The RELIGION Of EVOLUTION by Jim Searcy

From http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/evolution.htm

Note that below the Quotes from the famous Evolutionists you will find the Write up of the Kent and Jo Hovind Case by a 16 Year Veteran Student of IRS Criminal Cases A First Hand Observer of The Hovind Case - Lindsey Springer

The RELIGION Of EVOLUTION

By Jim Searcy

The antichrist religion of Darwinism has had a devastating impact on society. It has great effects upon the deepest aspects of social life and culture. It is sad how few ever really consider the effects of evolutionary thinking on our modern world. It sets the world on a course of madness leading to wars and to certain destruction.

The doctrines of the religion of evolution holds that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. The religion of evolution also rejects all distinctions in moral or religious value. Most recognize Charles Darwin (1802-1889) as the founder of the religion of evolution. That makes evolution a very modern religion. Darwin, Wescott & Hort, Charles Darby & CI Scofield were contemporaries. The Darwin religion of evolution is a revolt against biblical morality. The Darwin religion of evolution believes in the destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement.

Psa 2:1-3 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

The religion of evolution is a substantial part of the reason.
Psa 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
The essential beliefs of the evolution religion is that people are just animals, so there is no right or wrong. Second, the Darwin religion teaches that all evolutionary progress has been made by some at the expense of others. The evolution religion teaches that success comes to those who will oppress, prey upon, or if necessary, destroy others. That is a big part of what the religion of evolution is all about, survival of the fittest.

Evolutionary theory is in fact a variant form of atheism. The Darwin religion aggressively attacks religion in general and Christianity in particular. Christianity is declared to be superstition and the Bible a book of myths by the religion of evolution.

In reality, and in fact, and in truth, evolutionary teaching and Christianity are total opposites. They are entirely incompatible. No one can believe both teachings, or try to combine parts of the two, and maintain integrity and intellectual honesty. The many who attempt to do this, in reality, only fool themselves.

The pope and many professed Christian leaders, religion teachers, science teachers, and scientists attempt to combine part of evolutionary theory with Biblical beliefs. But the two positions just do not mix.

There are some who may claim to believe the Bible, yet believe that there were long ages of developing life forms into human beings before the Six Day Creation which God has revealed in the Bible. If that were to be true, then the Fall of Man, as given in Genesis 3, is incorrect. It should also be noted that if man did not fall into sin, then Christ is not needed, the substitutionary death of the Lamb of God outside the gates of Jerusalem, on Wednesday Nissan 14, 30 AD and His RESURRECTION on Saturday, Nissan 17, 30 AD, is not needed, and is unnecessary. Intellectual honesty with such beliefs will lead such an one to conclude that no atonement or salvation from sin is needed. THAT IS NOT CHRISTIAN and is quite definitely antichrist.

The Evolution Religion has had the following effects on Western Civilization: It has caused distress.
It has caused agony. It has caused affliction. It has caused depression. It has caused racism. It has caused grief. It has caused great harm. It has caused great injury. It has caused pain. It has caused war. It has caused dehumanization. It has caused many to become like brute beasts. It has caused sadness. It has caused sorrow. It has caused crime. It has caused abortion. It has caused torment. It has caused desolation. It has caused hopelessness. It has caused genocide. It formed and empowered Hitler. It formed and empowered Mussolini. It formed and empowered Stalin. It empowers those who worship Lucifer as god either wittingly or unwittingly.

For those who may think well there you go again Jim, below you will see the proof not from me but from the most well known Evolutionists. Below you will find PROFOUND quotes from the evolutionists themselves proving these points overwhelmingly and irrefutably.

With NOTHING to verify or prove the theory of evolution, and all evidence, truth and facts, against it; STILL, the religion of evolution is falsely called SCIENCE. That just about makes me want to turn in my science degree. Thanks be to God, bridges and airplanes are not built with this sort of science falsely so-called.

A few have noted the peculiar absence of the EVOLUTION topic on the GJiGT. It is an important topic and just about all the other bases are covered in the articles on the GJiGT. That was primarily because of the outstanding work of Kent Hovind at Creation Science Evangelism. Kent is the most effective creation vs evolution apologist in America. He has done such a fantastic job on this that there never seemed to have been any need for the GJiGT to address the issue until NOW. January 19, 2007, at 9am Eastern US time, is the sentencing for Kent and Jo Hovind. Kent faces up to 298 years and his wife Jo, for being a perfect help meet, and an exemplary Christian wife, faces up to 225 years in prison. So do not think this is not a VERY BIG DEAL to the antichrist global Luciferians. Pray for Kent and Jo Hovind. Their web site is www.drdino.com

It is remarkable that a theory founded on confused speculations, and non-existent scientific facts, would be made the basis of a single, unified structure of knowledge.

You are about to read approximately 100 profound quotes proving every statement made above, directly from the mouths of Darwin, Hitler, Mussolini and other famous evolution religion proponents like Marx, Engels, Stalin, Haeckel, and Nietzche. From the mouths of the evolutionists to our ears, if anyone will have ears to hear. Will we have ears to hear? Will you take the time to review some of these PROFOUND quotes proving how the RELIGION of EVOLUTION causes war, murder, robbery, crime, and just about every ungodly and inhuman blight upon the nations of this earth.

2 Pet 3:5-7 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are NOW, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Ungodly men profess the religion of evolution. Please take the time to read some of these profound quotes. You will find here the tools to help someone out of their strong delusion. This religion of Lucifer, the religion of evolution, has driven the nations to madness and self-destruction. The points are proven profoundly and irrefutably with the quotes of the Evolutionists themselves. ALL points are profoundly admitted and proven from THEIR mouths to anyone who will have ears to hear. Psa 2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
"The twentieth century would be incomprehensible without the Darwinian revolution. The social and political currents which have swept the world in the past eighty years would have been impossible without its intellectual sanction. It is ironic to recall that it was the increasingly secular outlook in the nineteenth century which initially eased the way for the acceptance of evolution, while today it is perhaps the Darwinian view of nature more than any other that is responsible for the agnostic and skeptical outlook of the twentieth century. What was once a deduction from materialism has today become its foundation."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1988), p. 358.

"The concept of evolution was soon extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-histories of stars and the formation of chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand subjects like linguistics, social anthropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal, all-pervading process."—*Julian Huxley, "Evolution and Genetics," in V.R. Newman (ed.), What is Science? (1955), p. 272.

"[He who does not honor Darwin] inevitably attracts the speculative psychiatric eye to himself."—*Garret Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1961).

