Pro-life strike - blog

Exit

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Sat, 01 May 2010 02:07:00 +0000

An interesting development has occurred, just in the past few days, though not completely unexpected. I have accepted an offer on my home here in Wisconsin, and plan in early June 2010 to move to another part of the world, to escape the tyranny of tax-funded murder.

To repeat: this is not totally unexpected. As noted on the "Manifesto" page, the "Flee" strategy has always struck me as the purest Pro-Life Strike strategy of all, because it is a clean sweep. Now at long last (Lord willing, and the sale goes through), after years of trying other strategies, I may be able to get out of jail, so to speak.

My near future is a bit of a blank slate right now. I expect there will be work to do wherever I end up. I do not expect rest as long as I am on this earth. (Peace would be nice, if not rest.) As for this website, it is paid for until January 2011. If there is an internet in my future, expect to hear from me again at some point before then. Please surprise me with a few hundred signups, folks who are willing to resist tax-funded abortion in some way, any way. I would love that kind of surprise.

You may still contact me as usual for a couple weeks yet. After that, ¿quién sabe?

Besides all that, today is the very last day Blogger will let me publish via ftp. (See "Blog changes coming" below, with notes.) So, even with a future internet presence, this may be the last blog entry. You can no longer add comments, either. But the blog will stay up, as a sort of library of thoughts, as one reader put it. As to what may develop in a few months - - ¿quién sabe?

American Caesar - 3

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:48:00 +0000

The fourth and most troubling level of injustice cited in the previous post comes down to this: when pro-life American Christians willingly sign their 1040 form, they become willing accomplices to tax-funded murder, and cannot blame anyone else.

As noted on the "Manifesto" page, and in at least two blog posts below [1] [2], the Scriptural mandate to "render to Caesar..." (Mt.22:21) cannot credibly be used as an excuse to docilely cooperate in the tax-funded holocaust.

We sing patriotic songs about our liberty, and we honor the rule of law enshrined in our Constitution. We proudly wave the flag and we pity the poor oppressed in other parts of the world. We are Americans; we are free.

The very act of signing the 1040 is indeed an act of freedom, a voluntary decision. No one forcing the signature, no gun to the head. And therein lies the problem.

Do we truly believe all the talk about freedom? Our Constitution says that we the people are Caesar, and the bureaucrats must answer to us. Then why continue to act as if the opposite were the case, and defer to the usurpers? Is this not abdication?

Now, I realize that active tax resistance is highly problematic and may be inadvisable for many folks, especially for those with young dependent children. But surely there must be at least a small percentage of pro-life people who can do this. A small percentage of millions is a few thousand. That would make a huge impact.

Four degrees

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:00:00 +0000

In the U.S. and other developed democratic nations, there exist four levels or degrees of injustice with regard to the slaughter of innocent pre-born. In my estimation, the latter levels are more troubling:

The first level is the taking of the human life. The murderer who wields the scalpel or suction tube, the mother who makes the fatal decision to hire the murderer or to use the abortifacient drug or device, the boyfriend, counselor, friend, parent or pastor who agree to and affirm the crime, are all guilty of a most grave injustice toward a fellow human being and toward their Creator.
The state is guilty of the second level of injustice. The main purpose of human government, its raison d'être, is to protect basic human rights. To deny legal protection to the most innocent and helpless humans is an injustice in its own right. There have always been murderers; only a corrupt and evil government offers them legal protection.
The state is also guilty of the third level of injustice when it compels its citizens to cooperate in the crime via taxes and mandates. This is no mere failure to protect life, but is a proactive assault upon both human life and upon human consciences. The judges and legislators and bureaucrats who enact and enforce such measures damn themselves in a most despicable way.
Finally, there is the fourth degree, an injustice perpetrated by an acquiescent citizenry. These otherwise decent people might fast and pray and protest, but as long as they willingly obey the aforementioned government measures, they are guilty of crime as well. Mandates without compliance are meaningless and harmless; the obedient citizen makes the mandates effective. Willing cooperation with evil is itself evil.

