Illegal Religion in America

It has occurred to me that the thing that we should all be concerned about here is that the state of Texas has come very close, in fact dangerously close to criminalizing a belief. These people (FLDS) are being vilified in the press for what they believe, or at least what people think they believe, and not for any acts that have been charged or proven. CPS has justified taking the children based on what they (CPS) think the FLDS believe, not on anything they actually did, or can prove they did. CPS convinced Judge Walther to sign off on removing all the children based on abuses CPS thinks the FLDS might commit in the future, based on what they think they believe.

They have successfully made the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints a de facto illegal religion.

Think about that. Here in the United States of America, an illegal religion.

I just can't get my head around that.

I guess I'll have to reread the U.S. Constitution. I could swear I saw something in there about religion somewhere.

Actually it's not the first time it's happened in America. But who would have thought such a thing could happen here in this country in this century? Certainly not I.

Forty-One FLDS kids with broken bones, oh my!!

We've all read the headlines and seen the press reports, and I'll tell you why I think they're salacious and misleading.

Forty-one out of 463 is 8.8%, according to my desktop calculator. That has to be less than the usual number in a normal population.

But maybe my family wasn't normal. I had five kids, and they all survived to adulthood, although there were times when I was sure some of them would never live to see 21.

Let's see, my oldest boy at age 10 broke his arm when he fell off the roof. I know, that's prima facie evidence of child abuse and neglect right there. What was he doing on the roof, you might ask. Disobeying his father. I told him not to go up there.

My oldest daughter spent two days in a hospital with a concussion when she fell off a pool slide when she was a toddler. What was she doing on a pool slide? Well, she thought she was going to have a bit of fun. Mom and Dad turned their backs for a few seconds and she made a break for it. She was sure she could climb that ladder no problem.

When my third child, second son was 2 1/2 he broke his leg when he fell out of the back of the neighbor's pick-up. What was he doing in the back of a pick-up? Well, it was parked in front of the neighbor's house and a half-dozen neighborhood kids were playing in the back of it, including my boy. He got bumped into, lost his balance and toppled over the tailgate, after catching his foot on the side rail momentarily. I didn't see the accident, but that's what the kids who were there told me. The doctor at the hospital had some questions for me as he filled out a questionaire after my son was admitted.

My fourth child, third son made several trips to the emergency room, as did the other two boys, to get patched up or stitched as the result of various accidents, most of which involved bicycles, skateboards or swingsets. The emergency room doctor at the Payson hospital got so he knew my boys by name because we were in there so often.

My youngest daughter had an accident on her bicycle when she was nine, and she had a skull fracture and spent some time in the hospital. My ex-wife had moved out of state with the younger kids, and she never told me about this. I learned about it nearly a year later from one of my kids. Apparently my ex had not wanted to worry me.

At any rate, I don't think my kids have had anything but a fairly normal life for middle-class American kids. And I think it's accurate to say that 300% of my kids have required emergency medical attention due to a fairly normal array of minor and semi-major accidents that have occurred in their lifetime.

So to me, the 8.8% of FLDS kids in custody who've had broken bones that could possibly indicate physical abuse is clearly salacious and misleading. And keep in mind that one of the kids broke her arm while she was in state custody in San Angelo. They're kids. They break a lot of stuff, including the occasional bone.

Texas is running this salacious PR offensive because they need some cover, and if they can inspire the rest of us to hate the members of this cult, America will turn a blind eye to the injustice that is being perpetrated by the state of Texas.

I thinks it's working.

Check out these links for more background:

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/05/misleading-pr-initiative-by-dfps.html

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9115950

http://www.examiner.com/a-1347693~Baby_snatching_by_Arlington_County.html

The thief doesn't always run away, as in the commercial

http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/18472794.html
Suspect in St. Paul break-in caught by homeowner
by Pat Pheifer

Jon Sokol wasn't trying to be a hero when he confronted a burglary suspect who had brazenly broken through the front door of his home in St. Paul.

Sokol, 49, said his adrenaline was flowing as he crept up the stairs, revolver in hand, from the basement bedroom he shares with his wife.

His wife had been awoken at about 4:45 a.m. Wednesday by their alarm system and initially thought Sokol had -- again -- opened the door to get the newspaper without turning off the alarm. But there he was, sleeping right next to her.

Then she heard footsteps. "I think there's somebody in the house," Sokol recalled her whispering. "I'm thinking to myself, 'Noooo.'"

Sokol said he'd gotten to the second step when he saw somebody cross the room upstairs. "Oh my, there is somebody in our house," he thought.

"I grabbed our gun, which we keep for protection," he said.

"As I stepped around the corner, he hit me ... right between the eyes," Sokol said. "And I fired the gun.

"Down on the ground he went and I insisted, in a not very nice way, that he not move," he said. "I held him at gunpoint until the police arrived."

Michael G. Spencer, 31, of St. Paul, has been charged in Ramsey County District Court with two felony counts of burglary. He has a lengthy criminal record, including convictions for theft and burglary as recently as last year.

