First of all, allow me to recall what Jesus said, as follows: "My followers, whoever listens to you is listening to me (Jesus). Anyone who says 'No' to you is saying 'No' to me. And anyone who says 'No' to me is really saying 'No' to the one who sent me". Luke 10:16 "If you reject even the least important command in the Law and teach others to do the same, you will be the least important person in the kingdom. But if you obey and teach others its commands, you will have an important place in the kingdom. You must obey God's commands better than the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law obey them. If you don't, I promise you that you will never get into the kingdom of heaven," Matt 5: 19-20. In that PTS-article, I proved that all governments follow the rule of law under the Free Exercise of Religion Clause regarding a temptation to violate religion in principle only in order to resolve a situation to the contrary which was required to apply the rule of law regarding a temptation to violate religion in practice instead. 18 U.S.C. 242 articulates that deceiving taxpayers on what the law permits Government to finance, e.g. abortion and contraception in group health insurance, no less in Medicare and giving tax exempt status to Planned Parenthood, is a crime in the public interest to overcome, no less! Interesting to note, Dr. Martin Luther King addressed this concern about breaking the law to achieve justice in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail in 1963 which states on page 3-4, as follows: "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed... For years now I have heard the word 'wait!'...This 'Wait' has almost always meant 'Never'. We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that 'justice too long delayed is justice denied.’..You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate [page 4] concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may ask: 'How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?' The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.'" On March 25, 1995 moreover Pope John Paul II declared this: "[par. #74]...In order to shed light on this difficult question, it is necessary to recall the general principles concerning cooperation in evil actions. Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed from the moral standpoint [emphasis, added], it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom. 2:6; 14:1). To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right;...[par. #87]... our support of human life... must be accomplished through ... personal witness ... and political commitment [emphasis, added]...(Jas. 2:14-17)" in his Evangelium Vitae. On the other hand, from a civic standpoint, the government for over 31 years now is deceiving the taxpayers by paying for a temptation to violate one's religion in practice which is always prohibited for the government to do, no less allowing non-government entities to do likewise. In turn, this entitles all taxpayers to follow The Code of Ethics For Government Service which legitimizes my PROLIFE TAX STRIKE ["PTS"] per se. Moreover, as a Christian, didn't Jesus tell us this: "You are like salt for everyone on earth...... You are like light for the whole world. A city built on top of a hill cannot be hidden, and no one would light a lamp and put it under a clay pot. A lamp is placed on a lampstand, where it can give light to everyone in the house. Make your light shine, so that others will see the good that you do and will praise your Father in heaven," Matthew 5:13-16. My question to you, a potential Prolife Tax Striker, is this: Does my 4-page PTS-article make sense to you, or in other words, are you now convinced that the government is asking you to swallow a waiver of your Prolifer’s Federal First Amendment Right to the Free Exercise of Religion under Sherbet v. Verner? If you aren't then read my book and/or my PTS-article again until you do! If you have any sound questions at all about the validity of my legal position, described in any of my papers, then ask me, please? But, if you received the light from the Holy Spirit which is what it took me over 20 years to uncover, then, Our Lord has given you this light that He speaks of in the above Bible Verses at Matthew 5: 13-16. And, consequently, Our Lord does not want you to keep this light hidden. In turn, by not paying any taxes you are disobeying an unjust human law from two standpoints no less! I do realize that you have many properties, as you alleged in your email to me, and if you refused to pay your taxes, you'd stand to lose everything and/or go to jail or so it now seems. Moreover, I presume that your husband would have to agree. "But more than anything else, put God's work first and do what he wants. Then the other things will be yours as well." Matthew 6: 33. "I came to set fire to the earth, and I wish it were already on fire! I am going to be put to a hard test. And I will have to suffer a lot of pain until it is over. Do you think that I came to bring peace to earth? No indeed! I came to make people choose sides. A family of five will be divided, with two of them against the other three." Luke 12: 49-52. Now, I interpret Jesus' words above, "And I will have to suffer a lot of pain until it is over", Luke 12: 50, as the pain which the unborn babies murdered by abortion are [Mark 9: 37,41] experiencing over the past 31 years until abortion becomes unconstitutional. When Jesus said, "I came to make people choose sides" at Luke 12: 51, I believe Jesus was speaking of us, his Christian followers as the body of Christ, experiencing now that hard choice you will make by refusing or else to continue to pay taxes. As I pointed out above, "If you reject even the least important command in the Law and teach others to do the same, you will be the least important person in the kingdom. But if you obey and teach others its commands, you will have an important place in the kingdom," Matthew 5: 19. "You cannot be the slave of two masters! You will like one more than the other or be more loyal to one than the other. You cannot serve both God and Money", Matthew 6: 24. After Jesus was asked directly about, the following proves he thereby never consented per se to, the lawfulness of taxes: "Then Jesus told them, 'Give the Emperor what belongs to him and give God what belongs to God.'" Matthew 22: 21. On the one hand, the government needs money to provide for services and the like. Yet on the other hand, the legislature will use taxes in part to finance the Culture of Death in part through group health insurance, etc., the paying taxes for which morally speaking "can never be justified ... by appealing to the fact that civil law permits or requires it." Id. Nevertheless, it is impossible not to support abortion and/or contraception by paying one's taxes. Anyone overlooking this fact would rather "reject even the least important command in the Law (e.g. Matthew 6: 24, 22: 21 above and Sherbert, added) and teach others to do the same" Matthew 5: 19 by paying taxes as not only a Prolifer but as a concerned taxpayer who would actually be a co-conspirator in crime under 18 U.S.C. 242 as long as my book "HOW ABORTION WILL BECOME UNCONSTITUTIONAL - The Complete Guide For Prolife Actists" and my 4-page PTS- article were thoroughly understood. These circumstances in turn would support a legal justification or necessity defense thereby legitimizing tax evasion as thoroughly explained in my book. On the other hand "From the very beginnings of the church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom. 13: 1-7; 1 Pt. 2: 13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that ‘we must obey God rather than men' [Acts 5: 29]" at par. #73 in Pope John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae. On November 18, 1974, Pope Paul VI declared this: "[par. #22] It must in any case be clearly understood that a Christian can never conform to a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity (that is, lawfulness, added) of abortion..." in his Declaration on Procured Abortion. Conclusively then, the resulting social tension which disobedience to unjust human laws would here create would therefore be legitimized. Urged by Pope John Paul II who constantly said "Be not afraid", if potential Prolife Tax Strikers are not in my PROLIFE TAX STRIKE, then I ask, "why aren’t they?" After all, by writing my book, consequently, I already did all the hard part to legitimize breaking the law to achieve justice for The Unborn."