Here’s another important principle that, while I may have emphasized it, I may not have done so strongly enough. Namely, that as long as pro-lifers willingly consent to tax funding for abortion, their other prayers and efforts are worthless.

Especially pitiful are those pro-life organizations whose hue and cry and shrill complaint is that the Obama regime has shown no respect for religious or moral freedom of conscience. I say this kind of pro-life complaint is especially pitiful because those same pro-life organizations continue to willingly pay the unjust and tyrannical taxes and even act as tax goons for the IRS, deducting the tax money from their own employees’ paychecks and sending those funds into the IRS as fuel for the bloody tyranny.

Do you really agree that tax funding for abortion and Planned Parenthood amounts to an assault upon your conscience? Then, for God’s sake, don’t consent to it. If conscience is important, start following it. Start obeying God rather than Obama. Otherwise, your complaints about violations of conscience are the useless yippings of a chihuahua on a leash.

The "Raise the stakes" section of ProLifeStrike.org’s manifesto page, contains this thought:

Life Decisions International has as its motto: The pro-life movement will succeed only to the extent that pro-life people are willing to be inconvenienced. That’s true, but too mild. How about this: The pro-life movement will succeed only to the extent that pro-life people are willing to be crucified.

I remain more convinced than ever that this is not only true, but essential. Essential to the Christian Faith and essential to the pro-life movement. It’s directly related to the principle that "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (cf. Mt.6:21). How are these two principles related? Glad you asked.

The cross that most pro-life people have steadfastly refused to pick up and carry is the one that they fear would interfere with the flow of money. Pro-life Christians will pray earnestly; they will pray novenas and rosaries and hold special prayer vigils; they will even fast as they pray. They will protest, sign petitions, march in the streets, write letters, erect billboards, send empty red envelopes to the White House, call talk show programs, organize rallies, and file lawsuits. But come April, they will dutifully sign and send in their taxes. Knowing how that tax money is used to fund the holocaust, they will nonetheless continue to feed the dragon. By offering everything except their monetary treasure, they betray and undermine all those other worthy efforts.

Within the past year, I have been introduced to two different and separate Catholic evangelistic projects. In both cases, the effort was being proclaimed as new but thoroughly Catholic, a revival or rediscovery of the essentials of the Catholic Faith. And in both cases, I indeed saw pretty much everything Catholic represented: the Incarnation, the Mass, the Sacraments, Christ’s teachings, the teaching hierarchy, prayer, veneration of saints and other devotions, the priesthood and Papacy, the hope of eternal life, Christian charity and the its social aspect, etc. Only one thing was omited: the Cross. What a shame, and what a sham. Christianity without the cross is an empty devotion. To be true and faithful, we must recognize the Cross of Christ not merely as one doctrine among many, but as the central and singularly essential core of our faith, and we must then embrace our own crosses in imitation of Christ.

Herein is my point: The missing cross of the pro-life movement has been the treasure thing: the willingness to sacrifice the flow of money, the treasure of our monetary comfort. Like those ‘Catholic’ evangelistic efforts, we have been doing everything except what is necessary, everything except pick up the cross which is ours to bear. Without that cross, the pro-life movement is a toothless lion.

It becomes increasingly evident that there are some very severe crosses in store for us. As we have docilely continued to feed it, the dragon has become more and more ravenous and cruel. Had we been more willing to starve the beast, might we have avoided some of the trials and persecutions that now loom ominously ahead? May there still be time to head off the worst by putting our money where our mouth has been? God alone knows the answer to these questions. One thing seems certain: whether voluntarily or by force, we must soon take up a very heavy cross. The Cross that Jesus bore for us was infinitely heavier. His Cross makes ours bearable. And bear we must. It’s the crux of the matter.

After nearly 4 years, traffic to this website is not increasing; in fact, it has slowed to a crawl. (Hats off to you who are reading this, an exception to the trend!) Anyway, I’ve added a new page  detailing some of responses and non-responses to ProLifeStrike.org. Click here  for the report, such as it is.