"He [Darwin] proposed that natural selection governs the evolution of forms of life; with the fittest surviving. The latter proposition became the basis of several schools of politics and social philosophy, including both laissez-faire economics and Nazism. The former displaced the view of man as a fallen angel, and replaced it with man conceived as risen animal."—*F.H. Littel, The Macmillan Atlas History of Christianity (1976), p. 104.

"Science has been seriously retarded by the study of what is not worth knowing."—*Johann von Goethe (1749-1832), quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 257.

"Never in the history of man has so terrific a calamity befallen the race as that which all who look may now behold advancing as a deluge, black with destruction, resistless in might, uprooting our most cherished hopes, engulfing our most precious creed, and burying our highest life in mindless desolation. The flood-gates of infidelity are open, and Atheism overwhelming is upon us."—*George Romanes, A Candid Examination of Theism (1878).

"Our own generation has lived to see the inevitable result of evolutionary teaching—the result that Sedgwick foresaw as soon as he had read the Origin. Mussolini’s attitude was completely dominated by evolution. In public utterances, he repeatedly used the Darwinian catchwords while he mocked at perpetual peace, lest it hinder the evolutionary process. In Germany, it was the same. Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching—probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas, quite undisguised, lie at the basis of all that is the worst in Mein Kamp and his public speeches."— R.E.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1948), p. 115.

"Science promises man power . . But, as so often happens when people are seduced by promises of power, the price is servitude and impotence."—*D. Joseph Weizenbaum, Statement made in 1976, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 283.

"In the world of Darwin man has no special status other than his definition as a distinct species of animal. He is in the fullest sense a part of nature and not apart from it. He is akin, not figuratively but literally, to every living thing, be it an ameba, a tapeworm, a flea, a seaweed, an oak tree, or a monkey—even though the degrees of relationship are different and we may feel less empathy for forty-second cousins like the tapeworms than for, comparatively speaking, brothers like the monkeys."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "The World into Which Darwin Led Us," Science 131 (1960), p. 970.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man’s link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"The first point is that selfishness and violence are inherent in us, inherited from our remotest animal ancestors . . Violence is, then, natural to man, a product of evolution."—*P.J. Darlington, Evolution for Naturalists (1980), pp. 243-244.

"We don’t even know what is ‘natural’ for our own species. Every few years a new theory emerges on what is our ‘natural’ diet, our ‘natural’ life span, our ‘natural’ sexual practices, our ‘natural’ social system or our ‘natural’ relationship with nature. Nature is endlessly fascinating, but offers no ‘natural’ way of life for humans to copy. Even in evolution, there is no ‘natural’ tendency toward ‘progress,’ ‘perfection,’ or ‘ascent.’ Most of the time, we don’t even know what is going on in nature."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 79, 124, 317.

"Darwinism helped to further brutalize mankind through providing scientific sanction for bloodthirsty and selfish desires."—*Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, Why Scientists Accept Evolution (1966), p. 64.

"[Darwinism] has quite certainly molded the thought of our political and biological elite . . this manner of thought . . was adopted and applied to politics and to morals."—*A.E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (1981), p. 148.

"I am haunted by a conviction that the nihilistic philosophy which so-called educated opinion chose to adopt following the publication of the Origin of Species committed mankind to a course of automatic self-destruction. A doomsday was then set ticking."—*Sir Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983), p. 9. [Hoyle is a renowned British Astrophysicist.]

"The law of evolution, as formulated by Darwin, provides an explanation of war between nations, the only reasonable explanation known to us."—*Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (1947), p. 149.

"Thus human ‘goodness’ and behavior, considered ethical by human societies, probably are evolutionary acquisitions of man and require fostering,—[because] an ethical system that bases its premises on absolute pronouncements will not usually be acceptable to those who view human nature by evolutionary criteria."—*Arno G. Motulaky, "Brave New World?" Science, Vol. 185, August 23, 1974, p. 654.

"No deity will save us; we must save ourselves."—*1974 Manifesto of American Humanist Association.

"Man’s unique characteristic among animals is his ability to direct and control his own evolution, and science is his most powerful tool for doing this."—*Hudson Hoagland, "Science and the New Humanism," Silence, Vol. 143, January 10, 1984, p. 111.

"We no longer need be subject to blind external forces but can manipulate the environment and eventually may be able to manipulate our genes."—*Arno G. Motulaky, "Brave New World?" Science, Vol. 185, August 23, 1974, p. 853.

"While many details remain unknown, the grand design of biologic structure and function in plants and animals, including man, admits to no other explanation than that of evolution. Man therefore is another link in a chain which unites all life on this planet."—*A.G. Motulaky, "Brave New World?" Science, Vol. 185, August 23, 1974, p. 853.

"Man’s unique characteristic among animals is his ability to direct and control his own evolution, and science is his most powerful tool for doing this. We are a product of two kinds of evolution, biological and cultural. We are here as a result of the same processes of natural selection that have produced all the other plants and animals. A second kind of evolution is psychosocial or cultural evolution. This is unique to man. Its history is very recent; it started roughly a million years ago with our hominid tool-making ancestors."—*Hudson Hoagland, "Science and the New Humanism," in Science, January 10, 1984, p. 111.

"It is essential for evolution to become the central core of any educational system, because it is evolution, in the broad sense, that links inorganic nature with life, and the stars with the earth, and matter with mind, and animals with man. Human history is a continuation of biological evolution in a different form."—*Sir Julian Huxley, quoted in *Sol Tax and *Charles Callender (eds.), Evolution After Darwin, 3 vols. (1980).

"Beyond its impact on traditional science, Darwinism was devastating to conventional theology."—*D. Nelkin, Science Textbook Controversies and the Politics of Equal Time (1977), p. 11.

"Anything that has evolved by natural selection should be selfish."—*Life: How Did it Get Here? (1985), p. 177.

"Mankind struggles upwards, in which millions are trampled to death, that thousands may mount on their bodies."—*Clara Lucas Balfour (1808-1878), quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 88 [chapter on "Evolution"].

"With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the minds of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in Francis Darwin (ed.), Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1903; 1971 reprint), Vol. 1, p. 285.

"An atheist is a man who believes himself an accident."—*Francis Thompson, quoted in Peter’s Book of Quotations (1977), p. 449.

"We do not solve social problems but rather create social monsters, when man is treated first as an accident and then the particular man is denied his participation in his own being on the grounds that he is only an unfortunate accident of nature. It takes no doctor of logic to conclude that if man is such a random being, it can be only a random force that makes himself users of his fellows, even if the user is dignified by degree as a sociologist or psychiatrist.”—*Marion Montgomery, "Imagination and the Violent Assault upon Virtue," Modern Age: A Quarterly Review, 27, pp. 124-125.

"Few people who accept the Darwinian theory of evolution realize its far-reaching import especially in Social Science . . Of the many evils that have resulted from the teaching of evolution, we mention only a few."—*Professor Holmes, Science (August 14, 1939), p. 117.