David Little goes to jail

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:47:00 +0000

Yesterday David Little was sentenced to 66 days in jail for failure to file his Canadian income taxes.

Please see this blog post for some background. Better yet, visit David's website for details.

No ObamaCare

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:52:00 +0000

Pertaining to U.S. citizens: The sign-up page now contains a checkbox for "No ObamaCare". If you refuse to comply with the mandates of the new health care bill, you may thereby count yourself as being part of the pro-life strike.

Obey not - 2

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:06:00 +0000

As a follow-up to the aforementioned phone call to Congressman Obey's office, here is the text of a message just transmitted to his official web site:

Tues. March 16

Dear Mr. Obey:
As a follow-up of our March 3 phone messages to Matt Rudig, your staff person in Superior, this message is our due notice to you that we may hold you responsible for any legal ramifications of a health care mandate that passes with your support. Whether it is done under the guise of some parliamentary trick or whether it is done openly: if you support any measure that results in federal health care mandates, you may be held legally responsible for its consequences to us.
To be specific, as we hope it was made clear on March 3, we will not obey any mandate to purchase health insurance, nor to take part in a health care program or any such similar measure. All the measures proposed have amounted to tax-funded murder of the innocents and tyranny for citizens. Even if abortion mandates were not included, government health care mandates are simply unjust and tyrannical. We will not obey any such tyrannical measure. If a fine is therefore imposed, we will not pay the fine. If further legal ramifications follow, we will hold you personally responsible. The respondent in any lawsuit will be Mr. David Obey, not Congressman Obey.
We hope this is quite clear. Do as you please, but beware the consequences. This message serves as legal notice.

Sincerely,
Gerald and Lenore DePyper
Superior, WI

A parable

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:22:00 +0000

We're all in the same boat, each man doing his job, every one pulling his weight. That's how the system works. No shirkers; we're in this together, each laborer doing his job, every man to his oar. Cooperating in this way, we are able to make steady progress.

Gradually and slowly, however, a few of the workers begin to wonder about the overall course we seem to be taking. There begins to be some buzz about whether or not we're going the right way.

The sense of unrest grows. It is becoming clearer and clearer to more of the crew that the "progress" we are making is in the wrong direction. Besides that, our leaders have apparently gone over to the enemy's side. The misdirection may be deliberate! Those who are steering are using the ship, powered by our muscles, to work destruction and murder. Our toil has become counterproductive, perhaps deadly. We are empowering our wicked masters and helping them to wreak havoc and to shed innocent blood. Without realizing it, we are now party to evil deeds. We have become slaves on our own vessel!

Finally, one slave stops rowing. He looks around at his fellows who are still pulling on their oars. A thought forms in his mind. He begins to say, first to one and then to another of his comrades, "Hey, I just had an idea. What if we all stopped rowing? The ship would stop dead in its tracks, and our leaders would be helpless to proceed. Wouldn't that be a good thing?"

You finish the story.

Obey not

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:49:00 +0000

Heretofore, my tax resistance strategy has been within the confines of civil law. As outlined on the manifesto page, Jerry DePyper has taken the "reduced income" approach, reducing or eliminating income tax liability by reducing or eliminating my income. But as I consider the looming "health care" tyranny being pushed by Democrats even as I write, I have come to realize that the time has come to take the next step.

Since tax-funded abortion is baked into all viable versions of recent U.S. "health care" legislation proposals, it necessarily becomes grist for the pro-life strike mill. With federally mandated coverage, legal and passive resistance now seems to be inadequate.

So today I called the local office of my congressman, David Obey (pronounced Oh-bee). After a few busy signals, I got through and talked personally with a staffer named Matt Rudig. My message was that I would refuse to obey any health care mandates, and would hold Democratic Congressman Obey responsible for any legal ramifications, if he supports it with his vote. Mr. Rudig sounded a bit surprised at the message, a declaration of intent instead of a docile plea or an outraged demand, but he took my name and address, and promised to relay the message to Obey. Well, then: Jerry DePyper is now officially on record as being a potential outlaw, and an actual law-breaker if any of these tyrannical measures pass.

