Legal Disclaimer (for web site)

WARNING: Although fully intended to be a "G-Rated" website useful as an information resource to persons of all ages, since its inception it has, on rare occasions, become necessary to resort to medically explicit language to combat the rhethorical brinksmanship used by some sophists in the free marketplace of ideas involving the public square. Certain manipulative sophists have developed propaganda strategies based on their knowledge that most decent people will do almost anything to avoid using medically explicit words involving human anatomy. Allowing sophist propaganda to prevail in the Culture War against individual freedom because of such a nasty and unpleasant strategy is unacceptable. Therefore, where deemed necessary, some essays, blogs, and articles may contain a few (NEVER gratuitous) medically explicit body-part words to illuminate deception and manipulation. Unlike Wikipedia, this website will NEVER post explicit "art" or other pictures under a phony claim of being necessary to make its intellectual points, so this website is guaranteed to be "G-Rated" as far as pictures (jpeg and mpeg files, etc) are concerned. NEVERTHELESS, because there are a few medically explicit words on this website used to combat spiritual and intellectual dishonesty — to the greater good of individuals of all ages — parental discretion and supervision is advised for children using this website. That's the bad news. The good news is the webmaster will do his best to not put such words on the homepage where they could be seen by accident.

Taken as a whole, the information contained in this website reflects the opinions and beliefs of of the site's owner, John R. Wilkenson, 2536 Rimrock Avenue, Suite 400, Box 131 — Grand Junction, CO 81505 (contact). The site owner hereby acknowledges and accepts full accountability and sole responsibility for his opinions and beliefs, as reflected by the information contained in this website. This site does not claim any rights to any of the material collected and published from other sources. It is all fully owned by those sources and the material in this site is provided for educational and informational purposes only. This site simply quotes excerpts through fair usage, linking back to the original source, giving full credit to the authors of those sources. If any material that belongs to the reader should be changed or removed in any way please leave a note at the contact link provided above and this will be taken care of as quickly as possible.

The purpose of this website is to encourage and facilitate open and free grassroots discussion about various ideas for purely educational and political — "politics" = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A — purposes. The purpose of this website is also to defend the freedom of speech and the free marketplace of ideas against the dominant members (aka "government") of the inherently evil, inevitably corrupting, and suicidally stupid and destructive pecking-order struggle of humankind  by promoting free-speech absolutism as a gospel worthy of being taught/preached to, and assimilated by, "the people" as an indispensable cornerstone of America's declining culture of "can do" individual freedom.

Nothing on this website is to be construed as legal advice, medical advice, or as any kind of effort, direct or indirect, to interfere with any court's discretionary powers of decision making in an actual case duly before it in accordance with due process of law.  Nor is it to be construed as attempting to encourage any person to violate any of the the laws of the U.S. or any state.  Some of the material contained on this website is, in part, a 1st Amendment effort to get the judiciary to stop attempting to diffuse political accountability for the various legislatures, to stop the rampant  misuse of the judicial process by unethical lawyers, and to encourage the abolition of so-called “absolute immunity” (dissented against in Pierson  v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 [1967] by William O. Douglas) of judges which results in the wholesale abuse of nonbar pro se litigants, and the demonization and persecution of anyone who even attempts to publicly discuss the issues presented here. See also the website regarding the national movement toward accountability and liability of judge/lawyers to the people instead of to their colleagues in the autonomous legal profession.

Humans are individual beings, each possessing its own inherent free will and inherent survival need for freedom, self-ownership, self-dermination and self-control. In contrast, "government" = person or group A using a "legal" monopoly on violence and force to coerce person or group B to obey the will of A. "Government" = the mind of A using fear and violence to control the physical body of B so as to be able to steal and redistribute B's labor. In reality, there is no such real, corporeal, material thing as "government." "Government" is merely the dominant members of the inherently evil, inevitably corrupting, deception-based, coercion-based, and suicidally stupid and destructive pecking order struggle of the human species. This deception-based social hierarchy is often called an "established order," which, in turn, is sort of the root idea underlying the anti-individual expressions "Globalism" and/or "New World Order," as predicted by Georgle Orwell in his famous novel, "1984."