"Darwinism consistently applied would measure goodness in terms of survival value. This is the law of the jungle where ‘might is right’ and the fittest survive. Whether cunning or cruelty, cowardice or deceit, whatever will enable the individual to survive is good and right for that individual or that society."—H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1968), p. 145.

"In turn, biological evolutionism exerted ever-widening influences on the natural and social sciences, and its repercussions were neither sound or commendable. Suffice it to mention the so-called Social Darwinism, which often sought to justify the inhumanity of man to man, and the biological racism which furnished a fraudulent scientific sanction for the atrocities committed in Hitler’s Germany and elsewhere."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Evolution at Work," Science, Vol. 127, May 9, 1958, p. 1091.

"No wonder that Brig. General F.D. Frost stated in the Fundamentalist, January, 1950, p. 21: ‘There is no doubt about it that the doctrine of evolution is the greatest curse in our educational system.’ Whether we read Ward’s Dynamic Sociology, or Russell’s Code of Morals, or Briffalt’s Immoralism or some other book written by the Behaviorist School,—they all seem to endeavour to justify and base their conclusions on the bestial nature of man. This philosophy seeks to determine the morale, the principles and practice of virtuous conduct, and to reduce man to the level of animal nature. The surging unrest, the broken homes, the frustrated lives, the increasing divorce cases, the multiplied number of criminals are but the inevitable outcome of the acceptance and practice of this evolutionary doctrine."—H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), pp. 146-147.

*Darwin had started something that was to spread throughout the world and bring anguish to millions. Darwin’s books were quickly translated into all the earth’s main languages, and the political leaders of the various motions began using the Darwinian catchwords to justify their expansionist ambitions. The influence in Germany was especially profound. There, the atheistic biologist Ernst Haeckel embarked on a popularization campaign fully comparable to that of Huxley in England. The philosopher Nietzsche, with his doctrine of the ‘superman,’ was also greatly influenced by Darwin, though he thought Darwin did not go far enough in promoting the militaristic and racist implications of his theories. Darwinistic imperialism had great impact on the policies of Bismarck and even more so on those of Adolph Hitler."—H.M. Morris, History of Modern Christianity (1984), p. 47.

"Darwin, Marx, and Freud helped shape the modern mind into conformity with the world view of Mechanistic Materialism."—*E.A. Opitz, "The Use of Reason in Religion," in Imprimis 7(2):4 (1978).

"The idea that evolution is a history of competitive strife fits well with his [Marx’s] ideology of ‘class struggle.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 412.

“[Marx] wrote to his disciple Engles in 1866, ‘This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view,’ and he would gladly have dedicated his own major work, Das Kapital, to the author of The Origin of Species if Darwin had let him. At Marx’s funeral Engels declaimed that, as Darwin had discovered the law of organic evolution in natural history, so Marx had discovered the law of evolution in human history. With its denigration of non-material aspects of human life, and its mission to uproot tradition and destroy creationist concepts in men’s minds, communism remains one of Darwin’s strongest adherents . . After 1949 when the communists took control of China, the first new text introduced to all schools was neither Marxist nor Leninist, but Darwinian."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 24.

"Like Darwin, Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life . . But there are even finer points of comparison. In keeping with the feelings of the age, both Marx and Darwin made struggle the means of development. Again, the measure of value in Darwin is survival with reproduction—an absolute fact occurring in time and which wholly disregards the moral or ethical quality of the product. In Marx the measure of value is expended labor—an absolute fact occurring in time, which also disregards the utility of the product [and also the workman]."—*J. Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1958), p. 8.

"Friedrich Engels, one of the founders of Communism, wrote to Karl Marx, December 12, 1859, ‘Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid.’ "—*C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene (1959), p. 85.

"Karl Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels, December 19, 1860, ‘Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our views.’ "—*C. Zirkle, Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene (1959), p. 88.

"Defending Darwin is nothing new for socialists. The socialist movement recognized Darwinism as an important element in its general world outlook right from the start. When Darwin published his Origin of the Species in 1859, Karl Marx wrote a letter to Fredrick Engels in which he said: ‘. . this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view . .’ By defending Darwinism, working people strengthen their defenses against the attacks of these reactionary outfits, and prepare the way for the transformation of the social order."—*Cliff Conner, "Evolution vs. Creationism: In Defense of Scientific Thinking," International Socialist Review, November 1980.

" . . English Darwinism interlinked two main themes, natural selection and the struggle for existence. Social Darwinism is an attempt to explain human society in terms of evolution, but Haeckel’s [proto-Nazi] interpretation was quite different from that of capitalist Herbert Spencer or of communist Marx. For him a major component was the ethic of inherent struggle between higher and lower cultures,—between races of men."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 48.

"German Darwinism was shaped by Ernst Haeckel, who combined it with anticlericalism, militaristic patriotism and visions of German racial purity. He encouraged the destruction of the established church in Germany, with its sermons about ‘the meek shall inherit the earth’ and compassion for unfortunates. Such a ‘superstitious’ doctrine would lead to ‘racial suicide.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 119.

"Of all the forerunners of Hitler in Germany—Hegel, Comte, Nietzsche, Bernhardi, and others—the most significant was certainly Ernst Haeckel, the atheistic founder of the Monist League and the most vigorous promoter of both biological Darwinism and social Darwinism in continental Europe in the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries."—H.M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), pp. 77-78.

"He [Haeckel] convinced masses of his countrymen they must accept their evolutionary destiny as a ‘master race’ and ‘outcompete’ inferior peoples, since it was right and natural that only the ‘fittest’ should survive. His version of Darwinism was incorporated in Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925), which means ‘My Struggle,’ taken from Haeckel’s German translation of Darwin’s phrase, ‘the struggle for existence.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 207 [also 312-313].

"In 1918, Darwin’s apostle Ernst Haeckel became a member of the Thule Gesellschaft, a secret, radically right-wing organization that played a key role in the establishment of the Nazi movement. Rudolf Hess and Hitler attended the meeting as guests (Phelps, 1963)."—Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men (1987), p. 488.

"The great German exponent of Militarism, Nietzsche, extended the Darwinian principle of the survival of the fittest in order to inspire his countrymen to fight. According to him, ‘The supreme standard of life is purely materialistic vitality and power to survive.’ The 1914-1918 war was thus the calculated climax of a policy nourished on the diabolical ideas of Nietzsche for the subjugation of the world. General von Bernhardi in his book, The Next War, shows the connection between war and biology. According to him, ‘War is a biological necessity of the first importance, a regulative element in the life of mankind that cannot be dispensed with. War increases vitality and promotes human progress.’ The summuim bonum [highest good] of life according to Nietzsche’s own words is ‘Man shall be trained for war and woman for the recreation of the warrior; all else is folly’ " (Oscar Levy, Complete Works of Nietzsche, 1930, Vol. 2, p. 75).

