Now Texas Doesn't Know Where the Kids Are.

If they are so much more qualified than the parents, why don't they know the head count?

"The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services said Monday there are 437 children being held at the makeshift shelter — not 416 children as they have reported since April 8 when they announced that number and said they had removed all the children from the YFZ Ranch of the Fundamentalist FLDS Church."

This is outrageous. They didn't know how many kids they had, and they haven't known for 18 days and they ask us to view the FLDS as bad parents. From the Deseret News. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Rozita Swinton Groomed as a Heroine.

Watching the Court TV segment this morning about the phony phone caller Rozita Swinton, I was astounded that Rozita is now being held up as some sort of Heroine. The press in general has reacted with curiosity when it comes to Ms. Swinton, reacting with apparent caution and then reacting with a sort of blindness and now have adopted a new approach. They're fans.

Never mind the fact that Rozita's attentions have not been confined to the "True Abusers", the FLDS and she is on medication for what has to be a mental illness and she has made up stories out of whole cloth about being a small beaten child having a baby that had NOTHING to do with the FLDS, she has a Talent. That talent is faking distress. What better place to use that talent than against the racist black hating sexually abusing FLDS?

The CNN reporter on Court TV was smiling with admiration when she announced how ironic it would be for Rozita to bring down the FLDS. There she was, cheerleading for Rozita, and admiring her. It couldn't be more clear that the press knows more than they are saying and are frankly rooting for people to take down the FLDS while we watch on national TV. The reporter, whose name I did not catch clearly believes Rozita made the calls. And she's thrilled by it. More →

Sphere: Related Content

The FLDS Long Run

From GoSanAngelo;

"Getting back DNA test results in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints child custody case will take 30 days, and attorneys likely will spend that time meeting with their clients and gathering more information before the next round of hearings."

Of course we see shows like CSI (insert favorite metropolis here) that get DNA tests done a lot faster and apparently it's possible to do DNA testing more quickly, but it is very expensive.

And so the plan unfolds as it was scripted out prior to the raid. It's missing one vital piece, that being the presence of abuse poster child "Sarah" with her face pixilated out. Grab the kids, destroy the FLDS in the popular imagination with negative stories, collect DNA evidence for other crimes, take the kids and then put the kids away for a minimum of 2 or 3 months after that. It's been an eternity now in the life of a small child, nearly three weeks. It will be a month more before DNA tests are available, there will be a scheduling of hearings (no big rush when that comes around) and months of arguing before parentage is established. I admit, 2 or 3 months is a Pollyanna view. It's probably going to continue into next year if the State of Texas has it's way. By then if irreparable damage has not occurred to the children, it will be firmly in place by then.

This must stop now. There is still no charge filed of a sexual/violent/abusive nature against any FLDS member in Eldorado TX. That's because Texas knows of none, they're just real sure they can find one. Ask yourself if there was at any time in your past a point at which the authorities could have busted down your door, and found something that would have made you at least LOOK criminal. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Rozita Swinton is an Obama Delegate, A distance Runner and went to High School in Tennesee.

She runs in distance races, finishing 526th out of 660 in the Briargate Family YMCA Turkey Trot 5k in 2006. Apparently she is not a very good runner. She came in 62nd out of 62 in the 2006 Nielson Challenge. Rozita had the largest handicap and came in last. She was dead last before in her age group in 2005 in the State Games of America in Colorado Springs.

She may be this "Rozita Swinton" who went to Stratford County High School in Nashville and also to Pearl-Cohn High School also in Nashville. This links up with a floating claim on the internet that I have not confirmed that she was calling from a Tennessee cell phone number. Stratford County High School promoted distance running. In Yahoo People search, there is a listing for a "Rozita Swinton" in Nashville Tennessee, so it may be that this is not the same person. The ages match though, the year that the Rozita Swinton of Pearl-Cohn and Stratford High are said to be set to graduate, 1992, would make Rozita Swinton of those schools be 34 sometime this year, assuming she graduated on time. Rozita is listed as being 33 in news articles now.

UPDATE. (Daily Camera) She is from Tennessee for certain. This makes it virtually certain that the Rozita Swinton of Nashville who is about the same age, is in fact the same Rozita Swinton that is Texas person of interest.

UPDATE. the PDF of the arrest warrant confirms several things. Rozita used at least one Tennessee prepaid cell phone bought at a "Family Dollar" store in Tennessee. There was a fake SS Number given and the person that bought the cell phone was named "Freddie Brinson", probably an alias. Rozita has also involved her drug convicted brother in the mess, either having him purchase phones or buying them in his name. Someone bought a cell phone for her use as far away as the Seattle area. Read the arrest warrant.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Living Nightmare, The sequel.

I am unemployed. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Rozita and the End Game.

From The Salt Lake Tribune, the distancing and damage control begins in earnest.

"A source close to Flora Jessop, an Arizona woman who grew up in the FLDS community and now helps teenage girls leave the sect, said Swinton first called Jessop pretending to be a distressed child on March 30 - the same day the Texas shelter received its call from the 16-year-old." More →

Sphere: Related Content

Who has been arrested?

Setting aside for the moment that nearly every woman and child at "Yearning for Zion" ranch was in fact, arrested and concentrating on who law enforcement has REALLY arrested, the arrests are instructive.

Most prominent so far is Rozita Swinton. The Gazette of Colorado Springs says she has been arrested in connection with the Eldorado Incident.

Most prominently NOT arrested is Dale Barlow. Now figure it out for yourselves. How does a black woman in Colorado Springs know ANYTHING about the goings on in Eldorado? She watches the news, she read the newspapers. One of the bad things about the FLDS is that they are probably racist. Have you ever SEEN a black member of the FLDS? She had no intimate knowledge of the FLDS so if she is "Sarah", she picked Dale's name out of the newspaper.

Two FLDS men have been arrested for interfering with the investigation. One is charged with a 3rd Class Felony, another with a misdemeanor. Neither of the crimes are sexual in nature, or violent.

April 3rd, Texas crossed the border of private property in search of a non existent abused 16 year old, switched their investigation to crimes that supposedly were seen while they were there, and haven't arrested one single soul for a sex related crime, or a crime related to abuse. That could change, but when you haven't found anything for 15 days, maybe you were wrong to look in the first place. More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Eldorado Polygamy Solution

Just make it legal. All of this preaching about underage marriage and felonies and other stupidity is just that, STUPIDITY.

