Are Religious Leaders Prepared to Engage “Religious Liberty” Questions Post-Hobby Lobby?

Popular coverage of the fallout from the Hobby Lobby decision has largely fallen off, but the impact of the decision continues to reverberate in subsequent lawsuits and court decisions, as reported on RD by Patti Miller and others. But why isn’t the decision reverberating through the pulpit, testing theological interpretations among the faith communities that such warriors of religious liberty ostensibly claim to protect? Under Hobby Lobby, religious beliefs will guide your healthcare decisions. Those beliefs just may not be your own.

The Hobby Lobby decision has now made it possible for corporations and individuals to enter doctors’ offices, imposing their own religiously-based standards of healthcare, ethics, and access on others. This too is an issue of religious liberty for the thousands of persons potentially affected by the decision.

Those now denied access to legally-mandated contraceptive coverage hold equal protection under the Constitution and are afforded the same rights of religious liberty, which rightly extends to the ability to determine if and how religious belief (or lack thereof) will play a role in personal healthcare decisions. All persons are entitled to the ethical autonomy to elect from the full range of legal and recommended medical services afforded under the law.

For the numerous religious leaders committed to the free exercise of religion in a pluralistic society, the ongoing consequences of the Hobby Lobby decision should be encountered as deeply distressing. And yet, the heavy burden of unpacking the implications of Hobby Lobby (and subsequent cases) has generally fallen to think tanks and nonprofit advocacy groups whose whitepapers and public statements are frequently no match for the juggernaut of popular media talking points.

The U.S. is home to a multitude of religious believers who seek, in good conscience, to honor both the tenets of their own religion and the practices of others. However, confusion about the nature of religious liberty seems poised to allow a quiet slide towards a tyranny of the minority over the bodies, legal rights, and consciences of well-intentioned religious faithful.

And most distressing is that it will be women’s bodies, once again, under the thumb of warped legal, theological, and ethical understandings of proper religious practice. People of faith will be especially shaped by the public narratives about “religious liberty” now inextricably linked to women’s reproductive healthcare and the practice of family planning by both women and men.

As an ordained United Methodist minister and theological educator, I speak with greatest familiarity from a place of Protestant religious leadership. However, I am of the firm conviction that most mainline religious leaders in the U.S. share commitments to pluralism, reason, and the free choice to exercise or refrain from exercising religious belief in this country. We must find ways to reach our congregations, which are comprised of the voters, influencers and politically disenfranchised alike.

Religious leaders need to help their congregations tell the story of American religious freedom, both its successes and its failures.

Celebrate the ways religious liberty provides the crucial bulwark that allows for pluralism of belief and experience: offer special worship services, sermons, education programs, and social media outreach efforts that critically engage the tensions between freedom and liberty in religious practice and American citizenship; take a stand in the pulpit for the legal and moral place of competing religious convictions; explicitly honor the lives of women and children by calling for the provision of adequate healthcare and family planning services unhindered by an employer’s religious convictions; affirm the right of individuals to exercise their own consciences as they consult with doctors on the healthcare options they are entitled to under the law; strongly criticize interpretations of legal protection that assert the personhood and conscience of a corporation over that of the individual.

The Roberts court may think differently, but last time I checked, the Bible, Torah, and Qur’an all offer some pretty good material to get us started.

247 Comments

  • SWhaption6548@gustr.com' Frank6548 says:

    No one is preventing anyone from buying the contraceptive of choice.

  • truktyre@hotmail.com' Craptacular says:

    “And most distressing is that it will be women’s bodies, once again, under the thumb of warped legal, theological, and ethical understandings of proper religious practice.” – Carolyn Davis

    That’s because “healthcare” in the US seems to be comprised of an individual’s entire mind-body, except the naughty bits…for some reason some people feel they have a say in others’ reproductive choices.

    The argument against providing low or no cost contraception is laughably thin…future generations will look back on this time the way we now look back on those that defended slavery.

    I sometimes can’t believe we are arguing about this in 2014. Of course, I can’t believe my high school (class of 1982) had a racially segregated prom, graduation, homecoming queen, etc. Unsurprisingly, resistance to the contraception mandate gets a lot of traction there, despite the fact that the south will probably be one of the primary beneficiaries of the mandate.

  • dkeane123@comcast.net' DKeane123 says:

    Really – in 1982?

  • dodgegirl65@yahoo.com' EvenIfYourVoiceShakes says:

    Yes, they are. When the contraceptive of choice is only available via doctor’s prescription, women’s choices are dramatically reduced. Men’s choices seem to be available over the counter.

  • cgoslingpbc@aol.com' cgosling says:

    All would be well except for a stacked Supreme Court of old religious males. Blame for this and the loss of lives in unnecessary wars, and costly dips in our economy can be attributed to a puppet ex-president who presently has no idea how much harm his incompetence caused the nation.

  • tojby_2000@yahoo.com' apotropoxy says:

    Religionists can argue that a dollar earned by labor has the potential to be spent on abortions, contraceptives and every other form of immorality and they’d be right.
    Should faith-based corporations be allowed to pay their employees in a script that can only be redeemed at it-network providers who share their morality thereby avoiding US currency all together?

  • motherlodebeth@aol.com' Beth DeRoos says:

    As a woman as a Christian and a Libertarian I am asking why should anyone but ME be responsible for my family planning choices?

    And why should an employer who is paying the medical coverage have to cover something that goes against his/her sincere religious beliefs?

    This whole nanny state mentality is so wrong. Nowhere in ‘life liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ does it note that the government or an employer should pay for my ‘life liberty and my pursuit of happiness’.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    If you want to use materials from the Bible, Torah, and Qur’an you need to be pretty selective in which parts and how you present them to your congregation. They all suffer from the problem of a belief structure that starts with the assumption that if you go back far enough in time, you reach a point where God was walking among men and teaching them about optimal ways of living, and also about what were back then otherwise unknowable areas of knowledge like science. The theory is after a while, God stopped spending that time talking to people, so now the only way to know God’s word is to read those old scriptures. Some of us have come to a conclusion that this is a crazy and highly dangerous kind of belief in the modern world. There is far more understanding of better ways of living in different parts of the media of today than can be found in those old manuscripts.

  • motherlodebeth@aol.com' Beth DeRoos says:

    How is anyone [preventing any woman from buying their contraceptive of choice? Cannot a woman make a doctors apointment,get a prescription, take it to the drug store and pay for it?

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    The government does have to decide what they think would be in the interests of the nation as a whole. As the common man is more and more crushed by the rich, social programs will become more important, and something we need to protect with our vote.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    In countries with socialized medicine they can. In our country, those appointments are not available to everyone.

  • SWhaption6548@gustr.com' Frank6548 says:

    No one stopping your doctor from using his medical knowledge to write a prescription.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    If she can afford it, yes. The thing is, retail, including HL, pay very poorly, and if you are only taking home a couple of hundred a week, it is damn hard to meet living expenses, let alone go to a doctor and pay for a scrip out of pocket.

    The concept of insurance is that it is morally neutral. Everyone pays into the pot, and when someone needs to make a claim, they do so. That claim is between the insurance provider, the insured, and the provider of the goods/services needed.

    When an employer pays for group insurance – or part of it, because most employers only pay part, leaving the employee to also pay part – it is part of the total compensation package of the employee. It is the employee’s compensation, and the employer shouldn’t have a say in how it is used, any more than a teetotaler employer could demand his employees not spend part of their paycheck on beer.

    The HL decision was a bad one, no matter how you feel about contraceptives. It opened a can of worms, and they are NOT going back in the can. You claim to be a reader, well go read some of the analyses of the decision by business law people.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    Frank, have you ever worked retail? Do you know how hard it is to make ends meet – without any extra expenses – on retail pay? Even as management, my pay was basically poverty level.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    They’d probably like to. Back to the days of the “company store”.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    Ah, but you obviously approve of the nanny state when it suits YOUR moral causes. That’s the hypocrisy that Xtians do not seem able to see.

  • SWhaption6548@gustr.com' Frank6548 says:

    There are many things I’d prefer to have that I can’t afford. So I drive a Hyundai instead of a Mercedes.

    Condoms are free.

  • dennis@fpaofnys.org' Rabbi Dennis S. Ross says:

    Thanks, Carolyn. Great points. I did a good amount of writing before the decision, and the points back then still speak to us today. You can find them at http://rhrealitycheck.org/author/rabbi-dennis-s-ross/

  • Thank you, Rabbi Ross. I look forward to reading!

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Thanks again to RD for explaining how the Religion of Socialism is SCREAMING mad about the Hobby Lobby ruling. No contraceptive was outlawed by the ruling. What was outlawed was the government FORCING me and other “persons”to pay for things for other people, that we oppose on moral grounds.

    I support Hobby Lobby in that you don’t have to pay for me and I don’t have to pay for you. But this is what makes those that hate Hobby Lobby angry. They just scream about not having access to contraceptives that they DEMAND other pay for. That is their religion. Having others pay. It is the religion of Marxism. It is the religion of Maoism. It is the religion of Socialism and the RFRA has become of weapon against that Satanic religion.

    CAROLYN DAVIS want “persons” to pay so that they can receive what they want paid for by others.

    Socialism is religiously abhorrent to me. It is Satanic. I eschew it. I refuse to be a part of it in anyway. (All taxes are not socialist in nature. Gas and sales taxes are not Socialist and they pay for roads etc.) But if I refuse to pay into or support Socialist programs, like ObamaCare, then Socialists believe I am out to stop women from screwing who, how and when they want to. Or that I would want to stop them from having abortions. The truth is I hope they screw where, when and who they want to and reap the natural benefits of such acts (fun, passion, disease, pregnancy, love, heartache etc.). I hope they abort every child that inhabits their wombs if that is what they choose to do. I just will not pay for it.

    So pay for your own bloody religion and I will pay for mine.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    Hmm. Last time I was at Walmart, they were SELLING condoms. They were FAR from free. And guess what? Where I live, the only “family planning” centers are 125 miles away – all we have are “crisis pregnancy centers” run by abstinence only fundies. So, no, no free condoms here. Besides, even if they were, they do not address the medical things, like painful periods, endometriosis, etc, and nor are they as effective as other methods.

  • zinealine@gmail.com' cranefly says:

    The same reason anyone but YOU is involved in cancer treatment, heart medicine, vaccinations, etc. Because these are complicated medical and economic issues. It’s not like buying home decor.

  • jimbentn@verizon.net' Jim 'Prup' Benton says:

    I want to suggest one way you have of reaching your constituents — who are also voters — and that is by working together with as many different denominations in your location to make a public protest against the highjacking of the word “Christian” by a small, warped, narrow and narrow-minded minority — and frequently only by the spokesmen of these groups. If you just choose to make it a ‘feel-good campaign’ you can merely have a billboard or flyer with representatives and clergy from as wide a range of denominations as is available, with a line “We’re all Christians too”
    On the other hand, you could use the same idea ‘politically’ by using the same picture as the bottom half of the second flyer, but decorate the top with quotes and pictures from those who try and claim “Christianity” means their type of Christianity — and that to be a ‘true Christian’ you must believe like they do and hate like they do. And after the “…all Christians too.” add something like, “Christianity has many voices, many disagreements, many views and every subject, Listen to them all before you decide what Christianity means to you, just don’t listen to the ones who would deny us our voices.”
    And one thing that is always useful is — in some way — to heighten Christian awareness of Jesus as primarily a teacher, and not just some sort of mystical “Get Out of Hell Free” card. And particularly stress the sermons and preachings rather than the private conversations that (to me, and if you don’t know me from past comments I am an atheist who respects believers and who has no doubt — unlike some non-believers — that Jesus was a real person) are the most likely to be reliable.
    (Oh, and to answer the Christian women-subjectors — whose scriptural basis seems to be the late Timothy and Titus and later additions (by Tertullian?) to Pauline Epistles — you might remind them of how frequently Paul sent his epistles by women, and that he commanded the churches to listen to her as if she were Paul — which means she was, at Paul’s instruction, preaching.)