I do not take lightly the decision to disobey my government. Think of St. Thomas More, who obeyed his king for as long as he could, without disobeying God. But in the end, when forced to choose his first loyalty, More declared, "I die the King's good servant, but God's first." St. Thomas, pray for us.

Deal breaker

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:59:00 +0000

OK, let me make one or two more arguments while I can.

I don't listen religiously to the Glenn Beck program, and, when I do listen, don't agree with everything he says. But a couple weeks ago, he made an emphatic point that made me pick up my ears, since it relates directly to the notion that we ought not be paying for tax-funded abortion. Trouble is, Beck doesn't seem to realize the importance of his own point.

The context of Beck's animated sermon was an on-air phone conversation with a political candidate from Texas. Beck asked this gubernatorial hopeful for her position re. the "911 truthers", those who believe that the 911 attack was an inside job, the work of people within the U.S. government. When the candidate demurred from specifically denouncing these theories, Beck reacted with suitable outrage.

Beck's arguments went like this: If this candidate really believes there to be some truth to the notion that government forces were responsible for that mass murder, then she can not credibly pretend to have any other more pressing political concerns. If our government were actually engaged in the deliberate extermination of innocent people, then that government is evil. Not mistaken. Not corrupt. Evil. And that would be a deal breaker. No other political issue would matter. Beck asked pointedly: If you believe these theories, why wouldn't you work with all diligence to expose such evil? Why would you pay another nickel in taxes to such an evil government?

Just so, Mr. Beck. Just so.

Blog changes coming

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:45:00 +0000

Speaking of dilatory, the pace of blog posting has fallen off of late, hasn't it? There are some reasons for this. For one thing, I've been spending time recently doing winter chores, digesting flytes, following up on other web-related pursuits, catching up on domestic and mundane duties, etc. For another, I haven't been inspired to write much; perhaps just running out of things to say. Only so many ways to frame the argument that pro-lifers ought not fund the very thing they regard as murder.

A third reason is that this blog will soon have to undergo a technical alteration. In a few weeks, Blogger will no longer support ftp publishing, which is how this blog has been published up until now. The following options are available:

1. I could migrate this blog away from "prolifestrike.org/blog" to a Blogger-owned server. This would leave the blog intact, but screw up any bookmarks, etc. Notwithstanding Blogger assurances, this option seems to have great potential for headaches during the transition.
2. Switch to Wordpress or other blog publishing facility. Same potential for headaches.
3. Close the blog. Visitors could still read the blog articles and their comments, but could not post new comments, and no new articles would be added. Am leaning toward this option.
4. Do my own publishing, sans Blogger, Wordpress, or any third-party software. Transition headaches as above, but no threat of future third-party hurdles. Comments would be via an amateurish, homegrown facility similar to the site's "Contact" page feedback form. Could employ this option right away, or at some future time after choosing option 3.

Meanwhile, normal Blogger comments are still working. So, if anyone cares to weigh in on this, feel free to leave a comment.

NOTE: Assuming option 3 or 4, at some point in March 2010 you may no longer be able to post comments to this or earlier blog articles in the normal Blogger fashion. You may always use the "Contact" page form to offer any feedback.

NOTE 2 (posted March 8, 2010): Blogger has extended the cutoff date to May 1, 2010. I plan on making the necessary changes here sometime before that.

David Little: Appeal denied

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:10:00 +0000

Have been dilatory in making this blog report: On Jan. 14, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada announced, with no explanation, that it would not hear David Little's appeal with regard to tax funding for abortion. This is a setback, but David is not about to be silenced.

Please see this blog post for some background. Better yet, visit David's website for details.

Website signup page boof

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:31:00 +0000

I have been stunningly incompetent, amazingly clueless. Have been playing with a new page design for prolifestrike.org, and testing as I make changes. To my great horror, I discovered two days ago that the signup page has not been saving any signup information to the server. What I thought was a lack of interest was in fact a lack of intelligence and capability on my part. This data hole may be several months old; many folks may have been signing up all this time, perhaps as far back as March 2009. That information is now irretrievably lost, and I have no way of knowing who you are. The worst part is that the system probably displayed a message saying that the signup process was complete, when it wasn't.