You can't stop 13 year olds from having sex legally ANYWHERE in this country. Why? Because somewhere in this country is a venue where you can go and get people who are 13 years old married, legally. If preventing 13 year old sex with people of any age was the real issue, it would not be possible to do that. But it is.

What isn't legal is a Polygynous marriage of a 13 year old. Can anybody tell me in this libertine age why it's OK for a girl to be deflowered at 13 by a man who can only deflower her? The law says it is perfectly fine. In fact, if that man is willing to spread his attentions around to other women that are "of age" then he hasn't got a problem. He only has a problem when he's sewing his oats with two underage girls at the same time. I cannot for the life of me understand how this helps the first 13 year old. It's more traumatizing if her husband has two sex partners, of which she is only one? If you have someone's junk inserted into you when you're thirteen and his other sex partner is 18, that's OK? The law says it is.

Make Polygyny LEGAL. Then you can ask the FLDS to go before a judge somewhere in this country and authorize their marriages. Then it is real easy to prosecute when they don't.

Also Polygyny and Polygamy can't possibly be the real issue with the law, since they aren't rounding up men and prosecuting them for their Polygyny. The word "Polygamy" and the phrase "Polygamous sect" are being plastered all over the place but the only real issue is illegal sex with 13 year olds and there is a form of legal sex with 13 year olds. So the issue isn't even the other banner word that is being plastered all over the place. That being "underage."

What a farce. More →

Sphere: Related Content

"Sarah" and the FLDS, Guilty until proven innocent.

I have been watching the Eldorado FLDS news story unfold, as many of you have. In the "Deseret Morning news" the emerging FLDS "Spokeswoman" Monica says the following;

"Now they are trying to get another girl to confess that she is the girl they are looking for. That girl doesn't exist,"

In forums, and privately to my friends, I've been saying that for days. To be more accurate, I've been saying it's one of the more real possibilities. Had they found her, they'd be parading her about in front of the cameras, albeit with her face blanked out and some sort of pseudonym to "protect her identity" so as to give authorities the grossly abused child that justifies their behavior. The most likely answer? She does not exist. That is why over a hundred women some forcibly separated from their children haven't given "Sarah" up. There is no "Sarah".

I admit, it's still possible she will turn up but each day that passes casts doubt that she ever existed. Texas authorities are now accusing young women that say they are in their twenties of being much younger and trying to browbeat them into saying that they are. I don't doubt the FLDS women, they seem unskilled at lying. When confronted on Television about things they don't want to talk about they become visibly upset and resort to saying things like they "don't want to talk about it". That's the response of an honest person who doesn't want to reveal something. So when Monica says there is no Sarah, she doesn't exist, it's because that's what she believes. In that small a group, she probably believes that because it is true.

How hard is it to find a 16 year old now pregnant mom who has had broken ribs from being beaten who has already given birth? They've narrowed the search keeping girls or women with children under 5. Are they going to wait until someone shows a bump? Are they going to trick them into taking pregnancy tests and narrow the field a bit more?

Here we have the law using all it's power of restraint, of others, to prove their case. Everybody is guilty until proven innocent. All possible "Sarah's" are kept, questioned, have their rights violated and are threatened with the removal of their children. Shouldn't they be able to say "I'm not Sarah" and go home?

According to Maggie Lineback of FoxNews, the state of Texas is now saying it doesn't have enough foster families to take in all the kids. Was Texas duped? If so was it one of their own, overzealous and rabid with hatred of the FLDS? Was it the FLDS trying to make the outside world look stupid and justify it's own paranoia to the faithful? Was it another FLDS enemy like Flora Jessop?

UPDATES: Radio Talk show host Michael Savage is SCREAMING it.

The Salt Lake Tribune is asking as well.

UPDATE: Oh yes Flora IS in the middle of it. As of 4/17 it seems ABC has found the 33 year old hoaxer.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

A Living Nightmare.

This is what I would call the story of my life. The recurring nightmare of "almost" but "not quite". I just got finished (it would appear) with trying and failing to buy a business. This follows on the heals of trying, but failing to buy a house which is minor by comparison but the long string of "trying but failing" stretches back as far as I can remember, it's exhausting. Even the narrow area of theological specialty I have fallen into doesn't seem to win me a lot of favor. Why for instance couldn't I be more enamored of tithing issues?

When I was a child I had recurring nightmares which in retrospect, appear prophetic. In fact I cannot as an extreme "Predestinarian" or "Hyper Calvinist" regard them now as anything but instructive. Nothing, including my dreams, occurs without God's divine planning. So here's the dream:

God bless "Chung-he" be he living or dead at this time, most likely the latter, for he is the raging demon of these dreams and I cannot say that his real life exploits earn him the role of the monster of my bad dreams. Chung-he was the mission compound chauffeur. The missionaries of the late 50's and 60's in South Korea for the most part lived on compounds. Vehicles were communal, there was a garage keeper/chauffeur/mechanic, that was Chung-he's job. In my dream I would always be minding my own business, riding a bike, playing, or walking somewhere. Regardless of where that place would be, very shortly afterwards Chung-he would show up driving one of the missions vehicles, and attempt to run over me with it. These dreams continued I believe for a period of several years and only ceased after I was able to engage in a bit of "directed dreaming". All of this occurred prior to my 11th or 12th birthday if I am recalling correctly. Eventually the dream ended when I was familiar with it enough to realize that I was dreaming, while I was dreaming, and I was rational enough in that moment to know that I would not die in a dream and I allowed Chung-he to run over me. That was amusing enough since nothing happened and I felt no pain. After that the dreams ceased.

Without naming names as I am held to some confidence in this matter, I tried to buy a General Store/Residence and some acreage. My wife has diligently worked on the numbers with spreadsheets for about 2 months, and we've met with Small Business Development. It was all very educational. We've be in love with this particular business for a variety of reasons for 12 years. It came on the market 3 years ago, we made our first exploratory offer a year ago and we tried in earnest to buy it beginning in February of this year. A number of events made it clear that God wanted me to investigate the possibility but as always we never know where God is leading us simply because we think the purpose of his leading is to buy a house, buy a business, go here or there etc, and do business. I was talking with a good friend recently and described it this way. Imagine that we are all small children in shopping cart's being wheeled around the grocery store. Mom turns up the candy aisle so we think we're going to go get candy. All our desires have been focused that way, all the doors are opening, but it turns out mom is going to that way because it's the shortest way to broccoli. The kid in the cart is depressed, angry, outraged, but fails to consider that he can't see the big picture. Namely this was a short cut to the produce department.

