CHAPTER 51 DEN OF THIEVES: MONEY CHANGERS: SUPPLEMENT: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CONSERVATIVE-REPUBLICAN CHRISTIAN: JESUS IS A SMALL-C COMMUNIST

Monday, September 04, 2006:

Den of thieves: Money changers; Bankers

When Jews came to Jerusalem to pay their Temple tax, they could only pay it with a special coin, the half-shekel. This was a half-ounce of pure silver, about the size of a quarter. It was the only coin at that time which was pure silver and of assured weight, without the image of a pagan Emperor.

Therefore, to Jews, the half-shekel was the only coin acceptable to God. But these coins were not plentiful. The Money Changers had cornered the market on them; then they raised the price – just as with any other monopolised commodity — to whatever the market would bear.

In other words, the Money Changers were making exorbitant profits because they held a virtual monopoly on money. The Jews had to pay whatever they demanded. To Jesus, this injustice violated the sanctity of God's house.[89]

These were and are the brood of vipers, reptiles, the selfish, not caring about posterity sometimes even their own, ultimately not even their own.

The reptilian minded will sacrifice you and yours for the sake of those reptiles. Power, control, and wealth to do what they want is more important to them than people. They will gladly drum up wars to fund on all sides regardless of ideology. They can tip the balance any direction thereby insuring the winner. If they miscalculate, they look upon it as a temporary, correctable setback. They will undermine all who oppose them no matter how high. They will crush whole peoples and economies so that they, the international bankers, may buy up all the bargains after they have burst the bubbles. They will have no problem with dictators who will keep the grassroots people in their place via ruthless force, keep those people from rising up to take power and keep it for themselves for the first time in the history of the human race.

Money tells you whose in charge of the worldly world of Satan. Find those with the most money who are most behind the scenes, behind fronts, behind hired guns and mouthpieces, and you have found the devils. They are the epitome of what is wrong: Selfishness.

These are the offspring of Satan, spiritually and physically, blood and spirit ultimately being one within a certain context. What we choose is what we are.

Is this anti-Semitism? Well, why would anyone become nervous about that? Are the Rothschilds Semites? Yes. Are all international bankers Semites? No. Are there Semites who are against what the Rothschild family has done? Yes.

Usury is interest on a debt. It is inherently evil. If you don't understand how, you need to soften your heart.

Income taxes are designed primarily to pay interest on money borrowed by the government, money that private banks create out of nothing to lend to the government, the people. The schemers devised into fraudulent law that the people could no longer create their own money through their Congress but rather that private, exceptionally greedy (evil) interests would be the only ones who could create money that is no longer the people's money.

Federal Reserve Act and the sixteenth amendment to the US Constitution, giving Congress the power to levy and collect income taxes, were both allegedly passed in 1913 under president Woodrow Wilson, who lived to regret it.

Constitutional arguments

The Federal Reserve Act is unconstitutional. Under the US Constitution, the Congress has the authority to coin money and set its value, not someone else, not privatizing it, not delegating it to a non-federal governmental entity. The Congress right now does not coin money or set its value.

Just because the courts have ruled that the Congress has delegated its authority (suggesting that, that act of delegation is mundanely legal) does not mean that the courts have ever been right on this. They have not been right on this, not even close.

Conspiracy

They have acted as an arm of the elite who raised them up for just such purposes as this, to rule in favor of the greedy ones who have defrauded the people out of having and controlling their own grassroots money through their Congress.

It is just another point in the infinite proof that the system is from Satan. The system is of, by, and for the selfish, and it will fall and fall hard.

Some specific event in U.S. history, such as the Civil War, the Great Depression, or the passage of some national debt threshold, actually caused the United States to cease to exist under the Constitution; all actions in the name of the U.S. government since that event are part of a conspiracy by those in power to retain the appearance of constitutional authority.

The United States never actually achieved independence from England, and secretly continues to operate under British rule.[90]

Those are arguments the Wikipedia ascribes to tax protesters. Well, as for the first, we can cut out the misdirecting language to arrive at the following:

All actions in the name of the U.S. government are part of a conspiracy by those in power to retain the appearance of constitutional authority derived from all the people as equals.

As for the second point, if the United States had warded off the conspiracy of the banking oligarchs from England and Europe and the robber barons right here in the US, it would have been mundanely independent. It is now under the global oligarchy's drive for its new world order that is nothing other than Satan manifesting in no uncertain terms before Satan's great crash when the truth that is peace, love, giving and sharing all, the commons of the Cosmos, and purity take over for the proverbial thousand years.

The Federal Reserve Act was not an amendment to the constitution; therefore, the act is null and void.

There are constitutional arguments against the sixteenth amendment as well.[91] The constitutionally required number of states at the time did not ratified it verbatim. Only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment verbatim.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Thomas, however, called the discrepancies (between the actual text of the amendment and that which was acted upon by all the other states) a "triviality." The court said that many other amendments had been ratified with even greater discrepancies in the text passed by the states versus what was passed to them by the US Congress.

