wxr_rlcc_1312484177_c

Hello Ernie,

How much money flowed from Fred Koch's control to the JBS; and, Ernie, before you retired, where did you work, for whom, doing what?

...do you immediately DISMISS or DEVALUE everything they present because it does not conform to your personal beliefs?

Do you always read the writings of other people and gloss right over the answers to your questions, or do you give any effort to seeing whether or not your questions have already been answered? Actually, why ask questions that have already been answered? For instance, I asked you for a name not because you have named no one but because from the way you have worded things, you could be speaking about more than one person, although I suspect you mean the same person throughout. It's for you to clarify. I ask in earnest.

Your question above has been answered over and over in the back and forth between us. You just don't want to see it. That's your mind-set.

What have I been saying throughout but that Eustace Mullins, for instance, who does not believe as I do, nevertheless has written some truths about the Federal Reserve, etc.? Yet, you can ask me, "do you immediately DISMISS or DEVALUE everything they present because it does not conform to your personal beliefs?"

You use your stupid all caps by way of emphasizing that you hold that I dismiss and devalue everything Eustace Mullins has written just because he is a Nazi. You prove my point about your agenda. You twist everything up into pretzels. You are twisted in your talk, Ernie. Get straight with God, which means get straight, period. It is you who are attempting to cause the whole world to dismiss and to devalue everything Eustace Mullins has written just because his views about Jews does not conform with the views you hint that you might hold. Get a grip on yourself, Ernie. I accept Eustace Mullins where he's right and reject him where he's wrong. I continue doing that concerning everyone, including you. I continue to grow in my ability to discern. I don't condemn a soul, not one. I sentence no one. I punish no one. I leave that to God and Satan to work out because if everyone were to do that, well you fill in that blank for once in your life.

If you go back to the beginning of the back and forth, you will see that I wrote a post on a topic. You narrowed in on what you consider to be your area of expertise. I read your linked information and found it wanting. You called me a fabricator rather than asking me if I meant, whatever, the way you thought I did (which in every case has been a gross mischaracterization of my position, motive, intent, context, connotation, etc.). Where I refer to people as a group, you necessarily include yourself as if I've necessarily named you. Where I asked you questions, you took the questions as emphatic statements about you. You never once have said oops that you took something wrong (how many times?), read something in (how many times?) that wasn't there, or turned a question into an emphatic statement (how many times?).

“According to” is equivalent to saying “so and so alleged” – isn’t it?

No it is not, not when the whole thrust of your agenda and writings and comments on this site and elsewhere are taken into consideration. The way you wrote it, and even the way you attempted to show that I was "making a fool of" myself, states that you "suggest that he [Cooper] is in a position to know something about the matter" of Mullins alleged sodomy. You also raised the specter of numerous child abuse incidents. You chose the wording to discredit all of Eustace Mullins' writings. You have attempted to brand him a right-wing, neo-Nazi conspiracist, likely homosexual, pederast, and pedophile, who should not be believed, period, about anything. That's your transparent agenda. I stand squarely against that. You will, only if pressed, admit that Eustace Mullins wrote much factual history concerning Wall Street, bankers, etc., many of who are Jews who Mullin's stupidly wants to use to condemn the whole bloodline of Judah. I on the other hand, use a methodology that is not flawed that way yours is by your intent. I take his history and look to see what is and what is not what happened. The broad strokes of what he said happened, happened. It doesn't paint a good and righteous picture to those who caused it to happen, but unlike Mullins, I do not assign that to Jewish blood such that therefore all Jews are therefore beyond reach. You don't care that that's how I handle it.

Your treatment of the topic of Eustace Mullins, concerning whom you've been at least partially focused for how long, shows that you string together words to damn him and to cause others to run. Why else would you be expending so much effort to bring to light what you say so many who quote Mullins don't know about him? You've said so yourself that, that is your goal.

...because many people who recommend Mullins have no clue about the type of people he has chosen to associate himself with over his lifetime and the organizations which he has recommended or endorsed.

Your goal has not been (perhaps this interchange with you will change it) to separate the fact from fiction within Mullins' work but rather to sink the whole body. You can claim otherwise, but I know I'm the only person in the world who has pressed you so (as in degree) on this.

You are outing Mullins, and I am outing you. You think you have been outing me, but you've fallen flat on your face.

Let me tell you something, there are FBI staff working in the FBI file system who would laugh at you and your assertion that they couldn't pull a fast one on you. If I were the one giving you documents in response to your requests, I could fake you out if I wanted to. If you can't put yourself in that position and figure out how, that's your problem. Even still, you can't read what's been redacted.

