Webster G. Tarpley is not always wrong. Here though (the linked article — link at the end), he makes classic errors.
Here he is stating that because WikiLeaks released cables, written by American imperial sycophants, don't expose every sin of the Empire, then it necessarily follows that WikiLeaks is Mossad or CIA or both. Webster, dear fellow human being, that's not a logical conclusion. You have fallen into the incestuous trap that so many others are in. You have criticized Cass Sunstein (I disagree with many things Cass Sunstein) while proving his point for him that a clique can be a self-feeding system where error is at its heart, such as the error in logic I just pointed out to you.
Part of Sunstein's plan you negatively criticize includes "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups" to raise "doubts about their factual premises, causal logic...." That's what I just did and not because I'm a government agent but rather because it's just a fact that you committed a mistake in logic.
Don't get me wrong here. I believe in the concept of the preponderance of evidence, but it is important to reserve judgment when one hasn't even heard from the other side and especially where there is no hard evidence (such as a totally free falling building that had been suffering from extremely nonuniform and small fires and had barely suffered any structural damage).
Webster, you are echoing a clique of those throwing around wild and completely unsubstantiated allegations.
Look, if leaks cause instability and the CIA rushes in, that doesn't mean that WikiLeaks caused the instability so the CIA would rush in. That's just speculation on your part, and it is incumbent upon you to write it that way rather then joining the sensationalists.
"Assange started his intensive deployment phase this year with video of a Class A US war crime in Iraq, which was very graphic but which dealt with an incident which was already widely known." Ah, Webster, you're full of it. It was not widely known. It was hardly known at all. Show me your sources that support your truly ridiculous claim that it was widely known. You are referring to the exact incident shown in the video "Collateral Murder," right?
There's a second part to that video that is rarely shown by the way. It shows the US blowing up a building to get a few mere suspects (?) even though the US doesn't know for sure that there are not innocents in the building and they do know there was an innocent guy just walking on the sidewalk in front of the building on his way by. They could have waited 30 seconds and not murdered him.
You say it was widely known; but the video was encrypted when Julian received it, and he had to break the encryption to view it.
Perhaps you mean that Reuters knew it's two staff members had been murdered, but even that was not common knowledge, certainly not in any way that the video drove home in the general population. That video as released by WikiLeaks burned it into public opinion, and the US military hated that it got out. Contrary to your assertion, it was not released by the US. You did say that the US released it as part of a limited-hangout operation. It was far, far too damaging to the US war machine in American and world public opinion. The system has been trying to downplay it ever since, and you're helping to do that. Why?
Then you use the tortured logic that because leaks engender talk of clampdowns, the leaker must be working for the clampdown artists. Webster, they've wanted to shut you up since long before WikiLeaks. Were you part of this whole scheme then? I could simply pull the same level of asinine logic on you that you've pulled on Julian Assange and simply say, "Webster Tarpley is obviously a Mossad Agent." Mind you, I'm not saying you aren't. I'm saying I don't have proof that you are. That's how you need to be handling Julian Assange, not making wild claims that it's a sure thing Assange is in the hip pocket of Zionists. Just be smart, and reserve judgment. Don't hang around down at Gordon Duff's level.
He has a clique going that fits Cass Sunstein's criticism of looped thinking:
- Alan Sabrosky
- Jeff Gates
- Lila Rajiva
- Michel Chossudovsky
- Wayne Madsen
- William Engdahl
- Zahir Ebrahim
You wrote, "...as far as Assange's attacks on the Vatican are concerned, they fit neatly into four centuries of British intelligence warfare against the Holy See, going back to Guy Fawkes and Lord Robert Cecil's Gunpowder Plot of 1605 and beyond. Not much new or radical here." Oh, so anything that can be couched as having continuity with historical rivalries means it's not radical? So when I speak the words of Jesus Christ, I'm not speaking radical words anymore? Come on, Webster. Get real, as they say.
"It is illuminating that none of Assange's document dumps have revealed any notable scandals involving Great Britain or Israel." Webster, Julian Assange did the raw-dump method and got nowhere. He gave thought to how to overcome the problem and determined to use the enemy against itself. To get them to go along while WikiLeaks was a severely underfunded fledgling (where was the money from Israel, the US, and Soros?), Julian had to reach a consensus arrangement between and among media competitors. He has made clear that cables on Israel will be released. A number have been. They are not flattering, despite Israeli spin doctors claiming otherwise (not convenient for you to view it that way though, is it?).