Well, it cannot be denied that the needed number of state showed their clear intention that amendment pass in a form so close to the correct form that it truly is an argument about the letter over the spirit. How far down the line does one carry the requirement for perfect reproduction? At the same time, how loose does one allow the wording of what is supposed to be the highest law of the land?

The answer is that one must allow the spirit of the divine to be written upon one's heart.

Exposing the evil intent underlying the Federal Reserve Act and in combination with the sixteenth amendment is correct, since those involved were fairly warned in private and in public before hand that their plan of action was the opposite of righteous. We refer to all the warnings made against the Central Bank idea.

Many maintain that the federal income tax is a fraud. The Federal Reserve Act and the sixteenth amendment are both frauds perpetrated by frauds, the international bankers and robber barons who foisted both frauds upon the American people.

There is no doubt that this position it correct, regardless of any sinister ulterior motives some tax protesters may also have, such as white supremacy and Nazism, etc.

Statutory argument

Many former IRS agents are not paying any income taxes, because the IRS refuses to show them the law that requires them to pay. People have been found both innocent and guilty of tax evasion based upon this reasoning.

However, the Internal Revenue Code does state that people are liable for income taxes including on wages and salaries for labor and services. The problem is that the whole body of law is ambiguous and intentionally complex and convoluted so that the people won't have time to sort it out and so the lawyers who are owned and operated by the power elite, the global oligarchs, may continue working to further enslave the people.

The reason for that ambiguity is the new commandment is not the core of their hearts. They reject God.

Arguing with the devil on the level of the devil's game

Libertarians are arguing with the devil on the level of the devil's game. That won't work. The reason they are doing that is because libertarians are self oriented and not where self is part of the whole of God. We've made this clear throughout this work, so we won't go into further detail here.

The only thing that will work is to work on people's hearts to inform their minds and direct their actions in accordance with the highest conscience and consciousness.

The fact that tax dollars are used to pay for wars (all illegal on the divine level) and to pay back schemers in the banking industry (usurers), is cause for concern; however, the method of ending the practice is not by refusing piecemeal to render the taxes.

Bringing forth good government

It is true that one works for compensation and then one is coerced into facilitating evil acts of governments through coerced taxes. However, there is a place for government and law and order. The way in which to bring about good government is not by working within the corrupt system which cannot be redeemed but rather by working outside that system to displace it wholesale.

Taxes are evil, because they are not the peoples' once they are rendered. Taxes are inherently a part of the hoarding process and the process for gaining at the negative expense of others and the whole planet. Money is the invention of selfish schemers who wanted things only in recompense rather then simply giving.

Therefore, separate money from God, because they are not in the same spiritual place. Money was devised in hell. There is no money and there are no taxes in heaven. There is only mutual giving and sharing in the real spirit of love.

Tax evasion

Do we tell you not to pay the tax? Only the movement of the Holy Spirit can tell you that.

Jesus did not evade the tax

The taxes were illegitimate, as Jesus explained to Peter. Jesus though agreed to pay the tax so as not to offend the demonic powers that be. Jesus had to be crucified where the Empire could find no fault in him, which is how it turned out.

Unlike the US however, the Roman Empire made no claim to mass democratic legitimacy. No one was arguing that Rome was failing to abide by its own mundane law. Rome didn't have a constitution that spelled out the specific requirements for amendments.

The US though does have such a document.

Render unto the IRS what is the global oligarchy's. They have their reward here and now and will find the door closed and locked.

Is a person inherently evil for refusing to pay and for taking a stand? Those acts themselves are far less inherently evil than the act of pressing the tax and spending the tax monies on death and destruction and to further enrich the rich though tax incentives and corporate subsidies (corporate welfare). Evil people though can certainly seek to avoid the tax by pleading its illegality. People can be duped into thinking that armed resistance is right too.[92] That act though is working within the system—the divided house. In the end, it won't get one there.

Constitutional ambiguity?

The argument is that a direct tax must be apportioned, per the US Constitution. This means that any direct tax must be equal for every taxpayer. The income tax, in addition to being based upon an illegal law not ratified by the states, is not an equal direct tax—far from it.

However, being an amendment by name, the ambiguous language is understood to have been superseded.

Lower courts ignoring higher-court rulings?

Also, the argument is that the US Supreme Court found the amendment inferred a new kind of tax and was, therefore, unconstitutional. That's case law. That's judicial precedent at the highest mundane level. It's supposed to be binding unless overturned by the Supreme Court. Lower courts may rule against that case law, but upon appeal, the court must find grounds for either upholding the earlier Supreme Court decision or moving to overturn it. In the interim, the people are left floating without knowing the law. It isn't right.

The tax protesters are going at this whole thing wrong. They are attacking the case law with selective bits taken out of their mundane context. That won't ever convince the higher courts.

RegardlessoRegardRerrrrrr, the US Supreme Court justices would not rule against their masters. They would at best provide Congress with hints as to how to satisfy the Court so that the status quo could continue.

All of this was exposed thousands of years ago. The superrich, the lovers of mammon, the money changers, the usurers, the publicans, the bankers, the financiers, the tax collectors, are all described as sinners in the Holy Scripture, the word of God Almighty. All these positions are against the law of God. Unrepented, they are criminals against God and humanity.