In his best known work, "The Prince," that famous ends-justify-the-means weasel, Niccolò Machiavelli, warned us that attempting to change an established social order is the most dangerous of all possible human undertakings. Throughout history it has cost countless freedom fighters their lives. Jesus was crucified for it. Abolitionist John Brown was hanged for it. The list of Holy Martyrs is virtually endless. Although over the centuries of so-called "civilization" mankind's tools and toys have improved, little has changed about the human mind, so there is no particularly good logic-based reason why visitors to this website should be any less wary about "government" purveyors of terror and violence than Machiavelli advised.

Therefore, each visitor is strictly on his or her own, and assumes full accountability and liability for anything and everything he or she does with the information contained on this website. Specifically speaking, because the government of the United States of America bears almost no recognizable resemblance to that which was contemplated by its founders, because the government of the U.S.A is a lawless and dangerous stranger to the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights (full text), the website owner accepts and assumes absolutely  ZERO (as in none whatsoever) liability or other risk/s, either directly or indirectly, regarding what any individual chooses to do with the information contained in, or linked to, this website.

Unfortunately, the world is full of self-perceived-as-clever individuals. These self-anointed-as-a-higher-form-of-life control freaks are sick and spiritually lost people for whom the casual assertion of the misleading is a practiced technique. Shaman-like, they speak in ritualistic deception-based sound-byte language. They are moral cyborgs, who absorb environmental data and instantaneously adjust their attitude, their posture, and their message to whatever works and advances their greed-driven agendas. They are human hairballs coughed up by a diseased culture which has embraced corruption and gone stark raving mad. They are evil, serve evil, and are altogether unworthy of respect, much less obedience.

Considering the standard operating behavior of the arrogant manipulative types of “politically correct” people who routinely engage in the politics of personal destruction (including false accusations of threats, racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, homophobia, etc.), and, having read “The Art of Political War” by David Horowitz (ISBN: 1890626287), I am forced to the sad conclusion it would probably be wisest to include the following codicil: This website is purely a 1st Amendment nonviolent expression of disgust/opinion (sort of like the curl-the-hair-on-the-back-of-your-neck revulsion which happens when you get doggy doo on the bottom of your shoe), and is NOT to be construed as a threat of any kind, express or implied, against any person or property. Nor is this website to be construed as any kind of attempt, direct or indirect, to encourage or solicit any person to violate any federal, state, or local law. If the visitor (or any other persons) have any questions regarding the law relevant to political speech, see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (unanimous court), and Meyer v Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) (unanimous court). See also, Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 (1987) and Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U.S. 146 (1946), where the Supremes said: Under our system of government there is an accommodation for the widest varieties of tastes and ideas. 19 What is good literature, what has educational value, what is refined public information, what is good art, varies with individuals as it does from one generation to another. There doubtless would be a contrariety of views concerning Cervantes' Don Quixote, Shakespeare's Venus & Adonis, or Zola's Nana. But a requirement that literature or art conform to some norm prescribed by an official smacks of an ideology foreign to our system . . . From the multitude of competing offerings the public will pick and choose. What seems to one to be trash may have for others fleeting or even enduring values."

Patrick Henry, said: "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them" (especially by intellectually dishonest political-agenda-motivated so-called “laws” pretending the dissemination of truth about government corruption is a so-called “clear and present danger”, as was done in the heat of war fever in Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 [1919]—Common Sense).

In Ashcroft, et al, v Free Speech Coalition, et al, No. 00-795 (Argued October 30, 2001--Decided April 16, 2002), the present day Supreme Court, citing many historical free-speech decisions, said: “The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. The government ‘cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person's private thoughts.’ Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 566 (1969). First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought."

"To preserve these freedoms, and to protect speech for its own sake, the Court's First Amendment cases draw vital distinctions between words and deeds, between ideas and conduct. See Kingsley Int'l Pictures Corp., 360 U.S., at 689; see also Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 529 (2001). “The very “purpose of the First Amendment [is] to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail.” Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 390 (1969). “The fundamental right of free men to strive for better conditions through new legislation and new institutions will not be preserved, if efforts to secure it by argument to fellow citizens may be construed as criminal incitement to disobey the existing law-merely because the argument presented seems to those exercising judicial power to be unfair in its portrayal of existing evils, mistaken in its assumptions, unsound in reasoning or intemperate in language.” Justices Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting in Pierce v. U.S. , 252 U.S. 239 (1920).