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Mormon Offshoot Cites Hobby Lobby In Child Labor Lawsuit

    http://time.com/3388117/flds-successfully-cites-hobby-lobby-decision-in-child-labor-suit/

    A judge ruled that a member of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus
    Christ of Latter-Day Saints was exempted from testifying in a child
    labor case. The the ruling, which went viral Tuesday, referred to
    Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. The judge determined that testifying would
    be a “substantial burden” to the FLDS member’s right to free
    exercise of religion.

    A very interesting ruling:
    https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?213cv0281-121

    Used properly a religious organization can use this to protect itself from the government with it for profit businesses.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    When I pay for ANYTHING then I have a say in it. ZERO contraceptives were outlawed by Hobby Lobby. Not one single pill was made illegal.

    Pay for it your own dang self and you naughty parts can do whatever they war to do.

    I will not pay for your religion of socialism no matter what it pays for. Naughty parts or stomach or clothing or housing. Not one penny will I give to the Federal government that I can legally keep from them that is collected in a manner that is either directly Marxist like income taxes or socialist like Social Security.

    So pay for your OWN flipping religion and I will pay for mine.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I my religion He still walks among us and answers our questions and grant miracles. Of course you have to know the rules and follow them. If you don’t He will not show Himself or His pearls to such swine. To do so would violate His own rules and He cannot do that or He ceases to be God.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Blame this on the Court for ruling the way it did in SMITH that caused Congress to kick the Court’s Butt with the RFRA and RLUIPA. The Court’s ruling was 100% correct and 100% in line with the clear and unequivocal language of the RFRA and RLUIPA that amended the RFRA. 97 to 3 in the Senate and unanimous in the House and signed by Bill Clinton.

    “Person” means corporations in law UNLESS it specifically states that the word person is limited. The RFRA is NOT the 1st Amendment. It is NOT under the rules of the First Amendment that was emasculated by the Smith ruling.

    There will be no amending the RFRA. It will stand to help people like me to be able to refuse to pay for things I find religiously objectionable. Like all things Socialist.

    Here is a new ruling that shows how powerful RFRA really is. We haven’t even scratched the surface of what we can do with RFRA to get out from under the Socialist oppression of the Republicrats.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Have you ever owned your own business? Do you know that most businesses fail? Do you know that Wal-Mart and other super Corps are killing small businesses? Do you know how hard it is to be moral in your business when the government shoves their filth down your throat? Filth like socialism and having to pay for other people’s moral choices that you disagree with? Do you know how wonderful it is to be able to tell the government to go to Hell with their “YOU WILL PAY FOR THIS BECAUSE WE SAY SO” mandates?

    Long live the RFRA! And we have only just drawn this legal sword. I am so excited!

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    So don’t have sex. That cost you nothing and it is a choice you can make. It is totally FREE! Like hot going to a football game or not watching porn or not playing video games. TOTALLY free!

    But you want others to pay for your choice TO HAVE SEX. Well we don’t want to. I don’t ask you to pay from my football game tickets. And what a great stress reliever those games are. They are GREAT for my health. Do you think I could get a doctor to write me a prescription? My friend got a prescription for a hot tub.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    And if she can’t afford it then all she has to do is NOT HAVE SEX and she will not need the drugs. It does not cost a penny to not have sex.

    But you want others to pay so some poor women can have sex. TOO BAD! When I can’t afford to eat I go hungry. When I have no money and run out of gas I am stuck. That is how LIBERTY works. But you want OTHERS to pay for YOUR choices.

    The Hobby Lobby ruling did NOT open a can of worms. Congress did that because of the SMITH ruling that overruled 150 years of rulings on religious liberty. SCOTUS got kicked in the naughty parts for that SMITH ruling with the RFRA and RLUIPA. Not even the Democrats would put up with the SMITH ruling it was so far out of line with the original intent to the Founders. And the Socialists LOVE the SMITH ruling. The Atheists love it too. And they HATE the RFRA. But we religious liberty lovers LOVE the RFRA.

    Congress opened this can of worms and the Court FOLLOWED THE LAW like it is supposed to do. I guess the Court didn’t want Congress to kick them in the privates again. Congress had the legal power to write the RFRA. If not the Court would have declared it unconstitutional. It has upheld it repeatedly. That SMITH ruling will haunt the Court for decades.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Amen Sister. Amen!

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    The government has no right to force me to pay for you. And I can now protect myself without voting but with a law called the RFRA!

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Can you name one part of the Nanny State of which Libertarians approve?

    What do Libertarian “Xtians” try to force on others? That they should pay for themselves?

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    Oh. It’s you again. Are you off your meds? You seem more hyper and hostile than usual.

    At any rate, you didn’t address the use of hormonal birth control for OTHER reasons. What about that?

    Aren’t you married? What if your wife told you, “Nope. Can’t have sex, honey. No birth control.” For me, it is moot. I am way past the age of needing BC. But I care about other women.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    Yes, I own a business. Online at the moment, but that will change in a few months. And Walmart is not a threat to savvy niche businesses. Though they have certainly been bad for local department and grocery stores.

    I really don’t think you are excited about the RFRA, per se, but only the anti-government movement. Your morals seem to extend as far as your wallet, so … meh.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    Anti-abortion measures for one. Libertarians are only libertarian when it comes to white men of means.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    I thought you were a follower of Odin. Or is that a different Christopher?

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I am never on meds. I don’t approve of Big Pharma. You do.

    ANd I’m just really excited. There was a new ruling pointing to the power for the RFRA. I don’t like the group but the ruling is wonderful.
    https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?213cv0281-121

    And there have been a plethora of article on the RFRA and Hobby Lobby plus that ruling. Exciting times.

    I don’t support the use of Big Pharma drugs. They mess people up and kill more people every year than assault rifles and handguns.

    I am married happily for over 35 years to a lovely freedom loving lady that has an autoimmune disease. Because of it my wife has told me off and on that: “We can’t have sex because I am too ill.” Sometimes for months. And I have the ability to live without sex because I love my wife and because of my religious beliefs I will not cheat on her.

    And we don’t get others to pay for our medical care. WE are not thieves.

    If a woman is with a guy so broke that he will not pay for the drugs she wants so he can have sex with her then maybe it will be incentive to make more money. I guess he could go out and rob someone. You don’t approve of that though because you want the government to rob others and think that is aokay.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    Like I said. A can of worms. So religious groups can now be lawless. Wonderful.`

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    My wife went to a doctor to get a test last month. The doctor told her that she could get all her medical care paid for by the government due to her disease.

    She refused because we are not thieves. We pay our own way.

    If it was about the money I could go on total disability (so could my wife) due to my injuries (her illness). But I don’t because I am not a thief.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I totally support the right of a women to kill the life in her womb. In fact I hope all pro-choicers do just that with every pregnancy.

    Libertarians support the right to choose. They just don’t believe that you or I should help pay for it with the government stealing from us to pay for it.

    1.5 Abortion

    Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
    http://www.lp.org/platform

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Odin was Moses. Thor was Joshua. If you study Wodinism it becomes very clear. All Father is a God with three parts. Denmark was founded by the tribe of Dan. Scotland by the tribe of Ephraim. The crown of Windsor is from the tribe of Judah. The kingdom and crown of David continues with the House of Windsor. Wodinism is just Christianity that is as distorted as Catholicism was from original Christianity, These people fell away a bit after the Israelites escaped Assyrian captivity.

    Hail Thor!

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    Yes, since you don’t pay into Social Security, you WOULD be ripping off the system to go on SSD – plus, I’m not sure you could even get it. I think you have to pay in unless you are a minor. But for those who pay into it, it’s insurance. And insurance is a good thing for most people. And not thievery – unless it’s on the part of the insurance company charging too much for policies.

    I lived a long time in Europe, where people are sensible. I wish the US was as sensible. Single payer is the only way to go.

    And, yes, I AM a socialist. A real one, not like people think Obama is, LOL.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Lawless?

    Justice O’Connor and Justice Breyer stated: “To Madison, then, duties to God were superior to duties to civil authorities–the ultimate loyalty was owed to God above all. Madison did not say that duties to the Creator are precedent only to those laws specifically directed at religion, nor did he strive simply to prevent deliberate acts of persecution or discrimination. The idea that civil obligations are subordinate to religious duty is consonant with the notion that government must accommodate, where possible, those religious practices that conflict with civil law.”

    It is not lawlessness. It is a confirmation of the foundation of the USA that duties to God are superior to duties to civil authorities–the ultimate loyalty was owed to God above all.

    That is the foundation of all law.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    Ah, yes. The lost tribes of Israel. Wodinism. Tied up with Xtian Identity and sovereign citizenry. Oy, vey.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I would be ripping the system off even if I did pay. I have no right to steal from others and anything that I would have paid was already spent by Congress. My wife could get disability. All she would need to do is apply for an SSN. But she will not because she is not a thief.

    SCOTUS declared that if Social Security was insurance then it would be unconstitutional. Didn’t you know that? It is WELFARE and that is all it is. There is no trust fund. It is not insurance. SCOTUS ruled that over 60 years ago.

    In Helvering vs. Davis (1937), the Court held that Social Security was not an insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in anyway.”

    In Fleming vs. Nestor (1960), the Court said, “To engraft upon Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands.” Again, the Court rejected any comparison of Social Security with insurance or an annuity.

    Its web site: http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html used to say: “Entitlement to Social Security benefits is not (a) contractual right.”

    And Socialism is a religion. I totally support your right to practice your religion. I just don’t believe I should be forced to pay for your religion and you should not be forced to pay for mine. That is where we differ. You believe I should pay for your religion while you should not be forced to pay for mine.

    Thank God for the RFRA. It allows me to be free from people like you that would force me to pay for your religious practices.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Yes. That is true that those movements have stolen some truths. But the belief that the Israelites left Assyria and went North was believed back when the only sovereignty movement was being declared by SCOTUS in Chisholm v. Georgia.

    I understand that Dr. King was a Republican and a Christian. So I suppose that guilt by association is something you support?

    In Chisholm v. Georgia The Supreme Court ruled,

    “[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects. with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. (US) @ Dall 419, 4541 L Ed 440, 455 @ Dall 1793 pp.471-472.

    In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, the Supreme Court ruled:

    Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author and source of law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts… For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life or the means of living or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” 118 U. 5. 356.

    In Scott v. Sandford, Mo. they ruled:

    The words ‘sovereign people’ are those who form the sovereign, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. Every citizen is one of these people and a constituent member of this sovereignty.’ 60 US 393 404

    Are you claiming you are not a sovereign citizen? Why? Are you not an American?

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    That’s utter BS. The US was founded on reason and secular, Enlightenment principles. Madison was NOT a religious nut, and it sounds like he was misrepresented.

    But, then, what do I know? I’m just an atheist. However, under the law, my disbelief is just as valid as your belief.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    You are mad. LOL, socialism is NOT a religion. Far from it.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    I think you are twisting the meaning of sovereign. In any case, yes, UNFORTUNATELY I am a US citizen. I wish to Bastet (the only deity I could ever be interested in) I had been born in Europe. I do not like at all what this country is becoming. It’s becoming a theocratic hellhole.

  • lulu_44@hotmail.com.au' TheRealReginaPhalange says:

    ‘And why should an employer who is paying the medical coverage have to cover something that goes against his/her sincere religious beliefs?’

    Funny how Hobby Lobby had no problem with previously covering the very drugs they now claim to be so morally against.

    Are you going to make the same argument when Scientologist business owners decide that they don’t want to have their insurance plans covering psychiatric drugs or do you only defend Hobby Lobby because its easier to argue against things related to sex and reproduction?

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Sorry. It is a religion. I have too much evidence that says it is. Here is a tiny bit of the new info I have. This is a VERY small sample but it is some of the newest info: Enjoy…

    Please let Kara Loewentheil, Katherine Frankee partner at Colombia Law, explain this new religion that the Feminists are demanding be made equal to the Religious Rights of Hobby Lobby.