God's ways are not our ways. I am very clear on that. I don't know how many times though I have to keep learning this lesson, if I am aware of it. A human being normally takes directions in a world absent the clearly miraculous from signs like "Turn left here" or "Stop" or "Take a number and wait". The only message I can get from any of this is that I am not destined to be successful in any way. My sister is backed by my parents in a frame shop venture with her touchy feely impractical and now ex husband. The business failed and the franchisor went banko. I pay for my own college, other siblings are seen through the whole experience on Dad's tab. I get married, have kids, buy my own house without help, twice. For the rest of the kids parents on either side of the equation have stepped in to assist them. My first wife wants out of our marriage, wins everything in the divorce proceedings including the house and so on. I never "cheated" on her, and gave her no cause for divorce. That's the way it goes.

Which brings us to the present day. I have not owned a home for almost 13 years. I have fought through a series of personal disasters not including the divorce and come out breathing on the others side but severely damaged. My only natural son is a jail bird, my two step children are unfortunately (for my own children's sake) more children to me. I was banking a lot on getting this business for a variety of reasons.

My second wife, who is very dear to me is a private person. She is good with numbers, she loves to organize, she loves the mountains (which is why we are here) and I love her very much. The business we were trying to buy afforded us the opportunity to satisfy all of those wants and desires. It would have been a good retirement (God willing) and I would have had the security of something that I couldn't get fired from if in fact I take my controversial views on the road someday. In the stop and start process of writing the book I am writing, one of my great fears is that my employer would find out, and away I would go.

I could offer my wayward son a place to work and stay away from trouble if he ever gets his life straigtened out. I would have a place for all the children, mine and those I regard as mine to come for the holidays. I wanted all these things with all my heart and the doors just kept opening for me. For instance, the very day I showed one investor (a family member) the business, the seller who did not know we visited, dropped the price by 22%, there was an email waiting to that effect at home when we returned. We hadn't heard from the realtor for about a year, but there it was, a door opening and the doors continued to open right up until yesterday and today where I had the last ones slammed tight in my face. All the things I had dared to hope for in this material word, that seemed to be coming my way, gone.

And so here I am , at 54, with less than nothing. I owe more than I'm worth. My balance sheet doesn't go positive unless I die. The profession I have chosen in life is off a bit. I suppose if GM isn't making money, I shouldn't expect to either, and now my greatest feat of daring, has ended in defeat again. Just as it always does. My dream is just like my nightmare. Without a vision, the people perish.

So, how is this like the dream? Disaster always pursues, and always catches up with me. It's almost personal. If it were a movie it would be like that train scene where Leslie Nielsen is chased by the train, as if it had it in for him. More →

Sphere: Related Content

I've lost all respect for Ron Paul supporters.

I understand the Libertarian mindset. I have voted Libertarian in several Presidential elections in the past. I get it. I don't agree with all of the ideology but I get it. I specifically disagree with the unrealistic ideas of Government revenue streams a lot of Libertarians endorse and I'm not an isolationist. I'd like to be, but when people who haven't bothered to learn how to land Jumbo Jets fly them into our most iconic landmarks, isolation is impossible. All who believe in viable isolationism to me are Ostriches with heads buried in Terra firma.

In attempting to discuss this years Presidential race with Pauliacs, several things are always true for them. No matter how late in the game it is, "Ron is gaining fast, you'll see!" Also "Ron Paul will win the Presidency!" this in spite of the fact that his own website is starting to make statements to the effect that they just wish to make the largest splash at the Republican National Convention that they can and hope to create a brokered convention. In the end, Pauliacs would rather see Obama as President and us suffering the consequences of not anointing Ron Paul, rather than a nominal Republican and Conservative in name only who is only seen as Right Wing because he is to the Right of the radical leftist running as a Democrat.

Politics is always about the possible. If you're against elective abortions and you get a Supreme Court decision or a President that restricts some of them, you rejoice. There are less elective abortions and you get about the business of reducing them again. If you have two Presidential Candidates, both of whom have a "Pro-Choice" record and one promises to appoint "Pro Life" judges, you vote for the one that promises. He may break that promise, that is true but the most likely candidate of two that will advance your cause is the one that made the promise. Your choice is obvious.

All or nothing is just plain stupid in Politics. Politics is about negotiation, compromise, worse vs worst choices, and good vs better choices. Rarely do you get what is best. It's Sophie's choice. Almost every time. In view of that do you do as Sophie did and make the choice, or do you let someone else do it for you?

Francis Schaeffer once said: "If we insist on perfection or nothing in any area in this fallen world, we will have nothing every time." So when you Pauliacs insist on Constitutional perfection, on Libertarian ideal, I cannot accept your vision as reformed. You are demanding that we accept nothing, because the alternative is less than perfect. I say you're idiots.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Going for it.

Being an employee all your life has certain perils. You get conditioned to think of yourself as working for someone and the idea that you would make all your income on your own, a bit scary. I'm one foot in the employee mindset, one foot out. I've been on commission most of my life so I have a direct connection between effort and income. You might say I'm leaning towards the non employee mindset because it isn't just effort that I thrive on, it's effective effort.

Taking that last step is really tough but here goes. I've found a place that my wife and I want to live in and it's a business as well. I don't even know if I will succeed in acquiring it but I'm trying. I "outed" myself with the Realtor as not having a lot of means, I talked a relative or two into backing me up on taking my shot. The seller has expressed interest in carrying back a second so now we see. How much of a second will they carry? How much can I get from the lender etc.

I was talking with my son about the whole idea on Thursday and it boils down to this. I'll be content to fail in the acquisition phase if I tried, and I'm now officially trying. I'll be content even to fail in the realization phase, less so, but content to some extent. I won't be content to watch the opportunity come and go.