“If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes dissenting in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919). See the reference in Kingsley Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U.S. 684 (1959) to the letter of Thomas Jefferson to Elijah Boardman, July 3, 1801, Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress, Vol. 115, folio 19761: "But we have nothing to fear from the demoralizing reasonings of some, if others are left free to demonstrate their errors. And especially when the law stands ready to punish the first criminal act produced by the false reasoning. These are safer correctives than the conscience of a judge." Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566 (1969): It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas. "This freedom [of speech and press] . . . necessarily protects the right to receive . . . ." Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 143 (1943); see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 482 (1965); Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301, 307 -308 (1965) (BRENNAN, J., concurring); cf. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925). This right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, see Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 510 (1948), is fundamental to our free society.”

"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, speaking for the majority in Lovell v. City of Griffin, Ga., 303 U.S. 444 (1938), said: “The struggle for the freedom of the press was primarily directed against the power of the licensor. It was against that power that John Milton directed his assault by his 'Appeal for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing.' And the liberty of the press became initially a right to publish 'without a license what formerly could be published only with one. While this freedom from previous restraint upon publication cannot be regarded as exhausting the guaranty of liberty, the prevention of that restraint was a leading purpose in the adoption of the constitutional provision . . . The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion . . .Liberty of circulating is as essential to that freedom as liberty of publishing; indeed, without the circulation, the publication would be of little value.” (Internal cites omitted.)

Truth/existence/reality itself defines the word “politics” as: politics = person or group A trying to persuade person or group B to obey the will of A, which explains why deception = the so-called "art" of politics, why “politician” = deceiver, and why "political" = deception-based.

Political speech is “given the maximum level of protection by the Free Speech Clause because it lies at the core of the First Amendment.” First National Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 98 S.Ct. 1407, 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976). Because they are engaging in political (intended-to-be-persuasive) speech/polemics, those who send opinion emails about political ideas are entitled to protection under the United States Constitution.

See also the comments of Justices Louis D. Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes in their concurring opinion in Whitney v. People of State of California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927): “This court has not yet fixed the standard by which to determine when a danger shall be deemed clear; how remote the danger may be and yet be deemed present; and what degree of evil shall be deemed sufficiently substantial to justify resort to abridgment of free speech and assembly as the means of protection. To reach sound conclusions on these matters, we must bear in mind why a state is, ordinarily, denied the power to prohibit dissemination of social, economic and political doctrine which a vast majority of its citizens believes to be false and fraught with evil consequence. Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law-the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.”

See also the passion and eloquence of Justice Robert H. Jackson (who was also chief U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials) in writing for the majority in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943): “Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”

In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) — an immensely important case (such cases are sometimes called "benchmark") not only for its holding and reasoning, but for it's organization and articulation of a collage of crucial and relevant explanatory points of dicta — the U.S. Supreme Court went much farther than just explaining the theoretical underpinnings of the freedoms of thought and speech. Without a dissenting opinion, the court held: "In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i. e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved."

In presenting an internal citation, the Hustler court said, "See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 910 (1982) ('Speech does not lose its protected character . . . simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action'). And, as we stated in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978): '[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. [485 U.S. 46, 56]   For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.' Id., at 745-746. See also Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592 (1969) ('It is firmly settled that . . . the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers')."

"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. "[T]he [485 U.S. 46, 51]   freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty - and thus a good unto itself - but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole." Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 503 -504 (1984). We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a 'false' idea. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 339 (1974).

"The sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are 'intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large.' Associated Press v. Walker, decided with Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 164 (1967) (Warren, C. J., concurring in result). Justice Frankfurter put it succinctly in Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673 -674 (1944), when he said that '[o]ne of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures.' Such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate; public figures as well as public officials will be subject to 'vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks,' New York Times, supra, at 270. '[T]he candidate who vaunts his spotless record and sterling integrity cannot convincingly cry "Foul!" when an opponent or an industrious reporter attempts [485 U.S. 46, 52]   to demonstrate the contrary.' Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 274 (1971)."