"Adolph Hitler reiterated the same philosophy of life derived from the theory of evolution when he said, ‘The whole of nature is a continuous struggle between strength and weakness, and eternal victory of the strong over the weak."—H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966) pp. 147-148.

"In defending two young men, Loeb and Leopold, for cruelly murdering a fourteen year old boy, by name of Bobby Franks, the celebrated criminal lawyer of the day, Clarence Darrow, traced their crime back to what they had learned in the university. He argued, ‘Is there any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche’s philosophy seriously?’ His appeal to the judge was, ‘Your honour, it is hardly fair to hang a nineteen year old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university."—*W. Brigans (ed.), Classified Speeches, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 146.

"The greatest authority of all the advocates of war is Darwin. Since the theory of evolution has been promulgated, they can cover their natural barbarism with the name of Darwin and proclaim the sanguinary instincts of their inmost hearts as the last word of science."—*Max Nordau, "The Philosophy and Morals of War," in North American Review 169 (1889), p. 794.

"In every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power, and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens—all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, or even before, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say, science incarnate . . Race was biological, it was sociological; it was Darwinian."—*Jacques Barzun, Darwin, Marx, Wagner (1958), pp. 92-95.

"Darwin, Nietzsche, and Haeckel laid the foundations for the intense German militarism that eventually led to the Great War of 1914-1918. There were others who participated in the development, of course, including many of the German generals and political leaders, all very much under the spell of the German variety of social Darwinism. General Friedrich von Bernhardi said:

" ‘War gives biologically just decisions, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things . . It is not only a biological law, but a moral obligation and, as such, an indispensable factor in civilization!’ "—H.M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), p. 74.

"One need not read far in Hitler’s Mein Kampf to find that evolution likewise influenced him and his views on the master race, genocide, human breeding experiments, etc."—Robert Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1948), p. 115.

"[The position in Germany was that] Man must ‘conform’ to nature’s processes, no matter how ruthless. The ‘fittest’ must never stand in the way of the law of evolutionary progress. In its extreme form, that social view was used in Nazi Germany to justify sterilization and mass murder of the ‘unfit,’ ‘incompetent,’ ‘inferior races.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 412.

"During the 1930s, Adolf Hitler believed he was carrying Darwinism forward with his doctrine that undesirable individuals (and inferior races) must be eliminated in the creation of the New Order dominated by Germany’s Master Race."—*R. Milner, Encylopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 119.

"[Hitler] stressed and singled out the idea of biological evolution as the most forceful weapon against traditional religion and he repeatedly condemned Christianity for its opposition to the teaching of evolution . . For Hitler, evolution was the hallmark of modern science and culture, and he defended its veracity as tenaciously as Haeckel."—*Daniel Gasman, Scientific Origins of Modern Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League (1971), p. 188.

"I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that has ever existed."—*Adolf Hitler, quoted in *Larry Azar, Twentieth Century in Crisis (1990), p. 155.

"This doctrine of racial supremacy Hitler took at face value . . He accepted evolution much as we today accept Einsteinian relativity."— Larry Azar, Twentieth Century in Crisis (1990), p. 180.

"Sixty-three million people would be slaughtered in order to obey the evolutionary doctrine that perishing is a law of nature."— Larry Azar, Twentieth Century in Crisis (1990), p. 181.

"I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible."—*Edward Simon, "Another Side to the Evolution Problem," Jewish Press, January 7, 1983, p. 248.

"Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary thinking—probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas, quite undisguised, lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf and in his public speeches. A few quotations, taken at random, will show how Hitler reasoned . . [*Hitler said:] ‘He who would live must fight; he who does not wish to fight, in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.’ "—*Robert E.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1948), p. 115.

"Mussolini’s attitude was completely dominated by evolution. In public utterances, he repeatedly used the Darwinian catchwords while he mocked at perpetual peace, lest it hinder the evolutionary process."—*R.E.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1948), p. 115.

"Benito Mussolini, who brought fascism to Italy, was strengthened in his belief that violence is basic to social transformation by the philosophy of Neitzsche."—*Encyclopedia Britannica (1982), Vol. 16, p. 27.

"Darwinism was welcomed in Communist countries since Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels had considered The Origin of the Species (1859) a scientific justification for their revolutionary ideology. As far as Socialist theorists were concerned, Darwinism had proved that change and progress result only from bitter struggle. They also emphasized its materialist basis of knowledge, which challenged the divine right of the czars."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 119.

"Aspects of evolutionism are perfectly consistent with Marxism. The explanation of the origins of humankind and of mind by purely natural forces was, and remains, as welcome to Marxists as to any other secularists. The sources of value and responsibility are not to be found in a separate mental realm or in an immortal soul, much less in the inspired words of the Bible."—*Robert M. Young, "The Darwin Debate," in Marxism Today, Vol. 26, April 1982, p. 21.

“Marx and Engels were doctrinaire evolutionists, and so have all Communists been ever since. Since atheism is a basic tenet of Marxism in general, and Soviet Communism in particular, it is obvious that evolution must be the number one tenet of communism. Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin were all atheistic evolutionists, and so are today’s Communist leaders. In fact, they have to be in order ever to get to be Communist leaders!"—Henry Morris, Long War Against God (1989), p. 85.

"At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist."—*E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (1940), pp. 8-9

"Darwin then proposes a mechanism for the way it [evolution] works. Natural selection is a two-step process: (1) overproduction and variation within a species, and (2) greater survival and reproduction of those individuals with any slight advantage over their fellows; ‘fitter’ traits are preserved and accumulated in successive generations. Multiply, vary, let the strongest live [and reproduce] and the weakest die [leaving few progeny]."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 344.

"The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."—*Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, p. 318.

"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."—*Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (1977), p. 127.

"The study of human origins by anthropologists was particularly influenced by racist considerations, and this situation extended well into the first half of the 20th century. It is well-known that Darwin and Huxley, as well as Haeckel, believed in white supremacy, as did practically all the nineteenth-century evolutionary scientists, but it is not as widely known that the leading 20th-century physical anthropologists also shared such opinions."—H.M. Morris, History of Modern Christianity (1984), pp. 48-49.

"The pseudo-scientific application of a biological theory to politics . . constituted possibly the most perverted form of social Darwinism . . It led to racism and antisemitism and was used to show that only ‘superior’ nationalities and races were fit to survive. Thus, among the English-speaking peoples were to be found the champions of the ‘white man’s burden,’ an imperial mission carried out by Anglo-Saxons . . Similarly, the Russians preached the doctrine of pan-Slavism and the Germans that of pan-Germanism."—*T.W. Wallbank and *A.M. Taylor, Civilization Past and Present, Vol. 2 (1961), p. 362.

