Friday, June 26, 2015

It's All Silliness

Today, (once again on June 26th) the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision.  I'll ignore yesterday's ignominious decision upholding Obominacare.  Today's decision commands all fifty states to permit and acknowledge same sex marriages.

I have been enthusiastically awaiting this outcome - not only for legal and social reasons, but also from the simple standpoint of logic.

In Saudi Arabia recently, two women were jailed for violating the kingdom's ban on women driving.  Their case has now been referred to the Terrorism Court (a court that has sentenced dissenters to death).  Now, I may be wrong, but I think automobiles are a relatively modern innovation. I would imagine that before engines came along, Arabia didn't ban women from driving/riding camels.  When the government gets involved sometimes it screws things up and makes a controversy where there needn't have been one - especially when it imposes an arbitrary discrimination.

Today, as the news media recite the arguments surrounding both sides of today's 5-4 ruling permitting gay marriage licenses nationwide, I hear remarks like - "It's been that way since the founding of our nation", "Marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman", "Why does the Court think it can dictate the will of the respective states?".

Virgil Cooper wrote:

The marriage license as we know it didn't come into existence until after the Civil War and didn't become standard practice in all the states until after 1900, becoming firmly established by 1920. In effect, the states or governments appropriated or usurped control of marriages in secular form and in the process declared Common Law applicable to marriages "abrogated." 

See also UCC - Uniform Commercial Code - 1950 - Approval of the Uniform Marriage License Application Act. (

Prior to the states' intervention into the civil marriage business, it was the province of the various churches to decide whom they would marry.  The fact that the states stuck to the man/woman marriage model was perhaps arbitrary, and only reinforced by a prevailing culture which until 2003 saw gays as felons.

Today's ruling gave gays nationwide something that 100 years ago they wouldn't really have needed. What makes the difference now is that since the good religious folks of our country deputized the government to guard and maintain the sanctity of the Judeo-Christian sacrament of traditional holy matrimony, the glorious prize at stake is the LICENSE - a relatively new innovation (like the automobile).

I have said it before, but the equal protection doctrine of the (fraudulent) Fourteenth Amendment makes it silly for the new, Corporate United States government to discriminate on the basis of gender when issuing a license - especially one that is essentially a BUSINESS LICENSE.  Virgil Cooper continues:

In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually produce a profit in operation) and as the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business. To restate: In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a business venture, that is, a for-profit business venture. Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have "borne fruit."  (citing William Defuniak)

I am happy for my gay friends who can now feel like fully-fledged corporate subjects with equal privileges and immunities granted as titles of nobility in an admiralty jurisdiction.  One news anchor mused about whether we polygs will now step up and insist on equal treatment in the form of licenses for a plural family.  I don't know, I'm thinking about it.

I do think that Utah's recent appeal (to the 10th Circuit) of Judge Waddoups' decriminalization of plural cohabitation is not only littered with typos, but also now is doomed to fail.  While gays have won the right to marry, we polygs are still not permitted to exist.  How silly is that?

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Can barely come up with one

A TV news contributor commented the other day that criticisms of the tutti frutti lineup of 2016 Republican presidential contenders are a little hollow when the Democrats can barely come up with one candidate.  I agree.

I heard rumors that the four law enforcement officers who died on the day of the first siege of the Branch Davidian property in Waco were getting ready to give testimony in court proceedings related to Bill Clinton's sexual shenanigans.

This, whether true or not, is just one of the hundreds of suspicious events attributed to Bill and Hillary for three decades.

If it isn't enough that America has been subjected to nearly eight years of socialist bumbling from Barack "empty-suit" Obama, now we are expected to flip a coin over whether we will have this crazy megalomaniac at the helm.  Imagine being married to her AND Nancy Pelosi.

I think you have to be a fanatical liberal ideologue to even entertain the idea of electing this harpy.  I read a book by a Secret Service agent who served in the Clinton White House.  He wrote that Hillary would march through the halls with an entourage of her servants, and anyone who attempted to make eye contact with her as she passed would be punished or terminated.

I've always said that America went off the rails even before the Civil War., so it is little wonder that we are now faced with the prospect of Presidentessa Maleficentissima.

Is the the Democratic party so chained to Hillary that it cannot find even ONE other candidate to run? - somebody intelligent, honorable, charismatic, seasoned, wise, respected, temperate,  . . . . . ?