Beyond confessing my shame an remorse over this, I am reporting that I believe it now works OK. If you have signed up as a pro-life striker, and suspect that your action was being ignored, please know that it wasn't deliberately or callously ignored, but stupidly dropped. In a successful signup process, you would have been given a unique 8-digit ID number in the form 'xxx-999.99', and, if you included a valid email address, you would have received an email thanking you for signing up. If you have been gracious enough to continue to visit this site despite the lack of response, please accept my apology, click on the "Sign up" tab, and give it another try. (The signup page includes a request to refrain from signing up a second time. Please ignore this request.) And this time, if it still doesn't seem to work, please complain loudly, using one of the contact methods included on the "Contact" page. Thanks.

Isaiah 1:16

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 03:03:00 +0000

. . .cease to do evil. (Is.1:16)

At the outset of his message, the prophet proclaims this simple command, which must surely be the very beginning of any moral life.

Before any moral progress can be made, there must be a turning aside from wrongdoing, or at least from the most deadly and serious sins. Prior to any attempt to help others, more important than any intercessory prayer or fasting or sacrifice, one must stop doing harm. In order to promote and defend life, one must first stop murdering.

The pro-life strike in not any more ambitious than that. A simple equation. Abortion is murder, a heinous crime. To fund it is to partake in the crime. In order to pray, fast, vote, write letters, sign petitions, display signs, hold seminars, and all the other worthy pro-life activities - before all that, we must first stop partaking in the crime ourselves.

Manhattan Declaration - 2

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:00:00 +0000

I have submitted the following suggestion to the "Contact" page of The Manhattan Declaration:

This amazing ground swell is a grace from on high, and may be the answer to our prayers and fasting. Please do not allow this to become just another feel-good symbolic gesture. Please offer some concrete things that folks can do beyond the usual advice to "pray, fast and spread the word". People are awaking; we need to do something, and not just be content to be awake.
Again, please consider this possibility for at least some of the signers of the The Manhattan Declaration: join together in a general tax strike until our government stops compelling us via our taxes to violate our consciences. Realizing that many would not find this agreeable, yet if a small fraction of your signers were to join this effort, it would be of tremendous impact, and would likely snowball, Lord willing.
You could point your visitors to the home page: http://prolifestrike.org
or to the "manifesto" page which gives a systematic rationale for such a strike: http://prolifestrike.org/manifesto.php
or to the blog post related to the Manhattan Declaration: http://prolifestrike.org/blog/2009/11/manhattan-declaration.html
As stated there, if anyone on your team wants to adopt this idea as his own, I would gladly turn the reins of this site over to someone with better credentials than myself.

Manhattan Declaration

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:17:00 +0000

The Manhattan Declaration contains this as its closing paragraph:

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's.

Since this so closely reflects the principles of the Pro-life strike, I am hereby including it on the Links page, and am inclined to consider it a sister site.

This younger sister has attracted an tremendous amount of traffic and an enviable number of signers in a very short time, while ProLifeStrike.org remains, by comparison, virtually unknown. But envy is uncalled for. Upon launching this Pro-life strike website 10 months ago, I lamented within the Manifesto page that no one was already doing this:

The concept of a pro-life tax strike is not new, but this website appears to be unique in seeking a concerted grass-roots effort.

and looked forward to the possibility of someone with better credentials picking up the baton:

If you're a recognized pro-life leader, you might offer to make this idea your own. Be our guest; assuming these general principles are followed, we willingly defer to someone with better credentials and an established following.

With 152 religious leaders and over 88,000 (at last count) signers, The Manhattan Declaration may be the answer to my plea, or at least a beginning. Although it falls short of actually calling for a tax strike, I heartily recommend this website, and pray that it will stir folks up to conscientious civil disobedience.