President Wilson

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it....

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.[93]

President Wilson said that second paragraph after the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. If Wilson is to be believed, he had been duped by Edward Mandell House. Wilson had known little to nothing about how the scheme of usury and war propagation works. He was naïve and gullible. He was easy prey. What did he do to put it right? Nothing. Why? He was not of sufficient spirit to rouse the people to demand repealing the Act.

He was a racist, which always indicates a selfish reservoir in the heart. Remember, we say these things not in the spirit of unforgiveness but only to say to people that we all must steer away from such selfishness, to point out the negative consequences of having a selfish emotional base.

Wilson was torn. He had good instincts on many fronts, but he was blinded to much until it was too late to avert WWI that the Satanists (bankers, corporate war-profiteers, and secret-society members) started with Wilson in full tow.

Social Darwinism

To give a little background, it was still the era of the robber barons. There was huge corruption in business practices, just as now. They weren't even hiding the fact that it was cutthroat. There were booms and busts, the created business cycle. Those who came out on top were just seen as the big dogs in a dog-eat-dog world. It was social Darwinism, survival of the fittest, most ruthless, most deceptive, etc. That's business. That's politics, both domestic and international, now global.

Rockefeller

Well, Rockefeller was out to crush his main competition so Rockefeller could corner the copper market. He did crush them, the Heinze combination. In so doing, he crushed their banks, causing runs on the banks and a stock market crash and general recession/depression of 1907—a good time to buy low.

J.P. Morgan

Money became so hoarded that J.P. Morgan was allowed to issue his own money called "Morgan Money." That got the economy moving again. It was pump priming. This was just like central banking, creating money out of nothing. It is the evil thing the Federal Reserve does now, issue its own money out of nothing and then charge all the people (through income taxes) interest on it. What a scam! What a racket!

Rockefeller and Morgan were people about which one simply shakes his head.

Like J.P. Morgan, who had begun his commercial career by selling the U.S. Army some defective guns, the famous fall carbine affair, John D. Rockefeller also was a war profiteer during the Civil War; he sold unstamped Harkness liquor to Federal troops at a high profit, gaining the initial capital to embark on his drive for monopoly.

Well, Morgan along with others started a campaign for a private central bank they could control.

Rothschilds

Paul Warburg

Kuhn, Loeb and Company

Jacob Schiff

Banking interests in Europe financed by the Rothschilds had their representative here in the thick of it. This was Paul Warburg of the Rothschild-funded Kuhn, Loeb and Company private international banking house headed by Jacob Schiff. Schiff funded the Japanese against the Russians in retaliation for Russia's terrible treatment of Jews in the pogroms and also for Russia's aid to Abraham Lincoln when Lincoln was besieged for issuing money directly rather than going through the banks incurring unnecessary interest debt. Schiff also, according to his grandson, funded the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia against the czar.[94]

Warburg's brother was the head of the central bank of Germany. Germany's central banking legislation was used as the template for the Federal Reserve Act. Also, a German banker became the first chairman of the Federal Reserve picked by House.

Paul also married into the Loeb family.

Jekyll Island

Nelson W. Aldrich

Woodrow Wilson was elected, and they managed to convince him to pass legislation they had drafted back in 1910 at the infamous meeting of conspirators at Jekyll Island, among them the powerful senator Nelson W. Aldrich, who also put through the national income tax and was the father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr.'s son, David, who ended up forming the Trilateral Commission.

That meeting at Jekyll Island was so secret that the attendees had agreed in advance not to use their last names during the entire stay. In fact, they used code words concerning their destination rather than referring to it as Jekyll Island. Their train was sealed. They also had the club at Jekyll Island give all the regular staff a vacation off the island and brought in different servants from the mainland who would not recognize the attendees. This was top secret and definitely not for national security unless the nation is considered the nation of the spirit of the devil. Secrecy was paramount to shield the criminal conspiracy to steal the power of America, the rising empire that would inherit the British Empire. It was also no coincidence that J. P. Morgan owned the island.

The US economy was not under the thumb of the international-banking cartel headed by the Rothschild's and especially their Bank of London. While the US at the time was far from small-c communist, it was nevertheless more favorable to small and relatively independent business and financial entities. It was more egalitarian, even though it contained fierce libertarian hearts that still beat to this day. Ruthless monopolist, such as Rockefeller, were on the loose of course; but, the country was still open enough that one could venture into territory not yet monopolized by the most voracious vultures hiding beyond public-relations gimmicks that are philanthropic foundations really designed to continue the monopolistic system.

Microsoft

Bill Gates

Microsoft for instance, still pushes for monopoly, even while Bill Gates supposedly gives a way billions, even while his foundation is heavily invested in dubious entities.

The Rothschild's and their mesmerized courtiers were bound and determined to (continued...click the next page number below)...continues... Click next page number below. [If you would like to see the full text on one page (helps with searching for text on the page), use the "No-Graphics Print Version".]

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Sup3 No Such Thing Conservative-Republican Christian, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.