According to the criminal complaint, Spencer feigned "unconsciousness, but finally responded ... that he had not been shot" after police arrived at 5 a.m. Wednesday at the Sokols' home in the 1400 block of Carroll Avenue.

Spencer is being held in the Ramsey County jail in lieu of $50,000 bail.

Sokol said the burglar had a knife, but Sokol doesn't know if he was hit by that or a fireplace poker that he noticed had been moved.

He ended up with a small cut on his forehead and a somewhat shattered sense of security. He and his wife dead-bolted themselves in their bedroom Wednesday night, and still he stayed awake all night keeping watch while his wife slept.

The neighborhood has been on guard lately, he said. Two vehicles were vandalized a block from the Sokols' house last week, and on the night of the burglary, two other vehicles were vandalized and a porch was broken into.

Sokol said he doesn't know the defendant and doesn't know why his house was targeted. It's well-lit, he said, and has signs front and back about the alarm system.

"It's a happy ending, I guess," Sokol said. "The good guy's still alive, for the time being. And the bad guy is captured. It turned out like you see in the movies."
Pat Pheifer • 651-298-1551
________________________

Have more than an alarm system. Have a gun and be prepared to use it.

Here's why the YFZ raid is no Short Creek '53

CPS has much more power now than they did in 1953. Now CPS is terrified of returning a kid to an abusive situation and having that kid wind up dead. They'd much rather break up a thousand families than have one kid get killed.

CPS actions are under the radar because they are considered civil actions and don't have to comply with Constitutional prohibitions against illegal searches and siezures or abide by rules of evidence or any of that silly legal stuff. They don't have to prove criminal activity by the parents, only that they believe the evidence shows that the kids are being abused, or that they might be abused in the future, and if they can convince the judge of that, that's all it takes.

The YFZ parents are never going to see their kids again until they age out of the system. The fathers will never be allowed to see their kids. The only chance the mothers have of regaining custody of their children is if they leave the ranch, divorce or renounce their husbands, and renounce their religious faith, and convince the case worker assigned to their case that they're sincere, and not just going through the motions. This is about religion, and has very little to do with saving the children from harm. If you're a member of this sect, you'll not be allowed to keep your children by the State of Texas.

The only criminal prosecutions that will come of this case might be the two men who were arrested during the raid and charged with interference or disorderly conduct. No one will be charged with rape or incest or abuse of any kind, because the criminal due process threshold of evidence is higher and Constitutional prohibitions have to be complied with in criminal cases, even in Texas. All of the evidence siezed in the raid will be inadmissable because the warrant was based on a fraudulent phone call, and it won't stand up in court.

What will happen to the YFZ ranch? They'll probably go on. The men will probably quit marrying underage girls, but the polygamy will continue, they may just claim their "spiritual wives" are just girl friends and the sex is consentual. Unless the state of Texas can successfully criminalize other aspects of their behavior, I don't see much more happening between Texas and the FLDS.

And BTW, Texas has a 180 year history of older men marrying teen-agers as young as 14. No one ever considered it sexual assault on a minor. It was simply a grand old pioneer tradition. There are tens of thousands of teen-age girls having sex with older men in Texas right now. Texas is never going to go after those men. Only if they incorporate underage sex into their religion will Texas lift a finger to put a stop to it. There's just too much history behind the practice. This statute was aimed specifically at the FLDS, and they are the only target of this law.

So let's face it. Texas has succeeded in making the FLDS sect a de facto illegal religion. I didn't think that was possible in the United States of America. Not in my lifetime.

But then I forgot. In the late eighteen-thirties the governor of Missouri ordered the state militia to exterminate the Mormons and drive them from the state. They were forced out of their homes and off their lands, at gunpoint. A few years later the Mormons were driven from Illinois after Joseph Smith was assassinated. In the 1880's, Idaho passed a state law that Mormons couldn't vote in elections. State legislators were embarrassed a few years ago to find that those laws were still on the books and had never been repealed.

America will turn a blind eye to this, and the abuse of power will just keep getting worse. Texas DFPS is convinced if they can get you to hate this group of people enough, they'll be home free and out of the woods. They're going to get away with this because not enough people care about the rights of a wierd offshoot Mormon cult to get very fussed about it.

Check out these sites for more background. http://www.johntfloyd.com/comments/april08/13a.htm
http://www.johntfloyd.com/comments/april08/22a.htm

Have a nice day. Thanks for reading.

Help!

Here's the story about a South Carolina teen who's been arrested in a plot to bomb his school. He wanted to die, and then kill Jesus after he got to heaven.

Yeah, I think he may need some help.

Here's a link to the story if you're interested.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/29/national/main4056750.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4056750

Texas Hostage Crisis, Day 25

Former FLDS member Mary Mackert, now a Baptist, talks about her life in the FLDS faith Sunday at the Central Faith Baptist Church in San Angelo, Texas. (Scott G. Winterton, Deseret News)

Baptist missionary looks forward to deprograming, converting FLDS child hostages
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695274460,00.html

One of Grits For Breakfast's commenters responded to his Yippe Ki Yi Yay ditty with one of his own:

"How about this takeoff on "Git along little dogies"?