"Racism is the belief that other human groups are inferior to one’s own and can therefore be denied equal treatment."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 414.

"Almost any 19th or even mid-20th century book on human evolution carries illustrations showing the progression: monkey, ape, Hottentot (or African Negro, Australian Aborigine, Tasmanian, etc.) and white European. Few of the early evolutionists were free of such arrogance, not even the politically liberal Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 380.

"Darwin postulated, in the sixth edition of his Descent of Man, that the time would come when the white peoples would have destroyed the black. He also thought that the anthropoid apes would become extinct. He believed that when these two eventualities had occurred the evidence of evolution among living creatures would not be as strong as previously."—Bolton Davidheiser, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1989, p. 151.

"[Houston S.] Chamberlain wrote this prophetic statement in his Foundations [1899]: ‘Though it were proved that there never was an Aryan race in the past, yet we desire that in the future there may be one. That is the decisive standpoint for men of action.’

"Hitler was furious when the black American Jesse Owens outraced ‘Aryan’ athletes at the 1936 Berlin Olympics, contradicting his theories of racial supremacy. And when the ‘Brown Bomber’ Joe Louis knocked out boxer Max Schmeling, German propaganda became even more vehement that white superiority would be vindicated. However, when Hitler needed the Japanese as allies in World War II, he promptly redefined those Asians as ‘Honorary Aryans.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 25-26.

"Darwin’s notion that the various races were at different evolutionary distances from the apes, with Negroes at the bottom and Caucasians at the top, was not unique to him, but rather was almost universal among the evolutionary scientists of the nineteenth century. It was not only Darwin and Huxley, the two top evolutionists, who were racists. All of them were! This fact has been documented thoroughly in a key book by John Halter, appropriately entitled Outcasts from Evolution."—H.M. Morris, Long War Against God (1989), pp. 60-81.

"Many of the early settlers of Australia considered the Australian Aborigines to be less intelligent than the ‘white man,’ because aborigines had not evolved as far as whites on the evolutionary scale. In fact, the Hobart Museum in Tasmania [Australia] in 1984 listed this as one of the reasons why early white settlers killed as many aborigines as they could in that state."—Ken Ham, Evolution: The Lie (1987), p. 86.

"My abhorrence of Darwinism is understandable, for what member of the ‘lower races’ could remain indifferent to the statement attributed to the great master (Darwin, 1881, in a letter to W. Graham) that ‘at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.’ "—*Kenneth J. Hsu, in Geology, April 1987, p. 377.

"Unbridled self-indulgence on the part of one generation without regard to future ones is the modus operandi [operating mechanism] of biological evolution and may be regarded as rational behavior."—*W.H. Murdy, "Anthropocentrism: A Modern Version," in Science, March 28, 1975, p. 1169.

"Natural selection can favor egotism, hedonism, cowardice instead of bravery, cheating and exploitation."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Ethics and Values in Biological and Cultural Evolution," in Los Angeles Times, June 16, 1974, p. 6.

"As we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless and without mercy . . The law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution."—*Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (1947), p. 15.

"Evolution is a hard, inescapable mistress. There is just no room for compassion or good sportsmanship. Too many organisms are born, so, quite simply, a lot of them are going to have to die . . The only thing that does matter is, whether you leave more children carrying your genes than the next person leaves."—*Lorraine Lee Larison Cudmore, "The Center of Life," in Science Digest, November 1977, p. 46.

"Biological theories of criminality were scarcely new, but Lombroso gave the argument a novel evolutionary twist. Born criminals are not simply deranged or diseased; they are, literally, throwbacks to a previous evolutionary stage."—*Steven Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin, p. 223.

"[Evolutionary] Science and religion are dramatically opposed at their deepest philosophical levels. And because the two world views make claims to the same intellectual territory, that of the origin of the universe and humankind’s relation to it—conflict is inevitable."—*Norman K. Hall and *Lucia B. Hall, "Is the War between Science and Religion Over?" in The Humanist May/June 1986, p. 26.

"By offering evolution in place of God as a cause of history, Darwin removed the theological basis of the moral code of Christendom. And the moral code that has no fear of God is very shaky. That’s the condition we are in."—*Will Durant "Are We in the Last Stage of a Pagan Period?" in Chicago Tribune, April 1980.

"Darwinism spawned mangy offshoots. One of these was launched by Darwin’s first cousin, Francis Galton. Obsessed, as were many, by the implications of the ‘fittest,’ Galton set out in 1883 to study heredity from a mathematical viewpoint. He named his new science eugenics, from a Greek root meaning both ‘good in birth’ and ‘noble in heredity.’ His stated goal was to improve the human race, by giving ‘the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable."—*Otto Scott, "Playing God," in Chalcedon Report, No. 247, February 1986, p. 1.

"Once almost obligatory in all biology textbooks, the promotion of eugenic programs was set back by the disastrous, barbarous attempts to create a ‘master race’ in Nazi Germany."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 156.

"Nazi eugenics had two aspects: the extermination of millions of ‘undesirables’ and the selection and breeding of preferred ‘Aryan’ types. It was an article of faith that the blond, blue-eyed ‘Nordic-looking’ children would also prove intellectually and morally superior and that they would ‘breed true’ when mated. Neither assumption was correct."—*Op. cit., p. 272.

"In 1936, *Heinrich Himmler and his Stormtroopers (S.S.) founded an institution called Lebensborn "Fountain of Life." Its purpose was to create millions of blond, blue-eyed ‘Aryan’ Germans as the genetic foundation of the new ‘Master Race.’ Lebensborn children would be raised to be obedient, aggressive, patriotic and convinced their destiny was to dominate or destroy all ‘inferior’ races or nations. Galton’s well-intentioned dream of human improvement had become a nightmare in reality."—*Op. cit., p. 271.

"[Peter] Kropokin criticized Darwin’s remarks in the Descent of Man (1871) about the ‘alleged inconveniences’ of maintaining what Darwin called the ‘weak in mind and body’ in civilized societies. Darwin seemed to think advanced societies were burdened with too many ‘unfit’ individuals."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 259.

"Darwin often said quite plainly that it was wrong to ameliorate the conditions of the poor, since to do so would hinder the evolutionary struggle for existence."—R.E.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1958), p. 120.
Update ON Bunk Three - #6
“A Partial Update About Dr. Hovind’s Case”
See www.penaltyprotestor.org for more information concerning this case.”