I also know that this is appointed by God that I make the effort. I cannot know what the outcome is. I don't know that in making the effort I am destined to succeed. Too many stars lined up for this to be the wrong path to take. My son unexpectedly showed up on leave from the Army, he's going to be a partner, we went to look at the property together and at the very same time the Realtor notified us by email that the price had been lowered into the range that we thought could be a realistic price for the property. Granted, it was the upper part of the range, but it was in the range.

So now, phase two. The effort. I know I'm on the right path, but I don't know where it leads. I'm hoping it leads to ownership and subsequently success in that endeavor. God knows, I follow. Prayer from all would be nice. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Heath Ledger and Nick Drake

I saw one interview with Heath regarding his untimely (and perhaps suicidal) death. He states he is obsessed with the Music and life of Nick Drake, who is of course one of my favorite artists of all time. I have bought and given away more complete compilations of Nick Drake's work that I can count. I suppose I will continue to do it.

Nick died alone in bed. So did Heath. Nick did not leave a note and those close to him claim he was not suicidal though he was chronically depressed. I don't know if Heath had problems with depression but he didn't sleep much from what I've heard. Near the end of his life Nick said he was having great trouble with words and one of the speculations about his death is expressed by his friend and producer, Joe Boyd: "listening to his lyrics… he may have planned it all this way.” I concur.

Nick may have felt there was nothing left to say, so he didn't leave a note and took his own life. Those that knew him best would have all they needed to know about his life since it was now over. If Heath was the kind of fan he said he was, and if this was suicide, he may have chosen to do the same thing. His warning about all of this would have been his expressed interest in Nick's life and music.

Of course a conclusive autopsy result may remove all doubt as to cause and make this idle speculation. I don't normally post publicly about the life and times of actors. I wasn't planning to say anything just as I don't say anything about actors and actresses as a general rule, but Heath mentioned Nick Drake, and he's a favorite. More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Pharisee's Super Bowl Hopes.

Not having something heavy to say this AM, I shall turn to my fleshly interest in the NFL.

I am a Miami Dolphins fan so I don't have an iron in the SuperBowl fire.

I'm hoping for a Green Bay-San Diego matchup. I'm leaning San Diego for the winner. I expect a New England - Green Bay pairing and I expect New England will win. Hopes and Dreams, what can I say? My Dolphins weren't the first NFL team to complete a perfect NFL regular season, if I get my wish they will still be the only team to complete the entire season perfect. We will see.

I'm rooting for a San Diego win. I have been a Norv Turner fan off and on ever since I thought he didn't get a fair shake at Washington. I have admired the offenses he has put together, I like the way he handles developing quarterbacks. He has made poor selections when it comes to where to work, but this time he did not. In addition while all the teams still in the SuperBowl tourney are veterans of prior bowls, only one team has never won one, da Bolts.

Green Bay was a close second for a favorite in the final four. I was never a Brett Favre fan and thought he was overrated though he has shown remarkable tenacity for a man that even Green Bay thought would play about 4-5 years in the NFL. I don't know what ever became of his "Bad Hip" issue but it hasn't stopped Brett from starting every NFL regular season game since he replaced Green Bay QB and then poster boy "Magic Man Don Majkowski" when he went down. I know every Green Bay fan thought the season was over. I know I did. I know the resident Green Bay female fan who had a Fat Boy sized Don Majkowski on her office wall thought they were done. Boy did they forget.

This season Brett won a special place in my heart even though he was destroying Dan Marino's last claims to fame in the record books. An old guy, playing well beyond any projected prime is playing like he is in his prime. Good on you Brett. You go boy. Win won for my late father in law, but I'll be rooting against you all the same, but this time, I'll be admiring you.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The futility of Green.

Once in a while I post on non religious topics. Politics interest me of course, and the environment is part of the larger political debate in this country and other developed countries similar to ours, but in developing countries? Green? Environment? You can choke on it as far as they are concerned.

I have my most interesting political discussions with my daughters. One is a bit green, the other is inclined to be anti Israel and pro Palestinian. I've covered the middle east in one post as a result of a discussion with one daughter, and now, the green one.

While we're hand wringing over emissions, safety, "bio diesel" and whatnot, the rest of the world is getting on with digging themselves out the basic issues of survival and moving rapidly towards (as Douglas Adams put it) "where shall we do lunch?" To get there you need a car and India is revolutionizing the car industry. India. Tata is an Indian car maker and they've just finished developing and putting into production, the "Nano," which costs all of $2500.00, so it's going to sell. But all is not well, because this upsets the Greens, of which there are very few in India. Once everyone has a car, they might get green, but right now they want a car instead of wanting to hoof it, yet the Greens complain:

"Green campaigners point to India’s terrible road system and rising pollution levels. 'Even if they claim it will be fuel efficient, the sheer numbers will undermine this,' Vivek Chattopadhyaya, an air pollution specialist at the Centre for Science and Environment in Delhi, said. 'India’s infrastructure doesn’t have the capacity.' The centre estimates that the five million vehicles on Delhi roads today meet only a fifth of the capital’s transport needs. Most people travel by bus but could be convinced to buy a car at such a low price. Delhi, where air pollution levels are more than twice the safe limit, is already registering 1,000 new vehicles a day. As more cars hit the road, the average speed at peak times has fallen to 7mph, which should at least ease concerns about safety in case of accidents."

It's only going to get worse with the new Nano. So while we hand wring over making the world a better place, the 1.12 billion people of India want what we have. Wheels, and they're going to get them. They have their own definition of making the world a better place, and it doesn't include paying $10,000.00 for a car that is green. We're trying to stem the tide of world wide pollution by pretending that when we clean up our act, the world is a better place. I've just discussed India here, the second most populous country in the world. Need I mention China?

Read the article in the "UK Times." I'm wondering, will a leftist Greenie government in our country decide to use our military to take out Tata's plant and save the world? More →

Sphere: Related Content

Bad Blogger.

I am one. I am trying to figure out how bloggers link one to another and have been wildly unsuccesful at seeing what is probably right under my nose or at the tip of my fingers. My "tech elasticity" is being challenged in my old age. For instance, I don't know how they get those nice lists on the margins of their blogs for other blogs they like. I want people to know I read Iowahawk and Six Meat Buffet.