Yippee ki yi yay,
Git along little Mormons.
It's your misfortune
And none of my own.

Yippee ki yi yay,
Git along little Mormons.
You know CPS will
Provide a new home.

Peace from a Baptist brother who resents linking 'Baptist' and 'bigot' as though they were synonymous.
Rev. Charles Kiker"

I couldn't let that stand. Here is my response:

I think it's interesting that Rev. Kiker resents linking Baptists and bigots, but doesn't mind blurring the line between polygamists and mainstream Mormons who don't preach or practice polygamy. Your little ditty about little Mormons reinforces stereotypes that don't fit, and confuses people who don't know (or care) about the distinctions.

The reason it's of concern is because many are confusing mainstream LDS with this FLDS sect, and persecution has already begun. A group of LDS missionaries eating lunch in a San Angelo restaurant were threatened by a man brandishing a knife. An LDS couple in Victoria were shocked to find that neighbors had vandalized their property by spray painting anti-Mormon slogans and threats.

Judge Walther demonstrated her own ignorance about the distinctions when she suggested mainstream Mormons be called on to monitor FLDS prayer sessions, a request that baffled and offended many mainstream Mormons, who resent being tarred by the same broad brush.

With the combination of the Baptist Church buses and this little ditty about little Mormons penned by a Baptist minister, it looks pretty obvious that the Baptists are at the center of this bigoted crusade to stamp out this strange, unorthodox sect.

Furthermore, there's a former FLDS lady who's converted to the Baptist Church and has received a calling to the FLDS, and is eager to receive as many of these FLDS children into her care as possible so she can begin deprograming them and converting them to be Baptists.

Hint: If you don't want to be labeled a bigot, don't act like one.

Texas Hostage Crisis, Day 24

Some child hostages hospitalized, the rest now scattered all across Texas

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9075298
Incidentally, to give you an idea about the vast distances that we're talking about here, Eldorado is 384 miles from Houston.

Two Texas child hostages unaccounted for, but Texas DFPS "not worried"
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695274226,00.html

There's a blogger in Texas who is a former Director of Police Accountability at the Texas ACLU. He's been blogging about the FLDS raid since it happened and has had a steadily growing sence of unease with the propriety of how and why it went down like it did and how it got as far out of control as it did. He says that any actual crimes that were committed wil not be successfully prosecuted because of the way this was handled. CPS may get away with kidnaping these kids, but eventually there will be legal repercussions.

The blog is called Grits for Breakfast.
He wrote a poem that I think is appropriate. Here it is:

I'll never forget that sad April day
When the Baptists brought buses and
Cops hauled us away
From our home on the ranch
Where the kids used to play
And sing "Ki Yi Yippe Ki Yay"

I'll never forget how we all knelt and prayed
While men with machine guns
Filed in like a parade
By the hundreds, an army
Swarmed God's holy place
Singing "Ki Yi Yippe Ki Yay"

I'll never forget hearing Judge Walther say
That my parents' beliefs were
Abusive per se
And I needed protection
From them and their faith
She sang "Ki Yi Yippe Ki Yay"

So they brought in more buses and swept me away
Into foster care, now the Judge
Says I am safe
But I don't feel that way
All alone and afraid
Singing "Ki Yi Yippe Ki Yay Ki Yay"
Singing "Ki Yi Yippe Ki Yay"


None of this is about protecting children from harm. It's about stamping out a despised lifestyle of a wierd group of people that is guilty of rejecting mainstream American values in a spectacularly strange way. The driving force behind this effort is an odd combination of Bible belt bigotry and liberal feminist moral revulsion. It's a rescue attempt of people who see no need to be rescued. It fits the definition of genocide because it entails removing the children and youth from the population.

http://www.johntfloyd.com/comments/april08/13a.htm
http://www.johntfloyd.com/comments/april08/22a.htm

Texas Hostage Crisis, Day 21

Salt Lake Tribune Bagley Cartoon

Culture Shock: Plyg Kid Hostages Face Tough Adjustment

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

The youngsters are being moved out of the crowded San Angelo Coliseum and will be placed in temporary facilities around Texas - some as far away as Houston, 500 miles off - until individual custody decisions can be made.

Those decisions could result in a number of possibilities: Some children could be placed in permanent foster care; some parents who have left the sect may win custody; some youngsters may be allowed to return to the ranch in Eldorado; and some may turn 18 before the case is complete and be allowed to choose their own fates.
___

So if parents renounce their religion and leave the sect, they may win back custody of their kids.

How much of their religion do they have to renounce?

Do they have to prove they're legally and properly married, not just spiritually married? If they're not legally married, will that disqualify them, and why would it?

Will they have to show excommunication documents, or copies of letters resigning their membership in the FLDS Church? Will they have to affirm that they no longer believe in the doctrines of the FLDS Church? Or will they be allowed to affirm only that they won't do anything illegal, such as consent to allow their underage children to be married or engage in sexual activity, i.e., spritual marriage. Will they be required to renounce polygamy as a doctrine they believe in?