"No US public figures have had to resign because of anything Wikileaks has done." Nearly the entirety of George W. Bush's administration was left untouched in light of the revelations about all the illegalities. Alberto Gonzales was forced out but replaced with a more ardent neocon. Scooter Libby had to go, but the whole administration should have been brought down. Now you are asking that below-top-secret State Department cables written by a bunch of suck-ups cause resignations? Show sufficient public outrage over what has already been released. Meanwhile, what are you doing but pooh-poohing the leaked info as not being worthy of being considered sufficient. Really, Webster, make up your mind.
"No major ongoing covert operation or highly placed agent of influence has been blown." I would say that Hillary Clinton ordering the collection of DNA samples of UN ambassadors as rising to the level, but you downplay it as if it's nothing. She should have lost her job over that and instantly. The WikiLeaks also show that torture continued after Bush/Rumsfeld and Obama claimed otherwise. That's on-going war crimes, but that's not good enough for you.
"After all these months, there are still no US indictments against Assange, even though we know that a US grand jury will readily indict a ham sandwich if the US Attorney demands it." They are afraid, Webster. They aren't sure they can pull it off without causing a huge fire that could get out of control. Assange is that incendiary an issue, and the Feds know it.
There's lots of talk about violent revolution in the air. It's seething just under the surface. Just a couple of days ago, a libertarian-capitalist was picked up for openly calling for the assassination of every member of the US Congress (both houses). I see more and more of it everyday. I've been warning the federal government and the Plutocrats that they have been playing with fire and are going to get burned if they keep it up.
The same reason applies as to why they didn't kill Assange. Killing him would have been even worse than already indicting him. Look, also, to indict him means to separate him from The New York Times in terms of who is and who is not protected under freedom of the press and freedom of political speech, etc. Can you do that? I can't. He's a publisher of news, just the way you are and I am. You, he, and I are press. That's a fact, Webster.
Also, you obviously don't understand the hardware/software involved at WikiLeaks and just how difficult it will be for the US to get a handle on it. To shut down WikiLeaks and all the mirrors would require shutting down the Internet right now. Too many organizations around the world would be up in arms if the US Air Force were to do what would be necessary to shut down all WikiLeaks-related cites. In addition, they really are afraid of the "insurance" package of encrypted data that is all over the world just waiting for the private encryption key to be released in the event of Julian's untimely demise.
Julian Assange is clever, Webster. He's much cleverer than your average CIA Director or US President or Attorney General, etc.
Furthermore, "Anonymous" is not on the level of WikiLeaks.
"Assange emerges today as the pampered darling and golden boy of The New York Times, Der Spiegel. The Guardian, El Pais...." Actually, he barely gets along withÂ The New York Times. They run hit pieces on him. He knows they are CIA infiltrated, and they know he doesn't think too highly of them either. They are being used as they use him. It is a marriage of convenience, not conviction.
Wikileaks was apparently founded in 2006. Originally, the group was programmed to attack China, and its board was heavily larded with fishy Chinese dissidents and "democracy" activists from the orbit of the Soros foundations. Interestingly, the first big publicity breakthrough for Wikileaks in the mainstream US media was provided by an infamous totalitarian liberal today ensconced in the Obama White House – none other than Cass Sunstein. In Sunstein's op-ed published in the Washington Post of February 24, 2007 under the title "Brave new Wikiworld," we read: "Wikileaks.org, founded by dissidents in China and other nations, plans to post secret government documents and to protect them from censorship with coded software." How interesting that Sunstein was present at the creation of the new Wikileaks psywar operation!
Webster, Webster, Webster, please! You are conflating and jumping to false conclusions or are a disinformation agent yourself. George Soros is an activist billionaire. What are you going to do? Just because he's into some issue doesn't mean everyone in that issue too is under Soros or funded by Soros or whatever. Look, I've lauded some of your work (work that wasn't stinking up the place like this linked article of yours). Does that mean I work for you or you've funded me? The same applies to Soros. I've heard him say some things with which I agree. He's even managed to positively impress me vis-a-vis all the other superrich hedge fund guys I've heard. That doesn't mean I endorse all things Webster Tarpley or George Soros, so get out of this rut your working your way into. Start qualifying your statements with "alleged," "might," "possibly," and such.