December 19, 2006

Here is the Hovind’s story from my perspective

By Lindsey - 16 Year Veteran Student of IRS Criminal Cases and First Hand Observer of This Case

My name is Lindsey Springer and I have been asked to explain the case of U.S. v. Kent and Jo Hovind. This case was commenced as a Federal Grand Jury Indictment out of the United States District for the Northern District of Florida sitting in a needful building in Pensacola.

Dr. Hovind is well known as an evangelist who has chosen to give all his time on earth to arguing against evolution. He began this mission in 1988. In approximately 1995, his argument began to resinate with many in the "so called" Christian community. There became a great demand by Christian churches to obtain his views on audio and video tape for the sole purpose of broadcasting those views in respected churches and "so called" Christian Schools around the Country. The greater demand for the information caused him to draw from God to provide human beings committed to the cause of Jesus Christ, as Hovind viewed that cause.

Hovind, in realizing God answered his prayers, was blessed with many persons who were willing to take up their cross and follow the cause of Christ as Hovind explained it. Hovind’s explanation of the cause of Christ is unmistakably his right under the First Amendment regardless of anyone else’s view. This right is commonly known as freedom of religion.

Hovind began traveling all over the world. At all times he viewed what was happening, as his cause of Christ, was taking a strong hold on the Christian Community. At all times his home base was located in Pensacola Florida where he also built a theme park depicting his cause of Christ known as Dinosaur Adventure Land.
In one central location, Hovind lived, preached, and conducted his mission regarding the creation of man.

Hovind believed that being committed to his religious expression immunized him from certain Government interference as explained in the First Amendment. For those of you not aware of this Amendment and what it says, it reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Hovind believes that the phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" means Congress shall make no law respecting the free exercise of an established religion. Where Hovind and the United States Government squared off is what the meaning of "make no law" actually means. For most in the Christian Community the issue is where does the line "make no law" start and stop with respect to the free exercise of religion.

Beginning in early 1990s, the Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter referred to as "IRS") decided that because Hovind had not received any W-2 or 1099s and because he was paying his electric bill with something, he had to have made some money somewhere. Prior to the passage of the Revenue and Restructuring Act of 1998, the IRS used a procedure called the Bureau of Labor Statistics (hereinafter referred to as "BS Taxes"). This is now prohibited pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(shifted burden to Secretary to prove). The IRS decided to use the BS Tax procedure on Hovind. Because he had not earned any income that was taxable by the Internal Revenue Code specifically, Hovind decided that he would stand up to the Government because obviously, imposition of the BS Taxes was "making a law" that was attempting to prohibit the free exercise of his religion. There was an exchange of letters for some time between the IRS and Hovind.

One day in 1996, the IRS, civil and criminal Agents, showed up at Kent Hovind’s home with what is called a "jeopardy" levy. Under the law, jeopardy levy is only allowed to be used when the IRS is attempting to prove what someone owes in some sort of litigation and there is an articulated real threat that during that litigation time, if the IRS does not take possession of property worth the taxes thought owed, and the targeted taxpayer is thought to be dissipating his assets, the IRS takes the property and then the targeted taxpayer must fight to get it back.
The IRS was required to follow all laws governing jeopardy levies to which none were followed. There was no 10 day notice as required by Section 6331(a) as required under sectino 6331(d)(3). Under section 7429 the IRS was forbiden from making any “assessment” until after the expiration of 30 days from a “notice and demand for payment” was made to Hovind. No notice or demand was ever given and no 30 days was ever activated or expired because of no notice or demand being given. Because no notice and demand as required under section 7429 was given and because no notice under section 6331(a) was given, the procedure imposed by law was not afforded to Hovind.

For instance, section 7429(a)(2) affords a “Request for review” to the Secretary. Of course, the term “Secretary” is defined as the same person who showed up and took the cars. Then there is the “judicial review” of that determination by the Secretary. This would have occurred within 90 days under section 7429(d). None of these procedures were complied with by the IRS and had Hovind demanded the IRS comply with these procedures, no doubt the claim made to secure such compliance with these laws would have wound up being alleged as to further “impede” the “due administration of the IRS.”

The IRS took all cars sitting in the driveway on one morning in Early 1996. No notice of the levy and no explanation as to why the IRS thought these cars in Kent and Jo Hovind’s name were in some sort of danger of being dissipated. Kent Hovind was out of town and when he returned home, a friend of his paid the IRS the $12,000.00 or so and obtained the cars back.

He heard nothing more from the IRS for several years. Beginning in 2002, the IRS decided to begin a criminal investigation to determine what possible tax laws Hovind was violating while exercising his freedom of religion. At this point his message is world wide.
The IRS assigned an highly trained Military interrogation officer named "Special Agent" Scott Schneider to begin this criminal investigation. Agent Schneider issued IRS civil investigation summons to conduct his criminal investigation. This appeared wrong to Hovind so he decided to exercise his right and ask the United States District Court in Pensacola Florida whether that was a proper usage of the power to issue summons. The Court said it was and that was the end of Hovind’s questions.

Agent Schneider’s investigation was off and on. The Military kept sending him over to Iraq to hunt down Sadam Hussein’s money. At trial Agent Schneider referred to himself as a "specialist" in the area of hunting down money. He also said when "Washington called, he had to go."
When Schneider would arrive back to America, he would jump back on the Kent Hovind criminal investigation. He testified that he would wait till Hovind put his trash out on the curb and then he would go dig through it to find any clues as to what was going on inside the "Hovind compound", as Interrogation Officer Schneider called it.

Finally, in April, 2004, Agent Schneider decided he had enough from the trash can to convince a U.S. Magistrate Judge that he should be allowed to do a raid and search of the CSE ministry property. On April 14, 2004, armed with a search warrant, the siege was on.
Beginning at dawn, over 30 armed agents of the IRS, FBI, ATF, Postal Inspectors, County Sheriffs and others, executed their search warrant. During the raid over $42,000.00 was found in cash in various places throughout the numerous buildings on the ministry properties. Agent Schneider decided to seize that currency and placed it in a safe in his office. Numerous other injustices occurred that day.

The next day, Hovind went to the bank where ministry money he controlled was on deposit, and he withdrew most all of it to replenish the ministry money taken a day earlier by the Agents during the raid.
Hovind requested the return of the ministry money taken during the raid but the IRS refused. Two months go by and on June 2, 2004, the IRS made up another jeopardy levy and then Agent Schneider took the money out of his control and turned it over to civil IRS Agents to satisfy part of the civil claims the IRS made up on (the same day) June 2, 2004. Yes, that is right. The IRS made up the tax claim on June 2, 2004 and then seized the money from itself on the same day. All this to avoid having to give back to Creation Science Evangelism the ministry money the IRS took on April 14, 2004, during the raid.