There is so much about this case that is just plain wrong. The US Supreme Court has ruled that authorities can regulate religious practice, and that was settled in the 1890s. But to regulate religious belief is wrong, and flies in the face of the First Amendment.

The US Supreme Court has also ruled that consenting adults have a constitutional right to sodomy. If that's the case, then it seems reasonable that consenting adults have a constitutional right to fornication and adultery. Consenting adults can have sexual relations with as many adult partners as they want, but they can't marry more than one of them (at a time).

Prohibitions against polygamy were enacted with the intention of enforcing them against the Mormons and their offshoots, and no one else. I've never heard of Muslim polygamists being prosecuted in this country. And it seems insanely schizophrenic to give constitutional protections to consenting adults who want to commit fornication and sodomy with multiple partners, while denying other consenting adults the privilege of engaging in plural marriages as part of their religious beliefs. That alone has made laws against polygamy unenforceable. To enforce them makes a mockery of the Constitution.

Either repeal the laws against polygamy, or enforce them. Don't leave them on the books if they're not enforced. If you repeal polygamy laws, do so with the resolve that illegal activity such as underage marriages (child rape), child abuse, torture, welfare fraud, racketeering, tax evasion, etc. will be vigorously prosecuted, and then follow through.

And let's do something about the immunity that CPS has from Constitutional prohibitions against illegal searches and seizure of property and kids on the basis of fraudulent or false information by calling it a civil action instead of a criminal one. The potential for abuse of power is obvious.

Punish the Guilty, Let the Innocent Go Free

This is how I feel about the FLDS situation in Texas.

If there has been sexual abuse of minors, then charge the perpetrators with crimes, prove the charges in a court of law and put the guilty in prison. Don't punish the innocent. Let them go free.

If there are people who are guilty of polygamy or welfare fraud, prove it in a court of law and put the guilty in prison. Don't punish the innocent. Let them go free.

If they teach their children principles that you find repugnant, such as that their children will go to hell if they abandon their faith, that's none of the states business, and doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the Texas Department of Family Protective Services. You can't justify taking these kids away because they are taught things that you find objectionable, or because your sense of moral outrage has been offended.

You can't take kids away from parents because they wear strange clothes and long underwear or have odd hairstyles or because they hold to beliefs that don't conform to your standards. If they've done something illegal, fine, prove it in a court of law and put the guilty in prison. Don't punish the innocent. Let them go free.

Taking all the kids away before any crimes have been proven is punishing the innocent along with the guilty. It's a travesty and a sham. To date, not one single person has even been charged with a crime. Constitutional rights have been trampled by the state of Texas, and even if some people are eventually found guilty of crimes, none of this kidnaping and hostage taking is justified.

I've seen comments made where people have said they believe these men should be castrated and the women sterilized, and they should never be allowed to have any more children. This prosecution has taken on the hysterical tones of the Salem witch trials, and has turned into a witch hunt and a religious persecution. You can't tell me these people aren't being persecuted for their religious beliefs.

All I'm saying is put the guilty in prison and let the innocent go free. This is a horrible injustice and a moral outrage.

Texas Hostage Crisis, Day 20

Texas DFPS plans to re-educate, de-program FLDS child hostages

From the Deseret News:

Darrell Azar, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, said the following:

"We'll start to assess what their educational needs are, what level of mental and physical health care they'll need, counseling, set up a curriculum for their education," he said. "We'll set up a plan for each one."

As the child custody process goes forward, individual plans could include visitation from their parents, but Azar said that's "not a bridge we've crossed yet." On Tuesday, Azar said the other children in the coliseum appeared to be doing well, despite having stayed in a makeshift shelter for so long.

"We're trying to get these children into a more normal setting as quickly as possible so they can be provided what they need to flourish and we can continue investigating what happened in their lives," he said

_______________________________

So they're going to continue investigating what happened, presumably because they don't know what happened, but based on what little they already know, or think they know, they're completely comfortable with the notion that they should take all 437 children hostage and begin re-educating and de-programming them.

It would all make perfect sence to me if this were happening in a communist country, or Nazi Germany, or any place where we didn't have a Constitution that guarantees individual rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, assurances of due process and equal protection under the law.

Oh, wait...This isn't America, it's Texas. That's right, don't mess with Texas.

Texas FLDS Hostage Crisis Continues, Day Nineteen

LDS Church declines opportunity to spy on Texas FLDS hostages
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695272878,00.html

Salt Lake Tribune editorial points to government's "heavy burden of proof" in Texas FLDS hostage crisis
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9005771

Texas begins moving child hostages into foster homes
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695272825,00.html

Number of FLDS child hostages jumps to 437
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695272744,00.html

Texas harming FLDS child hostages, Utah group says
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695272632,00.html

Judge asks LDS to spy on FLDS hostages during prayers
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695272498,00.html

Local LDS Stake President baffled by request to spy on hostages
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695272746,00.html

Texas officials couldn't take children hostage earlier because they were home schooled
http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9012668

Okay, I admit, the mainstream media aren't calling the children hostages, but that is in fact what they are, and I will continue to call them that. The state of Texas has not incarcerated a solitary adult male in relation to the original complaint. They have been unable to produce solid evidence of abuse of any kind, other than to say they've been "indoctrinated". They have the alleged underage teen brides in custody, and have had them for 19 days, yet none have stepped forward to say they are victims of sexual or physical abuse. They will continue to hold these children hostage until they are successful in coercing someone into stepping forward and claiming that they are victims of abuse. In truth, all 437 of these children are victims of abuse--by the state of Texas.

