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!