The first son in this parable sounds like a typical adolescent, complaining and resisting when told to do something by his dad. But eventually he decides that Father knows best, and does what he is told. Even though the initial reluctance may not indicate perfect docility, the end result is good enough for most parents, including our Heavenly Father. By contrast, the second son talks a good talk, but doesn’t follow through. Not so good.

The pro-life people of America have been issuing lots of complaints and protests against the tyranny of the current regime in Washington. There seems no end to the marches, petitions, lawsuits, letters, speeches, symbolic gestures, talk show rants, and public demonstrations. But – - but – - at the end of it all, the pro-life leaders and their followers decide that they must obey Uncle Sam, and so they dutifully, if reluctantly, file and pay their taxes and do whatever Washington says they must do. Which is to say, they follow the example of the first son.

This posture, while not ideal, is good enough for most bureaucratic power mongers. Uncle Sam knows he has little to fear from pro-lifers’ protests and complaints, the shrill but harmless barking of a chihuahua on a leash. At the end of the day they can be counted upon to fall in line, like docile sheep.

Trouble is, the viewpoint of our Heavenly Father may be just the opposite. Like the second son, pro-lifers talk a good talk, and appear to be very religiously devoted to God. But in the end, they fear the government more than His displeasure, and obey IRS mandates rather than the fifth commandment (or sixth in the Protestant system): Thou shalt not kill..

We know all about Simon Peter, the chief apostle. But relatively little is known of the other apostle named Simon (feast day Oct.28). He was from Cana, and was called the Zealot (Lk.6:15). It is this moniker that I find interesting.

The backgrounds of 5 of the other apostles are known: 4 were fishermen, and one was a tax collector. The Gospels tell us clearly that these 5 men left their chosen professions when they were called to follow Jesus. Certainly the tax collector stopped collecting taxes. But it is not stated that Simon the Zealot left off being a Zealot, and so one may surmise that he was still a Zealot after becoming a disciple of Jesus.

Among other things, the Zealots’ zeal for wholehearted devotion to God’s Law led them to oppose the tyranny of Caesar, and to oppose Caesar’s ungodly taxes. The Zealot would not have hesitated if asked whether it were lawful to pay taxes to Caesar; he would have said, “Hell, no, we won’t pay!” As a disciple, I imagine Simon understood Jesus’ statement quite distinctly. The emphasis is on the second clause, “render to God the things that are God’s.” Since everything without exception belongs to God, the zealous believer must not render anything to Caesar, especially when to do so would violate God’s Law.

Now, amongst Apostolic successors today, there exist plenty who follow Matthew the tax collector. Bishops and pro-life leaders almost without exception will not only pay taxes themselves, but will act as tax collectors, as IRS tax goons in seizing part of their employees’ pay and rendering it to the government.

My question is: where are the successors to Simon the Zealot?

39+ years ago, the shock of Roe v. Wade gradually gave way to an optimistic belief that a simple legislative or judicial amendment would soon correct that abortion of justice. As the years ground past without a remedy, pro-lifers began to assert that, though it was more problematic than first anticipated, the solution still lay in working within the system, and in getting the right people into high offices. More recently, the emphasis has justifiably shifted from legislative action to a judicial reform, still portrayed with an optimism that has grown more and more tenuous. And now, with ‘constitutional’ Justice Roberts providing the swing vote to uphold the ObamaCare travesty, it must be admitted that no judicial reform is likely, and that the entire system is broken.

It’s high time for pro-lifers to stop relying upon ‘conservative’ bureaucrats to do the right thing. When each one of us stands naked before our Creator, he will be judged upon his own actions or lack thereof, not that of elected or appointed office holders. If you believe abortion is evil, stop paying for it. You can no longer reasonably wait for ‘conservative’ officials to do this for you.