I'm going to contact a few guys I know, and I'm open to suggestion as to how to go about this. I'm sure I'll never be a "Little Green Footballs" type blog, but I could be better at what I do, since I'm now concentrating more on blogging than live debating. I've done live debating. My opponents aren't alive. If there is a living man who wishes to take me on, I'm down for the struggle and will pretty much meet them anytime or anyplace, but so far, no.

So I need some help in being a Good Blogger, because I'm a bad one. With your help, I can be a better one. More →

Sphere: Related Content

More Popular in Death than in Life at the "Fighting Fundamental Forums."

I am a veteran of many bannings at many essentially "Fundamental" or "Bible Believing" Christian forums so getting banned again involves less pain than most hangnails. This one even took me by surprise though, and I don't speak of the "unexpected" nature of the occurrence, I speak of the way it happened. I'd been expecting that axe to fall since about the first month I posted there. There was a certain "what took you so long" quality to it and a "You gotta be Kidding me, THAT's what you're doing this for?" I get the impression that since I'd reached a low "reputation" total, it was now acceptable to ban me. This is not to say that I stirred the FFF up for the purpose of the fun of a fight. Nor is it to say that I took insincere rhetorical doctrinal stances for the "sake of discussion." I did not, with a few possible exceptions that I believe I clearly labeled that way.

A number of wild "fish stories" are getting perpetuated by the now 3 or 4 day old discussion about my GETTING banned. At last checked the thread on my "banning" started by my friend Trina was ranking in the top 5 pages of views in the "fighting forum" and top 6 of replies. That's a historical ranking, since the forum began, and that's just one of the four threads I could find on the subject. If you combine that with the seperate thread on the same subject by Pastor Marty Braemer, it ranks even higher. The discussion may have finally died, but I'll believe that when I see it. Usually there's a day of piling on and that's it. This has been going on for a while now.

Let me address the myths that have grown out of this episode so that any of you who bother to look here and find my answers, can at least, find my answers.

I'm not coming back as a sock puppet, nor do I have one at FFF. I have only pelted one board with sock puppet ID's in all my time on the Internet. To name that board would be to revive a now settled conflict so I won't bother. I had come to the conclusion several years ago that I should be exactly who I am at all times, and not pose under some name. I started signing almost all my posts after that and subsequent board memberships were always under my real, legal, given name. A sock puppet would violate that principle. I suppose the FFF could recant on my banning and I suppose I could come back but that's theoretical. I'm not lobbying them for reinstatement. I don't think they're considering it.

With regards to claims that I "harassed" the Hawaiians. I tried for some time to steer clear of them as I regarded them to be unstable and undisciplined. For a long time I didn't even know they were related. The whole "Invictus" issue is what started the intense round of "competition" as it were and it involved them confessing their hatred for another poster without any prompting. Writing a thread about the sickness involved in kicking a Cyber Corpse is not a personal attack, but the guilt level of the three was so profound they identified themselves and then set about claiming that I attacked them personally. I had no idea.

What has been termed a "rep war" was in fact my concern about tone, which some of you will find odd since you blame me for the downward tone. Setting that blame aside for a moment, the concern I had was that it hardly matters we are in cyberspace when we say hateful things out of the purest forms of hatred, it only matters that we say those things. With varying degrees of intensity I have been attacked as brutally as one can be attacked via various pathways of private messaging while at the FFF and I made it a policy to "out" those people and ask why such open and concealed behaviors were acceptable. Having won my battle on my pet topic, truly the only subject I had left was that of tone. I will never regret doing so because it made friends out of two enemies, James Knox and myself. We don't agree on many many things, except that we are brothers in Christ and ought to act that way on this earth. James, I love you.

With regard to Scott McClare, aka "Ransom". This "man" is the embodiment of the problem at the FFF. Don't read this paragraph if you don't like graphic language, because it is graphic. Scott declared me to be an unbeliever, which if anything condemns not me, but him. He also took the time to send me a private note which he has acknowledged publicly at the FFF that he did send. In that note he asked me to "Go bugger my goat" which is, paraphrased, a vile invitation for me to have sexual intercourse with a goat by me inserting my sexual apparatus into that goat's anus. He acknowledges he sent this message. That is vile, that is wrong, that is without excuse.

In a related public insult, "DeepSix", the "man" who claims to be parent to the two Hawaiian girls, I am named in a "pederast/catamite" relationship with another poster. This is of course, not true, but the claim was only deleted, and never retracted. No apology was ever offered for that either. Calling someone a name they merit in some real or allegorical way is not out of bounds in my view, but I am not a homosexual and the type of wickedness that "DeepSix" proposed I was involved in was that of an adult male (supposedly me) preying sexually on a juvenile male by engaging in homosexual anal relations with that young boy. That's pretty awful as well. In all the Hawaiian three engaged in their own very bizarre version of what love amounted to and the explanation of why anyone would show favoritism to another. Apparently, from what I could gather, the only reason to treat someone well was that you were having sex with them. I don't think they realize how sick a view of love that ends up being. I make absolutely no claims that they realize that "love" in any way, but it's very twisted.

There is also the issue of justifying relations with younger women or girls that keeps getting brought up. Sorry, that's not going to work. I merely pointed out that scripture does not define or describe the crime known as "Pedophilia." Heterosexual pedophilia has an entirely legal description and it is only wrong from a scriptural standpoint to the extent that we are told to stay legal in our behavior. The only way you can have sexual relations with a young girl is for there to be parental and sometimes judicial permission as well, to marry that girl. The shocker to many people is there are plenty of places where that can be done, thus you can marry girls as young as 13, which means you can then have sex with them legally and it is not pedophilia. You can jump and scream all you want, but this simply remains true no matter what. Since there is no scriptural prohibition, decide what you want, but you are only a pedophile in the legal sense, not in a moral one and all the same things a heterosexual pedophile wants to do and does do, can be done legally, in the context of marriage and are thus not pedophilia. You might want to re read that paragraph a thousand times prior to commenting about this, because it's simply true. I am not going to do anything along these lines because it's not possible for me to legally marry a 13 year old, since I am legally married already. I suppose I can form a set of conditions in my mind where I might consider the act, from a theoretical point of view, namely, marrying such a girl, but I don't want to and right now I couldn't anyway and besides that, I like my wife a lot and she'll probably survive me.