This is simply outrageous.

Texas Judge Orders CPS to Have LDS Supervise Prayer Sessions

"SAN ANGELO, Texas -- The Texas judge overseeing the polygamous FLDS sect's case today refused to make any ruling that would allow breast-feeding mothers to remain with their children in state custody. Judge Barbara Walther did rule on requests that women and children currently being held in San Angelo be able to pray together privately. She told Texas Children Protective Services (CPS) to find a member of the mainstream Mormon church to supervise group prayer sessions with FLDS women and children. Those sessions would occur in the morning and evening. Walther was addressing a request for temporary restraining orders filed by attorneys for four of the nursing mothers, but on behalf of all mothers there. The request asked the court to stop Texas child-welfare workers from separating mothers and children, to allow private prayer, and to give the women and children telephone access to their lawyers." --Salt Lake Tribune

This little bit of news just made my jaw drop to the floor. Presumably she means for Texas CPS to find someone in their organization who is LDS to supervise group prayer sessions with FLDS women and children.

Apparently the judge just doesn't get it. The LDS Church considers the FLDS group to be apostates and heretics. Their culture is very different from the mainstream LDS Church. I can't imagine an active LDS person feeling comfortable about "supervising" an FLDS prayer session, nor can I imagine that the FLDS women would be any more comfortable with an LDS supervisor than with a non-Mormon present. This is just amazing to me. If Judge Walther truly wants to be sensitive to FLDS sensibilities, this approach is simply non-sensical.

I've watched this media circus unfold over the last 18 days and have tried to hold off on making a judgment about the rightness or the wrongness of the raid and the fact that 416 children have been taken into custody. But frankly, I'm alarmed at how low the bar is for justifying the taking of so many kids into custody, based on such apparently flimsy evidence. Yet, no adults have been charged with a crime or taken into custody based on the original complaint. And the continued custody is justified by the fact that children are in danger of abuse because they are subject to indoctrination by their parents.

What exactly is indoctrination? Isn't it simply parents teaching their children their beliefs? Don't parents have the right, in fact, the responsibility to teach their children? Apparently you only have that right in Texas as long as you don't belong to a cult that holds strange beliefs and whose adherents don't wear strange clothes and funny hairstyles. Supposedly, there've been all these horrible crimes committed, but this case hasn't dealt with any of that.

They're in the process of taking DNA samples from parents and children, but then what? If they can prove that a man has fathered children by multiple women, will that prove in a court of law that they are guilty breaking laws regarding polygamy? No, because they can't prove they're married. There's no law against having sex with multiple partners. There are laws against having sexual relations with underage partners by men over a certain age. And if they won't accept notarized birth certificates proving the ages of teen-age brides based on the fact that they could be falsified records, why would marriage records be any more valid? So the only thing they can go on is the age of the bride when she conceived, and if you won't accept birth certificates, how can you establish age? And if none of the victim child-brides will step forward and admit they are victims, how do you establish that there is systemic abuse? Texas CPS can't establish their case, so they're going to hold their children hostage until someone comes forward and admits that they were abused. But if someone steps forward and admits there was abuse, what's going to happen? They're going to lose their children. No one's going to do that.

Let's face it, the powers that be in Texas have decided that this is an evil religious cult that needs to be stamped out, and that's what they're going to do, and they're going to do it by taking the children away and reprogram them into a suitable culture where they'll have a chance to grow up and be "normal". But if they're not successful in prosecuting adult males who have sexual relations with underage partners, this is just going to keep happening, and the FLDS people will only be further entrenched in their belief that they are a persecuted people. This is not going to go away without Texas becoming a total fascist police state. And if that happens, then who's next?

To Carry A Spare Magazine, Or Not Carry At All?

I belong to an online forum called Bersa Talk, which is a community for Bersa brand handgun enthusiasts. On a recent thread the question was posed: "Is it standard to carry a spare magazine, or just the one fully loaded mag with one round in the chamber?"

I responded that I carry a spare mag if I think to grab one before I leave the house. After the Trolley Square shooting last year, it makes sense to me that one magazine just might not be enough. And after a recent home invasion in West Valley, in which 5 thugs invaded a home and held the occupants at gunpoint while they hauled out their valuables, it might not be a bad idea to carry a spare magazine on your person, at home.

Dozens of others responded one way or another. It turns out that many do carry a spare. As often happens on internet fora, there was eventually a little bit of topic drift as the debate warmed up and strongly held views were expressed and defended. In the latter stages of the thread, it was dominated by two participants who were sparring back and forth, and the topic became whether some people shouldn't carry a gun at all. Here's a segment that I found particularly interesting:

RF: From a statistical standpoint, not carrying AT ALL, AT ANY TIME, is...defensible.