Furthermore, where did you get the idea "that Sunstein wasÂ present at the creation of" WikiLeaks anymore than you or I? He simply wrote about a new entity that did capture the imagination of a number of people besides Cass Sunstein and who are not in Sunstein's camp.
Here's Cass Sunstein:
Cass R. Sunstein
Harvard Law School
Harvard Law School
January 15, 2008
Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03
U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 199
U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 387
Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.
Okay, so he's ignorant about Building 7, but so was Geraldo Rivera up until just a month ago or so. What are you going to do with Cass, shoot him for being duped? Here you are though, after having read his work (did you?), fitting his description of one who is getting his info from within a narrow reading/writing circle. I mean that it is obvious that you've read the now usual cast of characters on this issue and then rather than using your own common sense, echoed what they've said and added in some new bits that show you also read outside that loop — all the more reason that you should know better.
You see, I'm a 9/11 Truther, but Cass Sunstein's argument doesn't work against me because I'm clearly not stuck in the illogical loop.
It should be clear that Assange and Wikileaks are precisely the practical realization of Sunstein's program for "cognitive infiltration" shock troops to counteract and overwhelm any real mass understanding of oligarchical domination in the modern world, and any discussion of what kind of economic policies are needed to secure a recovery from the present world depression.
Holy Spirit (not used in vain), Julian Assange probably has an elaborate political-economy in mind, but your saying that because Sunstein wrote what he wrote, Assange is under his spell and should otherwise have offered up the cure for the global economic depression. I offer that up regularly. Where are the takers? Who's to say he knows the answer?
In addition, anti-9/11 Truth is not proof for your argument. I just cited Rivera as a case in point. Look, Sunstein's own thesis is working against him on this issue. Julian and Cass have been incestuous regarding 9/11. They discount it because the purveyors do not comport with the bulk of their ideology. They are in a denial loop. So, rather than stand off calling Assange a Mossad agent, how about we get him to sort the truth from the fiction concerning, say, Building 7, since it's the most obvious indicator of all that it was preplanned by other than al Qaeda?
Assange has made the exact same mistake that you've made about him. Sunstein is right in there with you making that same type of error. None of you is sorting the truth.
You wrote about Julian as follows: "He reportedly spent several years in the menticidal Anne Hamilton-Byrne cult (also known as The Family and Santiniketan) near Melbourne, Australia." Now, there you wrote "reportedly." Okay, but that means someone else claims it and it might not be true. Frankly, he has said that his mother kept Julian and herself under the radar of that group so that exactly what you are alleging might be, would not happen. Could Julian be lying? Could he be an MK-ULTRA child? Those are questions the answers to which you do not have in the absolute. You can only conjecture, and you know it. However, you ask, "Will the youth of the world ... be duped ... by such an impaired individual?" However, you should not have stated it that way. At most, you should have said "possibly impaired" because you don't know that he was withÂ Anne Hamilton-Byrne.
Then you commence to rip Daniel Ellsberg and diminish the impact that the release of the Pentagon Papers had. I was an adult when they came out, and I know for a fact that they blew the lid off and that, that process culminated in ending the evil and illegal Vietnam War. Where were you, living under a rock? You were not, and you're older than I am, for crying out loud.
Wow, try watching Daniel Ellsberg and then tell me he's CIA:
The Pentagon papers had been carefully selected by the CIA itself to cover up CIA war crimes in Vietnam, blaming these on the US Army wherever possible, while also obscuring the CIA's massive program of drug production and narcotics smuggling.
However, we know about the CIA and drug smuggling from Vietnam. What I don't know is that the CIA sat around the Pentagon Papers redacting that info or for the reasons you've cited.
"Kennedy was systematically demonized and smeared, emerging as the villain of the piece." Didn't Johnson come out looking worse? Also, just because Kennedy tried to do some better things doesn't prove he wasn't capable of stooping. He was not a saint!
So, Kennedy was going to draw down in Vietnam, refused Operation North Woods, didn't authorize the incineration of Cuba (to "save" it), issued Silver Certificates, moved intelligence from the CIA to the Pentagon, managed to cut a deal with the Soviets to remove the missiles from Cuba, gave a speech in which he denounce secret societies (pointing the finger at the Marxist Communists by way of drawing an analogy between them and the Freemasons), and cut a relatively charismatic figure. Those things make him better than most Presidents, but they don't make him saintly.
Anyway, Diem (the President of South Vietnam) was a fascist. I can see Kennedy looking the other way while he was assassinated.
I don't take the Pentagon Papers as Gospel though. They are what they are.