"Of course, this does not mean that any speech about a public figure is immune from sanction in the form of damages. Since New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), we have consistently ruled that a public figure may hold a speaker liable for the damage to reputation caused by publication of a defamatory falsehood, but only if the statement was made 'with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.' Id., at 279-280. False statements of fact are particularly valueless; they interfere with the truth-seeking function of the marketplace of ideas, and they cause damage to an individual's reputation that cannot easily be repaired by counterspeech, however persuasive or effective. See Gertz, 418 U.S., at 340 , 344, n. 9. But even though falsehoods have little value in and of themselves, they are 'nevertheless inevitable in free debate,' id., at 340, and a rule that would impose strict liability on a publisher for false factual assertions would have an undoubted 'chilling' effect on speech relating to public figures that does have constitutional value."

"Generally speaking the law does not regard the intent to inflict emotional distress as one which should receive much solicitude, and it is quite understandable that most if not all jurisdictions have chosen to make it civilly culpable where the conduct in question is sufficiently 'outrageous.' But in the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment. In Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964), we held that even when a speaker or writer is motivated by hatred or ill will his expression was protected by the First Amendment: 'Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth.' Id., at 73. Thus while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First Amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures. Were we to hold otherwise, there can be little doubt that political cartoonists and satirists would be subjected to damages awards without any showing that their work falsely defamed its subject."

In referring to another internal cite, the Hustler court said, "NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 910 (1982) ('Speech does not lose its protected character . . . simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action'). And, as we stated in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978): '[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. [485 U.S. 46, 56]   For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.' Id., at 745-746. See also Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592 (1969) ('It is firmly settled that . . . the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers')."

This website has no intention whatsoever of promoting any type of obscenity or foul language. To the contrary, this website will stand against the use of base language. It is the opinion of the website owner/publisher that profanity, while occasionally seeming to satisfy some momentary emotional need (e.g. the pain of hitting one's thumb hard with a hammer, etc.), for the purposes of courteously discussing religious, political and educational ideas, is, in reality, merely an outward manifestation by the speaker of an inadequate vocabulary. That having been said, however, even profanity is protected speech. See, e.g. such cases as  Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). The U.S. Supreme Court's obscenity standard is found in the Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) line of case.

Regarding slander or libel, Article 2, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution says in pertinent part:  “Freedom of speech and press....every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty; and in all suits and prosecutions of libel the truth thereof may be given in evidence, and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact." Accordingly, any person/s who might be offended by this website would be well-advised to see if they can find one sentence they can prove to be knowingly untrue and deliberately malicious.  Most of the information contained in this website is a matter of documented history and official court records.

At the end of the day, the purpose of this website is spiritual in nature, insofaras it attempts to cut through the impenetrable mass of brilliant-sounding intellectual babble written and spoken through the ages to keep simple, hardworking, salt-of-the-earth people (person or group B) who just want to be left alone to live off their own labor from seeing through all the deception-based, coercion-based mechanisms and machinery by which the elite parasitic classes (person or group A) control the minds and steal the labor of B. The purpose of this website might be said in secularese by statist atheists to be "religious," because, per Isaiah 5:20 and Amos 5:15, it contains and promotes hatred of evil. Per Voltaire's admonition to "define your terms if you want to argue with me," I define evil as any violation of the Two Great Commandments and the better known Ten Commandments of historical Judeo-Christian culture. I would also include in my definition any other act or omission that is against the Divine Will of Nature's God, the Almighty Creator of the universe, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, David, the Prophets, Jesus of Nazareth, his twelve disciples, the Apostle Paul, and countless Holy Martyrs.

Because I believe that there is no moral or natural right for A to force B to obey the will of A, and because I believe that for A to force B to obey the will of A is destructive to the immortal soul of both A and B, and because I believe that God has shown us his will, and because I believe that God's has shown us what is good, and because I believe that for A to force B to obey the will of A and to use corrupt "laws" and "money" to steal the labor of B constitutes a self-evident per se violation of the Second Great Commandment (Lev 19:18; Mk 12:31), also know as the Golden Rule, THEREFORE, I truly believe that government is evil, immoral, corrupt, and unnecessary (Isa 29:13; Mt 15:9) in a free society with a culture which reveres and worships (Ex 20:3; Ex 34:14; De 6:13; De 10:20; Mk 12:29-30) the Lord God of the individual Spirit of Truth with all their heart, souls, mind and strength.