Criminal obedience

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:11:00 +0000

Suppose you surprise a burglar one night as you enter your home. The place is ransacked, he's carting off your most precious possessions, and when he sees you, he pulls a gun and orders you to drop to the floor. "Just do what I say," he snarls, "and no one will get hurt."

Do you obey?

Probably you do. You obey the criminal, not because you want to obey, nor because you have a duty to obey, but because you're afraid of him. He has a gun, and you don't. So you obey.

Our government has turned criminal. Our government orders us to fund the slaughter of the innocents, which is against God's Law.

Some Christians would say that we ought to obey our government out of patriotic loyalty, and that we have a moral duty to pay our taxes. But is it ever a duty to obey a criminal?

Be honest. Is it not rather that you are afraid? The government has all the power, and so you obey. Not because you want to, nor because of a duty, but because you're afraid of what they will do to you if you don't obey. Just do as they say, and no one will get hurt.

But people are already being hurt. The babies are being slaughtered, with your tax dollars. Mothers are being maimed for life. Our religious freedom and our consciences are being trampled upon.

At least a few folks should resist the criminal. Please consider joining the strike.

David Little: Application for Appeal

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:40:00 +0000

As noted almost 2 months ago, David Little lost his New Brunswick appeal case, and was preparing to try to appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court. That possibility is becoming nearer.

As a friend of David, I have been privileged to see a copy of his "Application for Leave to Appeal" to the Supreme Court, and can tell you I am quite impressed. David finally has a good lawyer working with him on this important case, and this document shows that.

One of the points made in this application, and which has not been made heretofore, is the distinction between freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Prior decisions have muddled this distinction, stupidly observing that Mr. Little's freedom of religion was not being denied by taxpayer funding for abortion. Evidently, what was meant was that David was still free to go to church on Sunday and pray to God, just so long as he didn't let his religious beliefs get in the way of his civic duty to fund the slaughter.

OK, says the present argument, perhaps Mr. Little's freedom of religion has not been explicitly denied. But his freedom of conscience has been trampled upon, and that, too, is a violation of human rights. Now, I'm not sure that this distinction should be pivotal. Last time I checked, religion and conscience were pretty solidly connected. But then again, I'm no lawyer.

What really grabbed my attention in this document was the argument that I have to believe is the pivotal legal argument: the primacy of natural law over positive law. A statement in the document says this:

As a matter of academic jurisprudence, the practical application of the founding principles means that positive law (such as legislation permitting the killing of innocent human beings) must yield to natural law (which stands on a higher law that forbids the legal killing of innocent human beings) in circumstances where there is a conflict.

In my opinion, it's high time this principle was invoked in a court of law, and I am delighted to finally see a lawyer who is willing to make this point.

I would love to learn from a lawyer if what I have heard is true: Didn't natural law used to be taught in law school as the basis for all human law?

Well, anyway, that's the news from the Canadian front. Stay tuned. And please keep David, his family, and this important case in your prayers.

Rock in the road

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:58:00 +0000

A few years ago, my sister spoke of a conversation she had with a young lady from Vietnam. My sister asked what it was like to live under such an oppressive government. The young lady smiled and said something to this effect:

"O, it's not so bad, really. Our government is kind of like a big rock in the middle of the road. It's there, and we can't pretend that it's not there, but we mostly just walk around it and go about our business."

Now, isn't that a beautiful attitude? We Americans can certainly take a lesson here, and I would like to propose just such an attitude adjustment for ourselves. This may be an essential prerequisite for any tax resistance effort. Scuttle the hat-in-hand servile posture of weaklings praying for mercy. And perhaps discard as well the shrill demands of anger. Let the bureaucrats be damned if their intent is to be damned. We may and must pray for their souls, but God will sort that out. Let us be about our business, and largely just ignore the pitiful fools and their unjust taxes and expenditures. We must take care of our own business and be careful not to be found paying for the slaughter of the innocents. We must simply find ways to walk around the damned rock.