GB: Interesting assertion, and one that evolution, grand design, or whatever has settled upon as racial survival strategies for a large number of species. It manifests itself as relatively unarmed prey species that congregate in large numbers in herds, flocks, schools, or whatever the appropriate term might be. Anyway, the principle is that even with predation which will certainly claim a large number of the herd, flock, school or whatever -- enough will survive to ensure the survival of the species into the next generaton. It is all fine and good if you are one of the survivors. "Baaa" says the sheep(le)! It ain't so good if you are one of the culls who gets predated. A better personal survival strategy is to recognize the existence of the predators, be vigilant and prepared to fight back against them. That way your personal odds of survival become markedly greater than that of the unarmed herd, flock, school or whatever. Oddly enough, the presence of sufficient numbers of members of the herd who are vigilant and prepared to fight back against the predators increases not only their own chances of survival but that of the entire herd. It is the tact that is taken by such animals as elephants, bison and baboons.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to get at is that while the not carrying at all, ever, is defensible ("Baaa"), it is not optimal. It does nothing to combat ever increasing predation. It is largely based on the premise that life is cheap. That individuals in the herd may be sacrificed to the predators as long as there are enough who survive to insure survival of the herd, and that should there not be enough survivors then the herd itself will die as nature dictates. Personally, I don't hold to that "life is cheap" mindset that this necessarily implies. Certainly not my life or my loved ones.

RF: If you have a normal lifestyle...the chances you will be involved in a true life-or-death self-defense scenario are very remote indeed.

GB: That chance is remote, yes. But non-zero. And, as society continues to coarsen and the value of life is held in ever less regards by those who engage in lives of crime, that chance become greater over time. The point is that the cost of being caught without carrying when you truly need it is so high that the remote chance argument is negated. Same thing as with catastrophic health insurance. Same thing as having homeowner's insurance, flood insurance or a fire extinguisher. Since the cost of not carrying could very well be your life or the life of a loved one, carrying is justified even if the odds of needing to use it is remote.

RF: Some call CCW [carrying a concealed weapon] 'paranoid' behavior.

GB: No more paranoid than someone who has a fire extinguisher in the pantry, or who takes out flood insurance. It is actually the act of viewing the world as it is, and not of viewing the world through rose colored glasses. It comes from actually contemplating worst case scenarios and being prepared for such in a rational manner.

RF: Others think it necessary to be prepared no matter the risk-small or large... Call it what you will-it's all about choice, and risk/benefit.

GB: It should be a choice, and from the pro-carry folks it is normally treated as exactly that. The vast majority of pro-carry people have no desire to coerce people who do not wish to carry to carry anyway. It is viewed as a personal choice, as it should be. However, the actions of the anti-carry folks is not so -- they seek not only to not carry themselves, but to take away the option of carry from those who wish to do so, by way of legal means or by way of societal pressure, stigmatizing those who desire to carry as being "paranoid" or anti-social.

RF: I choose to carry intermittently, and believe the choice I have made as to carry mode satisfies that risk/benefit analysis.

GB: Yes, that is your prerogative. Personally, I choose to carry whenever possible in the most optimum manner feasable, since it is impossible to predict with absolute certainty when a true sociopath, psychopath, or other variety of violent criminal may choose to attack myself or [family member]. That lack of certainty and the cost/risk analysis that I have undertaken leads me to do just that. The cost of an unprepared for encounter is just too high, and the risk of one is non-zero and ever increasing.

It was a lively conversation. If you're interested in reading the whole thread, here's a link: http://bersatalk.com/forums/1/55676/ShowThread.aspx

And here's a link to Bersa Talk: http://bersatalk.com/

Draper Resident Longs for Divine Revelation On Immorality of Bearing Children

This forum letter appeared yesterday in the online version of the Salt Lake Tribune:

I usually don't listen to men in robes and funny hats, but today the Vatican decreed that polluting the planet is a sin. High fives for stating the obvious. Since the leading causes of pollution are overpopulation and undereducation, are we likely to see a change in the Catholic Church's policies on birth control? Without following through with a plan of action, this edict rings hollow.

Meanwhile, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints tries to control every aspect of our lives except for the ones that truly matter. Anyone who has tried to breathe in the Salt Lake Valley this winter knows that pollution is choking us to death. I hope the new Mormon prophet might soon have a divine revelation that it is immoral to bring more than two or three kids into a dangerously overpopulated world.

Todd Ouzts
Draper

It was followed by literally dozens of comments, some agreeing, others disagreeing or taking issue with the obvious Catholic and Mormon-bashing. I added my comment, which was addressed to the original letter rather than a response to all the other comments. Here's my response:

Mr. Ouzts seems to have the idea that religious and moral codes are empty and false, and that human life is meaningless. When God becomes a nihilist, then we'll hear about that longed for revelation about the immorality of multiplying and replenishing the earth.