I mean - SERIOUSLY, PEOPLE !!!  Can you even like anything about this woman?  What accomplishments can she boast?  Will she step forward and repudiate our bogus debt to international banks?

I guess it doesn't matter.  This country is run by its owner, not the stooge in the Oval office.  If you vote, you signal your acquiescence to the fraud.

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

One Tooth

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer
I have been reading more on the topic of Intelligent Design (especially the work of Stephen Meyer).  I marvel at the venom directed at its proponents.  Darwinian evolutionists harbor so much disdain for those scientists who don't think life could have sprung into existence by way of undirected natural processes.

Darwinists allege that the idea of Intelligent Design (I.D.) is not worthy even of being called a theory - much less science.  The accusation that the belief in a designer is mere religious faith is rather hypocritical, since many of Darwin's postulations were based on his own best inferences based on historical data available in his day - a day when no one knew what a cell was.  Evolutionists' beliefs are all based on faith - faith that God does not exist.

Since evolutionists cannot demonstrate any of the biochemical events and adaptations they claim brought about life and living creatures, they rely on speculation - "The first cell could have emerged from the pre-biotic primordial soup." "The process of natural selection may have allowed monkeys to evolve into humans."

Truth is - no one alive today can state precisely how our universe started or how the first living cell found its way onto our planet.  Darwinian scientists and philosophers insist that if it cannot be demonstrated or tested today, it cannot be considered science.  That reasoning undermines much of what Darwin proposed.  For this controversy there simply will not be a level playing field.

Today I thought about teeth - individual teeth.  I still have most of mine (though some are synthetic).  It struck me as interesting that our teeth are many and separate.  Why do I not have merely two bony, enamel-clad ridges (one top, one bottom) with which to chew?  Then I realized that were that the case, I might risk losing an entire chewing ridge through injury or infection.  How wise our Creator was to let us have individual teeth so that if one goes bad, it doesn't jeopardize the rest of the mouth.

My point is - have you ever looked at your teeth?  Why do they have such remarkable anatomies?  What makes them grow into just the right shape for optimum maceration?  Think about that in light of the natural selection model.  How many generations of our human forbears had to endure having the wrong shaped teeth before the beneficent natural selection process sifted us to the current perfect arrangement?  I don't think humans have been on this planet long enough for all of that adaptation to have occurred.

I just read the book "Signature in the Cell" by Stephen C. Meyer - see

Check it out and marvel for yourself at how impossible it would have been for life to have emerged without a Designer.

Friday, January 16, 2015

The Final Showdown

In one of my recent posts I erred.  I wrote that I did not think it was likely that a Circuit Court would uphold state same-sex marriage bans.  Surprise, surprise - in a two-to-one split decision, the Sixth Circuit overturned lower-court rulings (granting gay marriage) in cases from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.  Read this article.  This is delicious.  Now, with contrasting rulings from different Circuits, the matter must inevitably escalate to the Supreme Court.

Despite the laments of those who insist that the decision whether to allow same-sex marriages must remain with the People of the respective states, it is clear that there is a powerful Popular trend in the U.S. to let gay people marry, and the courts are rapidly getting in step behind it.

I am reminded of the bizarre Reynolds decision.  In 1879, most Americans were enthusiastic over having a federal court barge in and dictate to the little ol' territory of Utah regarding its marriage practices.  We have short memories.

Let us not forget the breathtaking ambiguity in Canada, where gay marriages have been legally solemnized since 2005, and it is a crime to be a polygamist - even an informal one.

I express my thanks again to Judge Clark Waddoups (and Justice Christine Durham) who saw through the exquisite hypocrisies of Utah's anti-bigamy statute and obliterated it even before the Supreme Court has a chance to bless universal gay marriage.


Thursday, January 15, 2015

Can't Have It Both Ways

I was saddened by the recent attacks by Islamic extremists on innocent victims in Paris.  The immense groundswell of public indignation has been impressive.  The reaction from most who are shocked by the terrorists' brutality has been an adamant defense of free speech and the right of those satirical journalists to publish cartoons and articles, even those which could be deemed insulting to religious figures such as the prophet Mohammed.