1 Samuel 8

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:11:00 +0000

In its denial of conscientious tax resistance, the muddled legal opinion cited in the previous post contains this pivotal statement:

Otherwise, everyone who disagrees with government policies and the expenditure of public monies in furtherance of those policies would be entitled to abandon their obligation to bear their proportionate share of the national debt while continuing to receive no-cost public benefits such as Medicare.

While this reasoning is rather infantile, there is something in its logic for us to be wary of. In his entire statement, Justice Robertson never questions the no-cost public benefits; their necessity is a foregone conclusion. From there he reasons that we ought to be humble, grateful and compliant taxpayers before such governmental largesse and beneficence. The lesson for us is this: The Socialist road - and government aid is Socialist - may lead inexorably to a deadly and tyrannical end.

For example, a frequent complaint from pro-aborts is that they don't want to be burdened with supporting more welfare babies. Better that the taxpayer pay for their murder than to pay for their expensive little lives. Given a Socialist premise, their dour pessimism and murderous sympathies contain a certain sad logic. In sharp contrast, pro-lifers want to be more generous toward both mother and child, and see the new baby as a priceless resource, not a burden. But if both camps accept without challenge that the government (i.e. taxpayers) must fund and control the expenditures, it will just be a tug-o-war over money.

Or take the recent saccharin eulogies for the late Edward Kennedy coming from the mouths and pens of Christian leaders. After all, the good Senator worked hard to open the public spigot and fill the public trough. Yes, there was his unfortunate blindness toward the pre-born, but generally, he helped poor people, and surely that is the Christian thing to do, right? It's a balancing act - some good, some not so good. But consider that government aid programs and tax-funded abortion most usually have the same champions. Perhaps this is no anomaly; perhaps it's not a balancing act at all, but two threads in the same ungodly tapestry.

The confusion for Christians may begin in equating government programs with Christian charity. Rather than the Church or individual Christians giving from their own pockets, the deep pockets of government are tapped. This is so much neater, and seems so generous. The docile Christian taxpayer can now excuse his share in tax-funded abortion by noting that his taxes also help the poor. It's the balancing act again. How neat.

When the state becomes god, it becomes Moloch.

It's also neater for the recipient of government aid, who needn't humble himself before his neighbor. In the process, he, too becomes docile toward the government, afraid to challenge the hand that gives.

Ascribing such paternalistic power to the state is not a good thing, even when the results seem to be beneficial. Looking to the state to meet our needs, we become its slave. The state becomes our master, perhaps even our god. But when the state becomes god, it becomes Moloch. Or, at best, an incompetent god. The state that feeds you will eventually exhaust its food supply and starve you. The state that provides medical care will end up taking your life. The state that cares for you will soon ask for your soul. And will you, grown wan and dependent, acquiesce?

New Brunswick decision

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:06:00 +0000

On April 29, David Little appeared before the New Brunswick Court of Appeal (roughly equivalent to a State Supreme Court in the U.S.) for the latest chapter in his legal case to establish that tax-funded abortion violates one's right of conscience and therefore one's freedom of religion. For more details on this important case, read David's own summary account here.

On August 20, the three-judge panel rendered their judgment against David, and has recommended that he be denied the right to appeal. The opinion, written by The Honourable Mr. Justice Joseph T. Robertson, an alleged Catholic, can be read (in PDF format) here.

David has repeatedly vowed that he will go to jail rather than obey the unjust human authorities in this matter. He has one more opportunity before fulfilling that vow, and is now preparing an appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court.

Common ground: citizen allocation

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:37:00 +0000

Here is a first draft attempt to flesh out Pope Benedict's suggestion of fiscal subsidiarity. If Obama and congressional Democrats truly want to find common ground on the issue of tax-funded abortion, try this: citizen allocation of certain government expenditures.

From the standpoint of well-formed moral principles, appropriations for Title X abortion services, funding for Planned Parenthood and U.N. population control programs and the like might be easier to accept if they were funded solely by individuals who freely chose to do so. Here's how such a plan might work:

All controversial value-laden budget items would be removed from congressional consideration. Congress would only have the authority to include such items in a citizen allocation check list. The 1040 tax form would now include a new table with each of these allocation items listed. The taxpayer could optionally allocate a portion of his taxes toward one or more of these programs without increasing his total tax liability. Each program on the list would receive tax money only in the amount allocated by individual taxpayers.