    “It easier for our legal system to understand a boss who says I don’t want to pay for X because that violates my religious beliefs than it is to understand an employee who says, I need my boss.to pa… no I need to be able to get this thing in this in this particular way for my religious belief. So that’s kind of part of the problem. If this was like a a ban on contraceptives then that would be a different story but part of the problem is with the positive and negative rights is that technically you can get contraception somewhere else.” — Kara Loewentheil

    The Positive Religious Rights of Socialism and having other pay for their contraception.

    And…

    Katherine Franke the Director of the Columbia Law School Center for Gender and Sexuality Law Public Rights/Private Conscious Project, a group that hopes to develop a coherent case for true religious liberty and church-state separation in the area of reproductive rights in order to fight this right-wing legal contingency. Katherine discusses the impact she would like the project to have on the current rhetoric around women’s and religious rights and how listeners can help support her important work.

    at 33:08

    “As we see corporations becoming more human they have all sorts of First Amendment rights now whether its to contribute to political campaigns or to hold religious beliefs and have those beliefs defended we see women and other minorities becoming less human. What we’re seeing is a conflict of values being fought out through the First Amendment. And those values that can plausibly dress themselves up or announce themselves as religious values get special Constitutional treatment under the way the court is thinking about them now. But other values…secular values… like for equality or sexual liberty because they don’t as easily dress themselves up as religious values, they get kind of second class treatment now. So women’s sexual liberties, women’s sexual equality in the workplace and elsewhere has really as a result of this case been relegated to a second class kind of Constitutional right and this troubles me enormously.”

    http://stateofbelief.com/showarchive/2014/july-5-2014-lets-talk-about-what-happened-with-hobby-lobby/

    Awesome. So let us start dismantling the Secular Religion of Socialism that has been established in the United States.

    “We agree of course that the State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus ‘preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.’” School Dist. of Abington Tp., Pa. v. Schempp 374 U.S. 203, *225, (1963)

    “[T]he government may not establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds.” Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, *578, (1992)

    So let us start obeying and enforcing the Constitution and close down these religious programs that are called secular but are no more secular that Hobby Lobby’s objection to ObamaCare.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Sovereign, adj., 1. above or superior to all others; greatest 2. supreme in power, rank. etc. 3. of or being a ruler; reigning noun— 1. a person having sovereign authority; specif., a monarch or ruler

    Sovereignty n., 3. supreme and independent political authority

    I know exactly what it means. This government was formed by the sovereign people…equals i authority to King George. If the people cannot do something legally then neither can the government because all government authority comes from the sovereignty. The courts have made this very clear.

    Too bad about the citizenship thing. I am NOT a U.S. Citizen. I don’t live in Washington D.C. or American Samoa or on any other Federal Territory. You lose your rights and become a subject to King Congress if you are a U.S. citizen. U.S. citizens have to pay an INTERNAL Revenue tax. Why would anyone want to be a serf?

    If you have a Scottish grandparent and Scotland votes for independence today you will be able to apply for Scottish citizenship. I certainly will be.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    I’m afraid my Scottish (and Irish) ancestors are a little further back – my family has been in America too long on Mom’s (Irish) side, and Canada on Dad’s (Scottish).

    But, yes, I am an American citizen, and so are you, like it or not. If either of us wants to leave, guess what passport we will have?

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I understand. Some of my family goes back to 1648 AD at Jamestown. They came here to escape the religious persecution of the English King. But one grandmother came over by herself circa 1900 AD. Her family has been in Scotland since at least 1064 AD.

    Being an American Citizen is very different than being a U.S. citizen. It is as different as being a Nevada citizen or a New York citizen. Different laws apply. No Nevadan would even think of paying the New York income tax. That would be foolish. The same is true of U.S. v State citizenship or even that of an American National.

    The United States passport is for U.S. citizens AND American Nationals. Do you know the difference?

    And of course the RFRA applies to how Citizenship applies. It must be the least restrictive upon MY religious beliefs. I am a Citizen who has a Heavenly King and my duty is, of course, to Him first and foremost. I am a Citizen of the Kingdom of Christ. Just as Madison stated was necessary.

    Don’t you just LOVE the RFRA?

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    Somehow, I don’t think the RFRA applies to Pagans, atheists, socialists or anyone else. I think it is applied only for Xtians and maybe Jews.

    You get a UNITED STATES passport. If you have a Scottish passport and no other, and claim to be a Scottish citizen, I think you will need a green card.

    I’m not a lawyer, and I have better things to do than scour the SCOTUS decisions of all time for support for some wacky beliefs. If the US were to accept the kind of “freedom” you advocate, we would become Somalia. I really don’t want to live here if that happens.

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    Nobody asked about your religion.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    The RFRA applies to EVERY religion from Atheism to Marxism to Maoism to Leninism to Buddhists to Feminism to Hinduism to Christianity and everything in-between. It does not help Agnostics as they have no sincerely held religious beliefs as they have no doctrine. It was even used as a defense by a man claiming he was a follower of an African tribal religion. He lost because it was discovered he was a Catholic so he did not have a sincerely held religious belief in the faith he claimed.

    In United States v. Seeger 380 U.S. 163 (1965) Seeger was granted conscience objector status even though he did not belong to any specific religion. He just had sincerely held religious beliefs. That is all the RFRA requires.

    The USA allows for multiple Citizenship. A native American can be a citizen of many other countries too. I am a native.

    I have an American National Passport and I got it without a SSN.

    I am not an attorney but I do research for them so I get to review SCOTUS rulings all the time. Most Americans are so ignorant of the law that it is frightening. They believe what they are told and never read the law or the court ruling on the law. They are ignorant and so will believe even the garbage the IRS tells them. We have a DUTY to know the law. We are presumed to know the law (except for tax law since that requires a willful act and ignorance of tax law IS an excuse by law See Cheek v U.S.).

    The USA had my wacky beliefs until Lincoln came to power and ran roughshod over the Constitution with his unconstitutional income tax and unconstitutional paper debt notes.Then good old Fascists Wilson and Roosevelt came along and killed the Republic turning us, according to Wilson, into an oligarchy ruled by the rich.

    Your wacky beliefs come from Marx, Lenin, Mao and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Mine come from Sam Adams, James Madison, George Read, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Nobody ask you to comment about what I wrote. But you did anyway.

    Would you deny me the same right?

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    No one’s denying you any rights. This isn’t about rights. It’s about ceasing your crusade of self-involvement & obnoxiousness.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    Your wife is controlling you. You need to wake up.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    You are wrong AGAIN. SSDD.

    Can I get a bank account without a Social Security Number?
    The answer is “No.”

    But if a person comes here from Panama or Equator of Nigeria or dang near any other foreign State they can get a bank account without a SSN.

    Can I get employed at 99% of USA businesses without a Social Security Number?
    The answer is “No.”

    Can I get abroad a plane without government issued ID?
    The answer is “No.”

    Can I get a license to hunt or fish or drive without a SSN?
    The answer is “No.” (See 42 USC sec. 666.)

    Can I obtain a Congressionally regulated value of the U.S. dollar that has just a single value instead of 6 different values as required by law?
    The answer is “No.”

    So don’t tell me I am not being denied my rights especially to pursue happiness and practice my faith without constantly being hassled by the government.

    And I find socialists all obnoxious so I am just returning the favor.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    What a total joke you are to make such a statement.

    The government is controlling you and you don’t even want to wake up.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    So your faith is not having a social security number?

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    You’re off-topic and revolving in a self-obsessed rant *again*. You’re just a blowhard.

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    Maybe that’s why you have all that latent aggression towards women.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Yet another one who doesn’t understand how insurance works.

    You aren’t paying for jack *shit,* Christopher.

    Thanks for demonstrating a) your misogyny and b) your uptightness overall. “Naughty parts”? Jesus wept.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    And you are a compiling do nothing.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    And then again maybe it is because you seek sexual deviant pleasures and want others to pay the price of your selfishness.

    I believe women can become gods like Frigg, Freya, Sigyn, Fulla, Nanna and others. Is that caused by my “latent aggression”?

    Eve made the difficult but correct choice while Adam played the fool.

    I adore my wife and consider her to be an incredible person. I adore my Lesbian daughter and my glorious granddaughters. Is that caused by my “latent aggression”?

    I have no aggression toward women. I have aggression against enemies of liberty be they male, female or transgender or… And also against thieves that would steal my property to use for their benefit or agenda be they male, female or transgender or…

    To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical. –Thomas Jefferson

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Yet another one who doesn’t understand how ObamaCare works. It is not insurance. It is a tax. The Robert’s court was very clear on that.

    “Naughty parts” was quoting Craptacular It is not a phrase that I would generate.

    Social Security is not insurance.

    Medicare and Medicaid are not insurance.

    ObamaCare is forcing people to pay a tax. It is a tax for individual alleged benefit of others. Taking from one person to give to another. That is historically unconstitutional and Marxist in its foundation.

    “[A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. ” Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386 (1798)

    And you are correct. I don’t pay because I don’t have a Social Security Number and don’t file returns. Justice Roberts was very clear in his ruling allowing ObamaCare that people that do not file returns are required to pay nothing because it is a tax and not insurance.

    Didn’t you read the ruling?

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    I’m employed and keep myself busy during my off-hours. As far as compiling, it’s mostly music & books.

    You love to make assumptions about people in order to criticize them, but you make it so easy to criticize you based simply on what you present to us here.

    You & Frank & James are Religion Dispatch’s little cancers. You add nothing & you’re difficult to fully get rid of.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I make assumptions about people that make assumptions, like you do about me. It is the Golden Rule. I treat people the way they want to be treated and I know how they want to be treated because that is how they treat others.

    I was invited to RD when they wrote an article about my son’s Common law marriage. NO marriage licenses for my family. I DEMAND separation of Church and State.

    The RD is great for my research into the obvious establishment of the unconstitutional civic religion of socialism by the government. I never would have found the wonderful pod cast with Kara Loewentheil and Sarah Posner without it. And Kara gave such a wonderful description of the Feminist Socialist religion of positive rights she wants to establish in the US. And that has been such a help to my efforts in proving their REAL agenda.

    And what a joy it has been to watch the Feminists and Socialist squirm over the RFRA and the Hobby Lobby ruling. It is pure unadulterated pleasure to watch my predictions I made in 1997 AD, about the RFRA, come true. It is everything the SCOTUS said it would be in the Bourne ruling. And then Congress strengthened it with RLUIPA. What a gift of God that was. And with massive support by the Democrats and Republicans. AWESOME! Thanks President Clinton.

    Footnote 43 in the Hobby Lobby ruling was a dream come true for me as it KILLs the Lee ruling on taxes. Even tax law must comply with the strict restrictions on the Federal government made by the RFRA.

    Footnote 43 HHS highlights certain statements in the opinion in Lee that it regards as supporting its position in these cases. In particular, HHS notes the statement that “[w]hen followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.” 455 U. S., at 261. Lee was a free exercise, not a RFRA, case, and the statement to which HHS points, if taken at face value, is squarely inconsistent with the plain meaning of RFRA. Under RFRA, when followers of a particular religion choose to enter into commercial activity, the Government does not have a free hand in imposing obligations that substantially burden their exercise of religion. Rather, the Government can impose such a burden only if the strict RFRA test is met.
    BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., ET AL.

    I don’t mind if you think I am a cancer. I feel that away about Socialists so I am glad to return the favor. Golden Rule and all that!

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    No one here really makes assumptions about you. No one has assumed, for instance, that you are a woman. But, of course, we also don’t need to make assumptions about you because you love to talk about yourself.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I do not have a SSN. Actually no ones has one. It belongs to the government, not you. You just carry it around and use it because you think it is required. It isn’t. You have FAITH but no facts. There is no law that requires you to apply for an SSN and no one can sell you into slavery. Not even your parents. Naturally, if you applied before you were 21 or 18 depending on the year, you could not legally contract so no application is enforceable.

    They tried to give one to my granddaughter at the hospital. We politely declined.

    If you are foolish enough to have a child in a hospital (that will not happen again for us) you simply need to refuse to name your child at the hospital. Then they cannot trick you into getting a birth certificate or a Social Security Number. They just hand you the forms when you leave.

    Even if you are foolish enough to pay income taxes you can use your child as a deduction even without a SSN IF you have a religious objection to the Mark of the Beast (SSN) and use the RFRA. I KNOW this works because of my nephew. He has done it for years.