I went to London once, and, not far from the Houses of Parliament in the island in the middle of a noisy roundabout, there were several protesters waving banners.  I learned that this was England's free speech zone - a place where people can declaim on any subject without fear of prosecution.  I found it a little odd. It made me wonder if there are certain things that you aren't allowed to say if you are in England.

Then I remembered a video I watched in 1986.  It was one of the most shocking things I had ever seen.  A middle-aged German man, a Canadian citizen, was being attacked by thugs with baseball bats as he entered a Toronto courthouse.  This situation was repeated time after time as the man went through a trial because of some pamphlets he had published.  He had challenged conventional history regarding some of the events of World War II.  Canada doesn't have free speech like we do in the U.S.  The man, Ernst Zundel, was questioning whether the "official" tally of Jewish people murdered by the Nazis - six million - was an accurate figure.  Clearly, Zundel repudiated some statistics associated with the Holocaust - an infraction that will get you prison time not only in Canada, but also in Germany and Austria.  If you are in one of those countries, don't attempt such a thing!  Keep your mouth shut.

Now, if you are in France, and you want to write or draw insulting things about Mohammed, you may risk terrorist reprisals, but you will have the endorsement of millions and the praise of dozens of world leaders.

Since the horrific events of last week, a few Islamic sympathizers have expressed support for the two gunmen who killed the journalists at Charlie Hebdo.  Those sympathizers have been charged and now face years in prison.

Here is my conclusion from all of this:-  In France, there is freedom of speech, and that freedom is carefully controlled and restricted.  If you say what the prevailing political sentiment agrees with, you are a hero, and if you say something contrasting, you will go to prison. 

You just can't have it both ways, France.  Likewise, until recently in America, if you said you had two wives, you had to go to prison.  I despise brutality and terrorism from any source.  I also despise the ideological terrorism that limits and muzzles freedom of expression anywhere in the world.

Monday, October 6, 2014

This Is It

This is it.  This is the moment (one of them, anyway) that I have been waiting for.  Today the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal from Utah (and several other states) asking it to restore bans on same sex marriage.  Read this article.  Though it came as a surprise to some, the gesture upholds the earlier decisions from several Circuit Courts, and tells the appealing states that the argument is dead.  Technically, if a different Circuit Court later rules in favor of a gay marriage ban, then the matter may have to be adjudicated by the Supremes, but that is not a likely event.

You see - Sean Reyes, Utah's Attorney General, is stuck now.  He can do nothing.  His hands (and the Church's hands) are completely tied. Those gays who have already married can move on with their lives, and, presumably, those gays who now want to marry can move ahead with their legal nuptials.

Just last week, Sean Reyes notified the 10th Circuit Court of his intention to appeal the Brown decision (of 12/13/2013) which decriminalized Utah's polygamists. Reyes wants the Court to preserve a law that makes it a crime for polygamists to exist.  In light of today's Supreme Court action, I think he is wasting his time.

I mean, since Lawrence v. Texas (June 26, 2003), gay people have been permitted to exist and breathe air outside of prisons.  They eat, sleep, drink, walk, work, drive, gather, and share intimacy all without being incarcerated.  Now, not only are they permitted to exist, but they can get married like heterosexuals have done for decades.  If gay people, (whom many Mormons despise) can now marry, why cannot polygamists now exist without the threat of being sent to prison for their criminal religious thoughts?

I have said this before, but I always salivate at the prospect of reading the pleadings conjured up by those who want to imprison polygamists while absolving adulterers and fornicators.  I say that because the arguments they contrive are so laughable and stupid:

1. Polygamists threaten the sanctity of holy matrimony in Utah.
2. Polygamists hijack the official legal marriage system.
3. Polygamists are adulterous and sinful.
4. Polygamists burden the welfare system.
5. Polygamists have retarded and substandard children.
6. Polygamists monopolize the pool of available single women.

Seriously, though, there is not one single argument in favor of criminalizing plural relationships that makes any sense when a state is not willing to incarcerate all of its fornicators. You can't not eat your cake and not eat it too. 

I can't close this post without also commenting on Canada.  British Columbia has decided now to move ahead with the prosecutions of Winston Blackmore and Jimmy Oler for polygamy.  Justice Bauman's decision to uphold Canada's anti-polygamy law seems equally laughable in a country that legalized gay marriages in 2005 and recently permitted prostitution nationwide.  Blackmore and Oler should assert that they pay their women, and that the wives are serving as prostitutes.  I only wish Lewis Carroll had been able to include this stuff in his Alice In Wonderland story - it would have made a lot of sense.