The hope of this website is to succeed in drawing all the connecting dots which prove beyond a reasonable doubt to any intellectually honest person that "government's" manipulative deception-based use (for personal power and wealth) of the gravitational forces of the collective mindless greed and ignorance (in "religious" terms "man's old nature") of the miseducated-by-government-schools herd stands in direct polar conflict with the Divine Will of Nature's God of the individual, who is Himself a self-owning, self-determining and self-controlling individual, the Spirit of Truth (truth = reality/existence), who created each individual human in His image (Ge 1:27) as a self-owning, self-determining and self-controlling individual soul for His companionship and pleasure. It is to be expected, of course that most of the legal profession culture — who, as the inventers and promoters of the so-called "state" with its inherent evil and inevitable corruption, suffering, death and destruction, are by definition statist anti-God spiritual anarchists — will not recommend this websites to their friends for their examination and study. And it is their 1st Amendment right to disagree — but not to use "law" to persecute or punish.

Writing for the majority in Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wallace) 679, 728 (1871), Justice Miller said, "In this country the full and free right to entertain any religious belief, to practice any religious principle, and to teach any religious doctrine which does not violate the laws of morality and property, and which does not infringe personal rights, is conceded to all. The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. The right to organize voluntary religious associations to assist in the expression and dissemination of any religious doctrine, and to create tribunals for the decision of controverted questions of faith within the association, and for the ecclesiastical government of all the individual members, congregations, and officers within the general association, is unquestioned."  "It belongs not to the civil power to enter into or review the proceedings of a spiritual court. The structure of our government has, for the preservation of civil liberty, rescued the temporal institutions from religious interference. On the other hand, it has secured religious liberty from the invasion of the civil authority. The judgments, therefore, of religious associations, bearing on their own members, are not examinable here...." "We cannot better close this review of the authorities than in the language of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in the case of the German Reformed Church v. Seibert: 56 'The decisions of ecclesiastical courts, like every other judicial tribunal, are final, as they are the best judges of what constitutes an offence against the word of God and the discipline of the church. Any other than those courts must be incompetent judges of matters of faith, discipline, and doctrine; and civil courts, if they should be so unwise as to attempt to supervise their judgments on matters which come within their jurisdiction, would only involve themselves in a sea of uncertainty and doubt which would do anything but improve either religion or good morals.'"

Writing for the majority in United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944), and expanding on what Justice Miller had said decades earlier, Justice William O. Douglas said, "'The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.' Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wallace) 679, 728 (1871). The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only 'forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship' but also 'safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.' Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 128 A.L. R. 1352. 'Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts, freedom to believe, and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.' Id., 310 U.S. at pages 303, 304, 60 S.Ct. at page 903, 128 A.L.R. 1352. Freedom of thought, which includes freedom of religious belief, is basic in a society of free men. West Virginia State Board of Education by Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 147 A.L.R. 674. It embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox faiths. Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others. Yet the fact that they may be beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect before the law. Many take their gospel from the New Testament. But it would hardly be supposed that they could be tried before a jury charged with the duty of determining whether those teachings contained false representations. The miracles of the New Testament, the Divinity of Christ, life after death, the power of prayer are deep in the religious convictions of many. If one could be sent to jail because a jury in a hostile environment found those teachings false, little indeed would be left of religious freedom. The Fathers of the Constitution were not unaware of the varied and extreme views of religious sects, of the violence of disagreement among them, and of the lack of any one religious creed on which all men would agree. They fashioned a charter of government which envisaged the widest possible toleration of conflicting views. Man's relation to his God was made no concern of the state. He was granted the right to worship as he pleased and to answer to no man for the verity of his religious views. The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain. The First Amendment does not select any one group or any one type of religiion for preferred treatment. It puts them all in that position. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870, 891, 146 A.L.R. 81 (1943). As stated in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333,342, 10 S.Ct. 299, 300. 'With man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with.' See Prince v. Massachusetts321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438 (1944).

Therein lies the crux of the problem: contrary to popular belief, the "laws" (deception-based precepts of men, see e.g. Ps 119:133-135, Isa 29:13, Mt 15:9) of society are most certainly NOT "designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people." Taken as a whole, they are designed to allow A to enslave B, "govern" B's life, brainwash B into thinking he's being "protected" (from violence covertly sponsored by A) and steal B's labor for personal unjust enrichment — all the while getting away with their crimes due to being sheltered and protected by the autocratic "Divine Right" of the officers, agents and employees (aka "law enforcement") of the police power of the "state."