What's the longest it took them to turn over documents? How many documents do you have were you are the only one outside to have them? How do you know that the file staff wasn't ordered across the board to change things? Even if conflicting documents were to show up elsewhere, you couldn't be sure. I'm not saying this to emphasize that this is what I think has happened to you in particular but that you are wrong to be sure that absolutely none of it hasn't. Regardless, you are still reading documents that were all created from personalities with all the attendant psychology {spirit(s)} that went into their make up to produce those documents. You act as if none of that matters.

It is my emphasis upon this lack in your work that you equate with lying about you. I'm saying that where you place emphasis speaks to your motives. I take exception to your methods and the underlying ends. I take exception to the big (really small), and fractured picture (x-out all of Mullins' writings, even the truth in them, rather than point out the flaws and retain the valuable truth) you are attempting to paint for the masses. You try to hide your ideology and the ends you have in mind. You try to rush back into the minutia of the methods you choose to discuss while refusing to go outside your chosen area of discussion even while you are here not on your site but on a religious site. I do not admire that about you.

So, you "oppose a lot of what Hoover’s FBI did and [you] have been very critical of that behavior when anybody asks." When anybody asks? Why do you wait? Also, why do say that you don't give your personal views and then do give them. Make up your mind! Take a stand. I'm not lying about you. You are.

You kept trying to say I'm lying and creating straw men, etc., when it is very clear to any honest person that you had an agenda and still have one and only respond when drawn out even as you continue to deny your agenda. Who can't see it?

You want to take little positions and to duck back when it comes time to defend the broader and broadest implications, which are flawed. You're a libertarian, yet you haven't stood for or against capitalism, violence, or homosexuality (whether or not it's a choice and/or harmful). You haven't said, you've actually refused via silence, to declare whether or not you believe in any god or gods or God or Jesus.

You try so desperately to frame the debate by denying anyone else is allowed to approach you on the biggest-picture issues where the details necessarily have to line up. You want to start with the pieces of what you hold out to the world; and the moment anyone begins to discuss how the sum total heads down a bad path, you demand myopia.

You say I haven't refuted anything you've written, but I've refuted your whole approach (your means and ends, all obviated). You just ignore it is all. Ignoring it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Does your going after those you hate, who are the rightwing conspiracists only as you define them, even while you have lumped Nazism in with socialism (completely wrong and as quoted here), and even while refusing to discuss what is right in what those same conspiracists are saying, does pointing out all of that constitute my lying and setting up straw men? It does not. Does every time I ask you a question constitute my telling a lie or my setting up a straw man? You allege it over and over and over even after I point out to you that doing so is wrong.

It's impossible to converse with you because you don't know and refuse to learn about the ultimate issues to Jesus. You don't know who he is. You apparently don't care else you would not have taken the approach here that you have. The fact that you don't care does speak to your "character, integrity, religious convictions, motivations, etc." You don't like that. Too bad. If you don't like it, change. Don't expect me to accept your truth as the ultimate. I left your world behind long ago. I'm not going to go backwards. It's for you to progress.

...this may be the hardest part of this message for you to understand but in the THOUSANDS of words you have written you have not presented ONE SINGLE INSTANCE where you disputed anything I have reported based upon your own personal investigation into that SAME primary source evidence

So what? It's completely irrelevant. I haven't said one single thing to indicate that I've attempted to dispute anything the way you are suggesting. You are demanding that I show how you miss quoted something. What does that have to do with anything I've written? It has nothing to do with it.

You could have flawlessly quoted the documents you have. It's not relevant. Satan can reproduce the New Testament on paper. Big deal. So he doesn't misquote Jesus in thousands of pages. Then what, I'm not allowed to discuss his agenda? And you have the nerve to say that it is I who am making a fool of himself?

I have a right and duty and desire to discuss Satan's way of twisting the words he can print off in the millions of copies. I talk about what he does and doesn't emphasize and why. He can complain all he wants to that I'm not playing by his rules, but too bad for him. He doesn't make the rules. His is not the final word.

I have only taken issue with other things, all of which you have repeatedly struggled to avoid but haven't fully been able to.

Did you come here challenging me to compare your documents with those in the FBI files to prove you've knowingly held up some document as being "real" that you knew was not or something? That's about the gist of the point you are attempting to score against me here. Talk about a straw man. If that's your challenge, I didn't take it up. You haven't framed what I will or will not write about. I'm not going to limit myself to your level. Why would I want to shrink that way? Why would I want to hide my light under a bushel?

You think you win and defeat Christianity because I don't pour through your documents looking for some clerical error you've made? Stop wasting everyone's time.