    They told a friend of, mine at a California hospital, that he could not take his son home until he gave them the child’s name and set up a SSN for the newborn. He asked them to please call 911. They asked him why. He told them that he wanted to report a kidnapping because the hospital had kidnapped his son since he could not take his son and leave. The hospital staff were suddenly able to release the baby boy to his dad without signing up for an SSN.

    My nephew told the hospital specifically that they could not give his son an SSN. They did it anyway. He is a lawyer and got the SSN application and number stricken from the government’s records.

    There is no law that requires anyone to apply for a Social Security Number. Such a law would be an establishment of religion and be unconstitutional. Just like income tax, it is voluntary compliance AKA voluntary slavery.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    ObamaCare is forcing people to pay a tax. It is a tax for individual
    alleged benefit of others. Taking from one person to give to another.
    That is historically unconstitutional and Marxist in its foundation.

    Considering that a) health insurance is part of my compensation and b) those who buy their insurance are paying for it themselves, the only conclusion that I can reach is that you’re full of shite.

    I don’t pay because I don’t have a Social Security Number and don’t file returns.

    So you’re a conspiracy theorist (per your “Marxist” remark above) and a criminal. And I should give you credibility why again?

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Many people here make assumptions about me. So you are wrong again. SSDD.

    They could not assume I am a woman. I have made it clear I am a man and I don’t write like a woman like you do. I honestly heave a very difficult time believing you are a man. Are you perhaps Gay? Your writing style is so very feminine.

    I write about myself because I am a very unique person.. I so, however, often use to words of others in my arguments and constantly quote the SCOTUS, Founders, political and religious leaders. I am criticized for quoting others or talking about personal experiences. I will be criticized no matter what I write because people like you hate the message but are mostly only able to respond with personal attacks instead of facts or law. It is a common practice used by bad attorneys.

    Few people in the USA refuse to file a 1040 return or live without an SSN. My family and I are very unique when it comes to this lifestyle so I discuss our personal experiences since I am unable to quote others that live as we do.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    You make that conclusion because you have not read the rulings on ObamaCare. ObamaCare is a tax. The SCOTUS was very clear about this.

    I never claimed you did not understand insurance. I claimed you do not understand ObamaCare.

    You obviously do not understand that Congress declared that the Communist Party is a conspiracy to destroy the US government. It is codified at 50 U.S. Code § 841 – Findings and declarations of fact:

    “The Congress finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States, although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United States.” http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/841

    So I am not a conspiracy theorist. It is fact and law here in the US of A.

    I am sorry you are so ignorant about Marxism. I am sorry you are ignorant about law. But it is self-imposed ignorance so it is your problem…not mine.

    I am not a criminal. I have not been convicted of any crime greater than a misdemeanor traffic ticket and not even one of those for more than a decade.

    Why would you call me a criminal? Have I been arrested? Has the government followed the RFRA restrictions upon them concerning me personally? Yes. They leave me alone. No arrest. No indictment. No conviction and yet you claim I am a criminal. Do you not believe that a man is innocent until proved to be guilty? Obviously not.

    You are the conspiracy theorist. Not me.

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    Yeah, you’re a really special guy. Keep wanking your words all over the web.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    And pretty soon the FLDS will be back to openly practicing child sexual abuse because of their “sincerely held religious beliefs.” Will you be okay with that, Christopher?

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    But if a person comes here from Panama or Equator of Nigeria or dang
    near any other foreign State they can get a bank account without a SSN.

    Citation needed.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    You’re a fucking nutter, that’s what you are. No more, no less.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Don’t tell me, let me guess: you’re an anti-vaxxer, and you homeschool based on the Pearls’ curriculum …

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    You don’t seem to understand that insurance is part of a compensation package. So few people seem to get that. I am receiving health insurance in lieu of a higher salary, and also still paying for part of it via payroll deduction. Those buying insurance through exchanges are also paying for them.

    You aren’t paying for anyone but yourself.

    And why should your employer be allowed to make your medical decisions? How does THAT fit in with your “libertarian” ideals?

    Thanks for once again giving me reason to believe that “libertarians” are selfish and underinformed individuals whose entire philosophy is “I got mine, so fuck you.”

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Funny how Hobby Lobby had no problem with previously covering the very drugs they now claim to be so morally against.

    And investing in the companies that make them … http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Oh, so you’re a nutter, and an Asatruar … which means you’re a white supremacist on top of everything else.

    I can now officially ignore anything you say.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    My husband and I are both Scottish … and, while I hoped for the “yes” side to prevail, I can assure you that the Scots are grateful that you won’t come calling. Pog ma thoin.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Libertarians are only libertarian when it comes to white men of means.

    Quoted for truth.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Keep flapping your cake-hole, nutter; all you do is prove my point.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    So don’t have sex.

    That no one wants to fuck you does not mean that others must be celibate.

  • bramptonbryan@yahoo.com' DavidHarley says:

    The Supreme Court, in dismissing the original anti-ACA lawsuits, declared the penalty for not being insured to be a tax.

  • bramptonbryan@yahoo.com' DavidHarley says:

    Go forth and multiply.

  • bramptonbryan@yahoo.com' DavidHarley says:

    “we don’t get others to pay for our medical care”

    I take it you disapprove of health insurance, whether private or via Medicare. Such systems operate on the basis of the healthy paying for the sick.

    I do hope that neither you nor your wife will have a catastrophic accident or a long-term serious illness. Surgical care can become very expensive, very quickly, in the American medical system.

  • bramptonbryan@yahoo.com' DavidHarley says:

    You will find the relevant passage in “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” (1785), opposing a “Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion.”

    Of course, the passage is open to interpretation, in view of the Supreme Court’s position, in the matter of conscientious objection to the draft. that humanism is equivalent to a religious position. And Madison is not the law.

  • bramptonbryan@yahoo.com' DavidHarley says:

    This law applies to non-religious corporations with more than 50 employees. As limited liability companies, the shareholders detach their persons from the corporation. They have protection against personal bankruptcy if the comnpany fails. How can a for-profit limited-liability corporation such as EXXON be said to have religious beliefs?

  • bramptonbryan@yahoo.com' DavidHarley says:

    If you pay Medicare contributions, you are being obliged to pay for the healthcare of others, just as others will be obliged to pay for yours. You also pay for VA healthcare, for CHIP, and for Medicaid.

    As a non-citizen, I am obliged to pay for a host of US government services from which I can never benefit, unless I change my citizenship.

  • bramptonbryan@yahoo.com' DavidHarley says:

    Police, courts, military — unless one is a Left libertarian.

  • bramptonbryan@yahoo.com' DavidHarley says:

    Martin Luther King was NOT a Republican. Nor was he a Democrat. He expressed difficulty on occasion in deciding how to vote. If one reads his works, it is clear that he was a Christian Socialist.

  • bramptonbryan@yahoo.com' DavidHarley says:

    Madison was not a Christian. He did not say, in the passage you have cited elsewhere, that one should be subservient to the Christian God but rather to the Creator, in whatever manner seems appropriate. He was a Deist or a Unitarian.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    So one side of your family believes social security numbers are a mark of the beast, and they refuse to let their children get them, and if they were given one as a child they now refuse to acknowledge it.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Another very feminine reaction. It suits you.

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    Being called “feminine” and “gay” is not particularly insulting to me. It does reveal just what a bigot you are though.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I abhor many FLDS doctrines. Their sex with minors doctrine is evil. I was thrilled that their leader was arrested and imprisoned. The RFRA would not protect a child abuser as the government has a compelling government interest in stopping such a vile practice. And I cannot even think of a less restrictive law than making it a felony.

    Can you?

    This was about testifying when the government, according to the judge, had other ways to get the information and just did not want to avail themselves of those other avenues. The government did not want to follow the RFRA restrictions and simply ignored them.

    But you are oaky with the government violating the rights of Citizens and ignoring the law. Aren’t you fiona64?

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Go to a bank and ask. A Mexican or any foreigner can get an account without an SSN. I cannot because of the USA PATRIOT ACT even though the law allows for bank accounts without an SSN if they are non-interest bearing.

    Do you need a citation for the USA PATRIOT ACT? Or can you look that up yourself?

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I do so enjoy derogatory remarks from folks like you. They are like a complement from people I admire.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Did you know that the risk of getting Whooping Cough is far less than the negative reaction to the vaccination for children under 12 months? I do not oppose vaccinations if the risk of the disease is greater than the risk of the vaccine. I certainly would get a polio vaccine again if it was the 1960s. The Chicken Pox Vaccine looks promising.

    We will be home schooling and will not be using the Pearl curriculum as I don’t have a clue as to what that is. We have Stanford, Columbia, Nevada, BYU, San Diego, etc. grads in the family. My brother has a Ph.D in education and was an elected member of the State School Board. We will be have no difficulty forming our own curriculum. One that actually educates my grandchildren instead of turning them into government serfs.

    My 2 year-old granddaughter is already learning American Sign Language as a second language and has been since she was one. She could ask for things by signing before she could say the words.

    I had to teach myself how to overcome Dyslexia as the professional educators didn’t have a clue as to how to help me. Public Education is Child Abuse.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    A White supremacist? Ha Ha.

    So do I hate my adopted Mexican Special Needs daughter or my Black granddaughter or my Chinese grandson?

    Maybe I hate my lesbian daughter that I have a business with? She lives with me with her Hispanic lover.

    What was that was was said about making assumptions. Thanks for the laugh.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Too bad Independence lost. I may come calling anyway. My Scottish roots go back to at least 1064 AD. I still have family there. One of the four sisters stayed in Glasgow so my cousins are still there.

    And thanks for the offer to “kiss your ass” ( Pog ma thoin )but I must decline. I avoid such intimate relationships with folks well known for STDS. But maybe your husband will do if for you if he can get past the stench of Feminism.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Music to my ears. It is like Hitler calling me a evil person.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I have several children and a wife that love me. We have a wonderful sex life when she is healthy but she has MS and sometimes she is too ill.

    And I do not advocate anyone being celibate unless they cannot afford the consequences of their choices and want others to pay for those choices. They are thieves when they demand others pay for their acts.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I did. I adopted too. And now I am a grandfather with more on the way.

    And odd as it may sound we expect to pay for medical costs without any assistance from the government taxpayers.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I disapprove of government mandated health care. Not insurance.

    However, I have not been able to find an insurance company that will pay for the medical care I want that deals with energy fields and healthy living. And not one insurance company we talked to will pay for marijuana for my wife and that is one of the best medicines for MS.

    Without a Social security Number we cannot even apply for government assistance. And we don’t.

    We have a plan though. If we get sick we will go to Mexico and then sneak back across the border and then we can get all the free medical we need.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Do you actually know any Libertarians?

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Alveda C. King, a founder of the group King for America: “My uncle, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during his lifetime, was a Republican.” Bergmann also said King “subscribed to Republican values” and that most black voters before 1960 associated themselves with the Grand Old Party — the Party of Lincoln — that passed the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution ending slavery and guaranteeing equal rights in the 19th century.

    I have read Dr. King and Malcolm X and Marx and Trotsky and Mao and many others. Dr. King was indeed a so-call Christian and a Socialist. That is like being a libertarian and a tyrant. Socialism is always done by force. Christian charity is done out of love. If it is forced it is personally without value or merit.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Did I claim Madison was a Christian? What his religion was made no difference to the importance of his statement about our duty to our Creator as quoted by Justices Breyer and O’Connor:

    Under the RFRA the only “Universal Sovereign” Madison spoke of that is important to me is the one I believe in. And I don’t believe in just one.

    You offer no evidence that Madison was a Unitarian. Wikipedia says he was an Episcopalian. I don’t care.

    Madison’s own words testify that he was not a deist.

    deism n.noun
    A religious belief holding that God created the universe and established rationally comprehensible moral and natural laws but does not intervene in human affairs through miracles or supernatural revelation.

    Madison officially claimed God did intervene. James Madison 1st Inaugural address:
    “In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best placed, next to that which we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future.”