The "legal" point at issue is that this belief does not "interfere with" any specifically named laws of society. It interferes with society's collective gullibility in believing that a culture of the secular/atheistic precepts and traditions of A ("government") is preferrable to a religious/theist culture of the God of the self-owning, self-determining, and self-controlling individual. It is the job of A's government media and A's government schools to maintain the ignorance, gullibility and subservience of B. It is my God-revealed job, as the B owner of this B website, to illuminate and fight the ignorance, gullibility and subservience of B with all my heart, soul, mind and strength, the extreme displeasure and potential vindictiveness of A notwithstanding.

I truly believe my 1st Amendment right to think and believe the things I have set forth on this website is absolute and beyond any and all reach of any and all government powers. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944), Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 , 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 128 A.L. R. 1352.  I also believe that if any government officer, employee, operative, or trier of fact attempts to address the truth or falsity of my religious beliefs or the existence or nonexistence of the God whom I serve, believe in, and trust in, and whose commandments and exhortations I do my utmost to obey, that government officer, employee, operative, or trier of fact “enters a forbidden domain.” Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wallace) 679, 728 (1871), United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944). 

Accordingly, I truly believe any attempt to by the autonomous autocratic legal profession culture and their hierarchy of unelected and unaccountable judges to force me to shut down this website, or to punish me in retaliation under some intellectually fraudulent ruse that it somehow violates the laws of the inherently evil and inevitably corrupt One-Ring kingdom of man, would render any Taghut (Islamic word meaning "against the Divine Will) court summons, order or decision regarding the spiritual, intellectual, political, religious and educational content of this website automatically per se unconstitutional as applied in my case under the factual context of the self-help information set forth in this website.

Lastly, to repeat once again, each and every visitor to this website, by entering this website and perusing its contents, automatically assumes ALL risks and liabilities for his or her choice/s of how to use, or what to otherwise do with, the information contained in this website. Do NOT be so gullible as to think "government" is your friend, protector and benefactor. One-Ring "government" Power has NEVER functioned from the bottom up. It has always functioned from the top down.

Taken as a whole, political leaders have never honored their end of any social compact, and how anyone with any political experience can believe otherwise bears witness to the effectiveness of predator schools, churches, and media in “educating” us. The social compacts (actually covenants with statist, anti-individualist unbelievers) of man give the subjugated classes three real “rights:” 1) the right to believe in the system; 2) the right to pay  for  the system ; and 3) the right to participate in the herd decision-making process up to the point your dissent becomes effective (when "government" will promptly outlaw it under the "clear and present danger" doctrine, see Schenck v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 [1919]).

It is the inherent nature of Power to grow itself.  It is the inherent nature of political power to gravitate from the many to the few. We have no need to concern ourselves with giving power to those individuals who call themselves “government,” or protecting their already delegated “authority.” Whatever rights and power the people don’t actively insist on keeping, the self-serving and greedy elitist herd/mob manipulators (aka “the government”) will most assuredly take.

Coercion/domination, like Tolkien’s One-Ring, was conceived by the Dark Lord and forged in the furnaces of evil. Any good attempted by its use is only a temporary illusion and will inevitably result in a greater evil. The ring of power is certain to corrupt its wearers, no matter how pure their initial intentions. The longer they possess the ring, the more corrupt and spiritually deformed they become.

Who among us is strong enough to put on the ring and serve the noble ends of happiness and prosperity for all? The only true answer is “no one.” Coercion/domination is too great a matter for the human heart. It is submitted that we should choose to cast it back into the fire where it was first hammered into existence. That’s the only way tyranny can be destroyed.

And how shall we take the ring to the fire, if no individual is great enough? We must all go together, for the journey will be hard and filled with many unexpected dangers. The fell servants of tyranny are all around us. The Evil One is ever watching to see who will weaken first and put the ring on.

Unwavering, we must hold the Creator’s precious Golden Rule aloft! Like the vial of Galadriel, it is made brighter by the courage and determination in our hearts. Its searing light will blind the eyes and bewilder the minds of all those who come against it—those creatures of evil who have dwelt beyond memory in the darkness, and have become so bloated by their insatiable rending of flesh and sucking of marrow from those who engage in honest labor that the sheer hugeness of their crawling malevolent filth threatens to extinguish the Sacred Lamps of Liberty and Justice.

May God bless and keep you, dear visitor, and may His face shine upon you forever. Amen.