So, for example, Planned Parenthood would only receive tax money from citizens who proactively chose to allocate to them. The pro-life and neutral citizens who chose not to support PP or other abortion programs would therefore be able to pay taxes in good conscience, knowing that their money was not paying for the slaughter.

I suppose that pro-life programs could go on this list as well, with the expectation that only pro-life taxpayers would be allocating to them. The idea is: let each citizen follow the dictates of his own conscience with regard to all such value-laden allocations.

Note that this only works if there is no other government money going to these controversial programs. If Congress were still allowed to allocate monies from the general fund, such citizen allocation would merely be feel-good symbolic gestures, and the proposal would be useless.

Fiscal subsidiarity

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:42:00 +0000

In contrast with the many shallow minds of our time, Pope Benedict XVI is a true intellectual and source of deep insights. His latest encyclical is a fine example.

There is too much in Caritas In Veritate to treat here, but one relatively minor statement leapt out at me, toward the end of paragraph 60:

... fiscal subsidiarity, allowing citizens to decide how to allocate a portion of the taxes they pay to the State.

The context of this statement is development aid for poor countries, but it has the potential for much broader application. Applying it to tax-funded abortion or any other value-laden tax, the implications are profound. I hope to develop this concept in greater detail as it might relate to the pro-life tax strike.

Feingold whopper

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:41:00 +0000

Our two Wisconsin senators have replied to the email sent a few days ago. Senator Feingold began his response with this astounding denial:

Federal funds are not permitted to be used for performing abortions.

Uhhh... OK, Senator, if you say so. We will immediately ignore all the reliable sources that report in detail on the many and diverse ways the U.S. government is funding the abortion industry both here and abroad. Trusting in your unblemished integrity, the purity of your nearly divine character, the power of your encyclopedic knowledge, on the strength of your word alone, we are now convinced that no U.S. taxes are being used to kill innocent babies. Yep. Sure thing, Senator. Thank you so much for clearing that up.

In other words - does he really expect this to fly?

This is the same Senator Feingold who used to send email responses requesting the recipient's email address. Political dishonesty aside, intellectual prowess is apparently not Senator Feingold's strong suit.

Idea ideas

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:26:00 +0000

As noted in the first post, this blog and website is founded upon a single idea: that pro-life folks ought not be paying for abortion via taxes.

Within this single, simple idea, a variety of strategies may exist - different methods implemented by a variety of folks in a variety of situations. Specific ideas on ways to flesh out the principle idea. The "Strategies" section on the manifesto page talks about some possible strategies, but that section is far from exhaustive.

Last week, a friend suggested a new idea, a new concrete thing to do. Maybe other folks would like to try it. So a new web page was opened for this very purpose. Click on the "ideas" tab on the menu line to see this page, and this first idea.

Maybe you have an idea. A concrete way to live out your opposition to the tax-funded slaughter of the innocents. Please tell us about it. Click on "Contact" for ways to contact us with your idea.

Cut and paste

dogpatch@bmi.net (Jerry) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:19:00 +0000

From two different recent alerts, I have been inspired to check out the citizens' movement to prevent abortion coverage in the health care bill before Congress. Called "Stop the Abortion Mandate", it includes an action page where you can go and automatically send an email to your Representative and two Senators.

The email content is pre-written, but is in the form of an editable text area. So Lenore and I replaced the pre-written text with the following, briefer message:
We are not fooled by the health care bill. It will mandate abortion, and its advisory board is certain to be pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, anti-life. We are conscience bound to stop paying for abortion, which is murder in the womb. The more government mandates and funds murder, the more we will resist. Our sincere prayer is for more and more people of faith and good will to join us in simply disobeying immoral government measures. This includes not paying taxes. This message is not a hat-in-hand appeal. It is informing you of how we intend to act out our faith. We fear God, not government mandates.

You can do likewise; cut, paste, and edit as you see fit.