    So he was not a deist…unless he lied. And you know how those politicians are.

    Justice O’Connor and Justice Breyer in CITY OF BOERNE, PETITIONER v. P. F. FLORES, ARCHBISHOP OF SAN ANTONIO, AND UNITED STATES said this about Madison:

    “The ‘Memorial and Remonstrance’ begins with the recognition that ‘[t]he Religion… of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.’ 2 Writings of James Madison 184 (G. Hunt ed. 1901). By its very nature, Madison wrote, the right to free exercise is ‘unalienable,’ both because a person’s opinion ‘cannot follow the dictates of other[s],’ and because it entails ‘a duty toward the Creator.’ Ibid. Madison continued:

    “This duty [owed the Creator] is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society…. [E]very man who becomes a member of any Civil Society, [must] do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.” Id., at 184–185.

    So if he was not a Christian he believed in a Creator that assisted the Rebels in their war of Independence and believed we owed this “Universal Sovereign” allegiance.

    I agree with Madison that “[E]very man who becomes a member of any Civil Society, [must] do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.”

    Do you?

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Why? Did I use those terms in a derogatory manner? Did I state that being feminine or Gay was a bad thing?

    You assumed those words had a negative connotation.

    I have nothing against femininity.

    My daughter is lesbian and I believe she is an incredible woman and artist. Have I stated anything that claims I have a negative opinion of Gays?

    You are the bigot. You believed I meant those words negatively without a shred of evidence.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Is that a statement or a question?

    The RFRA allows me many options in dealing with the tyrannical government that has established Socialism as the official religion of the US. It allows me to avoid 42 USC sec. 666.

    I do not voluntarily comply with the 2nd plank of the religion of Socialism hand the RFRA helps me do that.

    You are among the millions of Americans who comply with the tax law voluntarily. –1992 Form1040 Tax Instruction Booklet

    Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance. –Mortimer Caplin, IRS Commissioner, 1975 IRS IR Audit Manual

    The mission of the service is to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance. –Donald C. Alexander, IRS Commissioner, Federal Register, March 1974

    The IRS’s primary task is to collect taxes under a voluntary compliance system. –Jerome Kurtz IRS Commissioner, 1980 IR Annual Report

    Do you volunteer? Why? Your money goes to Bankers not roads.

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    Then why call me those things? What was the purpose? What does my being a woman or my being feminine or my being gay have to do with anything? Why bring it up out of the blue? The evidence of your bigotry is the context.

    More than that though, you have provided ample evidence of your hostility against women across plenty of previous posts.

    You mormons just love thinking of yourselves as cagey and as martyrs.

    Nah.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    The social security number is a way for the government to track who has paid into social security, and that is an increasingly important program in a world where the rich are getting richer, and the rest of the people have been losing their company provided retirement, and health care, and jobs, and were losing their homes.

    It seems rejecting social security numbers is part of a belief system that is followed by part of your family. Where did these beliefs come from? Is this something that you came up with, and spread it to your wife’s side of the family? Or is it something from her family that you now accept and campaign for on the internet?

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    Making the break with Mormonism can be complicated for a family. If it is a family of intelligent people, they need to somehow face up to the mistakes they made in the first place, and figure out how they fit in the nation and in their wider Mormon family.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    You don’t get to decide about the sex lives of anyone but yourself. What are you, some kind of voyeuristic creeper?

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Oh, look. Godwin. You lose.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Flagged.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    So, no citations then. That’s pretty much what I thought.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    But you are oaky with the government violating the rights of Citizens and ignoring the law

    That’s a rich accusation coming from someone who admits to violating the law.

    And flagged again.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    The worst thing Christopher can imagine is being a woman — because he knows how badly he treats them. He assumes that a gay man would mistreat him the same way he mistreats the women in his life. He especially loathes intelligent women who refuse to kowtow to his nonsense; this is made apparent with every post he makes.

    When you scratch a homophobe, a misogynist will bleed. It’s all about strict gender roles with people like Christopher. I pity any woman in his vicinity.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Oh, gawd. How did I miss that Christopher holds the penispriesthood? And yet I am not even remotely surprise at the revelation. It explains the origin of his misogyny far more clearly than anything else could.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Well, that is a valid point.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Citations needed. Thanks.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Alveda C. King

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    I adopted too.

    Not legally, you didn’t, if you’ve been telling the truth about your behaviors in other realms.

    Pro-tip: Buying a child is human trafficking. It is NOT adoption.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Oh, so you’ll rip off the *Mexican* government. I guess it’s okay when it’s just brown people, eh?

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    *compliment

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    I may have a new theory about development of higher forms of religion (derived from the study of Mormonism). Religion is always trouble, so stresses are created when someone starts to see the problems. The usual course of action is to reject the religion, and possibly become a non-believer, but that is not the only possibility. Religion is based on a collection of people telling each other they are closer to God, and God is revealing truth to them that others don’t have. Mormons are a prime example of this. Evangelicals do it too, but evangelicals don’t quite know what they believe, they just know they believe it harder than anyone else and they don’t much care about the details. Mormons study more closely than evangelicals what they believe, and then both groups do all the necessary apologetics to convince themselves. The apologetics is a weak point because it is always nonsense. Evangelicals don’t really care, but Mormons have to deal with the nonsense by doing more apologetics to reach even higher levels of nonsense. This can lead to an interesting dynamic. A Mormon can become aware there are still problems, then instead of dropping out he (or she) can become to the Mormons the same thing the Mormons became to the rest of us. Come up with a web of apologetics to explain why they and their group are closer to God than the regular Mormons. When you see it, you can see how this could become inevitable. Religion becomes more than a system of apologetics. It becomes a pyramid of apologetics where the mass has apologized itself above everyone else, and a smaller mass has apologized it self above that exalted group, and if it learns to survive and prosper, some day there will be another smaller group of apologists who will pyramid on top of it.

    Why was this not noticed before? Apologetics never works, so it must lead to new smaller levels of apologetics because not everyone can just drop out of the religion when problems become obvious, some will want to take it to another level so they can become the closest of all to God.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I did not call you Gay. I asked if you were Gay. I find your writing stile very feminine. Nothing wrong with that. They best theater director I ever met was so effeminate that hardly anyone could believe he was a happily married father of 6. He was awesome. I like female and male authors.

    You wrote: “No one has assumed, for instance, that you are a woman.” That is why I brought it up.

    I am hostile to the Feminist agenda be it promoted by men or women. I am not hostile toward women. That is very different. I am hostile to the socialist agenda and to people that promote that evil agenda of government enforced theft. But it is the agenda, not the person, that I despise.

    I coached Pop Warner football 20 years ago. I was the head coach and coached my daughter. She was a very good offensive lineman. I also coached her in Tee Ball too, along with my adopted special needs daughter. My wife was the head coach and I was her assistant. We had 6 girls on our team which was 5 more than any other team in the league. We were 12 and 2. We whooped the all-boy teams.

    I am not a mormon. I am not a martyr. I am a rebel against socialism. I am not a felon. I have never been arrested or tried for a federal crime. I have never been arrested for any type of felony or gross misdemeanor. I am an artist now after years of other types of work and have a business with my lesbian daughter and we live in the same home together with her lover.

    I am pro-abortion. I oppose most legal limitations on marriage. I believe that government should not allow children to marry. Also people that are not mentally capable of signing a contract should not be allowed to marry.

    So where do you get off stating that I have hostility toward women?

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    JIm,

    If you want to be a part of that ” important program” then go ahead and be a part of it. I want no part of it. Should the government force me to be a part of a program I believe is Satanic?

    People lost their homes and our Fascist government bailed out the super rich corporation banks. Is that my fault? I believed it was unconstitutional. I believe that Bush was a traitor and Obama too. What does that have to do with Social Security?

    People lost their retirements because they made bad choices. Is that my fault? Should I be forced with threat of arrest and imprisonment if I do not bail out people that made bad choices?

    The beliefs can from study. Study of the law as to what makes the average American a voluntary taxpayer. Do you know?

    When I married my wife she informed me that if I ever filed a tax return she would divorce me. My beliefs did not spread to her family. It was the other way around.

    about 17 years ago my lawyer brother told me I would end up in prison because I did not file. He was very angry with me and called me a criminal. He told me I was not following the laws of GOd too. Then I got my letters from the IRS clearly stating that I was not required to file a return. He got interested in my research and we ended up flying around the country fighting the IRS and DoJ on tax cases.

    My research was so convincing to him that his lawyer son decided that I was right about the SSN and his own children do not have SSNs. The IRS has repeatedly agreed.

    I do not campaign for it like I used to. I come here to RD because people here are obviously well educated. Most people are so uneducated and uninterested in anything but sport, beer and video games that I came to the conclusion that the only thing that could save America was the inevitable collapse of the the Social Security system that will be followed by riots and sorrow. I certainly cannot convince people that they should be honest and stop stealing from the next generation.

    I come here to do research and to see what people think and write. The best way to test your beliefs is to have them challenged by intelligent people. Even angry people are good to listen to and consider their beliefs. I lose nothing if I lose a debate here on RD. If I have a quote that is wrong (and I have found a few that I thought were good but were not) or if I discover a weakness that is GREAT.

    If I lose in court it can be very costly and even include prison time, so if I have a weak argument I want it exposed HERE and on other groups I follow. Make a fool of me! Mock me! Correct me! I love it!

    The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. Vigilantibus et non dormientibus serviunt leges. –Maxim of Law

    He who does not repel a wrong when he can, induces it. Qui non propulsat injuriam quando potest, infert. –Maxim of law

    He who is silent appears to consent. Qui tacet consentire videtur. –Maxim of law

    I have a duty to my family to protect them from government tyranny. Law changes. Look at Hobby Lobby. I KNEW what the RFRA said and how powerful it was for me back in 1997 AD. Feminists and Socialists were surprised by the ruling. Obviously they had never read the Bourne ruling that declared the RFRA unconstitutional as applied to the States. SCOTUS spelled out how powerful the RFRA was and THEN Congress made it even stronger with the RLUIPA.

    You have to stay on top of this government or you become a victim.

    One thing I like about Progressives is that they are passionate about their beliefs. Conservatives disgust me.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I agree that I don’t get to decide about the sex lives of others. What makes you think I even want to? I would find such tyranny anathema.

    I just refuse to PAY for the sex lives and consequences of the sexual choices that you and others make.

    If you want to have free contraceptives GREAT. Just don’t expect me to allow one cent of any tax I pay to help pay for those “free” items.

    If you catch a disease from your bad sex choices then I should not pay for it in any way or in any amount. If you die then I should not pay for your burial. If you cause a pregnancy or get pregnant then I should not pay anything for the abortion or the baby or any medical care. I didn’t make the choice so I will not pay for it.

    If I make a choice to give money to a church or an organization or an individual then that is my choice. When government gives money to a Church or organization or an individual they have to STEAL it first. I oppose such theft.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    So you want me to do the work for you. That’s what I thought.

    If you want to find out just ask your bank manager the next time you go in if you can get an account without a Social Security Number. When she says no (some times they have to check with higher ups). If she says “Yes” than apply for one and you will be denied.

    Then ask if a person from Mexico or Panama or Ireland can get one without an SSN. They can.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    What law have I admitted to violating?

    What law have I violated according to you?

    If you can tell me the law then please also tell me if the RFRA restrictions on enforcement apply to that law.

    If they do then have I violated the law or is there a possible exception to that law?

    Did Rosa Parks violate the law when she refused to give up her seat on a bus to a White man?

    Did Hobby Lobby violate the law when they refused to pay insurance premiums for 4 contraceptives?

    Did Utah violate the law when they did not allow Gays to marry?

    Did Mohammed Ali violate the law when he refused to be drafted and serve in the U.S. military?

    Did John Hancock violate the law when he signed the Declaration of Independence?

    When the CIA tortured “folks” did they violate the law and if so were they arrested?

    When the NSA spied on Americans did they violate the law?

    Did Snowden violate the law if he believed he was doing it for religious reasons and that the RFRA allowed him to do what he did?

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    They are not needed. They are WANTED by you. Don’t you understand the difference?

