Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Of Motes, Beams, and Holy Wars

 In his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison famously denounced the proposal that Virginians -- or, for that matter, Americans anywhere else -- be compelled to pay so much as "three pence" to support the establishment of religion.

A lawsuit filed in late 2008 by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Iraq War veteran Kevin J. Murray accuses the federal government (particularly Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors) of violating Madison's "three pence" standard by indirectly financing "Sharia-Compliant" investments by way of the American International Group (AIG).

By the time it was nationalized in September 2008, AIG was practically worthless, as its former CEO Maurice Greenberg admitted. It was useful only as a way to facilitate a "backdoor bailout" of Goldman Sachs. Once AIG was nationalized -- an action that was unconstitutional on its face, in addition to being a world-historic crime -- some of the wealth plundered from taxpayers ended up being used to fund and promote "Sharia-compliant" financial services in Muslim markets.

PBUH: Sharia's champion in Iraq.

"As a Christian, a federal taxpayer, and a former U.S. Marine veteran of the war against Islamic terrorism, Plaintiff objects to and is harmed by the appropriation of disbursement of public funds to AIG and being forced as a taxpayer to contribute to the propagation of Islamic beliefs and practices predicated upon Shariah law," insisted the original version of the lawsuit, which named former Treasury Secretary (and former Goldman CEO) Henry Paulson as a plaintiff.

Murray "objects to and is harmed by the United States government's policy and practice of approving, endorsing, promoting, funding, and supporting Sharia-compliant finance," asserts the lawsuit. "The government's endorsement of Islamic law sends a message to Plaintiff, who is a non-adherent to Islam, that he is an outsider, not a full member of the political community, and an accompanying message to those who are adherents to Islam that they are insiders, favored members of the political community," continues the brief, which was written by someone who is a stranger to concision.

The specific amount extorted from Murray to subsidize AIG's "Sharia-compliant" investments may be infinitesimal, but under Madison's "three pence" standard, it's the principle that matters, not the size of the injury.

 A demand for summary judgment filed by the More Center earlier this year invoked the Supreme Court's 1947 ruling in Everson v. Board of Education that "No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion."

Warbots gag on these...
 Murray's contention that no American should be forced to subsidize Sharia in any form is incontestably correct, as is his objection to the utterly unconstitutional federal takeover of AIG. However, it's difficult to see how he has standing to sue, given that he volunteered his services to establish Sharia law in Iraq and Afghanistan -- a fact proudly detailed in his lawsuit.
"From March 2003 to October 2003, Plaintiff was deployed overseas in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom," recounts the lawsuit. "During this time, Plaintiff served as a Marine infantryman and was tasked with providing security for vital refueling and arming points throughout the initial combat phase of the war. These duties consisted of countless and stressful hours devoted to convoy security, manning perimeter defensive positions, and conducting combat patrols in hostile enemy territory in numerous locations throughout southern Iraq." 

Thanks to Murray's efforts, and those offered by hundreds of thousands of other Americans in uniform -- not to mention an estimated $3 trillion stolen from American taxpayers -- Sharia law is now firmly established in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This fact is acknowledged by Stephen C. Coughlin, an attorney and Major in the U.S. Army Reserve who is, according to his bio, "often cited as the Pentagon's leading expert on the nexus between Islamic law and jihad."

"The direct subordination of the law of the land to Shari'ah is reflected in the national constitutions of many Islamic countries, including the Constitutions the United States Government had oversight in drafting -- both Afghanistan and Iraq," writes Maj. Coughlin:

"For example, Article 2 of the Iraqi Constitution states that `Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation.[...] No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.' The Constitution of Afghanistan makes the association as well in Article 2 [Religions] where it states (1) The religion of the State of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam (2) Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law" -- the latter qualification effectively defining out of existence the "free exercise" clause immediately preceding it.

... but swallow these in a single gulp.

Maj. Coughlin's analysis is devastating to Murray's argument, which rests on the idea that he suffers a tangible and continuing injury by being forced to subsidize, in minuscule amounts, some peripheral business dealings by AIG.

How can it be an unendurable affront to be forced to surrender "three pence" to promote Sharia-compliant investments, when the Regime ruling us has spent three trillion (and counting) to impose Sharia law at gunpoint?

Ironically, Coughlin's cogent summary of Washington's role in promoting Sharia comes in a statement he filed as an "expert witness" on behalf of Murray's lawsuit.