Friday, October 3, 2014


Yes, I'm channeling John Grisham.  You know I hate what liberals stand for.  I'm reminded of recent news reports of people being cited for growing vegetables in their yards.  Liberals can screw up a good thing.

I read an article last week that reported that Seattle residents will now be fined if the contents of their garbage are more than ten percent food.

I have a some questions:

1.  Don't inspectors have to have probable cause that a crime is being committed before they have a right to examine your garbage?  Has Seattle heard of the Fourth Amendment and the Supreme Court's new privacy doctrines?

2.  Will Seattle now fine the Federal Government for disposing of surplus produce, and for paying farmers not to grow food?

3.  Will garbage inspectors evaluate the percentage of food content in domestic waste by volume or weight, and what special scales will garbage collectors need to bring to each garbage pickup to correctly detect violations that surpass the 10% threshold?

4.  What special education and certifications will garbage collectors need to possess in order to meet these exacting standards for food waste analysis and testing?  Is baby poop classified as food, and will it need to be removed from the disposable diaper before being weighed?

5.  Does Seattle have enough money to defend all of the lawsuits that this will provoke?

I'm sorry, but I think I just figured out that there are some really stupid liberal politicians.

Sunday, September 7, 2014

The Stuff of Movies

This is the stuff of a good John Grisham novel.  A few months ago, Sim Gill, the Salt Lake County district attorney decided to file formal charges against former Utah Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, and disgraced (former) Attorney General, John Swallow.  The charges, both felony and misdemeanor, were for various crimes:- accepting bribes, interfering with criminal investigations, and various other acts of corruption.  For a list of the charges go to this article.

I met Bishop Swallow once.  He seemed like a nice guy.  He said he came from polygamous stock and would never intentionally harm polygamists.  I guess it doesn't matter any more.  He's likely to go to prison.

Shurtleff is another proposition.  He has always seemed to me to be a bit imperious and self-serving.  You always want to assume the best of your political representatives (unless they are Harry Reid [a relative of mine] or Nancy Pelosi).  I guess when you are an ambitious Mormon attorney and politician, it is easy to get tempted into corruption.  Shurtleff has had his share of adversity - months in an Ilizarov frame, colon cancer, heart attacks, a troubled daughter, and more.  I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but I am wondering what the mystical meaning is in this grand story.

Shurtleff was the one who, in 2005, executed the takeover of the (FLDS's) UEP trust, handing over day-to-day control of the trust to his corrupt crony, Bruce Wisan.  Wisan has recently quit his law firm job and his role as UEP Trust fiduciary in the wake of his public shaming for getting caught with a prostitute and lying about it. 

This is the stuff of movies.  I would cast Russell Crowe and Alec Baldwin.

I think the irony of it is the hypocrisy - the fact that Shurtleff championed his holy war on the Fundamentalist Mormons (for their alleged criminality), shopping Utah's stupid anti-bigamy statute to Texas, feigning good will towards us, all the while thinking only of his own personal advancement and political career.  Now, as I predicted, Shurtleff's is the fate of Governor Pyle, only worse.  He is likely to go to prison, hopefully among the felons he put away.

One of Shurtleff's errands for the blue suits at 50 E. North Temple was to keep the polygamists under control.  Thankfully the Church has no use for him any more.

Shurtleff's and Swallow's successor, AG Sean Reyes, has a few more days left to announce whether he intends to appeal Judge Waddoups' recent final ruling in favor of the Kody Brown family and the voiding of Utah's bigamy statute's unenforceable anti-cohabitation clause.  Let's hope that Reyes has some political corruption skeletons in his closet so that he too can be shamed for making war on the saints.

The drama continues.

Friday, August 1, 2014


So, last year Brute Wisass got caught by Taylorsville police in a motel with a prostitute.  He at first said they did not have sex.  She said they did.  He said he was just giving her financial help until she "got on her feet" - (read: "till she got up from the bed"). He admitted that he had been showering with her.

This is a former Mormon Stake President - a paragon of religious virtue and integrity.  The one hand-picked by Shurtleff to bring salvation to the FLDS.