    How can I give you a citation of how I overcame Dyslexia?

    The Stats of whooping cough are available to you on line. I don’t care if you don’t want to take your time to look them up. That’s your problem.

    The same is true about the Chicken Pox vaccinations. Look it up yourself.

    How can I give you citations on my family’s education levels or if my brother was an elected official?

    How can I give you a citation about my 2-year-old granddaughter learning ASL?

    Your requests is VIOD FOR VAGUENESS. Look that up if you don’t know what it means.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    And that is funny because?

    http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/statements/2012/jan/23/charlotte-bergmann/another-republican-claims-martin-luther-king-jr-wa/

    So if I don’t give you a citation you demand one. If I give you one you mock it without giving your own citation. You must be a Democrat.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    You continue to demand citations but have yet to name of cite a single law that I have violated.

    We did adopted her. It was about 25 years ago. We did it through the courts and with an attorney. She was about 6. Her mother and stepfather were Meth addicts. Her stepfather was in prison at the time and her mother was on the run. The mother signed her over to us giving us only temporary custody. We got a District Court to give us complete custody after we took her to doctors and established how mistreated she had been. They documented cigarette burns and that she was suffering from malnutrition and was covered with body lice.

    We took her to a psychiatrist and she was diagnosed with severe mental problems from the abuse including abuse by a government foster parent when she was 2 1/2 and had been placed there by the Cops used who were using her as a pawn to get her stepfather to give evidence about his drug dealer.

    I don’t need tips from people that are ignorant of fact and law. I know what adoption is. I know we did it legally. I know that we got a birth certificate with my wife’s name and my name as the parents and my new daughter’s NEW name. She asked to changed her middle name and of course her Surname was changed to ours. We got the State issued birth certificate from the State where she was born and not from the State where we adopted her. I don’t know why that was the requirement. My lawyer took care of such details.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Please explain how I would be ripping off the Mexican government.

    My granddaughter is black. My adopted daughter is brown. My grandson is yellow. I do have a white granddaughter too. So why are you bringing up skin color? Do you honestly believe it matters to me?

    And the plan…That was a joke. Any person with even an 80 IQ should have been able to realize that. You must work for the IRS. At least that would explain a lot about you.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Thanks for correcting my spelling. I still have dyslexia and I do so depend on auto-spell checker. That gets it wrong far too often. And of course I am a very poor speller anyway. Letters just jumble up far too often.

    Or were you trying to be hateful and making fun of my disability? I can’t believe you would do that. Not as a Progressive.

    I also have to read the screen from about 3 1/2 feet away because I can’t sit upright at the desk due to a back injury caused by local Cops. The lightning strike also hurt that same dang area previous the Cops crippling me. So I had to build a special desk that sits on the arms of my chair. My brother has a bad back and I made him one too. Sitting in a regular position is just too painful. I have my keyboard and my mouse on the portable desk but the screen must remain on the standard desk. So it is easy to miss a word or two. But I can always count on anal retentive people to get worked up over such things, even when the meaning is obvious enough for a 8-year-old to decipher.

    So thanks so much for the spelling correction. Or did you consider it a spelling lesson?

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    People did not lose their retirement because of bad choices. They were working for companies that had pensions. Then companies found their owners could make more money by going out of business, dividing the money among the rich, and unfortunately not having anything left over to pay those pensions. Then cities and states gave tax breaks to corporations, didn’t have enough money left, and started working on eliminating the government guaranteed pensions. Social security is one thing we have left. It is not running out of money, it has been adjusted to continue, and we will end up needing it even more as the rich take more control. There are 7 billion people on earth, so we can’t just return to the stone age because that would eliminate about 99.95 percent of us. We need to figure this out, and social security is one thing we still have. We will find a way to extend it to more areas of life.

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    Yeah, yeah. You’re a really special guy. Just keep up your masturbating

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Are you now claiming to be a Mexican citizen?

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Alveda King is dining out on her late uncle’s name, promoting things in which he did not believe.

    If you think claiming Alveda King’s personal belief on something constitutes a citation, you must be an imbecile. Or a Randian objectivist.

    But I repeat myself.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Telling me to look things up myself is not a citation.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    What law have I violated according to you?

    According to *you,* you are a tax evader.

    That’s a crime.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Thanks for admitting that you’re making shit up.

    It’s exactly what I thought, but your honesty is refreshing.

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    who cares.

  • david.lloydjones@gmail.com' David Lloyd-Jones says:

    David,

    The thing that struck me about the Archives’, or possibly University of Chicago’s, editors of the “memorial and Remonstrance” was how far they went out of their way to tart up Madison’s “decent respect” for his pietistic neighbors.

    It doesn’t seem to occur to them that Madison might have hated their guts, or that he might have held them in as much contempt as, e.g., Jimmy Carter holds the centralized board and bureaucracy of the Southern Baptist machine.

    -dlj.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    And if she can’t afford it then all she has to do is NOT HAVE SEX

    And here you try to claim that you are not about controlling the sex lives of others …

  • david.lloydjones@gmail.com' David Lloyd-Jones says:

    Do you claim that there is a USA Patriot Act which mandates bank accounts without Social Security numbers attached for “a person comes here from Panama or Equator of Nigeria or dang near any other foreign State”?

    If you are, that would certainly be a lie.

    -dlj.

  • david.lloydjones@gmail.com' David Lloyd-Jones says:

    Andre,
    Christopher should note that the grade school rule still holds: the finger pointer has three fingers pointed at themself.

    -dlj.

  • ccollins74@comcast.net' psychobabble says:

    It’s too bad that these thoughtful topics are presented and then hijacked by one nut job and all the people who respond to him, From a behavioral point of view, the way to get rid of this guy is to NOT respond to him. Ignore him and comment on the article. You are reinforcing his behavior and he loves it. He isn’t going anywhere.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Those people you write about. We’re they FORCED to work for those companies? No. They CHOOSE to work there. They CHOOSE to trust that company that screwed them. I didn’t make those choices so I lost nothing. Why should me or my children pay for those people’s bad choices?

    Those people that trust the government will be in for a huge surprise when the religion of Social Security and Medicare checks stop because the U.S. cannot pay them any more because it will be impossible. Read “I Will Not Promise You The Moon” from 1936 AD, by former presidential candidate against FDR, Alf Landon. He describes what WILL done to people that trust the government with their FICA taxes. And he was a prophet.
    http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/8128/

    If you want to have FAITH in your religion of the “SACRED TRUST” then that is your problem. And it is a very big and bad problem.

    PRESIDENT CLINTON, December 8, 1998: “Social Security for the 21st century. Social Security is and must remain a rock-solid guarantee. It is a sacred trust among the generations…”

    Vice President Al Gore- July 1, 1998, “In this new time of opportunity, there is no more sacred obligation than to care for our parents,..”

    December 20, 1977 THE PRESIDENT Jimmy Carter: “sacred pact”

    Senator McCain 2000AD presidential debates: “Social Security is a sacred compact with America’s seniors.”

    Representative Gallegly, Elton – 23rd District Calif, “Social Security is a sacred contract with every American.”

    U.S. Representative Patrick Toomey. KEEPING THE SACRED PROMISE TO SENIORS

    Robin Hayes [R]candidate 200 election in North Carolina, “Social Security is a sacred obligation of the federal government.”

    Congressman Larry Combest, Texas’ 19th Congressional District said: “It’s a sacred trust”

    Do you want more quotes about your SACRED TRUST religion? I have many more. What is the government doing promoting anything called “SACRED”? What about Separation of Church and State the Progressives always yearn for? I am not a member of your FAITH. That was a CHOICE I made. You made your choice about your FAITH and you must live with it as I live with my choices.

    Even the government is clear that when the Baby Boomers all hit retirement age the Social Security System WILL FAIL. Americans are not having enough children to maintain the system. That is a simple fact. They would need to have about 24 children per couple and get all of them to pay the FICA TAX to save Socialist Slavery.

    The Founding Fathers WARNED us that we should not trust the government. Washington said government was a dangerous servant and a fearful master. He was correct. The people that trusted the U.S. government made BAD CHOICES. I did not trust the government. I will lose nothing. That was the choice I made.

    You are right about the rich. That was planned and the plan is working just as it was planned. Here is a letter from the Rothschilds. It describes the type of people that will pay for capitalism as being: “the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending…”

    The Rothschild brothers were also prophets and you rightly claim they are SCREWING the average American. The bankers are criminals and should be arrested for treason and fraud but instead they are supported and paid-off by the government you have FAITH will continue to be able to pay those Social Security Checks. BAD CHOICE! Misplaces FAITH.

    Letter to: Messieurs. Iklheimer, Morton and Vandergould, No. 3 Wall St., New York, U.S.A.:
    “Dear Sirs: A Mr. John Sherman has written us from a town in Ohio, U.S.A., as to the profits that may be made in the National Banking business under a recent act of your Congress (National Bank Act of 1863), a copy of which act accompanied his letter. Apparently this act has been drawn upon the plan formulated here last summer by the British Bankers Association and by that Association recommended to our American friends as one that if enacted into law, would prove highly profitable to the banking fraternity throughout the world.
    “Mr. Sherman declares that there has never before been such an opportunity for capitalists to accumulate money, as that presented by this act and that the old plan, of State Banks is so unpopular, that the new scheme will, by contrast, be most favorably regarded, notwithstanding the fact that it gives the National Banks an almost absolute control of the National finance. ‘The few who can understand the system,’ he says ‘will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical (adverse) to their interests.’ Please advise us fully as to this matter and also state whether or not you will be of assistance to us, if we conclude to establish a National Bank in the City of New York…Awaiting your reply, we are
    Your respectful servants.
    Rothschild Brothers.
    London, June 25, 1863” – Lightning Over The Treasury Building, J.R. Elsom

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I am no more special than any other child of God. We are all Children of the Most High and are all Created Equal. Didn’t you know that?

    You accuse me of things that are simply false and when the facts fly in the face of your bigotry you resort to personal insults.

    That is a common tactic used by people whose arguments have failed. In desperation to cover their ignorance they point to things like minor spelling errors and/or do what you just did. It must be difficult to be so ignorant. I will pray for you.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    And what do I accuse myself of? Being a free man that is not a voluntary slave? I am GUILTY of refusing to be a voluntary slave just as the Founding Fathers proclaimed in 1775 AD in the Declaration of Taking Up Arms.

    You voluntarily salve as you are a voluntary “taxpayer.”

    “However, a reasonable construction of the taxing statutes does not include vesting any tax official with absolute power of assessment against individuals not specified in the statutes as persons liable for the tax without an opportunity for judicial review of this status before the appellation of ‘taxpayer’ is bestowed upon them and their property is seized and sold.”
    Botta v. Scanlon 288 F.2d 504, 508 (C.A.2 1961)

    Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as day and night. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply… –Dwight E. Avis, Head of ATF, IRS –House Ways and Means Subcommittee Hearings –1953

    The real point of audits is to instill fear, not to extract revenue; the IRS aims at winning through intimidation and (thereby) getting maximum voluntary compliance. –Paul Strassel, Former IRS Headquarters Agent `Wall St. Journal’ 1/28/80

    The IRS’s goal is to increase the rate at which taxpayers voluntarily pay their taxes from the current 82.3% to 90% by 2001. –The Washington Post front page Dec. 2, 1993, IRS Hopes Change

    Each year American taxpayers voluntarily file their tax returns and make a special effort to pay the taxes they owe. –Johnie M. Walters IRS Commissioner, 1971 Form 1040 Booklet

    From Publication 21/ 1998 update

    Do you have to file a tax return and pay taxes?”

    Answer from Pub. 21:

    The U. S. income tax system is built on the idea of “voluntary compliance.” This means that it is left to the taxpayer to keep the necessary records, file a return on time, pay any required taxes, and meet any other requirements of the tax law. The system is built on trust in the citizens to know their responsibilities and to do what needs to be done. Taxpayers voluntarily follow the steps the tax system lays out. Failure to do so can result in penalties.