When Hovind heard about this you can imagine he was frustrated. He again was looking at the first amendment and the words "shall make no law" and “shall proceed with due process” and then looking at what the IRS was doing and something simply was not right.

Hovind sought council and commenced action to get the ministry money back by filing a complaint with Treasury Inspector General "TIGTA" claiming how the IRS had stolen ministry money that was originally taken pursuant to the raid on April 14, 2004 and had not followed their own laws and procedures.

More than two years later, On July 11, 2006, a secret Federal Grand Jury which had been convened issued a 58 Count indictment against Kent and Jo Hovind. The Judge then issued a warrant for their arrest. Rather than simply call the Hovinds and ask that they report in to the authorities based on the warrant as is frequently done in these types of cases, the IRS decided to make another “high profile raid” on the ministry.

Kent was getting ready for staff devotions when the IRS Agents swarmed onto the property and arrested him. Jo was awakened by four armed agents surrounding her bed. She was handcuffed in her nightgown and not allowed to get dressed, go to the bathroom, or put on a robe, even though she was asking for these simple courtesies, and forced to go to the Federal Building.

The charges are grouped in three batches. The first 12 were against Kent Hovind claiming that he violated Internal Revenue Code section 7202 12 times by not "withholding certain taxes” from the persons helping him with his mission.

The Second batch involved 45 different charges of causing ("evading") Am South Bank to not file a Currency Transaction Report (hereinafter referred to as "CTR") when Jo Hovind would withdraw less than $10,000.00 by writing one single check on one single day at one single bank out of one account over which she had signatory authority. The government alleged that this was in violation of Title 31, §§ 5324, 5313(a) and certain treasury regulations that attempt to make it a crime to withdraw "more than" $ 10,000.00 in any one day with the purpose of evading the bank’s reporting requirements to the IRS.

The last charge involved Agent Schneider and others claiming that when Kent Hovind asked questions to the Court such as: "Was it right to use civil summons to do a criminal investigation?" or "Was it right to take ministry money during a raid and then make up a tax liability and then use that money towards satisfying said liability without any due process?" and other of these types of questions. Then the Agents claimed Hovind violated Internal Revenue Code provision 7212(a) which makes it a crime to impede the IRS by threats of bodily harm. There was no threat of bodily harm. When asked about this at trial, Agent Schneider said he felt threatened when Kent requested on a radio show on April 15, 2004, the day after the raid, for listeners to pray God would deal with all those who were coming against the cause of Christ.
The Supreme Court said in BRYAN v. U.S., 524 U.S. 184, at 194 (1998) "In certain cases involving willful violations of the tax laws, we have concluded that the jury must find that the defendant was aware of the specific provision of the tax code that he was charged with violating. See, e.g., CHEEK v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192, 201 (1991) In Cheek, the Supreme Court said "The general rule that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution is deeply rooted in the American legal system....(citations omitted). Based on the notion that the law is definite and knowable, the common law presumed that every person knew the law. This common law rule has been applied by the Court in numerous cases construing criminal statutes." Cheek at 199

The Supreme Court went on to explain that "The proliferation of statutes and regulations has sometimes made it difficult for the average citizen to know and comprehend the extent of the duties and obligations imposed by the tax laws. Congress has accordingly softened the impact of the common law presumption by making specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal tax offenses. Thus, the Court almost 16 years ago interpreted the statutory term ‘willfully’ as used in the federal criminal tax statutes as carving out an exception to the traditional rule. This special treatment of criminal tax offenses is largely due to the complexity of the tax laws." Cheek at 200

To these cases by the Supreme Court, the Government argued and the United States District Court, Honorable Casey Rodgers, decided, did not apply to the case against Kent Hovind. Can you imagine a Federal Judge, governed by the decisions of the Supreme Court, deciding what the Supreme Court said does not matter? The reason why this area was so important was because the Government did not have one shred of evidence that Hovind was "aware of" section "7202" or how the theory of the Government that violated that section was made known to Hovind prior to the dates of the 12 charges in Counts 1 through 12 being alleged to have taken place.

When the attorney for Hovind asked the Judge what evidence was presented that could act to show Hovind was aware of section 7202 or the theory advanced by the Government that he violated section 7202, Judge Rodgers replied "he was given notice when he was served with the indictment on July 13, 2006."
As to Count 58, the theory advanced by the Government here is simply alarming. The Government sends a copy of a civil summons to Hovind which informs him he has a right to challenge the issuance of the summons in Federal Court. Hovind exercises that option to see whether it was properly issued or not and now the Government says that this perfectly legal challenge impeded them criminally in violation of section 7212(a)!

Being a wise steward, Hovind asked the Treasury Department to look into why Special Agent Schneider gave the money taken during the raid to civil IRS agents on June 2, 2004, without any due process. Agent Schneider and the Government Attorneys claimed this was impeding the IRS criminally in violation of section 7212(a).

Kent Hovind was on a radio show on April 15, 2004, the day after the raid where he asked listeners to pray for all those who were coming against him and the cause of Christ. Special Agent/Military Interrogation Specialist/IRS Criminal Investigator Agent Scott Schneider tells the jury he felt threatened by Kent Hovind’s prayer!

How would anyone be aware that praying anything violates some Federal law let alone section 7212? Who made Agent Schneider listen to the radio show anyway? What happened to freedom of speech? What about asking the Court to oversee the IRS conduct? Isn’t that within the first amendment right to redress the government? And what about them taking the money and giving to some made up self serving tax claims? What happened to due process?

No evidence was ever entered that Hovind was aware of section 7202 or 7212 or that Hovind was aware of the theories advanced by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michelle Heldmyer in her claims of violations of these specific code sections. During the trial when asked by Counsel for both Kent and Jo Hovind of Agent Schneider, did he ever inform Hovind that what the IRS thought he was doing violated section 7202 or 7212, Agent Schneider answered he did not ever inform him prior to their arrest.
Next comes Counts 13 through 57. These charges stem from Jo Hovind going to the Bank and withdrawing less than $ 10,000.00 from accounts over which she had signatory authority. The Government alleged in the indictment (and the law clearly states) that withdrawing more than $10,000, for the purpose of evading the CTR that banks are required to file with the IRS, involving transactions of currency greater than $10,000.00 in one business or bank day, was a crime in violation of 31 United States Code § 5324. Section 5324 references section 5313(a) which says the Secretary shall make the regulations for who is required and when the requirement is to take place with regard to currency transactions. The regulations the Government then claims supported their theory was 31 CFR 301.11

Remember ignorance of the law is an excuse when the law is not definite and knowable? Remember the "proliferations and statutes and regulations often makes it difficult" for the average citizen?