I would love to hear Daniel Ellsberg debate you about the Pentagon Papers. Would you do it? I think he would.
Here's an interesting thread on the subject:
I Tweeted the following:
BTW, how did Gordon Duff spin this? The WikiLeaks-Iran connection - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
which generated this:
"Ž"His releases are damaging the United States, and that makes Iran happy." Tom, that is wild. I like Ha'aretz as a general rule, but there is no way that Wikileaks makes Iran happy other than the embarrassment to the US. But Wikileaks has been detrimental to Iran as much inasmuch as the leaks have supported Netanyahu's claim and the US that Iran is dangerous.
Saturday at 10:32pm
Well, I certainly wasn't suggesting that I agreed 100% with the author's take.
However, as I've stated numerous times before, including directly to you, Betty, the cables are not WikiLeaks statements or views. The cables were written by imperial sycophants, and I, for one, am glad Julian Assange is leaking them and will continue to leak them until they have all been leaked, which is his stated goal.
I accept his explanation that raw data dumps in the past did not garner nearly the coverage that his shift to using the mainstream has managed. It's obvious that he's right about that. Dumps did not generate necessary coverage.
Time will continue telling. There are other "experiments" in the works too.
What I refuse to accept in any way, shape, or form based upon the incestuous feeding frenzy of a certain clique apparently mostly spurred on by Gordon Duff though is that it has been conclusively proven in the least that Julian Assange was or is a Mossad agent. It would never stand up in court, Betty.
If and when they stop using liars such as Syrian Truth but rather provide something more than that the US State Department cables haven't supplied proof that Mossad did 9/11, then that will be that — as if State Department suck-ups would be lame enough to reveal who did 9/11 in their cables that were available to literally millions even before any of them were leaked.
Assange will release the anti-bankster docs and the cables covering Israel. He'll also better explain why he has done things the way he has.
We weren't in his shoes, Betty.
He seems to be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't with the Gordon Duff crowd. What in the world are they going to say about all of their accusations (proofs) against Assange once Julian has finished releasing everything he has on Israel? That will be some meal of crow.
Of course, they'll make some insane excuses rather than admitting they were stupid. They'll still try to continue spinning the cables as if WikiLeaks wrote them.
They ignore the video, "Collateral Murder," that revealed a US war crime — the way the videos of white phosphorus raining down on Fallujah and then Gaza showed the US to be a war criminal even before "Collateral Murder" and showed the Zionists to be war criminals too just like the US. Taking down the US military (in US and world public opinion) as war criminals at this point isn't going to benefit Israel's Zionists. You know that and so does Gordon Duff.
Meanwhile, they (Gordon Duff's clique) could have been saner and more credible simply by saying that their suspicions were remaining just that (unsubstantiated possible allegations; food for thought) rather than chiseled-in-granite fact. That's all I suggested to them initially. Gordon though decided to say that he can see why some unnamed "they" call me a shill. He refused to answer probing questions too. He couldn't provide the backup — zero sources. Rather then do that, he deleted my questions.
He had accused Julian Assange of having been a Mossad agent based upon an article he never even read. He didn't even know Syria Truth was the source until I informed him. Did he even say oops? Hell no he didn't. He rather went right on as if nothing had even happened. What kind of person does that?
He knows that I challenged Syria Truth and that they promised to provide copies of the smoking gun email. They never did that. Where's Gordon's mea culpa? It's not there because he's not honest enough to place his glaring error front and center. Good journalists always print retractions when necessary — always!
So rather than tell the truth, he leaves it that I'm a shill. Right, I'm so rich on account of all the Zionists who love me so much. It's Gordon who's working for someone. Who's behind Veterans Today? How does it rate being a Google "News" site? It smells over there. I can smell it from here. It's not on the up and up for the reasons I've cited.
Really, Betty, Duff's level of "journalism" on the whole issue has been horrendously bad to the point of being a joke.
More to the point about the Haaretz article though is that if the same level of "evidence" is applied one could just as easily, even more readily, state that WikiLeaks is really shown to be an Iranian psy-ops. Of course, that would be stupid — just as stupid at this point as saying with certainty that Assange is Mossad. I know you get my point here. You need to agree rather than leave room for Gordon Duff's spinning as "facts."
Don't forget, the ADL says that WikiLeaks has anti-Semites working for it. That's a pretty strange thing to allege against a Mossad agency.