I don’t “want” anything.

Then shut up. It that offensive? For someone who doesn't want anything and has no agenda, you sure talk plenty all over the place.

I want plenty and have an agenda. I'll talk about it as much as I'm moved to do so. I won't pretend I don't want anything and have no agenda. If you don't want anything, be careful what you wish for. In the here and now or hereafter, you will receive your standard.

The fact that you did what you did here on this site when you were offered numerous opportunities to stand up for giving and sharing all, total pacifism, and sexual harmlessness but refuse to discuss those things matters concerning the final disposition of your soul, Ernie. If you would spend more time thinking with your frontal lobes, you'd understand that. All those things are things you've actually stated are irrelevant to you. How will you escape damnation?

You want me to insert my PERSONAL opinions into my reports.

I didn't say that. You can write reports as objectively and neutrally as you are able. Then, you can turn around, and in another writing, offer your personal beliefs. I'm interested in the second writings. The second informs the first and vice versa.

You don't understand that in the absence of open conviction (taking stands) concerning the FBI (and not where you wait for others to specifically ask) is a form of facilitation. Why do you think Jesus went into the synagogues to preach?

He audited them. Don't you know that? He did it by a standard that you haven't even tried to grasp. It is so much more objective than what you are doing that you don't even exist in relative terms. You are literally unreal relative to Jesus's methodology.

Every comment I attribute to Mullins is factually accurate, and I present the specific source which anybody can check to establish that I have quoted him accurately.

Just ignore your stated objective to bring down all those who do not agree with you on your level about what is and is not fact, right? Yes, I know. You're a Popper fan, not a Jesus fan. Popper was smarter than Jesus in your mind. Have you read about Popper and the think tanks? You care about association and what they mean, else you wouldn't be crucifying Mullins over his Nazi associations. Try studying about Popper and all the garbage that has come out of the "national security" think-tank state apparatus. It's insane. You need to open your eyes.

Right now, I count you as extremely cold-hearted. You may think about all your feelings. You may reflect upon the compassionate moments in your life, but I'm talking about the thrust of your life right now. You have clearly stated here that you really don't give a damn about the Christian Commons concept. You aren't interested in lifting a little finger in that regard. Do you think that counts for you in Heaven?

...you want me to acknowledge that some things he has written have been truthful or factual. I will not do so because that is NOT the purpose of my Mullins report.

You already have here — too late. You are further giving away the real purpose of your Mullins report, which is to further the chilling effect of which I've written above. You are furthering the limitation on free political expression and furthering the limitation on academic freedom. Have you stopped to think about, by not sorting truth from fiction within Mullins work that you are doing a disservice to the whole human race?

I wrote:

You see, I know that your hidden agenda (hidden to others but not to me) is to defend some false definition of "Jewishness" in a way that is indefensible.

You tiptoe around this. Tiptoeing as you have speaks volumes about you. You won't take a stand and defend it intellectually. You'll fall back on mentioning Pat Buchanan, but you won't flesh anything out. You think you'll lose the patina of objectivity that will sink your opportunities vis-a-vis your reports, or are you really just a coward? Plenty of researchers and reporters have managed what you refuse to do.

Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor, by Robert Stinnett

You insist that the FBI could not possibly give you false documents, documents other than the actual documents, that they could not fabricate documents just for you. Then you ask me to prove that they could. You insist that because I don't satisfy you that that is some sort of valid point on your part. Who ever buys that is a moron. I didn't say they did trick you that way. I simply said that you're fool to assert that it's not possible. Then you turn around and say that anything is possible in the abstract and try to put my assertion about what the FBI could do on the same level as saying that everyone who was mortified, such as Frank Church, was "actually just PRETENDING to be critical of the FBI." Really, your analogy is ridiculous on its face. It's juvenile.

Frank Church wasn't pretending. I don't have to prove that. I don't have to cause the FBI to trick you to prove to you that they could have already done that. If you don't know these things and can't bring yourself to grasp them, there's nothing I can do for you. It's your problem, not mine. You keep your monkey on your own back.

We will see who was operating under delusional assumptions. My God is real. Jesus is real. They are both alive right now. They are not against people coming to the light of the Christian Commons. I will be vindicated.

I never said gut reaction doesn't have to bear good fruit. It does, and mine will. You aren't working toward bearing good fruit though, as I define good. You are working against it, plainly. That makes you the enemy of Christ.

Every time I mention Jesus, you say it's irrelevant. Who doesn't know who you are? If you don't like being identified as the enemy of Christ, then don't be the foot that, that shoe fits.

Are you so bigoted and obtuse that you do not recognize the importance of discovering new material—particularly when that new material changes public perceptions about some matter?