Therefore, the Government must prove knowledge of the statute, regulation, theory and facts, referencing the law as a part of the bank secrecy laws, in order to prove guilt. This is a huge hurdle for the prosecutor to prove; that while Jo Hovind wrote checks to cash for the ministry for nine years she knew all the statutes, regulations, and theories of the bank secrecy laws and deliberately choose to violate those bank secrecy laws—laws written originally to track drug dealer’s monies!

The bank never told Jo Hovind that even though the CTR was tiggered when transactions involved more than $10,000.00, somehow she was violating this law by withdrawing less than $10,000.00 numerous times. The form that the bank was to fill out on amounts over $10,000.00 is Form 4789, commonly known as the CTR form. There were many defects in the Government’s theory not addressed here, one of which included violations of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 in reference to this “bootleg” CTR form.

The most important error was that at all times the regulation says "more than $10,000.00" while the Government’s theory only proved "less than $10,000.00." When the IRS Agents were asked why did they think $9500.00 was a violation and $7800.00 was not a violation, they responded " $9500.00 seemed more egregious."

After the Government rested, both Kent and Jo’s attorneys were confident that the Government had not proven their case, and it was their advice that putting on a defense was not needed. Therefore, the Defense rested.

The Jury instructions were complete as Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure mandate. In this rule, the Court "must" decide the jury instructions prior to closing arguments.

The Government’s closing argument began and ended. Counsel for Kent Hovind, Alan Richey, began his closing argument by reading to the jury the Government’s proposed jury instruction that the Court concluded was the instructions the Judge would be giving to the Jury. Alan Richey thought it best to take the jury right to the place where they needed to decide the facts. During his reading of this instruction, the Government stood up and objected. A side meeting was held with Mr. Richey (Defense Attorney), Mrs. Heldmyer (Prosecuting Attorney) and Judge Rodgers, which resulted in Prosecutor Heldmyer claiming she did not like the way Mr. Richey was reading the jury instruction. This was even though Mr. Richey was reading it verbatum! The Court overruled the objection and allowed Mr. Richey to continue his closing. After Mr. Richey concluded, but before Jo Hovind’s attorney, Jerry Barringer was to do his closing, the Court dismissed the Jury and took an extended break.

The Court returned with a surprise. Judge Rodgers rewrote the jury instruction to change "more than $10,000.00" to "less than $10,000.00" to fit the Government’s closing argument. It was double talk. This changed the indictment, rewrote the treasury regulation and changed the entire claims against Kent and Jo Hovind after the trial was concluded and with only Defense Attorney Barringer left to do closing arguments. Before the jury was brought back in to hear from Defense Attorney Barringer, Judge Rodgers asked Prosecutor Heldmyer "are these changes worth a risk of mistrial" to which Prosecutor Heldmyer responded "absolutely, your honor."

There can only be one explanation for the Government’s answer. Without the changes, the jury would find the Defendants Not Guilty. And for good reason. They are not guilty of violating any laws and regulations that they were aware of. The Government ignored the Supreme Court of the United States with regard to showing Kent Hovind was aware of section 7202 or 7212(a) or the theory in which these sections were violated. The Government ignored that withdrawing less than $10,000.00 in one day from an account over which you have signatory authority could ever act as evidence proving a violation of a regulation that says if the transaction involved "more than $10,000.00" in one day for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements the bank has with the IRS, that a crime may have been committed.

There are two final points derived from this case. Structuring is a word defined by regulation and not by statute. The Government charged that each withdrawal was a separate structuring act. Each Count only involved one check for less than $ 10,000.00 in one business or bank day and withdrew money from an account over which Jo Hovind had signatory authority.

Structuring was intended to be used against drug dealers. In this case, the Government has now turned to the drug statutes to obtain forfeiture of all of the property used by Creation Science Evangelism without any claim they were dealing in drugs. Obviously, neither Creation Science Evangelism, nor the Hovinds personally were ever dealing in drugs!
I listened to Attorney David Gibbs, III, of Christian Law Association, testify and I watched him when he arrived at the trial. He walked up to Mrs. Heldmyer out in the hall and said "hey girl, how is it going" as if they had known each other for some time. They laughed and joked with each other for a minute or so. Mr. Gibbs testified about personal income taxes and that not paying taxes was a sin. (This case was not about personal income taxes!) His testimony proved that the case against Kent and Jo Hovind was not about taxes but about religion.

How could it be about taxes when the Government could not show that what the Hovinds were doing violated any law or regulation let alone that they thought they were violating some law or regulation? This case was about sending a message to people of faith. “Keep quiet or we will get ya!”

David Gibbs was asked questions about Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) to which he replied that he was fully aware of this section and how it operated. He said that he gives free legal advice to over 10,000 churches nation wide. He was then asked about Internal Revenue Code section 102 which says that "gifts" are "excluded from the calculation of gross income" no matter what amount. At this question, and questions about 508 (c) (1) (a) religious organizations like Creation Science Evangelism, Gibbs suddenly seemed unknowledgeable. He “waxed eloquently” about 501(c)(3) organizations, which were not even applicable to this organization or this trial. He was very combative with Alan Richey during cross examination and at all times clearly was not testifying neutrally but only supporting the Government’s case. He clearly was working to help Mrs. Heldmyer silence Kent Hovind.

Mr. Gibbs testified that he met with Hovind at his home. They spoke about religion and taxes. At no time did Mr. Gibbs ever inform Kent Hovind of section 7202, 7212 or any other relevant issue in the case in chief presented by the Government.

After watching this battle for 16 years and viewing many criminal trials, when I heard Attorney David Gibbs say not paying taxes was a sin I thought to myself "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." David Gibbs, the protector of over 10,000 churches, had hurled one large stone at the church. I thought right then and there, isn’t the motive of all churches to receive as many tax free dollars as possible? What about giving tax deductible receipts? Is that a sin? The problem in the attempt to have the U.S. Congress take over every day life of people in all 50 States of the Union, is that now that thirst for power has collided with the first amendment. If Congress can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion then why is the Internal Revenue Code being purely relied upon by local churches regarding their activity in receiving gifts from parishioners?

Before you judge these two servants of God, you may want to make yourself a little more aware of the facts. Proverbs 18:13 “He that answereth a matter before he hearth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” I have an audio tape on my web page from a Saturday Conference Call I did on November 11, 2006 where for 90 minutes or so I explain some of the injustice suffered by the Hovinds. You can download it at www.penatlyprotestor.org. and listen to it. Sentencing will be January 19th unless the Judge grants an acquittal or the Eleventh Circuit takes over the case on appeal. You may need this information. You may be the next innocent victim.

Back to the GJiGT Home INDEX