Latter-Day Saints view the planet as the earthly abode for God's spirit children during mortality. Naturally it makes sense to take care of the earth, and it's part of our mortal stewardship to do so, not only for ourselves but for future generations. The phrase "multiplying and replenishing the earth" isn't only about procreation, it's about renewing resources and using them wisely. But let's do it sensibly, not in such a way that we bring back the dark ages, or destroy our economy, or doom millions in developing countries to darkness, poverty and despair. Climate change alarmism is a nihilistic creed, and much more harm will come from it than good.

If you're interested in reading the entire comment thread, go here.

Help Bless Heather's Heart

Harsh Political Realities

An awful lot of conservatives have expressed dismay over the strange turn of events in the primaries that seem to have catapulted candidates to front-runner status that mere months ago were considered likely also-rans, even dead in the water.

Ann Coulter points out some harsh realities in our political environment that didn't exist back when Ronald Reagan was being courted to run for political office. The article is titled "How to keep Reagan out of office", and it appeared online in the World Jewish Review.

What a bizarre coincidence that a few years after the most draconian campaign-finance laws were imposed via McCain-Feingold, our two front-runners happen to be the media's picks! It's uncanny — almost as if by design! (Can I stop now, or do you people get sarcasm?)

By prohibiting speech by anyone else, the campaign-finance laws have vastly magnified the power of the media — which, by the way, are wholly exempt from speech restrictions under campaign-finance laws. The New York Times doesn't have to buy ad time to promote a politician; it just has to call McCain a "maverick" 1 billion times a year.

It is because of campaign-finance laws like McCain-Feingold that big men don't run for office anymore. Little men do. And John McCain is the head homunculus.

You want Reagan back? Restore the right to free speech, and you will have created the conditions that allowed Reagan to run.

As usual, read the whole thing.

HB473 to Allow Open Carry By Permittees

Open carry is a bad idea--but it shouldn't be illegal.

That's my take on a bill coming before the Utah State Legislature that will clarify the right of concealed weapon permittees to openly carry firearms in public places in Utah.

In a Salt Lake Tribune article entitled: "Bill would allow concealed-weapons permit holders to carry firearms openly", HB473 would stipulate that it's not illegal for CCW holders to carry in full view.

"The proposal would ensure that concealed-weapons permit holders are not required to conceal their firearms. It would allow permittees to openly carry loaded weapons into schools, colleges, hospitals and other public arenas. Proponents say the measure only "clarifies" existing law to ensure a right permittees already have, while opponents say open-carry would result in "untenable situations" at schools. "

Apparently current gun laws allow permittees to open carry anyplace where it's legal to carry concealed, but it's not totally clear. In other words, the law has been poorly written, and doesn't properly convey the intent of the legislators.

"I'm not saying [open-carry is] a great idea; I'm just saying it's not illegal," said gun-rights lobbyist Clark Aposhian. "This [legislation] is not creating new law. It's a definition of an existing ability permit holders already have."

Attorney General Mark Shurtleff spoke at the hearing, saying existing weapons laws can reasonably be read to both allow and prohibit open-carry on school grounds.

"I'm not taking a side," Shurtleff said in a Tuesday interview. "You just can't have different agencies interpreting the law differently. It should be clarified so everyone reads it the same way."

Additional confusion exists as to whether an inadvertent display of a concealed weapon, such as could occur when an armed man opens his coat to reach for a phone or wallet, constitutes a violation of the law, Shurtleff added.

Well, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV or the internet, but if I understand correctly, Utah state law doesn't currently require law abiding citizens to have a permit in order to openly carry firearms. There are limitations, of course. For example, if you don't have a Concealed Firearm Permit, you can't openly carry a loaded gun inside a motor vehicle.

I'm not sure this is a fight worth fighting, because the rights of concealed carry permit holders is pretty well settled here in Utah. What this does is open up another can of worms regarding the rights of people to carry openly. Gun rights activists are going to have to fight and win battles all over again that they've already fought and won.

I'm not sure what the language of HB473 actually says, but my feeling is that it should state that open carry by permittees is not illegal in any area in the state that concealed carry is permitted. Also inadvertent, unintentional exposure of a concealed weapon isn't an illegal act.

Now, here's why I think open carry is a bad idea.

1. There is a strong counter-culture in society that is strongly opposed to regular citizens owning and carrying guns. Openly carrying firearms needlessly stirs the pot and riles up those people who would take any opportunity to strengthen gun control laws and confiscate all guns not issued by law enforcement or the military. The Second Amendment doesn't exist for these people. The fact that gun control laws only disarm the public and give career criminals a safe work environment is just so much rhetoric, to their way of thinking.

2. Openly carrying firearms marks a person as a target for theft or even worse. It's illegal for criminals to possess firearms, and a favored way of gaining possession of guns is to steal them. There have been many documented instances where people openly carrying guns were robbed and "relieved" of their hardware. Also, open carry marks you as a target for any person with criminal intent to shoot you first. A recent example comes easily to mind: the case of the digruntled citizen who entered a city council meeting, walked up to the armed police officer who was present, gunned him down, and then went to work on the city council unmolested.

I say it shouldn't be illegal to inadvertently or unintentionally expose your legal carry weapon, but let's keep them concealed if we can. The last thing I want is to be the focus of attention when I carry a gun into a room full of people.

