the Pharisees by giving a direct answer, any more than they would play into his hands by giving him a direct answer. We even get to see the Pharisees line of reasoning for refusing to answer directly. It’s not hard to understand Jesus’ line of reasoning. If he said yes, his overtaxed countrymen would resent it, while the Pharisees could say to the people (just as the modern-day Pharisees do), “See, Jesus says you should pay your taxes!” If he said no, the Pharisees would say (just as the modern-day Pharisees do), “See, Jesus is anti-government, which is the same thing as being anti-God, because everybody knows civil ‘government’ is ordained by God!”

Jesus’ actual position on taxation can best be gleaned from Matthew 17:24-27. Clearly the children of God are under no blanket moral obligation to pay tribute money to the kings of this world. Jesus elected to pay taxes on a case-by-case-as-politically-needed basis under the “lest we offend” doctrine. And the few taxes he did pay bore no resemblance whatever to today’s criminal scheme of monetized-debt public debt fraud. From a moral point of view, one ought to pay for the services one wants to purchase, even if the services are purchased from “government” and the price is taxes. But when the so-called “services” include thievery, murder, extortion, religious and political persecution, corrupt courts, and the brainwashing of children with mandatory “education,” it is not surprising that the subject of taxation can raise serious and complicated moral questions for any honest truth seeker.

3. As I said in the "Welcome" section of this website, (it bears constant repetition): Regarding the words "scum" and "scumbag" as an epithet used in self-defensive demonization against select individuals. Hey, what can I say? It is a long-proven statistical fact that negative political ads work. And since the so-called "left" uses lies, half-truths, demonization and the politics of personal destruction as standard political strategies, failure to engage in a little "turn about is fair play" merely makes it easier for the various assortments of disordered illiterate fascist control freaks to destroy individual freedom. As I said on my blog homepage, "Some folks just think they're smarter than everybody else, a higher form of life than everybody else. So, instead of engaging in good faith discussions about specific ideas, they simply resort to deception, sophistry, unspecificity, undefined terms, manipulation, demonization and the politics of personal destruction AS A MATTER OF PREFERRED STRATEGY to get their little spoiled-brat control-freak way. Such behavior is anathema to intellectual honesty, an open mind, a kind heart, free inquiry, the freedoms of thought and speech, and the free flow of information. It MUST be eternally warred against if humankind is to entertain a realistic hope of ever reaching its full spiritual and intellectual potential." To avoid the violence which is directly related to repression of free speech and the crushing of polite and civil discourse, I believe it is essential to engage in strategic tit-for-tat with wannabe-clever manipulative demonizers by openly calling them what they are: the anti-freedom, anti-Golden-Rule scum of the earth (aka "scumbags"). Accordingly, it doesn't bother me in the least to do so. No less brilliant a person than Jesus of Nazareth himself referred to the scumbags of his day as "hypocrites", "blind guides", "vipers" and "whitewashed sepulchres". To paraphrase Ann Coulter, Jesus was not some moron driving around in a Volvo with a "be nice to people" bumper sticker on it. So, having read The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits by David Horowitz, I don't have any problem with calling reprobate "scum" what it is.

Experion v Lifelock - summary judgment.pdf132 KB
House of Representatives Report 108-263.pdf301.4 KB
Politics at the Pulpit.pdf413.54 KB
Pulpit Initiative.pdf211.51 KB
RFRA Churches and the IRS.pdf215.6 KB