… and unto God the things that are God’s.
  - Mt.22:21b (Mk.12:17, Lk.20:25)

The Pharisees were trying to trip Jesus up with a controversial question. "Shall we pay taxes to Caesar or not?" was calculated to serve as a "damned if you do, damned if you don’t" dilemna, in which either answer would put the Galilean in hot water. But Jesus turned the tables on them by asking to see the Roman coin used for the tax. As soon as they produce the requested coin, they stood condemned. You see, the coin they carried bore the image of Caesar, a man who claimed to be a god. According to the strict Hasidic code – of which the Pharisees were champions – possessing such an idolatrous graven image amounted to a violation of the First Commandment.

They stood condemned, not by the "render to Caesar" clause, but by the more important command which followed. What, after all, does not belong to God? They stood condemned for not rendering all things to God. Their cowardly compromise with the Roman rule involved a failure to give full allegiance to Him whose claim upon man is absolute and total.

Similarly, the typical conservative Christian in America today seems more devoted to a flag-waving patriotism than to obeying the commandments of a holy God. The "render to Caesar" excuse is invoked and "render to God" all but ignored, in order to justify docile compliance with the state endorsed slaughter of innocents. Signatures are affixed to the 1040, indicating a willing consent, which is qualitatively worse than the unwilling compliance of first-century Jews. With such willing consent, the money which states "In God We Trust" is used in defiance of God’s immutable Law. What belongs to God is rendered to Caesar, with pro-lifers consenting and cooperating willingly.

Well, here we are once again; it’s the time of year when millions of pro-life Americans will implicitly consent to the slaughter of innocents by affixing their signatures to the 1040 and other tax forms.

Your signature is by definition an act of consent, a willing approval of the deed. If your taxes pay for abortion, stem-cell research, etc, they do so with your authorization.

Don’t approve of abortion? Then don’t consent.

Here’s another question for American conservative thinkers: Are you a free citizen of a free country? Can you make decisions on how to live your own life, especially with regard to the practice of your religion, and not have to surrender your conscience to a tyrannical government?

If you answered, “Yes, I am free in American to follow the dictates of my own conscience in matters of faith and morals,” then you stand condemned by your own words. Your claim of religious freedom and freedom of conscience means that you willingly support the publicly funded holocaust. The operative word here is willingly. Your signature on the 1040 is an act of willing consent to how your tax dollars are being used. Consent is the precise point where the moral battle is either won or lost.

But maybe you answered, “No, the taxes are taken from me without my approval. The taxes I pay are, in effect, confiscated from me in a way that is beyond my ability to control.” Are you OK with this admission? Wouldn’t it be a good thing if a number of citizens were to say “Enough!” and rebel against such tyranny?

Either way, the liberty vs. tyranny argument leads to the same conclusion: that a tax strike is morally and scripturally justified.

Here’s a question for American conservative thinkers: Was the American Revolution morally justified? Was it pleasing in God’s eyes for the Patriots to rebel against King George? Or did that rebellion amount to rebellion against a God-ordained authority, and therefore rebellion against God Himself?

If you answered, “Yes, the revolution of 1776 was justified,” then here’s a second question: Why is it not also justifiable to rebel against the current tyranny? I’m not talking about writing letters or signing petitions or even filing lawsuits. I’m talking about the willingness to break from authority when those milder attempts fail. If the Patriots were right to rebel against the unjust tea tax, how much more ought we to reject the abortion tax!

But maybe you answered, “No, the Scriptural mandate is to render taxes and obedience to those in authority, no exceptions. King George was the human authority at the time, and so rebellion against him was immoral and unjustified.” Consider that this amounts to an admission that the result of that unjustified rebellion – the United States – is in essence an outlaw state. It is a make-believe government, based from its beginning upon a criminal act of treason. Why then should there be any moral scruples about disobeying such an unlawful authority?

Either way, the legitimate authority argument leads to the same conclusion: that a tax strike is morally and scripturally justified.