VOMIT !!!       Here is a chunk of the police report:

See also this article from the Salt Lake Tribune:


10th Circuit 13th Amendment 14th Amendment 1953 Short Creek Raid 1st Amendment 6th Circuit Abortion Abraham Addam Swapp Admiralty adultery Affordable Care AG - Craig Jones AG - Mark Shurtleff Ahmedinejad Al Sharpton Alan Dershowitz Albert Nock Alex Jones Alina Darger Allen Keate Allen Steed Amnesty Andrew Napolitano Angela Corey Anteater Anthony Weiner Apocalypse Arm of flesh Arnold Schwarzenegger Ashton Kutcher Assad atheism B.C. Supreme Court bailout bailouts Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama Barack Obama Barbie Belief vs. Practice Ben Bernanke Benghazi Bernie Machen Bestiality Betty Jessop Big Love bigamy Bill CLinton Bill Medvecky Blacks and the Priesthood blood Blood Atonement Bolshevik Revolution Book burning Bountiful Boyd K. Packer Branch Davidians Breitbart Brigham Young Brown v. Herbert Bruce R. McConkie Bruce Wisan Canada Canada Reference Carolyn Jessop Casey Anthony Caylee Anthony Chapter 13 bankruptcy Charles Darwin Charlie Hebdo Charlie Sheen Chick-Fil-A Chief Justice Robert Bauman Child-bigamy Chris Serino Christine Durham Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Church Police Civil War CNN cohabitation collaboration Colonia Lebaron Colorado City Communism Conrad Murray Constitution Country Music CPS Craig Barlow Craig Jones Creston Crimea crooked judge cultural genocide Czar Nicholas D+C 101 Dallin H. Oaks Dan Cathy Darwin Darwin's Black Box Darwinian Darwinism Darwinists David Boies David Koresh David Leavitt Davis v. Beason DCFS Debra Weyermann decertification Decriminalization Democrat Denise Lindberg Depends Deuteronomy 28 Diaper Disodium Guanylate Disodium Inosinate DNA DOMA Don't Ask Don't Tell Dr. Drew Pinsky Dr. Seuss Dream Mine Dred Scott Drew Pinsky Drones Edom Egypt El Baradei Elaine Tyler Eldorado Elijah Abel Elissa Wall Enabling Act Entitlement Ephraim eradication Eric Holder Ernst Zundel escape Eurpoean Bailout Eustace Mullins Evolution Ex Parte extradition Ezra Taft Benson FBI Federal Reserve Felony FEMA camp Feminazi First Amendment Flagellum flatulence FLDS Flora Jessop Florida Flying Circus Food waste fornication Fourteenth Amendment Free-Agency Fundamentalist Mormon Fundamentalist Mormons Gadianton Robbers Gary Herbert Gathering Gay Gay Marriage General Conference genocide George Clooney George W. Bush George Washington George Zimmerman Germany Gerunds Glue-sniffing Gordon B. Hinckley Grant Morrison Greece Greg Abbott GritsForBreakfast Gun-Control guts H1N1 Handbook of Instructions Harry Reid Harvey Hilderbran hatred HBO Health Care Reform Heber C. Kimball Hildale Hillary Clinton Hippies Hitler Hoax Holding Out Help Holding Out Hostages Holly Madison Holocaust Homeland Security Homeschooling homosexuality Hoole Hubris Hugh Hefner Human Nature Hypocrisy hypocrite Idumea Illegal Ceremony IMF Immigration IN TIME incest Intelligent Design International Monetary Fund Iowa Supreme Court Iran Irony Irrevocable Clause Isaac Jeffs Jacob Zuma Jaimee Grubb James Dobson James Rosen Jamie Dimon Jan Brewer Jane Blackmore Jeff Ashton Jeff Buhman Jeffs Jerrold Jensen Jerry Sandusky Jesse Barlow Jesus Christ Jew Jim Jones Jimmy Oler Joe Darger Joe Paterno John Boehner John Daniel Kingston John F. Kennedy John H. Koyle John Hyrcanus John Kerry John Singer John Swallow John Taylor Jon Krakauer Jonathan Turley Jonestown Massacre Joni Holm Jose Baez Joseph Compton Joseph Henrich Joseph Smith Joy Behar JP Morgan Chase Jubilee Judea Judge Barbara