So, you value changing public perceptions and that's what you're about doing, but you don't have any agenda. Oh, I'm changing public perceptions all right. You just blow off that what I'm bringing to light relative to what you're doing is as day to night. My revelations from God about the meaning of Jesus's words as I've spelled out as the Christian Commons is something that if the whole of the human race were to follow would lead to Heaven on Earth. Can you say the same about your worldview? You can not. Bringing Heaven to Earth is irrelevant to you.

My personal views about the Middle East correspond to those of Patrick Buchanan.

"The Nazi War Criminal and Jesus: Patrick Buchanan's Obscene Comparison," by Menachem Rosensaft. The Huffington Post. April 29, 2009.

Wow, what's going on there? To Mencahem Rosensaft, anyone would think he was substituting Pat Buchanan for Eustace Mullins. I wonder if we could find someone who would allege that a couple of decades ago, Pat Buchanan was arrested for sodomizing a teenage hitchhiker in the back seat of a car. Well, not to worry anymore. Go ahead and ask and tell. Celebrate it. Do it in the street. Really, where are the homosexuals who are outraged at Ernie Lazar for linking homosexuality and child abuse with neo-Nazism? That's not fair is it, Ernie? You really didn't do that. Now, am I being sarcastic or not? What does your gut tell you? Am I lying about you, or should you actually ask me whether or not I'm being sarcastic before jumping to conclusions? Oh, I just gave away the answer. Can you tell, Ernie, or is it too figurative for you?

Ernie, according to Mencahem Rosensaft, Pat is tipping Pat's racist and ethnically bigoted hand. What's your take on it? Do you think Pat Buchanan is similar to Eustace Mullins? Oh, well, Eustace is far from Roman Catholic, right? I wonder how Roman Catholicism and, say, the CIA and William F. Buckley figure in. I wonder how Roman Catholic Antonin Scalia fits in too. Don't you?

You said, "lying" how many times? Yet you are the son of the liar from the beginning, by definition. You are antichrist. You are the son of Satan, by Christian definition. I have shown how you have twisted over and over while calling me a liar. It is you who has repeatedly violated the commandment against bearing false witness. You jump to all sorts of wrong conclusions and call me a liar when you do it. How will you escape damnation, you who will not stand up for Jesus before the whole world?

instead of lying about it, why don’t you SPECIFY what you think MY agenda is and then QUOTE SOMETHING I have written to demonstrate what evidence you are using to arrive at your conclusion?

I just did for the umpteenth time. Why don't you take the blinders off?

This comment reveals that you have never even read any of my reports because I DO NOT interpret anything.

Right, I read them and quoted from them, but I've never read any of them. I didn't point out that how you characterized Eustace Mullins in your report on him. You were just imagining all this back and forth between us. Okay, Ernie. Dream on.

By "repentance" you mean, of course, a critic must accept YOUR interpretations. This is why nobody takes anything you write seriously.

Repentance means turning back to God and being apologetic as a little child. That's my interpretation, Ernie. That's how I read it. You don't want to do it.

If nobody takes anything I write seriously, then who are all the people who have come here and taken what I write seriously? You are calling all of them nobodies. Well, I can tell you Ernie that they go in before you. Do you think I don't know what I'm talking about on that? Do you even know where they go in and to what?

[Tom:] You just go on ahead and trust those who brought the nation COINTELPRO while I will not until they repent in earnest, which by the way Ernie would necessitate leaving the FBI. Seeing as how you don't believe in God or Christ, you reject that though.

[Ernie:]***Your remark about me and my position re COINTELPRO (above) is not only bigoted and unChristian but a total lie. You obviously do not believe in God’s 9th Commandment so please refrain in the future from describing yourself as either Christian or possessing any sort of religious values.

My brand of Christianity necessitates taking an open stand on these matters and also doing the other things I've stated in this thread and elsewhere. You don't take an open stand on these matters (yet?). I am drawing you out. I shouldn't have to though. You should have read what I wrote and said you agree but that you believe I should evaluate Fred Koch and the FBI/JBS documents. You didn't do that. You've avoided saying anything that indicates that you believe in God or Jesus or agree with me about the Christian Commons. You've tried as much as possible to leave too much to speculation and question.

When someone asks you about God and Jesus, if you believe, you say so (unless they already know or are up to no good), else you don't believe even if you claim otherwise. I asked you openly, honestly, and directly.

When I say you trust them, I mean you trust that they couldn't and haven't fooled you. If you call that "unChristian" of me and a lie, well, that's your opinion. I stand by my view. If you mean that a Christian can remain in the FBI, I say how can they when the FBI is violent and full of a history of still unrepentant lying?