There continues to be this sort of sly spinning as exemplified by a poster named "T-Bone." "How ever we preceived this has ended...I really believe the overview should be seen. Hugh had long standing battles with all Bible believers on this forum..." As with most of the way he phrases things, T-Bone creates an impression of something that is not the case. Yes, I had battles with "Bible Believers", but "Bible Believers" have battles among themselves. He subtly tries to place me outside that camp, and I am not. This is not unlike his spin that I injected bestiality spontaneously into the forum discussion, which also had not occured.

Last, for now, unless I think of something new to add to this list and edit into it, there is the misunderstanding of how I left. It is believed that I ignored "repeated warnings" to lay off my discussion of Ransom's unsavory insult. I did not. For me to ignore a warning, I'd have to know it was a warning. In retrospect I do know it was NOW, but hardly then. "debbiet" is staff at the FFF. She sent me a message in pleading and distressed language for me to lay off the discussion about what Scott McClare acknowledges he said. All I saw was a message from a poster, and I was getting a LOT of messages, that indicated someone was distressed and disturbed, and they had made no posts in the forum. Knowing that "Webmaster" had a "gray dot" next to his name I assumed that all staff of the FFF had no reputation value and debbiet had a "green dot". I assumed that this meant she was a regular poster. I sent back a polite reply to her and I deleted her message and went on.

Now, I've had my threads "messed with" before, with no communication or response from the admins of the FFF, several of them occupy the trash file at the FFF right now. In my memory they disappeared first, and then several days or hours later, appeared in the "round file." As far as I knew, this was happening again, and from what the scuttlebutt is around the forum, there are posters with "more than average" power of board manipulation and I thought this was happening again. I got two more messages from debbiet. Here is one of them, which remains on the FFF as long as I don't clear the cookies involved:

"You have been banned for the following reason: I (debbiet?) asked you to not discuss this on the forum and you have gone ahead and done it anyway, therefore you are banned.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never"

There was also a pop up window that said I had a private message from her, which I have never read, because I can't access private messages after I am banned. Fine and dandy. However, if it was merely the content that offended, it's still on the board, in other threads. If there are legal concerns over the content, I can assure you what's being said right now at the FFF is potentially more dangerous to those involved than anything I said. This is hardly a threat. I don't expect to get to a point with the FFF where legal action would be necessary or considered. I'm pointing out their flagrant hypocrisy. More →

Sphere: Related Content

New Year Goals

Of course, they would not be restricted to happening in 2008, though I doubt there is enough time left in 2007. Oh me of little faith.

I don't think I can put God on the clock, I can only tell you what he has placed in front of me. As always, I pray that I am a vessel for sacred use in all that I do, not a vessel of profane use. God has use for me always. I fit perfectly into his plan. Even Peter did when Jesus said to him, "Get thee behind me Satan".

There is a need for a New Denomination. It is still possible that an existing one can be revived. As I have maintained, the reformation stalled shortly after it started and clung to vestiges of Romanism that it should have discarded.

The Reformation largely embraces unsupportable doctrines such as the tithe, infant baptism and marriage as monogamy only and Sunday Sabbath observance. The error seems really the same one. If one doubts whether or not to tithe, isn't it safe to do so? Well yes, but to teach others to do so? The error is primarily that of playing it safe.

If there is doubt that Polygyny should still be an extant practice, and if it offends the world, isn't it safe to be monogamous? Yes, personally that would be a safe choice. There is no need even to be married, much less married to more than one. There is however no mandate to refrain from marriage and in fact Paul teaches it is wrong to teach that, yet we have taught for many centuries that one form of marriage which was never condemned, is in fact wrong. Is it safe to teach the "safe path" as the only path?

Where is it that scripture teaches Sunday Sabbath observance? I know of no place yet we have only the documentation of scripture that the followers met on the first day of the week in Solomon's portico. We do not have the claim this is a new Sabbath, to be observed. Again, is it safe to meet on Sunday? Certainly, I would imagine that early believers met on all days of the week as was possible for them. The notion that early Rome allowed them all a day off so they could observe their Sabbath is silly. Just as today, I'm sure there were some then that couldn't make it on Sundays. Do we think they were barred from fellowship as a result. Surely, for safety that comes with early examples of worship it is good to meet on the first day of the week, but should we teach this as the "New Sabbath"? Should we even TEACH Sabbath observance of any kind?

And the tithe. Certainly giving is good, and asked of believers in the New Testament. But tithing? This is an entitlement to the priesthood of Israel, given out of an entitlement of Land given to Israel by God. An entitlement he said they did not work for, that he took from unbelievers to give to his chosen people. Who can show me the deed to their land, given by God as part of a Covenant? Who can then show me who God has chosen as priests to then give the tithe to as an obligation, out of an inheritance? Is it good to tithe to our Churches because it is safe to do so? Certainly. It is good to teach this as an obligation? No, that would be evil.

There is a need to defend marriage in the public sector. For this I propose marriage contracts. We have given ground to the state so much in the arena of marriage that we now have them supposing they may define what marriage is. We need to be able to formulate agreements that are based on our religious freedoms. Agreements that are not "egalitarian" in nature, but Godly. We then need to be able to register them with the state, and use them in the unfortunate case of divorce. If we marry with no contract, and the stay together, there is no problem. Even God's people though were given provision for divorce because marital destruction does occur. Today, I could father children in a marriage and live my life before God, and my wife (no matter how Godly and the outset) could still stray from me, take from me the children we have together and plunder my estate thereby impoverishing other children and wives I might have.

To create a legal context for marriage contracts we need to have a legislative agenda. To do that we need to elect someone or several someones to office. To do that we need a base. For that reason this new denomination needs a home. A place where many of us claim legal residence, for the purpose of voting, for the purpose of electing officials, for the purpose of advancing a legislative agenda.

I have found such a place, and I am sure there are many other great locations that I have not thought of. I will be trying over the next several months to buy land in a rather remote area. If I accomplish that, provided God is willing, I will then ask those of like mind to establish legal residence if not actual residence in that area. I am certainly open to other suggestions for an ideal spot but Montana and a few other states have the low overall population necessary for a few people to have the greatest impact. Other states would be Alaska, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. It is easier to get elected to state office in Wyoming or Montana than California or South Carolina.