Dennis Prager Asks Some Questions About School Shootings

In an article that appeared online at Jewish World Review, Dennis Prager asks some hard questions about recent trends in news coverage of shootings at universities. Mr. Prager has his own take on each of these questions, and I suggest you read the column for yourself.

Question 1: Why are murderers always counted in the victims tally? The day after the mass murder of students at Northern Illinois University (NIU), the headline in the closest major newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, was: "6 Dead in NIU Shooting."

"6 dead" included the murderer. Why wasn't the headline "5 killed at NIU"? It is nothing less than moronic that the media routinely lump murderers and their victims in the same tally.

My take is that the mindset of our media gatekeepers is that the dead perpetrator is not the real "bad guy". Gun Violence is the real bad guy, and the dead perpetrator is just another unfortunate victim.

Question 2: Which of these three options is more likely to prevent further murderous rampages: a) making universities closed campuses and increasing the police presence on campus (as the president of NIU has promised to do); b) making guns much harder to obtain; or c) enabling specially trained students and faculty to carry concealed weapons on campus?

...Of course, there is virtually no chance that the uniformly left-thinking individuals who run our universities will ever consider ... [option c]. To do so would mean abandoning what is essentially a religious-like conviction that guns are immoral rather than the people who use them immorally.

It's part of the narrative, isn't it? Guns are evil, not people (except for evangelical Christians, conservatives and Republicans).

Question 3: Why are "shooter" and "gunman" used instead of "killer" or "murderer"?
If a murderer used a knife to murder five students, no news headlines would read, "Knifeman Kills Five." So why always "shooter" and "gunman"?

Obviously, since the narrative is that guns are bad, not people, phrasing it this way focuses attention, and also the blame, on guns and gun violence, instead of placing responsibility for the evil act upon the actor.

Question 4: Why is "murder" never used to describe homicides involved in these university massacres? And why is "murderer" never used to describe these murderers? Why has "kill" become the only word allowed for deliberate homicide?

Perhaps it has something to do with our compunction to not try and convict people in the press before they are actually convicted in a court of law. And it's easier to throw the perps in with the victims if they're not classified as murderers. Remember, guns are evil, not people, and it's easier to sell that narrative if we don't call them "murderers".

Question 5: Would the press note killers' religiosity if they were all Christian?

I don't think think there's any question that they would, and of course, they'd be right to do it. Mr. Prager makes a valid point in his article. Read the whole thing here.

Storm Damage, All Fixed Up

Recently I posted about a storm that came in and blew the siding off the back of our house. Here's a picture of the damage.

We notified our builder, Fieldstone Homes, about the damage right away, via an internet warranty request. About 90 minutes later we received a call from the warranty representative, and she was at our house within the hour to inspect the damage. She assured us that the damage would be repaired and the siding replaced within the next day or two. And before she left, she took care of a couple of other warranty items inside the house. She was cheerful, competent and reassuring. I was impressed. Her name was Annette.

And she didn't disappoint. The damage occurred on Monday, and there was a siding crew at our house Wednesday morning, ready to go to work. That was around 9:30 or 10 a.m.

They were done by noon.

Yes, I'm happy.

Just a note about the color in the photographs: the first picture (of the damage) was taken at mid-day and shows the color most accurately. It's called sand. The pictures of the repaired siding were taken just before sunset, and the light was a lot "warmer" and makes the house look yellow. The only time the house looks like this is right after sunrise and just before sunset. Photographers call this kind of light "sweet light" because it is bright, warm and dramatic. It's the best time to shoot landscapes. Most calendar pictures of places like the Grand Canyon and Arches National Park, etc. are shot at this time of day because of that.

Major League Baseball Umps in a Snit Over Background Checks

According to this AP story, the umpires are unhappy about the league conducting background checks.

"Umpires are livid that Major League Baseball has sent investigators to their hometowns, asking neighbors a series of questions that include whether the ump belongs to the Ku Klux Klan. "

"Baseball stepped up background checks last August, after it became public that the FBI was investigating NBA referee Tim Donaghy for betting on games. Donaghy pleaded guilty to felony charges of conspiracy to engage in wire fraud and transmitting betting information through interstate commerce, and he awaits sentencing."

Some of the questions that neighbors are being asked:

Does he live within his means?
Does he beat his wife?
Does he throw wild parties?
Have you seen the police at his house?
Does he belong to groups such as the Ku Klux Klan?
Does he grow marijuana plants?

My take on this tempest in a teapot is that no major league umpire should be upset about these questions as long as the answer to all of them is "no".

If the answer is "yes", well then the umpire and the league might have a problem.

Sports officiating is a vocation where the standards of performance are pretty high. Let's face it, the standard is perfection. Coaches, players, spectators and media all expect umpires and referees to get every call right, and if they don't, they're suspected of incompetence.

Major league baseball has a vested interest in protecting the integrity of their product. Umpires have to be not only competent at a high level, but their personal lives have to be above reproach. I think the leagues have every right to know the answer to all of the above questions and many more. Above reproach doesn't mean that having to answer these questions is beneath their dignity.