Those seeking to define, by illustration, the expression "testimony against interest" need look no further.

Just weeks ago, Wadea Al Handal, chairman of Iraq's Ashur International Bank,  announced that he was awaiting approval from the country's Central Bank to offer "Islamic banking services."

"There is certainly clear interest in the Islamic market in Iraq but it is still a new idea for many," Handal told Reuters. "It's an education process ... we didn't really have much Islamic banking before."

What he meant, of course, is that there wasn't much of an Iraqi market for Islamic banking "before" Kevin Murray and his colleagues were sent to inflict a Sharia-centered government on that long-suffering country. Now, however, Handal has new opportunities to offer "lending services on a Sharia-compliant basis in order to tap growing interest in the market."

Washington remains deeply involved in taxpayer-subsidized "reconstruction" projects in Iraq designed to entrench and strengthen a government rooted in Sharia law. Why isn't the Thomas More Center suing to end that ongoing outrage? Why doesn't it file a suit seeking redress of damages inflicted on Murray as a result of deceiving him into risking his life in order to promote Islamic rule?
Yerushalmi in Israel with the late Jack Kemp.
One possible answer is suggested by the fact that David Yerushalmi, the Arizona-based attorney acting as co-lead counsel in the AIG case, is General Counsel to the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a Pentagon front group headed by febrile neo-con war hyena Frank Gaffney. Both Gaffney and his group energetically supported the war in Iraq, in which thousands of Americans (and tens of thousands of Iraqis) died to create a political order ruled by Sharia law.

Yerushalmi is one of the War Party's most energetic social networkers. He is a co-founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, an insta-demagogue group (just add flying spittle!)  working to drive the terminally credulous into a frenzy over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque

Yerushalmi considers it "morally reprehensible and intolerable" to forbid the torture of "terrorists," a term he uses as a functional synonym for "Muslim." He is the founder of a secretive vigilante group calling itself the Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), which has set out to "map" every center of Islamic worship and culture in the United States on the assumption that each of them is involved in a plot to overthrow the government.

 The co-founder of SANE, which is headquartered in Yerushalmi's Arizona law office, is Dave Gaubatz, who served 12 years in the U.S. Air Force's Office of Special Operations. Three years ago Gaubatz made the remarkable -- and completely unverified -- claim that he "discovered" Saddam's WMD bunkers, which (he insists) were vacant after the illicit weapons had been shipped to Syria, Iran, and other likely targets of armed "liberation" by Washington.

Shortly after its creation, SANE's leadership enacted a resolution calling on Congress to enact legislation making it "a felony punishable by 20 years in prison" knowingly to "act in furtherance of, or to support the adherence to, Shar'ia."

If Yerushalmi were serious about that proposal, wouldn't he have to seek the imprisonment of his client -- as well as the elected and appointed officials who dispatched him (and hundreds of thousands of other Americans) to promote Islamist rule in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Thanks so much for your help in keeping Pro Libertate on-line; God bless! 

Please tune in each Saturday night (8:00 - 11:00 Mountain Time) for Pro Libertate Radio on the Liberty News Radio Network.  

Dum spiro, pugno!


Anonymous said...

Ironic. It's like a bad monster movie, where the clueless military blows up the beast, only the discover by doing so the fragments of the original monster beget more monsters!

As Kurt Vonnegut once said; "And so it goes"

Anonymous said...

I like the (fairly new) argument that we are actually fomenting Sharia Law in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If I understand correctly, this is based on the belief that their respective constitutions (which we had a hand in crafting) establish Islam as the official state religion and therefore subject the citizens to the court system of Sharia which is a tenet of Islam?
Can you clarify?
Keep up the good work!

liberranter said...

Assuming that they could follow the proverbial "bouncing ball" (a highly doubtful proposition at best) that is the clear and obvious logic behind this article, can you imagine the brain(?)-frying agony that would result among "Warvangelical 'Christians'" once the realization sets in that "their" president used "their" troops to plant the seeds of a new Islamic Caliphate?

Me neither. Most likely they'd push it out of their minds before it would ever set in. Brainless submission to the ideological status quo is much less painful.

Anonymous said...

...an instant demagogue group - just add flying spittle... Classic line -had me laughing for awhile

Anonymous said...

It's a paradigm shattering argument against the xenophobic war mongerers. I do believe that some people might actually short circuit and we may see several explosions here in the US of many neocon's heads.

Unfortunately so, it will most likely be met with denial and "shut up liberal" from anyone who is posed with this great facet of irony.

Anonymous said...

It's the normal wailing and gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects. God's so-called "Chosen" people are good at that.

Muhammad said...

Excellent article, this, but I should point out that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan under the puppets actually follow the Shari'a. If they did, they would evict the invading forces forthwith, and behead any and all who have cooperated with them in the slaughter of their people and destruction of their property. It would be nice for people to actually read up on what the Shari'a actually entails, and not just take the word of anyone who claims to be following and implementing it.

liberranter said...

It would be nice for people to actually read up on what the Shari'a actually entails, and not just take the word of anyone who claims to be following and implementing it.

Very true, but if there is one thing that appears to be consistent across religious faiths, it's laziness. Why read sacred texts, which tend to be written in language that requires the reader to employ critical thought processes in order to ingest their meaning, when you can rely on "experts" to interpret them for you and spoon-feed you their pre-digested messages (never mind how heavily adulterated said "messages" are with impurities imparted by the interpreter; they go down smoothly nevertheless)? Most people, of all faiths, do exactly that. This, methinks, goes a long way toward explaining the last 3,500 years of human "civilization," a time span that coincides roughly with the evolution of the world's three most influential religious faiths, all of which have a central message of peace, love for one's fellow man, and obedience to God, and yet have managed to keep the world embroiled in almost constant warfare except for a total of 230 years.

Anonymous said...

The most extreme example of the US government establishing a religion would have to be the U.S. Holocaust Museum.

Its board is named by the president, under what appears to be an unwritten ethnic preference rule of 'Jews only.'

And, Usgov provides about $40 million a year in funding to a museum whose essential purpose is to promote a message of 'unique victimhood' suffered by Jews on account of their religion.

However sympathetic one may be to this view, it's hard to justify government funding of a museum dedicated to a tragedy which was committed by Europeans, upon Europeans, in Europe. Where is the public purpose in the US context?

I would argue there is none -- only private, religious purpose, supported with government funding in flagrant violation of Amendment I. But no one dares to speak out, for fear of the catcalls of 'antisemitism.'

Tim Kelly said...

The biggest promoter of Islamic radicialism in the last 50 years has been the US government.

The CIA stirred up radical Islamic dissent in Iran during its coup against the secular and democratic Mossadegh government. The CIA also backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a foil to Arab nationalism. In the 1970s and 80s the US promoted Islamic radicalism by supporting the Mujahideen in Afganistan against the Soviets. And as Mr Grigg points out, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 deposed a tyrannical yet secular autocrat and has resulted in the imposition of Sharia law throughout most of the country.

Anonymous said...

Will, great article !

The US Federal Government, has become for too many Americans, the altar at which they, in effect, worship.

They give it every attribute Christians KNOW belongs to God, Alone.

Idolatrous religions always attempt to ape the attributes of God Almighty & His Christ.

Onmiscience generates the Surveillance State.

Omnipotence generates the Police State at home & Warfare State abroad.

Omnipresence generates Federal encroachment over self, family, church, and local government.

"If we rendered everything to God that truly belongs to Him, there would be nothing left for Caesar."

The converse is true: Statism is turning Caesar into God is the most base form of Idolatry.

I think this explains, in part, why the US govt, which has become an enemy of the normal, Christian citizens of the States, fosters idolatry - and will support ANY religion, or depravity, as long as it can be used as a tool against "We the People", the citizen sovereigns.

My advice: Stop supporting gov't at every level - ignore their forms, mandates & taxes at every opportunity.

Stop taking government contracts, money or favors - in short, stop looting your neighbor using the politcians as a proxy.

The REAL government is you & your house, me & my house, rendering obedience to God - in all it's forms.

If we do this, we won't want any level of gov't to educate our children, teach any classes, run any services, regulate any businesses, fund any charities, relieve any diasters or pull any strings.

Self government, under God, revolutionized this nation at the first, and it will do so again - will you ?

Gratis, Will, love your writing and feel we know you from it - enjoyed you since your days at The New American....

Blessings to you & your house, in Christ,

David A.
Texas Republic

Anonymous said...

Investing in Sharia compliant law would be smart, especially considering that many here are in favor of hard money. Sharia finance offers an investment system that Libertarians should study. If nothing else it offers a hedge and diversification.

I will bet that the Muslim world will out pace the West in financial growth.

The author makes the logical mistake of reifying Sharia (making it a thing) where Sharia comprises a body of law, with case law similar to British Common Law. In fact, it is out of Cordova Spain that the West and the British developed much of the Common Law system. Propagandist for the various Euro Gov'ts and the Catholic Church have occluded this from us.

But, Sharia compliant finance is not Sharia law. It simply complies with the Judeo-Christian prohibition of usury, which was lightly discarded years ago. Ideally investing in Muslim countries would involve investing in Sharia compliant law.

Again, this assumes that Muslim countries are such and not as corrupted as our own. Some gov'ts are better than others, and all fall short.

Our bailout of Goldman Sachs and other too big to fail banks that turned their bailout funds into commodities speculation are guilty of investing in Sharia as well--for they've poured vast sums into oil futures in guess which countries.

The advice of Jim Rogers and other Oriental-centric investors focuses too much on China and India. We would all be smart to invest in emerging economies which are resource rich. One can't do that without supporting "Sharia" compliant firms.

Vilifying "Sharia compliant" funds is as nonsensical as vilifying "legally compliant" firms in the West. Only Common Law is less rooted in morality as it's been eaten and shot through with compromises and loopholes for the benefit of those with access to our legislatures and regulators.

Scott in Dallas

P.M.Lawrence said...

Tim Kelly wrote "The CIA stirred up radical Islamic dissent in Iran during its coup against the secular and democratic Mossadegh government".

It wasn't democratic. By the time he was overthrown, Mossadegh had already improperly dismissed parliament and was ruling dictatorially.

molecule said...

awesome article and comments as well!

David A. of Texas Republic (if Texas seceded, Mexican Marxists financed by China will gobble it up in a NY minute) was right on when he said "Statism [and Satanism] is turning Caesar into God ... the most base form of Idolatry."

Similarly, the most base form of Usury is turning paper money (made by Caesar) into real money (made by God, and belonging to Him).

Thus in Hebrew, Na-Shek (usury) is not-silver, where Na is not, and Shek is silver, and Shekel is little silver, as in coin.

Scott in Dalas said: "Investing in Sharia compliant law would be smart, especially considering that many here are in favor of hard money. Sharia finance offers an investment system that Libertarians should study."

Many people fail to understand that Sharia law is just the TALMUD morphed into "a new, simplified, codified system of law" for the followers of the teachings of Mohammed.

In the Qur'an, usury is more akin to the idea that you cannot lend something from Caesar, and expect something from God in return. Even if only 0.01%. There is no such thing in the Qur'an as "Sharia finance." In the Qur'an, all forms of "finance" are usury, in that they propose conversion of something of not-of-God (of man, fake, unreal) into something of-God (real, and living). In Sharia Law (which is just the Babylonian TALMUD rephrased so that it appears to be following the teachings of Mohammed) usury is more an idea of numerical interest rate, and percentage of "participation."

Much as the Talmud turns much of the OT on its head (not by accident) so also does Sharia law (laws of man, written down so they can be understood by donkeys) turn much of the teaching of Mohammed on its head. It's done by introducing the smallest of changes in the placement and meanings of words.

Look at where we are at war ... all Sunni areas that basically reject the Babylonian- Talmudic- reductionist ideas of Sharia booklaw ... Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and India, and on and on. BTW, the Saudis are not Sunnis. They are the biggest proponents of the Talmudic-like Sharia law.

I'd be interesed in any thoughts on this, as well as my comment on http://mantiqaltayr.wordpress.com/2010/08/18/mantiq-brief-observations-from-dublin


JohnS said...

Hi Will, this is off topic, but I thought you might appreciate it. The Free Talk Live radio show had Lew Rockwell as a guest on Monday's show and Ian Freeman(the host) and Lew both had some really nice things to say about you. Hope it brightens your day. Here's the link:


Apologies if you've already been bombarded with similar messages.


glen howard said...

William, I have just donated to your site, have followed your columns on your own blog and on LRC.

I am a Canadian, but still am proud of your dedication to freedom. What a wonderful service you are providing with this blog, not only to americans, but to lovers of freedom everywhere.

In Canada, perhaps even more so than in the States, people are too willing to accept police accounts of any incident.

The mounting evidence that you present, that once again power corrupts, is very important to the cause of freedom everywhere.

When one hands over power to a third party, one can't really control it.

Thank you for the service you provide, and I hope my small contribution will help.

Ex-JBS said...

glen howard said:

William, I have just donated to your site, have followed your columns on your own blog and on LRC... Thank you for the service you provide, and I hope my small contribution will help.

Mr. Howard, I share your heartfelt expression of gratitude to Will Grigg, and applaud your willingness to help fund his efforts to continue his blog.

Many of us have given membership dues and donations to 'freedom' organizations - and have even subscribed to their publications. But I can think of no better way to promote the cause of Christian liberty than to keep Will's blog active with our gifts of appreciation.

dixiedog said...

Great piece, as usual, Will. Yet another fine example of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance that are the prevailing ailments (along with chronic dependency) of the damned mundanes today. You know, like folk who might just scream such perverse incantations as, "Get the government out of...my Medicare!....my Social Security!...my wallet!...[ad infinitum, ad nauseam!]" while in the same putrid breath, belch something like "Freeeeeeeeeedom!..." and other meaningless bullsense blather. Cognitive dissonance, indeed.

Sigh...it's at least gratifying that some libertarian and some constitutionalist commentators are apparently awakening (or perhaps were already, but just hadn't pounded the "mere" damned mundanes sufficiently in their faces with the literal truth yet, being terrified of a backlash I suppose) to the fact and writing that the primary problem(s) that afflict America stem from US, ourselves, WE the damned and, nowadays, most dependably statist commoner folk on the planet! Something I've long made a point of here, here, here and...sigh...here as well as other more recent past posts.

Many of the people are addicted to some level of dependency upon Leviathan, some much more than others, for just about everything from sustenance, protection at home and at work, perfection at home and at work, schooling, "work" itself!, child-rearing assistance, etc., etc. Meanwhile, we whine about why oh why Leviathan wasn't literally present or a liberty-constraining statute wasn't on the books to prevent a given mishap, accident, or even a malice in question. True freedom and liberty won't ever make a comeback within a country that is populated with a mindless majority herd of damned, greedy, easily-offended, litigious, gluttonous, fearful crybaby mundanes.

There's just simply no "dainty" lighthearted way to describe us. It's time to be candid about our "collective" character and the reason true freedom has all but died in America. Unless the mundanes at large change their own corrupt character and know and respect what the national constitution (and their respective state constitution) says and means, and demand it be adhered to by their leaders, the commoners can't possibly expect those within the local, state, federal halls of power to be any different.


dixiedog said...


Lastly, a sidenote about the plan to build the mosque up yonder. I can say with full confidence that the potential unsanitary conditions of a gnat's derriere is of way more importance to me than whether the hopelessly statist, damned mundanes residing in and around about the Hellhole-on-the-Hudson are about to bust a capillary over yet another mosque in their midst. The "mere" mundanes up there, as everywhere else, are utterly unable to see the big picture anyhow that the real issue is the commoner appetite for Leviathan's subsidies in the first damn place.

It's interesting to note that the St. Nicolas Greek Orthodox Church has not been able to rebuild their church, which had already existed near GZ since 1916, yet the proposed building of the mosque was moving forward without restrictions. No surprise there as I believe the Saudi regime is likely providing a major chunk of the funding (covertly of course) for the construction of said mosque and the American politicos are always bowing to please the Saudis. Connect-the-dots.

Putting the matter of the mosque aside, if the church accepts Leviathan's largess, it also accepts by extension its restrictions/control as well.

Ergo, not much sympathy from me.

Anonymous said...

Dixie Dog said, "Many of the people are addicted to some level of dependency upon Leviathan, some much more than others, for just about everything from sustenance, protection at home and at work . . . ."

Oh, so true. But be sure your house isn't glass, too, ya know? Do you use a social security number? Do you submit to a driver's license protection-from-the-cops racquet? Register your car for the same reasons? Pay income taxes? Kind of hard to ponder what would happen to your status quo were you to fling off these chains of oppression, isn't it? But by maintaining them for fear of the consequences, you are living in the same house and sleeping in the same bed as the mere damn mundanes. You just see the bars on the windows and 'gators in the moat where they do not.

Bob said...

Another solid column, Will.

dixiedog said...

Do you use a social security number?

Yep. I have to ask this, though. Do you grok the difference b/w dependency on Leviathan that you choose/chose yourself and a pre-existing (before we ourselves existed) LAW mandating being "stamped" with a number at birth by Leviathan, for which you or I obviously had no say whether we wanted it or not? Needless to say, I have doubts.

Do you submit to a driver's license protection-from-the-cops racquet? Register your car for the same reasons?

Yep, and it's certainly no "protection" from the coppers. Once again, the LAW that mandates a license and vehicle registration to drive upon the highways and byways of Virginia pre-dated my existence and cost me money to pay the state for the damned privilege, not the state (and therefore other "mere" damned mundanes) paying me for anything. Capisce?

Pay income taxes?

Ditto...Out of my pocket, Mr. Anon @ 3:38 PM, not yours.

Consequences, as is freedom, are relative concepts. Sure, for such things as taxes, vehicle licenses, vehicle registrations and such like I'll follow the LAW, but not restrictions/bans on basic rights such as firearm/knife ownership and some other areas that are nowadays mandated by Leviathan. I simply ignore those.

To each his/her own; everyone has a line in the sand of what they'll acquiesce to and what they won't. Some folk are more spongy/less spongy than others (depending on the issue in question).

Anonymous said...

"if the church accepts Leviathan's largess, it also accepts by extension its restrictions/control as well.... - Dixie"

Damn straight! That's why the mainstream church in America toes the propagandist lies put forth by Big Brother. It doesn't want to "lose" its tax status. How disgusting! Why not finally throw those velvet covered chains off and speak the truth for once and damn the governmental torpedoes? Just how cowardly and in cahoots with Leviathan is the Church? Answer: Plenty!

TJP said...

This is an unexpected argument from our host, but I guess there are few other options when a beam goes unnoticed.

Years ago some folks tried to make the point that Iraqis were unable to understand "freedom" like al Ameriki, and therefore unable establish a "Jeffersonian Democracy". Aside from the fact that nearly all of the state-indoctrinated inhabitants of this land understand fascist corporatism to be "Jeffersonian Democracy", the perspective appears to be inverted. The question we should ask is, do Westerners understand Islam enough to interfere is the affairs of Muslims?" It should come as no surprise that when the Iraqi Muslims lost their dictator and once again had autonomy, they chose Islam, or to submit to God's will, and the traditional, earthly institution which determines such.

I am thoroughly confused by my fellow Westerners. There were more liberal Islamic schools in the past, but they dissolved hundreds of years ago. We can't throw Big Macs and hot lead in the desert and expect this to sprout a new, internally-consistent and widely-accepted Islamic school. Even if this were remotely possible, the West greatly diminished its chances of success by supporting Jiffy-Pop Juntas which relegated sharia courts to dealing with fender benders and shoplifting.

If the West wants stability in Iraq, the binding thread between the factions will be Islamic law. There will necessarily be an exchange of gunfire before there's an exchange of handshakes.

Also: there's a difference between law-abiding and dictate-compliant.

p.s. Why is there such a fear of sharia in this country? Is it because of the "power vacuum" that will be left behind when our corrupt central government collapses? Stop putting all your eggs in one basket.

Anonymous said...

Dixie, Dixie, brother,

Do you still not know that there are no laws requiring you to pay the income tax? Do you still not know that unless your state's constitution was altered by due process by the people to allow such a thing, the driving statutes, where they are restrictive, apply only to commercial vehicles and commercial drivers, which things are very narrowly defined?

Do you not know that you can revoke your SSN since your parents were clearly insane when they stamped you with it at birth? Of course, the Beast will always keep the number on file for you in case you would like to chicken out and come back to it like a dog to its vomit, but no one holds a gun to your head to make you use it, do they? Not talking metaphorically here. If no one is holding a gun to your head at a bank, while applying for credit, etc, then you have a choice. You may not like the choice much, but you have one.

The old "it was here before I was" canard can't hold water. Plenty of bad things were set up to enslave you before you were ever born, but you don't subscribe to them all, do you? If you want things to change for the better, then you can't cower under the old symbols of slavery and accept them just because Mom, Dad, Grandma and Grandpa taught you to.

There's plenty of websites that would love to teach you the truth about income taxes and driving issues. What could it hurt to poke around and see what turns up? Oh, I know. It would hurt the status quo.

A lot.