I am an amateur in all these things, and I am not by any stretch, a wealthy man. Anyone reading my rather obscure blog, and seeing the same things I see is welcome to contact me, and welcome to propose their help. Right now I could use the help of a real lawyer or two. A wealthy man, and a strong theologian with a reformation background who sees the need for continuing reformation, not compromise with the world, or with the religious errors of the past.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Hank Hanegraaff doesn't handle a Polygyny question.

On Hank Hanegraaff’s program, “The Bible Answerman” on December 10th, 2007 a caller introduces the subject of “eisegesis” which turns out to be his way of segueing into a discussion of what he calls “poly-GUY-nee”, this being his mispronunciation of polygyny which is actually pronounced “puh-LIJ-uh-nee”.

The caller then poses the problem that discussing polygyny VS “monogamy only” for the Christian, seems to be uncomfortably like eisegesis when it comes to deriving the value of “monogamy only” for the laity. The first assertion is that for deacons and elders and Kings, it seems to him that monogamy is indeed imposed, but that he has a friend who believes in polygyny as a valid form of marriage who simply points out that he is none of those things. I have cleaned out a few “ums”, “uhs” and meaningless interjections.

Hank: “If you look at the passage, 1st Timothy Chapter 3, the passage is about overseers and deacons.

Caller: “I was thinking about that as well as the one in the Old Testament about Kings. And because Kings were forbidden to have more than one wife and then in the 1st Timothy passage you’re talking about, you also have the deacons and the overseers and the pastors.”

Hank: “Right, the principle is the same though isn’t it? In this particular context though, 1st Timothy Chapter 3 and Deuteronomy 17:17…if you look at 1st Timothy Chapter 3, Paul here is writing about deacons, who are to be men, like overseers” (and then he quotes, paraphrasing a bit, apparently from the NIV):

“8 Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.”

Caller: “Yes, so the passage when taken does forbid those four occupations from polygyny…”

Hank: (interrupting) “You’re talking about polygamy, right?”

Caller: “Well, we always know that polyandry is forbidden, I was just talking about polygyny where (there are) multiple wives, not multiple husbands. The thing that I’m saying is I took him to where it says, for example, “Let every man have his own wife” (1st Corinthians 7:2) and he says ‘If I had multiple wives, isn’t each of them my own, not somebody elses'?"

Hank: (laughing skeptically) “I think the point here though is a prohibition against promiscuity in context, as well as polygamy in the sense that man’s affection has to be for his wife alone, and that’s the point.”

Caller: “I tried that too but his argument was ‘Well, if I’m married to them, then it’s not adultery and it’s not fornication’.”

Hank: “But you have to interpret scripture in light of scripture and the whole of scripture teaches us that we should be the husband of one wife. We leave all others and cling to one another and the two become ‘one flesh’.”

Caller: “So where would you take somebody who wants that literally said?”

Hank: “I would take them throughout the scriptures to all the passages in which you have a strong prohibition against polygamy.”

Caller: “But when I do that he says ‘It doesn’t actually say that and therefore it’s eisegesis’.”

Hank: “I don’t think that’s the case, I think that polygamy is something that is very clearly talked about in a lot of different ways.”

Caller: “I can’t find the passage where it actually says so straightforwardly so it’s not talking about one of those four occupations. So I wasn’t able to give him a literal verse about somebody who is not a King, overseer, pastor or deacon. I couldn’t find any passage that is clearly applying to the laity.”

Hank: “I think what you need to do is point out that polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament but was never commended by God and in the New Testament you want to look first at the authority of Jesus Christ who makes it clear that a man leaves his father and mother and is united to wife, not wives, and the two, not three or more, become ‘one flesh’. Jesus even refers to Genesis chapter 2:24 in making his point. In fact, when Jesus says “anyone who divorces except for marital unfaithfulness and marries another woman, he commits adultery” (Matthew 19)

Caller: “If you have some passages I’d really…”

Hank: “Let me give you a couple off the top of my head, we’ve mentioned the Deuteronomy 17:17 where a man must not be polygamous by marrying multiple wives and in 1st Kings chapter, I think it’s 11, you have Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines and as a result of that he runs into all kinds of problems.

In 1st Corinthians Chapter 7, Paul picks up the same kind of theme that is used by Jesus by saying each man should have his own wife, not wives and each woman her own husband, again, not husbands. That’s 1st Corinthians Chapter 7. And then you have ‘a wife must not separate from her husband, again, not husbands, and if she does she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband’, again, singular and “a husband must not divorce his wife’ again, not wives, plural. If you got to 1st Timothy Chapter 3, the passage that we talked about earlier, again, I think that pretty compelling, even though you had some discussion on that, Titus 1:6 also points out that an elder must be the husband of one wife, again, much more could be said, thank you for your question…"

My comments are as follows: Hank either is a novice to this discussion or he's trying to intimidate the caller to back him off. Hank is wrong. The caller, while not being able to pronounce the word "polygyny" correctly, is nonetheless careful enough to use the right word and contrast it with the larger meaning of polygamy and the practice of polyandry which is part of that larger meaning. No one of the three words appear in scripture, so we must use their secular definitions. Only polygyny is practiced in scripture, that which we would call polyandry is always defined as sexual sin in scripture and scripture makes absolutely no apologies for being what we in our society would call "sexist". The argument, "what's sauce for the goose" does not fly in the Bible. Polygamy is simply too broad a category as it is inclusive of polyandry. Hank later employs the sort of equivocation he sets up by with the insistence on the word polygamy later by blurring passages intended only for men, or only for women to apply to both men and women, just as he uses polygamy instead of polygyny.

Next, the caller, Hank, and our third party polygyny advocate (apparently) see 4 categories of forbidding which Pastor, Elder, Deacon, and King. It is notable that this is what is known as "inclusionary" language. Inclusionary language is used whenever a writer of a contract wants to focus only on those included, not those which are not spoken of. The caller and Hank employ a kind of misdirection. By making the list extra long, they try to imply it's a good idea since there are so many people included and by spreading the tent as many places as they do, that this really seems like the scriptures meant everybody. In reality though, when writers in all cultures and languages and lawyers who write contracts list categories specifically, that is all they wish to include. Thus the friend of the caller is correct. He's laity, it doesn't apply to him.

Additionally, the list is shorter. Kings are not on it. Kings are not to "multiply" or have "many" wives depending on the translation of the Hebrew word "rabah". The meaning of "rabah" is made clear by the preceding verse, Deuteronomy 17:16 in which a king is not to have "rabah" horses. It's quite simple, either a King is to have one wife, and this behavior is to be a moral right and example to all and he is also to have one horse with the same moral and behavioral compulsions for the laity. The idea that each Israelite could only have one horse, is, ridiculous.

Hank then employs the idea that it's "obvious" several times and cites the "whole of scripture" and uses phrases like "scripture interprets scripture" and the meaning of all of those phrases is pretty simple. "Don't be a dummy, agree with me, it's obvious, and if you can't see it, you're a dummy." Hank is very polite, but this is what he is saying.

Hank also cites 1st Corinthians 7:2 without pointing out the entirely different word for "own" in the Greek in each case which make the meanings of "own wife" and "own husband" potentially VERY different. The English is simply not specific in this case, and allows for that dramatic potential difference in meaning, the Greek in fact, makes the meanings contrasting, not identical. The only question is, how different?

Hank dodges the fact that as the caller clearly states, there is no specific prohibition against polygyny. Hank also falsely states that God does not "commend" polygyny, when in fact God must do so since he employs it as a regular feature of the inheritance solution and compulsion found in "levirate law" in Deuteronomy 25.

Hank also employs a definition of "one flesh" that is essentially a construing of "one flesh" as a synonym for "monogamy" which is also a synonym in his lexicon for "marriage". They are not all the same thing. Monogamy is in fact marriage, but if polygyny advocates are correct, so is polygyny. Thus monogamy would be a kind of marriage, but not the extent of what marriage is. Neither the practice of polygyny or monogamy would speak to all of what would be contained in the word marriage. Got himself says two marriages can exist at the same time to one man later in his law. If God says that, then if you are married to two, and you are "one flesh" with those to whom you are married, it's simple. You're "one flesh" with both wives. Nothing in the Biblical concept of "one flesh" says "One wife, One Husband ONLY."

This would lead us to our next error on Mr. Hanegraaff's part. The equivocation of polygyny and promiscuity. At best, if he is correct, this is redundant. If polygyny is not marriage but sexual sin, then all the injunctions against promiscuity apply. Otherwise, they do not, for as Hebrews teaches, the marriage bed is undefiled. If in fact marriage exists in the case of polygyny, then none of the injunctions against promiscuity and fornication apply.

Mr. Hanegraaff then does what most monogamy only proponents do. After having laid a groundwork of equivocation, they simply begin to lie. In fairness, a lot of the lies are unconscious and depend on the groundwork of eisegesis they have already laid. Hank says that Solomon's problems were due to his wives when scripture never does, and in fact lays that problem squarely at the feet of WHO his wives were. It was not the plurality of Solomon's wives that were the problem, it was that some of them (thus wives) were foreigners and unbelievers. Strange women. This is clearly stated as wrong in the law, that admonition being repeated throughout the Old Testament, and later in Nehemiah 13, it is scripture itself that pronounces Solomon's sin to be his foreign, unbelieving or "strange" wives. His believing wives, are not a problem. He also lies by misquoting the scriptures, saying that Deuteronomy 17:17 is a simple prohibition of polygyny in general. Whatever it prohibits, it prohibits only to Kings.

Hank also drags the dead cat of divorce into the proceeding. Monogamy only advocates do this frequently so as to equate the two because they both involve the subject of marriage. A man who is polygynous need never get a divorce, for any reason. He could, but more than the monogamy only advocate, he is averse to divorce. Divorce has no place in this discussion. It's simply a Trojan Horse to bring the categories of "God's displeasure" and his "reluctant or permissive will" into play. Whatever God says about divorce, is about divorce. Not about polygyny.

I could go into greater detail, but I already have elsewhere. I've touched on the failings of Hank's arguments. If anyone cares to comment or is unfamiliar with my work, I would be glad to expand on them.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

144,000? Nostalgia or Real Christianity.

After becoming a Polygyny advocate, it wasn't terribly long before my version of what is known as "Calvinism" ratcheted up to the level of "Hyper" or "High" Calvinist. As with all labels there are problems with Calvinism and with all versions of it, I've settled on calling myself a Hyper Calvinist, as it is closest to what I believe. What, you might ask, led me from a position of "Mushy" Calvinism to hard core hyper "God Predestines Some To Hell" Calvinism? It is the observation that no matter how much I nailed down the doctrine of acceptable Polygyny, virtually no one would switch. About the most they will do is approach me behind the scenes and say "yeah, but it's not really wise, is it?" A more cirucular argument I have never seen. People just want to stay where they are, and never progress to something other than the Cultural Christianity they are comfortable with.

144,000? There are days when I think the number is literal. Those Biblically literate will know this is a number that some cults latch onto as the literal number of the saved or at least, those that will be saved at the second coming. Faced with the stubborness of 99% of Christianity which will do NOTHING to live anything other than a Nostalgic version of it, frankly there are days that I would be amazed if there WERE 144,000.

How does Christianity change us? All I see is people looking into the past, much as the people of Israel longed for the EGYPT of their slavery. Is there a point we are willing to say Christianity was PERFECT? I can't see that place or time. Better than at other times? That I'm willing to believe. Perfect? It's never going to happen. What are we to do? "Work out our salvation with fear and trembling" and get as close as we can. To most of us that means find someone else who got close and emulate them.

I've asked this question of my reformation bretheren many times. "What have we reformed lately?" No one can ever name anything. If our "tradition" is a better tradition than that of the Catholics but a tradition (of men) nonetheless, God is no more pleased with us than any segment of Christianity. Where are the Bereans, constantly searching the scriptures, reconciling beliefs to the word of God? I am told by those who in a self congratulatory way consider themselves "real" reformers that we are to be "always reforming", "never reformed". Yet these are the same people who cannot answer the question "what have we reformed lately?"

Thus sometimes I actively wonder, "How many Christians are there, really?" There are days when I'm not sure than answer is a large number. More →

Sphere: Related Content