    Two aspects of the Federal Income Tax system – voluntary compliance with the law and self-assessment of tax – make it important for you to understand your rights and responsibilities as a taxpayer. ‘Voluntary compliance’ places on the taxpayer the responsibility for filing an income tax return. You must decide whether the law requires you to file a return. If it does, you must file your return by the date it is due. –IRS Publication 21

    You are among the millions of Americans who comply with the tax law voluntarily. –1992 Form1040 Tax Instruction Booklet

    Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance. –Mortimer Caplin, IRS Commissioner, 1975 IRS IR Audit Manual

    The mission of the service is to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance. –Donald C. Alexander, IRS Commissioner, Federal Register, March 1974

    The IRS’s primary task is to collect taxes under a voluntary compliance system. –Jerome Kurtz IRS Commissioner, 1980 IR Annual Report

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    Your simple fact is a lie. It will not fail, that is just a Republican scare tactic. It is protected for long after we will be gone, and adjustments will be made as they have in the past to keep it going. Your hopes for collapse are in vain. You have been misled. A religion needs to be more than just no jobs, no Social Security, no taxes, no common wealth of the nation.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    No. I am not a citizen of the United States of Mexico (Estados Unidos Mexicanos). Are you?

    My adopted daughter’s natural grandmother is a Mexican citizen.

    Are you a U.S. citizen. I am not one of those either.

    Are you a citizen of your Sovereign State? Or just a resident? BEing just a “resident” is very limiting on your rights.

    I am an American. Very different than a U.S. citizen. U.S. citizen have far less rights as they are directly under the authority of Congress and are not protected by the Bill of Rights in the same way State Citizens and American Nationals are protected.

    They live with Congressionally granted privileges and therefore lose their right to Article III courts. They go to Article I courts like Tax Court. I feel bad for those voluntary slaves. (See Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. 458 U.S. 50, 83-84, (1982))

    Are you a “voluntary slave” AKA “U.S. taxpayer”?

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    You should think about keeping a journal. Y’know, writing for someone who cares.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Thanks for proving once and for all that you’re a nutter.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I have NEVER claimed to “evade” taxes. I legally “avoid” them. Are you so ignorant that you do not know the difference? What a “tragedy” that you don’t know the difference. Justice Brandeis did a great job of explaining the difference. Maybe this will help you understand how our system works.

    “I live in Alexandria, Virginia. Near the Supreme Court Chambers is a toll bridge across the Potomac. When in a rush, I pay the dollar toll & get home early. However, I usually drive outside the downtown section of the city and cross the Potomac on the free bridge. This bridge was placed outside the downtown Washington DC area to serve a useful social service getting drivers to drive the extra mile & help alleviate congestion during the rush hour.
    “If I went over the toll bridge and through the barrier without paying the toll, I would be committing tax evasion. If, however, I drive the extra mile & drive outside the city of Washington to the free bridge, I am using a legitimate, logical & suitable method of tax avoidance, & I am performing a useful social service by doing so. For my tax evasion, I should be punished. For my tax avoidance, I should be commended. The tragedy of life today is that so few people know that the free bridge even exists.”
    – Justice Louis D. Brandeis

    Would you like to “commend” me now?

    Do you believe that Hobby Lobby Evaded or Avoided taxes since SCOTUS ruled that the RFRA allows them to avoid the ObamaCare tax rules on at least one part of the tax law?

    And remember that SCOTUS ruled that ObamaCare is a TAX!

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    And demanding I supply them when they are readily available to you is all you will get. I am not your slave.

    Your request is DENIED.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I didn’t make the claim. She did.

    It is a citation even if it is wrong. Didn’t you know that?

    And yes. You do repeat yourself a lot. Why? It didn’t have value the first time.

    Do you have proof she is wrong?

    Where is your citation and not just the spew of a Progressive Voluntary Slave?

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    What? A double standard? I’m expected to “look it up myself” but when you want a citation, it’s different?

    Well, here you go, Captain Tw*twaffle:

    MLK supported Planned Parenthood: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/history-successes
    MLK supported gay rights: http://www.buzzfeed.com/steventhrasher/walter-naegle-partner-of-the-late-bayard-rustin-talks-about#1fr60dj

    Just two examples of how Alveda King’s positions are antithetical to her late uncle’s. That woman is an anti-choice homophobe.

    You’re welcome.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    You demand a citation of me, but you don’t have to provide one?

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    I’ll take this as a tacit admission that you were lying.

    Not that I’m surprised.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    So much word salad from a tax evader trying to justify his crimes.

    TL;DR.

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    To summarize: “Wank, wank, wank, wank.”

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I made a joke at your expense. You seem to have been to dense to understand that it was a joke on you. But I have made up no facts.

    Here are some citation that may help you find the law that requires U.S. citizens to have a Social Security Number to get a bank account.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    You do.

    You keep asking questions or making statements. If you didn’t want a response then you should stop demanding them.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I did not say she was not ALLOWED to have sex. I said all she had to do was choose not have sex if she could not afford the pills or the IUD.

    Her choice. Not mine. She can still choose to have sex and risk pregnancy. Her choice.

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    If I really cared about the content of your writing, then I’d actually read it. After a while it just gets so repetitive & so self-indulgent that it becomes tedious to give any serious attention to. What I do care about is the fact that you’re spewing it around here, because it’s obnoxious.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I am claiming there is no law that requires foreigners to have a Social Security Number to obtain a U.S.A. bank account.

    I am claiming that I have been repeatedly shown the computer screen that shows that an American must supply an SSN while there is no such requirement for a foreigner.

    I am claiming that I have been repeatedly told by Wells Fargo and Bank of America and other banks that I cannot obtain even a non-interest bearing bank account without giving the bank a Social Security Number.

    I have been repeatedly told by a variety of banks that this new SSN requirement is because of the USA PATRIOT ACT.

    I know from personal experience that I, and others, used to be able to obtain non-interest bearing bank accounts without an SSN for non-interest bearing accounts.

    If you would like to review one possible citation on being forced to supply a SSN for bank accounts try this:

    http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/103-34-additional-records-made-retained-19742093

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Jim, the FACT is you have FAITH it will not fail all evidence to the contrary. When Social Security started there were more than 10 taxpayers to one beneficiary. Soon there will be One to One. It WILL fail.

    I do not trust Republicans. I despise them more than Democrats and I think Democrats are traitors to the Constitution and liberty.

    A religion does not need to be anything, legally, except a belief in an ultimate reality. At least one of your ultimate realities is that Social Security will not fail. Your Sacred Trust between the Generation will fail because there are not enough voluntary slaves in the the next generation because Americans are not having enough children.

    It is happening in Greece, France, Italy, Japan, etc. In Russia they are having Sex camps and asking women to have children for motor Russia because they are not having enough children there either.

    People used to have a lot of children. Then Social Security took the burden or caring for the elder and put that burden on OTHER PEOPLE’S Children. That is when Americans stopped having more than 2 kids. Two children a couple is not even a replacement level. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It needs more suckers at the bottom. That is no longer possible. At One to One the tax must come from ONE PERSON. That is mathematically impossible.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    And yet you care enough to keep responding. Just like most women I know.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Thanks for proving you are a voluntary slave.

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    Oops, there’s your sexism leaking out again.

  • david.lloydjones@gmail.com' David Lloyd-Jones says:

    Well, the good news is Obamacare covers mental illness too.

    The bad news is Hobby Lobby has not yet covered your notion that the income tax is voluntary. You’re wandering off into criminality in that area, seems to me Chris.
    -dlj.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    And these links proves that MLK was not a Republican because?

    HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaaaaaaaa!

    You have proof like the IRS explains the rights of taxpayers.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I have given citations to others. You are obviously not intelligent enough to be worthy of the time it would take.

    “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” Facts and law mean nothing to you. Your FAITH will not allow for truth.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Are you claiming Justice Louis D. Brandeis was a tax evader? Why?

    You do not pay Minnesota income taxes so you must be a tax evader.

    I bet you don’t pay any Utah Income tax either. You filthy tax cheat.

    I have committed no crime. Do you have proof I evade taxes and not avoid them? Of course you do not. You are obviously too ignorant to even know the difference.

    You continue to violate the 9th Commandment.

    I am guessing you don’t even know what a U.,S. dollar is. What an uneducated person you are.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I bet you do that a lot. Lonely people like you often do.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    But you keep responding. Ditto.

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    It could never be more than your wankery here. It must be lonely being your own little world of wankery.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    That is the Republican propaganda. It has taken in far more than it has paid out, and has investments that it can draw on, and is adjusted to retax back some of what it pays out and raise the age a little to keep going. You are listening to part of the story from a slanted perspective. Bush wanted to privatize social security and have you invest your portion in the stock market, which is more how the rich operate when they have lots of money to invest. BEST case under the Bush design, many of us would have ended up unlucky and screwed. Fortunately it was not privatized, and it still works, and will continue. The baby boom bulge will not last forever, and looking past that, it looks good for the social security system.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Most women I know love to respond to me. That is not sexism. Just a fact. Did you know that Black people usually have darker skin than White people. That is not a racist statement. It is a fact. That is why they are often called people of color or Black people.

    What a bigot you are.

    bigot
    n.noun
    One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    ObamaCare cover nothing for me. You must have a Social Security number to even apply for coverage. Didn’t you know that?

    The good news about Hobby Lobby was found at footnote 43 where the court was clear that the RFRA applies to tax law. It killed their ruling in Lee that the government cased their case against Hobby Lobby on.

    My notion? Nope. The SCOTUS and the IRS have been very clear on the matter of the voluntary nature of our tax system. Didn’t you know that? Perhaps you should study what your slave masters have said themselves.

    Our system of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint. –United States v. Flora, 362 US 145 (1958)

    Let me point this out now. Your income tax is 100 percent voluntary and your liquor tax is 100 percent enforced tax. Now the situation is as different as day and night. Consequently, your same rules just will not apply… –Dwight E. Avis, Head of ATF, IRS –House Ways and Means Subcommittee Hearings –1953

    The real point of audits is to instill fear, not to extract revenue; the IRS aims at winning through intimidation and (thereby) getting maximum voluntary compliance. –Paul Strassel, Former IRS Headquarters Agent `Wall St. Journal’ 1/28/80

    The IRS’s goal is to increase the rate at which taxpayers voluntarily pay their taxes from the current 82.3% to 90% by 2001. –The Washington Post front page Dec. 2, 1993, IRS Hopes Change

    Each year American taxpayers voluntarily file their tax returns and make a special effort to pay the taxes they owe. –Johnie M. Walters IRS Commissioner, 1971 Form 1040 Booklet

    From Publication 21/ 1998 update
    Do you have to file a tax return and pay taxes?”
    Answer from Pub. 21:
    The U. S. income tax system is built on the idea of “voluntary compliance.” This means that it is left to the taxpayer to keep the necessary records, file a return on time, pay any required taxes, and meet any other requirements of the tax law. The system is built on trust in the citizens to know their responsibilities and to do what needs to be done. Taxpayers voluntarily follow the steps the tax system lays out. Failure to do so can result in penalties.
    Two aspects of the Federal Income Tax system – voluntary compliance with the law and self-assessment of tax – make it important for you to understand your rights and responsibilities as a taxpayer. ‘Voluntary compliance’ places on the taxpayer the responsibility for filing an income tax return. You must decide whether the law requires you to file a return. If it does, you must file your return by the date it is due. –IRS Publication 21

    You are among the millions of Americans who comply with the tax law voluntarily. –1992 Form1040 Tax Instruction Booklet

    Our tax system is based on individual self-assessment and voluntary compliance. –Mortimer Caplin, IRS Commissioner, 1975 IRS IR Audit Manual

    The mission of the service is to encourage and achieve the highest possible degree of voluntary compliance. –Donald C. Alexander, IRS Commissioner, Federal Register, March 1974

    The IRS’s primary task is to collect taxes under a voluntary compliance system. –Jerome Kurtz IRS Commissioner, 1980 IR Annual Report

    We have a voluntary compliance system. –Fred Goldberg, IRS Commissioner, Nightline with Ted Koppel, Apr.13, 1990

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    Your inability to listen or parse meaning is astounding.