Walther Judge Bauman Judge Clark Waddoups Judge Dee Benson Judge Donald Eyre Judge James Brady Judge Robert Shelby Judge Terry Christiansen Judge Waddoups Julian Assange June 26th Jury Justice Christine Durham Justice Nehring Justice Robert Bauman Justin Timberlake K Dee Ignatin Kathy Jo Nicholson KD Ignatin keep sweet Keith Dutson Ken Driggs Kendra Keystone Kops kidnapping Kiev Kimberly Conrad Kingston Kirk Torgensen knife Kody Brown Lab rats Lance Armstrong Larry Beall Las Vegas Laura DuPaix Laurie Allen Lavar Christensen Lawrence decision Lawrence v. Texas LDS LDS Church Lehi Police Liberals library Lifeboat Lindberg Lost Boys Love Times Three Lukumi Lyle Jeffs Main Street Plaza Mancy Nereska Marilyn Monroe Mark E. Petersen Mark Shurtleff marriage license Marxist Mary Batchelor Merrianne Jessop Merril Jessop Michael Behe Michael Dorn Michael Jackson Michael Zimmerman middle-class Migraine Relief Mike de Jong military miscegenation missionaries Mitt Romney Modern Pharisee Monkeys monogamy Monosodium Glutamate Monty Python Mormon Mormon Church Mormon Matters MSG Mubarak murder Muslim polygamy Musser Nancy Pelosi Naomi Jeffs Natalie Malonis National Debt National Enquirer Natra-Bio natural selection Nazi Next Generation Ninth Circuit Nobel Peace Prize NSA Obacle Obama Obamacare Obaminacare obesity Occupy Wall Street Oligarchy Open Marriage Orrin Hatch Osama Bin Laden Pakistan Palestine Papandreou Paris France patriarchy Paul Murphy Paul Ryan pharaoh Planets Planned Parenthood Playboy mansion plural marriage polyamory polygamist polygamous polygamous grouping polygamous sect polygamy polygamy reference Polygamy Task Force Predictor Presbyterian Presidential Election promotional video Promulgate Prophecy Proposition 8 Prostitute Protection of Marriage Punk'd Quantitative Easing race card Rand Paul rape Raymond Jessop Reassignment Recession Reconciliation Relief Mine Religion religious test Rep. John Lewis Resurrection Reynolds decision Richard Dawkins Richard Nixon Rick Santorum Rights riots Robert Mueller Rocky Ridge Rodney Holm Rodney King Roe v. Wade Ron Paul Rothschild Rozita Swinton Ruby Ridge Rulon Allred Russia Safety Net Salmonella Samaria San Angelo Sargon Sarin Saudi Arabia Schleicher County Sean Reyes Seattle Second Amendment Shalmaneser Shannon Price Shoshana Grossbard Shutdown Siamese Signature in the Cell Silsby Silvio Berlusconi Sir Evelyn de Rothschild Sister Wives skin color Slippery Slope Socialism Sonny Hostin Soviet Union Spencer W. Kimball Star Trek Stars Stephanie Colgrove Stephen C. Meyer Steven Conn stimulus Stromberg-Stein Survival Suspect Class Swine Flu Syria Tapestry Teen pregnancy Temple Teresa Jeffs termites Texas Texas CPS Texas FLDS Texas Rangers The Fall of Reynolds Theodore Olson Thirteenth Amendment Thomas S. Monson Thurgood Marshall Tiger Woods Timothy Geithner Timothy McVeigh Titanic Tito Valdez TLC Todd Shackelford Tom Green Tonia Tewell Trace Gallagher tracting Trayvon Martin trickle-down economics Trip-Wire Trust TSA twins TxBluesman Tyranny U.S. Bankruptcy. Franklin D. Roosevelt U.S. Supreme Court UEP UEP Trust Ukraine Uncommon Dissent Uniform Commercial Code Universe usury Utah Utah A.G. Utah Amendment 3 Utah Attorney General's Safety Net Utah bigamy statute Utah Supreme Court Vera Black Vermont Vladimir Putin Waco Wally Bugden Wally Oppal Warburg Warren Jeffs weapon words Wendell Nielsen Whistleblowers Wilford Woodruff William Dembski William E. Jessop Willie Jessop Winston Blackmore Wisan Woodrow Wilson Worf WTC 7 Xenarthra Yams YFZ YFZ Raid YFZ Ranch Zombies