I have answered every charge of yours in one form or another. You, on the other hand, have copped out with how long it would be to respond. It's a convenient way to avoid having to agree where you've been caught up in your own tangle and clearly shown to be so. You've written how many pages on your site?

I have shown here, via your begrudging cooperation (unintended cooperation on your part) that you have an agenda and what it is (in part) and that you hesitatingly will come out only if pressed. I have shown to all honest people that you deliberately leave things unaddressed to leave a certain impression that is not helpful to the correct big picture concerning where the human race ought to be heading rather than where it is heading.

I am HAPPY to correct anything I have written in any of my reports

Be happy to correct your worldview that includes your spiritual view and what is best for all souls.

...if FBI data contradicts something you believe—-then the Bureau probably "renumbered" documents or suppressed data. How convenient to your argument! You win—no matter what!

Not probably. Who said probably? I didn't. I said it's possible. You're the one who said it isn't but then said it is in the abstract but that you wouldn't bother with it (with trying to find out whether they've tricked you) on account of your feelings that it's not probable. What are you going to do if it turns out you've been tricked, claim you hedge your bet by telling Tom Usher that you admitted it was possible in the abstract? You are so strange.

I ask you if you're a Zionist. You say you aren't and say that by asking you, it makes me, among other things, a pathological liar. Then you continue on by quoting me saying, "If you don't [hold with the Zionists treatment of the Palestinians], say it here." How does getting you to openly admit here that you are not a Zionist show that I'm a pathological liar? What kind of logic is that? Is it the kind that the logic-department heads at 10 major universities would agree with? You challenged me by holding out 10 religion-department heads. I guarantee you that you wouldn't find one who would agree with your syllogism about my asking you about whether or not you're a Zionist.

You started losing it concerning showing where you were quoting yourself or me. I'm not going into your comment to clean it up. It's too extensive and telling.

You have (perhaps unintentionally) revealed YOUR AGENDA in your comments above.

"...perhaps unintentionally...." I state it flat out, and then you say, "perhaps unintentionally." Then you quote me right after that as saying, "I admit my agenda." The only way that, that can make any real sense is if you are accusing me of having an agenda other than the one I openly state. At the same time, you claim that doing that kind of thing, treating others as you just treated me, is exactly what you avoid. As I've said, you are very strange to me. You are strange to the truth.

Actually, Tom, if you carefully review all of our exchanges, you will notice that YOUR main criticism of me is that I AM NEUTRAL — i.e. I refuse to take positions that conform to yours and I refuse to insert my personal subjective opinions into my reports.

No, that's the wrong conclusion, as usual. Your article posted on OpEdNews is an agenda. You target people. Some of your observations are valid. Many are not. You draw conclusions that are subjective. You have drawn many here about me. I've shown that. You surround your "reports" with little, if any, neutrality of the kind you claim to intend.

You completely dismiss out of hand an entire theology that informs my whole approach. You didn't even bother to look while I heard you out, letting you voice all of your views right here.

Again, Ernie, God bless you.

To everyone else, truth: I haven't said I'm perfected yet. I'm still learning. I'm still making human errors.

I don't always word things as well as could be. I don't know everything such that I know exactly when others are representing truth to the best of their abilities. I don't know every trick that has ever been played on others that I might quote by mistake.

I regret that I posted some comments where I wasn't clear enough that I was asking questions and not making emphatic statements. It's a habit of others that I have to anticipate that I wish I didn't have to anticipate.

I became so caught up in trying to draw out where Ernie stands that I didn't take enough care about not leaving myself open to charges of making charges against Ernie rather than asking him questions. I will endeavor to be better about this in future.

What I want most of all though is to find other souls who want to be way beyond all this and who really want to bring forth the Christian Commons where mammon will be translated into the mammonless society and where there will be zero greed, zero selfishness, zero violence, and zero sexual depravity.

Here's an update: Hal Turner is a White supremacist. He's from North Bergen, New Jersey. Turner was trained by the FBI to be an agent provocateur. While he was on the FBI payroll, Hal Turner did a radio show in which he followed his FBI training to incite others to hatred whereby they could be arrested. This shows how despicable the FBI still is. No one should tempt anyone else to commit crimes. Read, "Lynching of Cynthia McKinney urged by 'journalist' trained and paid by FBI": Hal Turner called her 'a violent, black, racist, bitch' whose lynching would teach other Blacks that 'white people are tired of your bullshit, behave or die,' by David Swanson. San Francisco Bay View. August 24, 2009.

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 Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.