    Also funny that you call me a woman for responding when you have so much difficulty not having the last word on anything.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Actually I have many friends in this wonderful Tax Truth Movement. I Have a wonderful wife that got me into this movement. A real woman of passion that decided at the age of ten that she would never file a return and never has. My children are very active in this movement too.

    Lonely? Heavens no.

    And I have such funny laughing at voluntary slaves like you. A laugh a minute.

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    you have a proven record of anti-female hate speech on this site.

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    No one cares about who you are, what you do, or what your opinions are.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Is the Census Bureau a Republican Propaganda tool?

    It has taken in more than it has paid out to beneficiaries. It has also be raided to pay for everything from wars to banker bailout. There is NOTHING in the so-called lock box but IOUs just like Alf Landon said would happen.

    Bush was a war criminal and a liar. Why would a care about anything he said?

    It still works because the U.S. continues to print FRNs. Eventually the FRN will become totally worthless instead of worth 3 cents to a 1913 U.S. dollar.

    The Social Security System is a sea man walking.

    But if you want to have FAITH in your Sacred Trust Religion that is of course. your right and your choice. I fully support your right to practice your religion. Just don’t try to force me to pay into your Sacred Pact Between the Generations Church.

  • david.lloydjones@gmail.com' David Lloyd-Jones says:

    Christopher, poor Christopher,

    You are a lightweight nut, a menace to yourself more than you are a stupid annoyance to the rest of us.

    The thing that is voluntary about the income tax is the prepayment and the calculation on which you make your prepayments.

    The accurate eventual calculation and the eventual actual payment are compulsory, but the real reason you’re a danger to yourself is the lawyers, the late interest and the penalties, if any, will eat you alive.

    I wish you luck with these latter misfortunes, but my advice is that you simply deduct and pay in the normal ways.

    And you have my pity.

    -dlj.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Are you making a stereotypical remark inferring that women demand the last word?

    What a sexist thing to write. I am ashamed for you.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I do not. I am very pro-women and have been since my wife led me to the truth about the IRS.

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    Actually calling you a hypocrite. Also, to reiterate: your inability to listen or parse meaning is astounding.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Yet you care enough to keep me laughing. Thanks.

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    no one cares.

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    Your words on this forum prove you wrong.

  • david.lloydjones@gmail.com' David Lloyd-Jones says:

    “I am claiming there is no law that requires foreigners to have a Social Security Number to obtain a U.S.A. bank account.”

    No problem with that: foreigners aren’t going to get the benefits of Social Security.

    Duh.

    -dlj.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    So Dave… How does the RFRA apply to tax law?

    Can the IRS/Federal Government impose a tax burden without meeting the strict RFRA test?

    And if they cannot impose such burden then how do my religious beliefs affect any possible requirement to file or pay income taxes?

    Since you know so much can you explain the possible legal ramifications?

    I am indeed a lightweight. Only the Superrich have any weight these days. They buy and sell lawmakers like so much product.

    If I annoy you then I have done my small part.

    The thing that is voluntary about the income tax is that without voluntary applying for a Social Security Number keeps you from being “federal personnel” (see Title 5) so you need not be a recipient of a Congressionally created benefit and therefore become a “taxpayer.”See Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. 458 U.S. 50, 83-84, (1982) See also South Carolina v. Regan, 465 U.S. 367, (1984).

    The tax is compulsory for taxpayers that file a return. I agree completely. When you volunteer to be a taxpayer it is like joining the federal military. After you join you are REQUIRED to follow orders. I do not have to follow the orders of a military officer because I am not a voluntary military man. Voluntary slavery is not unconstitutional. Every person in the military is a prime example of that. So are “taxpayers.”

    In the words of Justice Roberts in 2012 AD concerning what happens when you file a return:

    “The ‘[s]hared responsibility payment,’ as the statute entitles it, is paid into the Treasury by “tax- payer[s]” when they file their tax returns. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(b). It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. §5000A(e)(2).”

    So if you file a return different rules apply and SCOTUS said so.

    And you have my pity for being a voluntary slave. It must be horrible to be so ignorant about the tax system that you would defend your master.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    And so?

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I care.

    I love to laugh.

    Thanks for the hilarity.

    Keep it coming.

  • wiikwajio@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    Wrong. My words prove that I oppose Feminism and Socialism and those ,movement/religions that have men and women in them.

    You continue to prove that you are a bigot.

    bigot
    n.noun
    One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    So we agree. Foreigns do not need to be marked by the SSN to get a bank account. That means that their is a less restrictive means of tracking bank accounts and under the RFRA I should be able to get a bank account without an SSN.

    That lawsuit is in the works since the Hobby Lobby ruling in June.

    And millions of FRNs go to Mexican citizens in Mexico under the U.S. Social Security system. Didn’t you know that?

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    You hate women, but you cannot face it. Your words here have betrayed you time and time again.

  • david.lloydjones@gmail.com' David Lloyd-Jones says:

    Good-bye, Christopher.

    I hope you can get help.

    -dlj.

  • christopher@ubernet.net' Christopher says:

    I tried to get help from the government and they sent me a letter from the District Director that I was not required to file a return.

    I thought that was the best help I ever got from the government.

    Have an enjoyable life as a voluntary slave.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Rant away, little nut-job.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Thanks for admitting that you’re making shit up, little nutter.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    You’re a nutcase. Seek help.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    You need psychiatric help. Lots of it. Preferably in a locked facility.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Stop being deliberately obtuse, you beef-witted pox-plow. You know damned good and well that the citation I am demanding is that foreign nationals are permitted to have US bank accounts without ID or a tax ID number … both of which you claimed.

    So, provide the citation or admit once and for all that you’re a fucking liar.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    I don’t think it’s particularly latent; it’s out there in the open.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Yep. Studies have shown that the most vocal homophobes are closet cases. http://elitedaily.com/news/world/homophobic-men-aroused-gay-male-porn-surprised/

    And, we all know that misogyny and homophobia are rooted in concepts of rigid, traditional gender roles. Christopher is a vocal homophobe, because he’s afraid of two things: his own latent attraction to men, and his fear that a gay man will treat him as shabbily as he treats the women in his life.

    For decades, I have said that if you scratch a homophobe, a misogynist will bleed. Christopher is a prime example.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    I think that every single one of his friends and family members are figments of his imagination, myself …

  • truktyre@hotmail.com' Craptacular says:

    Sorry for the delay…honestly. The prom was not held at school, so it was considered a “private” party. Minorities had their own private prom, too. I never did understand how they justified the racially segregated homecoming queens, court, and graduating classes. Sometimes there was a single group ceremony, but all the subsequent activities were then racially segregated.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    I thought we were starting to make progress.

  • dkeane123@comcast.net' DKeane123 says:

    Wow. I spent most of my childhood in the Bronx, couldn’t imagine that happening in the 80’s at that location.

  • asmorrell@gmail.com' Andre M says:

    Has RD been exorcised of Christopher???

    Also, I’m going to have to tuck “beef-witted pox-plow” away for later use. I love it.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Has RD been exorcised of Christopher?

    That does appear to be the case.

    I’m going to have to tuck “beef-witted pox-plow” away for later use. I love it.

    Thank my grounding in Shakespeare and Tudor-era idiom, LOL. It’s one of my favorites. The female equivalent is “pox-closet,” just in case you need that.

  • dakotahgeo@hotmail.com' George M Melby says:

    How much you wanna bet Christopher was the old Frank/Hooper syndrom? Or was his writing style different?

  • dakotahgeo@hotmail.com' George M Melby says:

    Yup, that sounds like disgruntled Frank. He’s gone, thank goodness!

  • dakotahgeo@hotmail.com' George M Melby says:

    Oh no, they can’t! We’ve tried that with a good friend of mine, and they need a green card and proof of address. ‘Nuff said. Thank you, fiona64!

  • dakotahgeo@hotmail.com' George M Melby says:

    Heh heh heh… me too! Delicious comment!

  • dakotahgeo@hotmail.com' George M Melby says:

    LOLOL… thanks, fiona! Super! This Christopher POS sounded an awful lot like Frank.

  • dakotahgeo@hotmail.com' George M Melby says:

    Lord knows, we’ve tried for months now. Maybe this latest episode will finally do the trick!

  • dakotahgeo@hotmail.com' George M Melby says:

    Good God, this Christopher POS never gives up! Thank goodness he got the boot, same as in AATTP (Americans Against The Tea Party). He is just as obnoxious here as his brothers Hooper/Frank/Susie/Brad/James. If we wait long enough, he’ll run out of names, lolol.

  • dakotahgeo@hotmail.com' George M Melby says:

    Frank6548 is the old Christopher, but same old Frank6548.

  • dakotahgeo@hotmail.com' George M Melby says:

    Good Lord, NO! Luckily Christopher/Frank is too busy playing with himself!

  • dakotahgeo@hotmail.com' George M Melby says:

    Anyone who regards themselves as Christian or has done the minimal amount of studying Christianity knows that the majority of Founding Fathers were Deists. Christopher/Frank6548/Susie/Brad/James/Pual621 obviously aren’t educated in the obvious!

  • dakotahgeo@hotmail.com' George M Melby says:

    But we can hope. Christopher/Frank6548/Susie/Brad/James/Pual621 have all been booted from here and other blogs for their obnoxious and abhorrent behavior and comments. It was about time. Thank you, psychobabble.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    Christopher is a “sovereign citizen”. [eyeroll]

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Christopher is an imbecile.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Believe it or not, this one is an even bigger nutter than Frank. Throw in conspiracy theorist, tax evader and self-proclaimed “Libertarian” along with Frank’s uneducated insistence that the Bible is to be taken literally in all cases (except the ones that might inconvenience Frank, of course), and you have Christopher.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Very different. This one is a verbose conspiracy theorist.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    He did, indeed. And I wish, when they banned people, they would leave their posts intact, unless they were personal flames. Christopher gave us a rare insight into the warped and twisted viewpoint of the Sovereign movement, and I found it quite interesting.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    No, I think the style is different. Frank isn’t a writer, Christopher is. And didn’t Frank say he lived in the UK? Or is that a different Frank? Christopher lives in the US, probably in the west. That whole “sovereign citizen” thing is kind of a US phenomenon. And I wish they’d left his posts up. We don’t get to see their mindset on display every day.

  • dakotahgeo@hotmail.com' George M Melby says:

    I was referring to Frank6548, another one of those SBBs = Stupid Beyond Belief fellas/girls.

  • dakotahgeo@hotmail.com' George M Melby says:

    Point taken– thanks.

  • dakotahgeo@hotmail.com' George M Melby says:

    Good God! It is ALMOST inconceivable that there could be anyone more obnoxious and wrong than ‘ol Frank. Blessedly I won’t be able to read Chrissy’s comments, but it would have been nice to see how far off, intelligence-wise, this bozo was in his/her verbal diarrhea.

  • muggins@culthero.org' Christopher says:

    I guess that could be true…except…

  • muggins@culthero.org' Christopher says:

    Exorcised? Is that how it appears?

  • muggins@culthero.org' Christopher says:

    You should know, you feculent mentally defective legal illiterate, but obviously you do not, that a legal citation cannot be given unless a restriction has been made at law. I need not and cannot give you a citation for your right to walk without a license either because no such restriction against walking has been made at law. Foreigners are not under the No Bank Account without an SSN Legal Restriction paced upon voluntary slave Americans by the USA PATRIOT ACT. Therefore, that which is not restricted by law, is allowed. Therefore, no citation is needed nor can one be given.

    Please do not believe me. Ask your own bank if a Mexican citizen needs a TIN or SSN to open a bank account. Ask if you can get an account without an SSN, but ask a manager. The tellers are normally shocked and as ignorant as you, that you cannot open an account without the Mark of the Beast/SSN.

    Any free man would have know that. Obviously you didn’t, so the conclusion is obvious. Voluntary slaves never understand that law. Everyone knows that. It is common knowledge. They just accept what their masters tell them and do what they are told…like you do.

  • fiona64@livejournal.com' fiona64 says:

    Still no citations? Quelle surprise.

    You’re a liar and a lunatic, and I will not be engaging with you any further. DIAF.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *