Free Soda

When I was in elementary school, I remember that I was not always happy.  Some of my teachers were grumpy, and I was forced to eat garbanzo beans, even though they made me retch.

I remember that I had a desperate longing for free soda pop.  The idea that there would be root beer and Dr. Pepper in the drinking fountains stirred hope and joy in my heart.

Looking back, I realize that that would have been a bad idea, so I don't dream about it anymore.

Last night's presidential election result suggests to me that many people feel like I did in elementary school.  Free water isn't good enough.  They want free soda pop.  They want -

Free birth control pills
Free marijuana
Free phones
Free food
Free housing
Free transportation
Free loans
Free health insurance
Free immigration 
Free schooling
Free money
Free everything

Of course, they forget that nothing is "free".  Everything they harvest from the nanny government is obtained by having the Internal Revenue Service break down somebody's door and break his back.   This reality is contorted a little by the fact that the theft is also done cunningly.  When Ben Bernanke prints $40 Billion each month in phony paper Federal Reserve Notes, the theft is done gradually (remember the frog in the boiling milk).  The value of your dollar shrinks every day.

Obama was able to keep the piper away until after the election, so the ongoing celebration over the continuing flood of free stuff was not disturbed by the grim tidings of insolvency or bankruptcy.

The lust for free stuff inebriated a majority of the electorate sufficiently for them to dismiss the travesty in Benghazi, and see Balack Obama as the new Pied Piper.

I shouldn't grumble - the utter destruction of this nation was prophesied millennia ago.  God's "marvellous work and wonder" is inevitable.

If not already, then very soon there will be ONLY TWO types of people in this country - those who will kill someone else in order to get food; and those who would rather starve than kill another person.  The scriptures allude to these two classes as "tares" and "wheat".

In which class do you fall?

Disingenuousness

Those of you who read my hyperbolic posts must by now be somewhat numb to my ranting and pontificating.  I don't want to be a windbag or a broken record, but I have to follow up my last post with another indictment of Utah's Attorney General's office.

I went back and re-read Jeryold Jensen's cringing reply in the Kody Brown bigamy statute challenge, and I noted that he quoted liberally from the book God's Brothel by Andrea Moore Emmett (a rabid anti-Mormon).  Moore-Emmett trots out the trumped-up sob-sob stories of her harpie Tapestry cronies.  Deputy AG, Jeryold Jensen, dredges the litany of exaggerated horribles in his reply to the court . . . . . Polygamy hurts women . . . . Polygamy hurts children . . . . . Polygamy brought down the Twin Towers . . . .  on and on and on.

You know, Jerry, if polygamy and its practitioners are truly that despicable, and you are so hell-bent on proving the constitutionality of the bigamy statute, why won't you prosecute polygamists?  You had David Kingston for unlawful sex with a minor.  You had John Daniel Kingston for allegedly roughing up his daughter.  You had Jeremy Kingston for marrying his aunt.  You had Addam Swapp for bombing a church building.  Every one of them was assumed to have two or more wives.  You prosecuted none of them for bigamy.  What's more, you had Warren Jeffs!  You had pictures of him with DOZENS of wives.  Oops, wait - - -  nobody thought of charging him with bigamy.  Is it because you know that your stupid statute is UNCONSTITUTIONAL ???!!!!!

I saw a banner at a polygamy rally once which read:

"LAWRENCE TRUMPS REYNOLDS - ARREST US OR SHUT UP !!!".

No kidding!  Utah will soon watch its departing AG slither into oblivion, and be replaced by Mormon bishop, John Swallow.  Will Swallow swallow his Church pride and usher in a new era of liberty and oversee the end of the discrimination against Utah's most traditional families?

Based on the signals being given off by Judge Waddoups, I believe he will allow the evidentiary hearing to proceed, AND he will rule that the Browns have been harmed and that the bigamy statute violates the U.S. Constitution.  Then what?  Swallow's role will require him to appeal the district court's ruling to the 10th Circuit in Denver.  If that is unsuccessful, he will have to hope for help from the U.S. Supreme Court - the court that wrote the Lawrence decision (6 to 3) decriminalizing ALL adult intimacy.

On the other hand, he could save the State millions of dollars in legal fees and embarrassment simply by getting the legislature to remove the offending words in the bigamy statute - or would that be too easy?  You decide.

Topsy-Turvy

I have made this point before in my post: "THOUGHT vs. DEED".  Jerryold Jensen's motion and recent reply in the Kody Brown case seeking a ruling on the constitutionality of Utah's farcical bigamy statute prompted me to make it once again.

The First Amendment forbids government to burden Americans' exercise of their religious beliefs. The Reynolds court came along and eviscerated this liberty.  It said that states could itemize a list of religious activities which can be believed in but NOT practiced.  Thus, Utah (and some neighboring states) could include polygamy as a conduct which could be criminalized.

So, in the wake of Reynolds, you could believe in polygamy to your heart's content (as Mormons do), but you could not practice it.  The thoughts were just fine - the ACTIONS were not.

So, there are tens of thousands of Fundamentalist Mormons in the Intermountain West who eagerly embrace plural marriage in their minds.  Utah residents who proceed to take a plural wife are presumptive felons (although the current Attorney General's office insists on NOT prosecuting them).

The prohibited actions (contemplated in Reynolds) occur when a man is married to one person and goes to bed with a different person (male or female).  That makes you a felony bigamist.  The 2003 Lawrence decision overruled that legislation, otherwise tens of thousands of Utahns would be in prison now for bigamy.  So they can't prosecute the SEX.  They have to rely on the other prong of the bigamy statute - the "purport" prong.  You are guilty of bigamy if you are married to one person, and assert (believe) that you are married to another.  Kody Brown has ONE legal wife.  He THINKS of the other three ladies as "wives" in a religious sense, but the State has already said that having additional spouses is legally VOID and impossible.  Legally, the other three women are girl-friends, mistresses, or just partners in an affair.  So, Brown can call them "wives", but wives they are not.

As Jerryold Jensen points out in his reply, Kody's sexual activities with the various ladies are utterly shielded by Lawrence.  It is the fact that Brown THINKS of them as "wives" that makes him a felon.

So now we have the unintended consequences of the Reynolds insanity.  We have a state that REFUSES to prosecute the prohibited exercise (actions) of the believers, while it insists on criminalizing  . . . . . . . . . . . .

THEIR THOUGHTS !!!!!!!!!!

Wait though!  It criminalizes their lifestyle (existence and mindset) as did Bowers to homosexuals (until 2003), but the chief Mormon law enforcement officers of the state dare not prosecute it now for fear that someone like Kody Brown will come along and TEST the statute in the courts.  The Church wrote the statute.  Is it not the Church now who is frantically trying to salvage it?  I wouldn't be surprised if those Lehi Keystone Kops have already been excommunicated for the biggest tactical blunder in modern Church history.

Topsy-Turvy.

The following YouTube video is a Monty Python skit about church police.  Skip to 00.36.

Tipping Point

Cleon Skousen made a wise argument years ago.  He said that the big question in the choice of a government system is not between Democrat and Republican, or even Conservative and Liberal - it is the choice between tyranny and liberty.

The source of the following quote is questionable, but I like it anyway - -

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largesse out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

America is at an interesting point in its history.  When you look at the political landscape in America, you quickly discover that the urban, densely populated areas of the country incline towards voting Democratic, while the heartland seems to prefer the Republicans.  Union members typically prefer Democrats, as do blacks, Hispanics, women, college students, illegal immigrants, Hollywood and the vast majority of the mainstream media.

Democrats typically argue for bigger government programs, more government control, more entitlement programs, more "redistribution" of private wealth, more taxation, more regulation of businesses, and more safety net programs for the sick and the poor.

In recent presidential election cycles, the actual popular vote for president has been extremely close, sometimes swinging only one or two percent in either direction.  The electoral college system, however, makes certain states - Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Colorado and others - into pivotal swing states.  Win those states and you can be president.

There are reportedly some 12 million illegal aliens in America.  Like black people, these people would likely pick Balack Obama 99 to 1.  Why?  Because Obama wants to give them amnesty and a quickie path to U.S. citizenship.  Why?  Because he knows that if he can get these immigrants the right to vote, they will vote for him - A.) Because he was the one to let them in, and B.) Because he will give them all the free stuff he can possibly give them - free medical care, free food, free housing, free everything.

So, if the voting bloc that prefers to tax the private sector in order to fund public benefits for itself grows by millions, then the liberal Democratic model will take permanent control and never look back.

You may ask why any politician would be so stupid as to desire to take our country in such a direction.  Well, if you are the politician who doles out the free benefits from the public trough, you can control the public resources and control the people who receive them.  So we come back to the liberty:tyranny paradigm.  It is the tension between a local government controlled by the people, and a powerful, centralized government which controls the people.

Don't think that I believe that the Republicans are more righteous than the Democrats.  The tyrannies perpetrated by the Bush administration were breathtaking -  9/11, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and the Patriot act.  Corporations bribe politicians and finance their campaigns.

One thing is sure - we are at a tipping point.  We have lost our understanding of the principles of freedom.  We have embraced secular myths such as evolution and atheism.  We have entertained a melting pot of ideas and racial carmelization.  It can no longer be said that our ideals are clear and consistent.  What was a nation of Christians is now a nation of who-knows-what.  The Constitution was voided with the fraudulent passage of the 14th Amendment.  It "hangs by a thread".  Corruption and sin are rampant.  The Gadianton Robbers have confiscated all four corners of the earth.  All men are enslaved. 

We have looked into the heavens and counted some 250 billion suns (solar systems) in our Milky Way galaxy.  So far also, we have counted perhaps 250 billion GALAXIES like ours !!!  I don't believe that any of the life forms here on earth arrived here by any other means than by transplantation. The Gods know what they are doing.  They have been at this terra-forming game for a long time.  I should not be so cynical about the progress and decline of our Father's children on this planet.  He placed us here.  He knew what we would do.  He knows how it will end.  He knows what He will do to wrap things up.  He is doing what He has done on numerous other planets.  If given the chance, we will do the same ourselves one day.

Still, it is bracing to be around at this spectacular tipping point.  Here are some prophetic predictions from Nephi in America 2600 years ago:

 5.   But, said he, notwithstanding our afflictions, we have obtained a ^aland of promise, a land which is ^bchoice above all other lands; a land which the Lord God hath ^ccovenanted with me should be a land for the inheritance of my seed. Yea, the Lord hath ^dcovenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all those who should be ^eled out of other countries by the hand of the Lord.

 6.   Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall ^anone come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.

 7.   Wherefore, this ^aland is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of ^bliberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound ^ccursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.

8.   And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be ^akept as yet from the knowledge of other ^bnations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

 9.   Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a ^apromise, that ^binasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall ^cprosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall ^dkeep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their ^einheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

 10.   But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in ^aunbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and 

having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true ^bMessiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is ^cjust shall rest upon them.

 11.   Yea, he will bring ^aother nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be ^bscattered and smitten. (2 Nephi 1, 1-11)

Wizard of Oz

I have never watched the 1939 film "The Wizard of Oz" from start to finish.  What I did see though, was, I think, a clever metaphor for an interesting aspect of humanity.  We do not want to be disappointed by our heroes, our clerics or our government.  Who would have thought that Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jim Bakker, Bill Clinton and Tiger Woods were committing adultery?  Who, among the Mormon faithful, would want to discover that the beloved 'prophet', Thomas Monson, has not had any revelations or prophecies?

Still, we press on gullibly.  I was reading yesterday about the three huge bombs found in the Oklahoma City federal building on the day that it was blown up.  Local news reports made no mention of a Ryder truck.  A federal government representative at the time commented that people simply need to have more faith and trust in the integrity of the federal government.

On 9/11/01, the WTC twin towers crashed to the ground.  At some distance away, WTC Building 7 remained largely unscathed, except for having been pelted with some flying, burning debris.  The owner decided, however, that this minor damage to the building warranted its immediate demolition, and called for the building to be "pulled" (code for planned demolition). So, a few hours after buildings 1 and 2 mysteriously imploded, Building 7 collapsed neatly into its own footprint.  Even more bizarre is the fact that a British reporter announced that the building had collapsed 20 minutes before it really did.  If you are not hopelessly gullible, you must already understand that WTC Building 7 could not have imploded without someone having gone in there days earlier and placed demolition explosives. 

I saw a newsflash yesterday announcing that the Japanese government is issuing a stimulus.  If all of the Western nations are over-extended with borrowing, who is lending them money? - - Cuba, North Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, Germany?  The U.S. just hit the $16 Trillion debt mark, and recent articles report that China's debts rival U.S. debt, so who is lending all this money to these huge nations, and, if those nations don't pay up, how will that "WHO" collect on the delinquencies?

Come on! We both know that if you tally up the debt/credit balances of all the borrower nations, they don't add up to zero $$.  The people lending to the countries are not the countries - it is private bankers - private bankers who lend to corporations AND to governments.  When those banker families lend those governments as much money as there is in circulation in the entire nation, then there are no more shekels left with which to pay the INTEREST !!!!!  Then what?  You know what !!!!

They print more paper money.  Last week Bernanke announced QE3.  What is that?  QE3 (Quantitative Easing) is the third instance (in recent history) of the Federal Reserve (a private bank) printing BILLIONS of funny-money notes.  QE3 will involve the Fed buying $40 billion of mortgage-backed securities each month.  Counterfeiting would be a better description.  When you expand the supply of paper money, its value shrinks, you get SCREWED, and gas and food prices rise.  Just you watch !!

Once again, I ask you - WHY do not the borrower nations (who are doomed to never be able to pay back their gargantuan debts) rise up and repudiate the banker families who have swindled them/us?

Because they are in on the scam, silly!

Nero fiddled while Rome burned.  Will Obama or Romney be the Fiddler on the roof this time around?  (And will the Wizard of Oz salvage us?)

They're Not The Same

The Salt Lake Tribune published an article yesterday in which a Deputy Attorney General made some remarkable comments about Kody Brown's challenge of Utah's lame bigamy statute.  In a state whose principal church successfully tells whopping lies to its membership it is not hard to notice that senior law enforcement representatives live in utter la-la-land.

Jerrold Jensen, whose unenviable task is to face down Jonathan Turley, suggested to Tribune reporter, Lindsay Whitehurst, that the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision will not help the Browns' case.  Just so you can see the absurdity of his thinking, let me play this out in simple terms.

When John Geddes Lawrence and his male partner were arrested in Texas for gay sex acts, it had nothing to do with any attempts to marry.  Their crime was their private homosexual sexual activity.  Gays all across the nation would love to get legal marriage licenses.  That's what Proposition 8 was all about.  They don't just want "legal unions".  They don't want merely not to be classed as criminals any more - they want legal, state marriages - - you know - the kind with a state marriage license and certificate - the kind that only legal divorces can undo.

Polygamists have private sex - just like other married and single Americans.  The Lawrence decision made all of that legal, - constitutionally protected.  The sex and the private expression of it between (or among) consenting adults is beyond government's power.  Polygamists cannot be charged for their private sex, and Utah law enforcement officials damn well know it - which is why they now: a.) will never charge consenting adult polygamists, and they: b.) dread having to defend the bigamy statute.  They insist that the law is constitutional, but they insist on not enforcing it.  Let us read what AG Jerrold Jensen said -

'. . . State lawyers, on the other hand, point to other court decisions upholding the ban and say marriage can be regulated by the government. They argue the law is fairly applied to both polygamists and people who commit fraud by marrying more than one unknowing person at a time. Deputy Utah Attorney General Jerrold Jensen said polygamists shouldn’t rely on Lawrence v. Texas, the landmark 2003 right-to-privacy case that struck down laws banning intimate homosexual contact.

"Plaintiffs try to equate private sexual conduct in the home with marriage," he wrote in court documents. "They are not synonymous."'

Honestly, I am confused by his argument.  He says that we polygamists equate our private sexual conduct with marriage.  No, we don't.  We speak of our ladies as "wives", but neither in Arizona nor in Utah does the state recognize or legitimize these religiously-framed relationships.  In fact, in Utah, such relationships cannot claim official marriage status, because they are voided by law.

     30-1-2.   Marriages prohibited and void.
     The following marriages are prohibited and declared void:
     (1) when there is a husband or wife living, from whom the person marrying has not been divorced;
     (2) when the male or female is under 18 years of age unless consent is obtained as provided in Section 30-1-9;
     (3) when the male or female is under 14 years of age or, beginning May 3, 1999, when the male or female is under 16 years of age at the time the parties attempt to enter into the marriage; however, exceptions may be made for a person 15 years of age, under conditions set in accordance with Section 30-1-9;
     (4) between a divorced person and any person other than the one from whom the divorce was secured until the divorce decree becomes absolute, and, if an appeal is taken, until after the affirmance of the decree; and
     (5) between persons of the same sex. 

     (6) Marriages between cats and dogs (yes, I added this one !!!)

I think what Jensen is trying to say is that the crime we polyg's commit is that we think of our partners as "wives", even though the state forbids such thinking, and that we become felons because we wish our relationships were licensed.  On the contrary, we don't wish to have our unions legitimized by the state, and certainly no homosexual has ever been arrested for wishing he could have a marriage license.  Furthermore, Mr. Jensen, it seems to me that it is the state that wants to classify our non-legal relationships as "marriages", so that it can find us guilty of committing bigamy.  Tom Green spent several years in prison for having multiple wives, even though he was legally single.  

Jensen is ostensibly conceding that Lawrence will protect the Browns' sexual activities, but it will not protect the lifestyle they have adopted.  I agree.  Lawrence was never about lifestyle or relationships - it was only about private sex.  However, when Jensen gets to argue his tortured reasoning in January, will he be able to point to a single statute or Supreme Court decision that affirms the criminality of a RELATIONSHIP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?  I can hear Judge Waddoups giggling already.  Will Jensen argue that our crime stems from our improper use of the word "wife"?

In the 1940's, one of Rulon Allred's wives was arrested for playing the piano at a church frequented by polygamists.  If Arizona and Utah still think that kind of tyranny is okay, I should move to France.

Does He Know?

Does Mitt Romney know what's going on in the world of international usury?  I was fascinated during the last presidential election cycle to learn that Balack Obama and Hillary Clinton were whisked away to a secretive meeting with the Bilderberg group in 2008.

With his V.P. pick (Paul Ryan), Romney may have boosted his chances of being elected.  The big question is - since Bush and Obama have really not been the ones actually running the country for the last decade, will Romney be introduced to the shadowy figures who do run it?  OR - is Romney already intimately familiar with the puppeteers behind the curtain?  When, in the course of a presidential run, is the candidate initiated into the real world of power and control?

Does Mitt Romney know that the British never surrendered?  Does he know that a Constitution is a bankruptcy compact?  Does he know that this nation CANNOT endure (D&C 87:6)?

I met Romney once in an elevator.  I wondered then if he had already been initiated into the inner workings of the Church, and the Olympic Committee, and the rogue money-mongers who print debt currencies and plot to enslave the entire world.

Does he know?

Legalize Competing Currencies

by Ron Paul

http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-08-13/ron-paul-legalize-competing-currencies-2/

I recently held a hearing in my congressional subcommittee on the subject of competing currencies. This is an issue of enormous importance, but unfortunately few Americans understand how the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department impose a strict monopoly on money in America.

This monopoly is maintained using federal counterfeiting laws, which is a bit rich. If any organization is guilty of counterfeiting dollars, it is our own Treasury. But those who dare to challenge federal legal tender laws by circulating competing currencies — at least physical currencies — risk going to prison.

Like all government created monopolies, the federal monopoly on money results in a substandard product in the form of our ever-depreciating dollars. 

Yet governments have always sought to monopolize the issuance of money, either directly or through the creation of central banks. The expanding role of the Federal Reserve in the 20th century enabled our federal government to grow wildly larger than would have been possible otherwise. Our Fed, like all central banks, encourages deficits by effectively monetizing Treasury debt. But the price we pay is the terrible and ongoing debasement of our money. 

Allowing individuals and business to use alternate currencies, especially currencies backed by gold and silver, would expose the whole rotten system because the marketplace would prefer such alternate currencies unless and until the Fed suddenly imposed radical discipline on its dollar inflation.

Sadly, Americans are far less free than many others around the world when it comes to protecting themselves against the rapidly depreciating US dollar. Mexican workers can set up accounts denominated in ounces of silver and take tax-free delivery of that silver whenever they want. In Singapore and other Asian countries, individuals can set up bank accounts denominated in gold and silver. Debit cards can be linked to gold and silver accounts so that customers can use gold and silver to make point of sale transactions, a service which is only available to non-Americans.

The obvious solution is to legalize monetary freedom and allow the circulation of parallel and competing currencies. There is no reason why Americans should not be able to transact, save, and invest using the currency of their choosing. They should be free to use gold, silver, or other currencies with no legal restrictions or punitive taxation standing in the way. Restoring the monetary system envisioned by the Constitution is the only way to ensure the economic security of the American people. 

After all, if our monetary system is fundamentally sound– and the Federal Reserve indeed stabilizes the dollar as its apologists claim–then why fear competition? Why do we accept that centralized, monopoly control over our money is compatible with a supposedly free-market economy? In a free market, the government’s fiat dollar should compete with alternate currencies for the benefit of American consumers, savers, and investors.

As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises explained, sound money is an instrument that protects our civil liberties against despotic government. Our current monetary system is indeed despotic, and the surest way to correct things simply is to legalize competing currencies. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting.

May I Say?

May I say that Utah's (and now Utah County's) policy of only prosecuting bigamy infractions committed concurrently with other crimes is disingenuous?

It is already reminiscent of Alice In Wonderland that Utah insists on criminalizing a lifestyle, while doggedly refusing to prosecute it. 

Utah has a policy of not prosecuting consenting adult copulators (see Lawrence v. Texas, 2003) while arguing that the bigamy statute is Constitutional.  We know this, because deputy AG, Jerrold Jensen reserves the right to prosecute polygamists if they commit some "other crime".  What other crime?  The moment the AG concedes that the statute is Constitutionally questionable (like Gov. Leavitt did), he loses the test case in the appeal courts.

Since it is not clear what "other crime" will trigger a polygamy prosecution, I can only assume that if I speed on a Utah highway, the officer will first ticket me for speeding, and then arrest me for having several bed-partners.  Polygamy is thus an "enhancement", an "aggravation", like the use of a weapon during a burglary.

May I say "Bull$#!+"?

It's A Trip-Wire

I understand that in his comments to Judge Waddoups in the recent hearing on the Kody Brown bigamy test case, Jonathan Turley used the term, "trip-wire".  Turley was talking about the Lehi police and how it was too late now for Utah County Attorney, Jeff Buhman, to walk back his threats of prosecution by capriciously "changing the department's policy".  Waddoups asked Jerrold Jensen how this latest play was not an attempt simply to avoid having the bigamy statute reviewed by the federal court.  Turley was using a metaphor to illustrate how, as soon as the Lehi police opened a public investigation into the "illegality" of the Browns' family arrangement, the trip-wire had been tripped.  The bomb had gone off, and the harm had been inflicted.  The cat was out of the barn.

I would like to be a fly on the wall when a Utah reporter asks the LDS Church spokesperson if the Church feels okay about the Reynolds decision getting tested in the 10th Circuit or in the SCOTUS.  I imagine an army of General Authorities writhing in discomfort. - - - -  "President Monson, since polygamy was ended in the Church because it was outlawed by the federal government - and seeing that it has now been decriminalized, will the Church resume its practice?"

The wall is cracking, and the wire has been tripped.

I see another interesting parallel in the world of Mormondom.  Even in Arizona, I have occasion to run across faithful LDS members.  When they learn of my lifestyle, they are inquisitive, and sometimes uncomfortable.  I guess that discomfort would be equivalent to the discomfort some might feel when sitting next to two conspicuously gay men on a train.  What is it about polygamy that makes Mormons squirm (even the men)?

I have a daughter in her early twenties who also knows several LDS people.  Sometimes she gets into discussions with them about the differences between modern and (her) traditional Mormon beliefs.  Inevitably, with my daughter's persuasiveness, one of her friends learns more than he or she planned to, and the conversation gets awkward.  She will ask her friend if she would like to learn more, and the answer is no.  What could be disturbing about hearing the teachings of Mormon founders like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor?

Oh, I know what it is.  They are paralyzed with a fear of learning the truth.  If your spouse were in the armed forces, and two uniformed soldiers came knocking on your front door one day, you too would prefer to turn them away and not hear tragic news.  That is human nature.

Whether they realize it or not, my daughter's friends are looking down at a trip-wire.  It is there, just inches away, threatening them with horror and oblivion.  If they listen more to the message of the fullness of the Restoration, they might suddenly realize that the Church has been lying for 122 years.  Sheer dread !!! Oh, no !!!  How can I live without the Church? - and my friends? - and the temple?   It would be the end of my life, or the world!

The Church has developed a clever decoy - the myth of continuing revelation.  Recent General Conference talks like this one reassure the faithful that the revelations from God have been flowing steadily (in an "ongoing stream") since 1820 until today (with Monson).  This is a deceit for at least two reasons:

1.  The many revelations given to presidents John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff (regarding plural marriage among other things) are concealed from members.  The Church presumes (correctly) that if its members read those revelations, they will leave the Church.  The Church repudiates the revelations to those key prophets. 

2.  After Wilford Woodruff's 1889 (farewell) revelation from God, not a single president of the Church has published (or even received, I believe) the text of A SINGLE revelation given to him by God, where God is the one doing the talking.

If LDS members venture ANYWHERE NEAR these jarring realizations, the bubble is burst, the wire is tripped, and the Wizard of Oz is exposed as a fraud.  So they recoil.  When they start to get that unnerving sensation that their fundamentalist friend might just be on to something, they clam up, shut down, and run for the hills - anything to avoid that trip-wire.

I hope you agree with me that this is sad.  An entire generation of millions is living under the ether of deceit and disinformation.  They are told, "We have a living prophet".  Tell me, dear reader, what revelations have you heard from Hinckley or Monson?  What prophecies have they delivered at the pulpit?  What exactly has our Heavenly Father said to them?  Can you get me a copy of it to study, ponder and pray about?

Bottom line - an ecclesiastical corporation has succeeded in convincing millions to flee from the truth.  They fear the trip-wire, the red pill (see The Matrix).  God told Joseph Smith that this would happen when He said,

 28 "And when the times of the Gentiles is come in, a light shall break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fulness of my gospel;

 29 But they receive it not; for they perceive not the light, and they turn their hearts from me because of the precepts of men." (Doctrine & Covenants, Section 45)

DELIBERATE STUPIDITY

I used to wonder why entertainers, newspeople and politicians spoke to the American people as if they were all 12 years old.  Now I think I am understanding why.  A friend of mine from India asked me yesterday if I knew where one can find the best Indian food in the the world.  I figured - - Calcutta, New Delhi, Mumbai .........  "No", he said, "England".

You see, just because the obvious conclusions come easily, does not mean that they are right.  Surely each of us is smart enough to see past the dumb, reflexive responses of a simpleton. BUT NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I look at the big furor raging right now over the comments of Dan Cathy, the president of the Chick-Fil-A fast food chain.  This guy is a southern Christian who disapproves of homosexuality.  His beliefs are based on his interpretations of Bible scriptures.   This is all fine and dandy.  He can believe what he wants.  He goes on to say that God will punish America for embracing gay marriage.  This is where the controversy starts to get more complex.  What is gay marriage?  Is it when a gay couple goes to the local parish church, and the pastor or vicar or priest solemnizes the ordinance of holy matrimony for the couple?

Come on folks !!!  Are we all so stupid that we do not know the difference between an ecclesiastical rite and a government licensing contract?  If I had Cathy's views on homosexuality, I would definitely not officiate in a ceremony marrying two same-gender people.  He shouldn't either.  This whole argument has become so fogged up that it is no wonder that ordinarily, intelligent people cannot see through it.

Let me reiterate - this 14th Amendment, maritime, de facto government to which we are all subject has no business dictating religious compliance to anyone.  It cannot offer a state marriage contract to two heterosexuals while not offering it to two homosexuals.  Plain and simple !!!  Various states are beginning to grasp this, and have allowed gay LEGAL marriages.  Soon all states will.  There is no argument (other than the petulant religious one) that can challenge this change.  The government is not, and should not be, in the business of administering the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, despite decades of appearances to the contrary.  I guess the ignorance comes from multiple generations of people who regularly conflated their faith-based nuptials with the signing of a state contract.  These are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BEASTS !!!  Do you understand the distinction?

People are lining up by the thousands to defend Cathy by buying more of his chicken sandwiches, while others are excoriating him for supposedly hating gay people.  Both sides are confused.  If states grant marriage licenses to gays, this is simply in harmony with the tenets of the 14th Amendment (the legal system which replaced the Constitution).  This shift in no way suggests that the states have repudiated the Bible (they did that in the 1860s).  The people who hate Cathy for his pontifications are wrong to assail him.  If our people went and attacked the businesses of all the folks in Arizona and Utah who despise polygamists, there would be few places left to shop at.

I am ranting about this because there is an eerie similarity between this stupid confusion and the confusion over the decriminalization of plural families.  Some observers (Sanctorum) have lamented that the acceptance of legal gay marriages will be the start of a "slippery slope" down which society will slide into an abyss of polygamous and animal marriages (??).

Just like the animals, we polygamists are not fighting for a marriage license from the state.  We just want to be left alone and not be classed as criminals.  The gays won this battle in 2003.  Just like with the gays, the eradication of all polygamists is not feasible.  The wall is cracking.

Are you still confused?

Strange

Strange - I think reporters do not know how to describe the twin towns of Colorado City and Hildale.  Some refer to them as the "polygamous town".  What is a 'polygamous town'? - a town which is married to more than one spouse?  Is San Francisco a "homosexual town"? - a town that mates with a different town of the same gender.

I saw a news report the other day which noted that 87% of "black" Americans support the re-election of president Barack Obama.  Why is that?  Is it because black people feel that our country is better led by a person whose skin is black?  Is it because Barack Obama is a socialist, and black people gravitate towards socialism?  Who knows?

Here's another interesting factoid.  You do not own your vehicle.  "Wait !!!", you say, "I have a Certificate of Title!".  Well, a certificate of title is not THE title.  It is a piece of paper that certifies that there is a title, and you do not have it.  The REAL title is the MSO (Manufacturer's Statement of Origin).  Read the following from the Government's Border Protection website: 

"What documents are considered valid proof of ownership for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) purposes when exporting a vehicle / car from the U.S. which does not have a title?

If the vehicle or car you intend to export does not have a title, a manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO) is considered valid proof of ownership."

 --------------------------

When you buy a new car, the dealership sends the MSO to the State.  The state keeps the MSO and continues to own the vehicle.  You are merely the renter of the car, as evidenced by the annual rental payment you must make in the form of a registration fee.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

In other news, there will soon be a hearing to address whether Kody Brown's challenge of Utah's bigamy statute is now moot because Utah County has decided not to prosecute the Browns for their plural purporting and cohabiting. This is an interesting twist.  My sense is that Waddoups will rule that the Browns still have standing to challenge the law because the law still menaces them and they were harmed by a long-lingering threat of investigation and prosecution.  I believe that Waddoups will decide that the law clashes with the 2003 Lawrence decision and is now void.

HOWEVER . . . . . . . 

If the next Attorney General (presumably Bishop John Swallow) elects (or is commanded by the Mother Church) to appeal Waddoups' decision to the 10th Circuit in Denver, the panel may choose to disagree with Waddoups (as it did with Ted Stewart in the Bronson v. Swensen case) and assert that, absent an arrest and a trial, the Browns suffered no "harm" and thus have no standing to bring the challenge.

Just like Obaminacare, folks, this is all political. Powerful people want us polyg's to be outlaws at all costs.  It's easier to abuse people if their faces are on a 'Wanted' poster.

Excuse my cynicism again, but there appears to be nothing new under the monogamous (?) sun.  I'm still waiting for Canada to arrest Winston Blackmore and James Oler.  I'll probably turn blue from holding my breath.

Utah has a Safety Net for polygamists - put in place to rescue a disenfranchised population.  The Safety Net and its sponsors have announced a policy of not seeking the decriminalization of plural relationships.  After all, why would you jeopardize your public funding and agenda by arguing for a disenfranchised population to stop being disenfranchised?

Strange!

 

WOULD YOU TAKE HIM BACK?

Warren Jeffs (pedophile)

Jerry Sandusky (pedophile)

I recently read one of Whorrin' Jeffs’ Looney Tunes revelations.  In it he rambles on clumsily about North Korea and other geopolitical issues.  The writer also demands that Warren be freed - “ . .  if any on earth desire salvation”!  Funny – I thought salvation was guaranteed to all on earth!

I was struck again by Warren’s bizarre, almost indecipherable syntax - -

“Let all nations be of holy order of cleansing child, unborn youth order, murder from own nation; to survive conflict soon on world, . . ”

I pity anyone who might be called upon to translate this gibberish into a different language.

I know that FLDS leaders have gone to great lengths to keep the members from hearing news stories about Warren.  Frankly, I would be more concerned about them reading Warren’s recent nutball material, lest they discover that their “prophet” is rowing to the beat of a strange deck of bricks.

Is that what this has come to?  Is there a significant number of FLDS faithful who have been so pummeled into cowering obsequiousness, that they cannot tell the difference between reality and insanity?  Would they read this balderdash and fawn over its content as if it were divine?

I think about the dozens of young women who have been forcibly confined to “houses of hiding”.  Do their parents assume that all is well with them, simply because Warren decrees their continued imprisonment?

Brigham Young said the following:

“What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way.”

The current FLDS dilemma is a breathtaking fulfillment of Brigham’s fears.  I want to know when it started.  How was one president of this community able to hijack the free agency of an entire society?  I would say that this phenomenon is played out equally in the LDS Church, yet if President Monson instructed all the elders to take a plural wife, the entire membership would defect before sunset.  Not so in the FLDS.

Do not be fooled into thinking that this is strictly a case of Warren-worship.  Had a different man – say brother Lyle – been the one to succeed Rulon, HE then would have become the presumptive “prophet” and mouthpiece of God.  It matters not who sits in this role – the idolatry centers in the worship of the iconic station.  The people yearn for the cozy, comfy reassurance that the guy who presides over the church is the conductor of the train that is taking them straight to the Celestial Kingdom.  Nothing else matters.  Follow him and you will automatically be saved and exalted.

Bottom line – right now, the vast majority of the sheep in the fold are complying with every word which proceeded forth from the lips of Warren.  The media are even reporting that Warren recently selected a small group of men whose assignment will be to perform all of the copulation and impregnation tasks in the community.  Would you comply?

Warren is fixated on being sprung from his incarceration.  If, by some cosmic anomaly, Warren were to find himself back in Creekerville, would he be warmly received?  Would you take him back into your trust?  Would you hand over your 13-year-old daughters so that he can have midnight orgies with them?

I am saddened by the immense oppression being foisted on the community by state and federal government agencies.  Every department of the town’s local government is being investigated.  The townspeople must conclude that this is a case of the wicked persecuting the righteous.  Some might conclude that God is just trying to get their attention for having blindly trusted in the perverted arm of flesh.  You decide.

What will it take to get the honorable men and women of the community to wake up and realize that they have been led miserably astray?  This is the epitome of apostasy.  These are choice Israelite children of the Restoration, and now they are now fully steeped in idolatry.  Thankfully, it seems there is now a steady stream of defectors who are waking up and risking everything to come out into the sunlight of truth and freedom. God bless them!

When Kody Comes Home

Today it was reported by the Associated Press that Jeff Buhman, the Utah County prosecutor has FINALLY made up his mind what to do about the Browns' bigamy case.  He has completed his "investigation".  He has decided that, though guilty of bigamy, the Browns will not be charged, and that his policy (like that of the Attorney General) will be to prosecute bigamy only when there is a "victim" or fraud.

So what now? Do we all sigh a big sigh of relief?

Buhman is asking that Kody Brown's civil rights lawsuit against him be dropped because, now that the county's policy is to not prosecute polygamists, the case is "moot".  This is ridiculous.  It's much like saying, "I'm not hitting you any more, so you shouldn't complain about my hitting you."  One element of 'standing' in a Constitutional challenge is that the parties need to have been harmed or threatened with harm.  Clearly the Browns felt sufficiently threatened that they relocated to Sin City.  The judge (Waddoups) agrees.

The other silliness in this situation is that, however sincere Buhman is in his determination not to prosecute Kody and the four wives, the stupid bigamy statute is still firmly in place and still threatens most Utah families.

OKAY !!! - you and I both know that these idiots are smart enough to absolutely never use this lame statute on consenting adult polygamists, because that would do exactly what Jonathan Turley is doing right now - it would create a watertight test case to challenge the statute on the basis of Lawrence v. Texas (June 2003). The Church dreads this. When the Lawrence decision thoroughly decriminalized gay sex ("sodomy"), Utah did not instantly repeal its sodomy statutes, yet they are VOID nonetheless.  Well, the language of  Lawrence did not confine itself solely to homosexuality - it in fact decriminalized ALL consensual adult intimacies.  This (as Snortleff so eloquently argued in his Amicus brief in Lawrence) reaches all such conduct and inevitably VOIDS Utah's anti-polygamy codes.

Truth is, in spite of Lawrence, Sharkleff and Buhman have for a very long time preferred to "menace" the Browns and their fellow polygamists with the specter of prosecution.  If you are always flinching and cringing under the threat of incarceration, maybe you'll cloister yourself away somewhere in a dark, isolated corner of the state and keep your mouth relatively shut. As a stigmatized, marginalized minority, you can be more easily trampled on, and all the supercilious, pious Church-folk can go to bed at night peacefully knowing that those filthy polygs are second-class citizens - outlaws - lepers - nothing like our brave polygamous pioneer ancestors.

So here's the problem - if the Browns take Buhman at face value, they could perhaps venture back across the state line and resume residence in Lehi, reassured that arrests are now not imminent.  How does this protect them however from the prosecutors in the other counties they might visit?  Two other county prosecutors have charged polygamists in recent years. You get my point.

Let's cut through the fluff.  If no self-respecting prosecutor (besides Sean Reyes) will seriously pursue consenting adult polygamists, why is it SO DOGGONED important to keep that dumb, utterly-unenforceable bigamy statute in force?

Because the Church DREADS this one simple question:

Elder Soandso, now that polygamy is no longer a crime in the United States, will the Church resume its once suspended solemnization of plural marriages and stop excommunicating members who embrace it?

Entitlement

The word "entitlement" has been on my mind lately.  I guess the concept of entitlement has implications in various phases of my life and the lives of other people I know.
 -------------------

Definition:

Entitlement - Entitlement or a 'Sense of Entitlement' is an unrealistic, unmerited or inappropriate expectation of favorable living conditions and favorable treatment at the hands of others.

 -------------------

The other night, a pack of Hollywood celebrities hosted by George Looney gathered for a fundraiser for Balack Obama's re-election campaign.  The event raised $15 million.  Today, I learned that California has a more than $15 BILLION dollar deficit right now.  Do you see the irony?

If you were an astronaut traveling alone through space, and you happened upon a friendly planet with affluent and welcoming occupants, would you expect them to give you a home, a job, and a guarantee of financial support if the job were not to go well?

I think there is a widespread and fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of property and stewardship.  As long as there has been a universe and the procession of time, it has been incumbent upon living creatures to contract with each other.  A contract works best when its outcome is "win/win" for both offeror and offeree.  Consideration is exchanged commutatively, and both parties benefit.  When we stray from this formula, the universe and its occupants suffer.

Property is a concept more ancient than this planet.  Let's look at one aspect of property:


Right to property -                   e.g. - owning an apartment complex
Right to possession -                e.g. - managing an owner's apartment complex
Possession -                               e.g. - occupying an apartment in the complex

Let's look at another aspect of property;

Public property -                       e.g. - the bridge at the end of the street
Private property -                     e.g. - my truck
Personal property -                   e.g. - my toothbrush

In my diatribes about usury and interest banking, I have railed against just one of the tricks devised to bilk others out of their property.  Estate taxes are another vile racket.  It is apparent to me that many of the occupants of this universe spend a goodly portion of their existence hatching schemes to deprive other creatures of their property.  If you cannot simply walk into your neighbor's yard and snatch his lawnmower, maybe you can elect a politician who will do it for you.

Inevitably, the acquisition (nobly and ignobly) of property is intertwined with the tyranny:liberty paradigm.  If you are hell-bent on appropriating the possessions of others, the slickest way to get it done is to oppress them.  War, taxes, theft, usury, democracy, servitude, class warfare, fraud, - - - the list goes on.

We know from the Lectures on Faith that our God does not commit naked oppression.  He is benevolent, honorable, omniscient, and utterly reliable.  He contracts with us so that we can gain benefits.  The veil over our memories causes us at times to forget the agreement we made - - hence the tendency on the part of some to expect to get everything for free.

Before we left the pre-existence and found our spirits tabernacled in a body of fleshly elements, we sat down with our Heavenly Father and worked out the mortal experience transaction.  He said (and I'm paraphrasing):

"My child, if you agree, I am going to put you in a family in the western United States.  You are going to have an opportunity to learn about the fullness of My restored Gospel.  I can't force you to do anything, and the choices will be ALL yours.  I'll collaborate with you if you stay prayerful, and I'll intervene from time to time when it suits Me.  You will face awesome adversities, but it will be worth it for you if you make good decisions.  Do you still want to go to Earth, or do you want to sit around here for a few hundred more earth years?"

Then I said:

"Heck, yeah I wanna go down on earth!  I'm tired of waiting. I want a big family (like Yours). Put me down there, and I'll do my darndest to serve you and support my family.  I'll try to be honorable and respect the properties and liberties of Your other children."

And that was that! The contract was signed.  I popped out in the labor and delivery area and remembered nothing !!!!  Just because we don't remember all the details does NOT mean that the contract is not still in place.  Why else do we plead with God to do stuff for us?  He promised, didn't He?

Sadly, the Hamurabis, Woodrow Wilsons, Franklin Roosevelts and Barack Obamas of the world have taught us that in exchange for aliening away our birthright and right to property (to a foreign banker), we can look to "society" for a cradle-to-grave social insurance blanket.  This is a Ponzi scheme.  If a world-wide government re-distributed ALL of the world's wealth, EVERYBODY would still be grossly dissatisfied.

This is spiritual, folks.  It is the devil who preaches this crap. It is all about morality.  I chuckle when I hear progressives like Van Jones calling for achievers to hand over their excess property to the under-achieving.  The concept of communitarianism is not wrong.  It is a fundamental plank of the higher Gospel law.  The immorality emerges through the creation of oppressive, nanny-state processes that enslave both rich and poor.  Re-distribution of God-given resources must be done voluntarily and by mutually-negotiated contract. 

Are there people in your life who think they are entitled to your stuff - people who get angry at you when you don't give them what they want?  I am fascinated to see what will happen in California.  Governor Brown cannot raise taxes any higher without causing even more Californians to move to Texas.  He also appears not to be able to cut any government expenses and entitlement programs.

So, when California (soon) files bankruptcy, who will be the receiver? - the IMF? - Ben Bernanke? - Alan Greenspan? - Paul Volcker? - George Soros? - Sir Evelyn de Rothschild? - China?

Wait - I can already hear the cries that "California is simply TOO BIG TO (let) FAIL!"  Problem is - if we "bail out" California, then New York will be on the doorstep demanding that it be bailed out, too - - that it has a right to your hard-confiscated tax money.

Maybe we can get God to confiscate the gold and silver from a neighboring planet and bring it over here to Earth where it's most needed.  After all, we are entitled to everything we can confiscate, right?

Last week, JP Morgan Chase admitted that it lost at least $2 Billion in a botched Credit Default Swap transaction.  This ill-gotten gamble is likely to end up costing $4 Billion.  The media went ballistic.  HOW DARE a private bank, the biggest, squander that much private money so irresponsibly?  Calls were made for vast new regulations to prevent this from ever happening again.  Funny - the Federal government wastes that much (of our) money EVERY SINGLE DAY !!!!!

A Lesson - Social Economics

Click on the white PLAY arrow to watch the video.