Do you know who Israel Shamir is? Sure you do. We are his mutual Facebook friends. The Zionists are up in arms that he works with Julian Assange. So, how does Gordon Duff spin that? Well, obviously, Israel Shamir has to be a double or triple agent because if he's what he says he is, then he's stupid or Gordon's just being an ass about Julian Assange. I think you know where I come down on it.
Saturday at 11:57pm
First, I have never proposed that Mossad has or had anything to do with Assange. You are confusing me with others who post on my wall. I also could not find support for Gordon Duff's assertions in his sources, in part because I cannot read Arabic and also could not find support for his statement in his other listed sources.
I told you that I based my suspicions on the fact that the only person Assange complimented is Netanyahu and further that he quoted favorably from Rupert. What else do you need to suggest that he favors Israel?
I don't care what the ADL says. The ADL, to-wit, Abe Foxman, is thoroughly dishonest, such that he claims anti-Semitism when he knows full well that such a claim is false.
I consider Israel Shamir a friend. I have met him. Have you? I have a book which he sent me as a gift about 6 or 7 years ago after he came to the States and I introduced him to a number of activist Muslims who, at my request, invited him to speak. He also stayed at the home of a wealthy friend of mine.
Sunday at 12:34am
Okay, my link was specifically about Gordon Duff's spinning. I wasn't suggesting that you were agreeing with all things Gordon Duff about Assange and WikiLeaks. I was though taking it that I needed to focus on Duff, which I did, and to call upon you to make clear again that you were not leaving Duff room to spin. Afterall, every reader here hasn't necessarily been exposed to our respective views.
So, you've done that fairly well here, with the exception that you still agree with Duff's interpretation of Julian's words and writings vis-a-vis Netanyahu and Murdoch. That interpretation is incorrect. He did not praise either man.
He stated a fact that Netanyahu is a crafty politician (my view of how Julian was referring to Netanyahu) [probably not the best choice of words to express my point; Netanyahu was moved by WikiLeaks to say that more of what's said in private and public should match, and Julian pointed out that the peace process might be moved forward and Iran might come to the negotiating table all due at least in part on account of WikiLeaks leaks], although I don't think Netanyahu isn't just a transparent elitist. I do know that within the context in which Assange was speaking, Netanyahu does come off as a, well, crafty politician. He's certainly yanked Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton around, not that they have tried very hard to stand up to the Zionist Lobby in the US or to the Likudniks in Israel. Still, Obama has been the fool vis-a-vis Netanyahu.
In addition, I explained that Assange actually was embarrassing Murdoch that Rupert wasn't standing up the way Rupert's father had once stood up concerning Gallipoli (if memory serves). He was not praising Murdoch by way of calling him to stand up as his father had once. It was only one issue. No one asked Julian for he views concerning all things Murdoch, father or son.
We do know that Julian has stated openly that part of his "insurance package" includes 500-plus [count ?] documents covering Murdoch and FOX, not flattering to say the least. That doesn't sound like the move of someone subservient or friendly or praising of Murdoch to me.
So, what I'm suggesting is that when you write about the subject, you at least include the other take on both Netanyahu and Murdoch. Some journalist should have asked Julian to clarify about these things already, but I'm assuming that they all just don't even want to "dignify" it with questions. I don't like that approach at all. There may be times and places for it, but it doesn't apply here.
Let me also add that I think Julian has not spent nearly enough time looking into 9/11, especially the cover-up via the 9/11 Commission and the issue of Building 7, which is the sore thumb for all but the hypnotized. It did not fall from the fires or the damage from the other buildings falling. It just did not happen that way. The odds of a steel and concrete building with so little fire and so little damage, all of which was far from uniform, falling straight down and at the speed at which it came down very nearly on cue (they were moving people back because they knew it was going to come down), are so astronomically remote as to render them impossible. Assange though has rather taken a strange center-left "liberal" view of it, which frankly has been a large part of his problem concerning Israel — not having it higher on his list of priorities.
Lastly, I think you may have missed my point concerning the ADL. It was directed at the Duff clique. They all seem to hate Israel Shamir but without ever producing any reason to do so.
No, I have not met him; but of course, that's not relevant to my commentary here. Perhaps you were simply asking in passing.
As for me, no offense intended and none taken regarding anything in this thread where the two of us are concerned.
Duff and his spinning group do offend though. I don't hide it.
Sunday at 1:35am
WIKILEAKS SERIES Information
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)