POLYGAMY BOOKS

Conservatism, What the Hell Does It Mean?

John Llewellyn — 2012-02-12T16:37:02Z

Conservatism, What the Hell Does It Mean?

The GOP pundits perpetually clamor, “We must nominate the most conservative candidate? The trouble is Mitt, Newt and Rick all claim to be the most conservative. So the pundits trumpet, “We must nominate the most ‘pure’ conservative.” In responding to the word “pure,” at the moment, the pundits tend to point to Santorum, at least for now.

My complaint is how do we define conservative?

I’m not going to let the Internet tell me what a conservative is. Nor am I going to let pundits like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh define conservatism for me. I didn’t survive seventy-nine years on this planet to let some self-appointed pundit do my thinking for me. That’s one of the perks of old-age because there sure as hell aren’t many. At least we can speak our mind.

Basically, a conservative is one who would like to preserve the present and resists change. (If it’s not broken don’t try and fix it.) But the conservatives today, it seems, who will be voting Republican, want to return to the conservative environment of the Reagan years. So in essence the pundit who touts pure conservatism points to who he thinks is the most Reagan-like or has a past that reflects his own conservative values.

But before going any further I think I’m a conservative and the following is what I think it means to be a conservative. A conservative believes in:

First and foremost, the repeal Obama Care, free enterprise, in letting the market place work, getting government out of the capitalistic process, energy independence, a strong military, controlled immigration, marriage confined to one man and one woman, opposition to abortion except in the case of rape and only then within the first two weeks. A true conservative is a keen supporter of Israel and is dead set against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. He is very concerned over the spread of Islamic radicalism. He is against totalitarianism in any form, be it religious or political. He is appalled over the corruption in government especially with entitlements, grants and foreign aid. He believes socialism and sharia law are enemies of our republican, capitalistic way of life. He would like to see term limits in Congress. He doesn’t like the Supreme Court legislating. If there is a strong middle class, meaning opportunity, it will open the doors for the poor to become part of the middle class. (Instead of giving the able poor a fish, hand him fishing pole and teach him how to use it.)

A true conservative thinks our government needs to take a more stringent look at China, Egypt, Syria and of course Iran. And a conservative government will not let America be sucked into a “world order” commitment where we submit to the dominance of socialistic, communistic or Islamic interests.

You may recall some other conservative points but I think you get the point.

As far as I can see Mitt, Newt and Rick all feel pretty much the same way as I have outlined. As far as I’m concerned, one is no more conservative than the other.

When the pundits say we must nominate the most conservative candidate, they seem to think it will be the Tea Party and religious right that will have the power to select our Republican nominee. But let’s look at the general election. Is the Tea Party and religious right strong and numerous enough to elect a Republican President without the independent vote and Democrats crossing the aisle? I don’t think so.

Furthermore, I can’t help thinking about the 47% of Americans who don’t pay federal income tax. According to the Internet there are over 313 million Americans. So how many of the 147-plus million non-tax-payers vote? How many of the 47% are dependent upon government welfare? How many of that 47% are the professional poor - takers as opposed to workers? How many are succumbing to Obama’s class envy propaganda – pitting the poor against the rich? We know Obama and his social democrats are attempting to energize that 47%.

The recent vote in Colorado, Missouri and Minnesota was embarrassingly small. The vast majority of Republican voters stayed home. Why? Was it the weather or was it the negativity – or just plain complacency? Rick won all three states but with such a tiny turn out how significant are the wins?

Mitt Romney had to compromise in order to be elected governor of Massachusetts. Newt Gingrich did some compromising with the left in order to make a living after he left Congress. Rick Santorum’s past is not squeaky clean either, he had to compromise also in Pennsylvania, a big union state. So knock off the “who is the most conservative” bullshit! (Sometimes spicy language is called for.)

The word “conservative” is tossed around by pundits as if it was the “holy grail.” But in my opinion Mitt, Newt and Rick are equally conservative. I believe each will repeal Obama Care if elected. What matters to me is which one is the best equipped to turn the economy around, will do something positive and bold about foreign affairs, and is the most electable. By that I mean which candidate will appeal most to the independent voter and the Democrat who no longer trusts Obama? In other words, which candidate appeals most to the rational thinking voter as opposed to the emotional voter?

Mitt has both business and executive experience. Newt probably knows more about how Washington works than the other two. Santorum also has knowledge of Washington, having been a senator, and is strong on national defense. Newt is touted as the smartest guy in the room, and his demeanor shows it, but he is a poor loser and is the most vindictive. Where virtue and morality is concerned I think Mitt and Rick are about the same. But which one presents himself confidently as the most presidential? Which one by character and reputation will command the most respect from our enemies, friends, NATO, and the United Nations? That’s very important.

I hear the word “principle” used in discussions over candidates. But I think the word “principle” is as arbitrary as the word “conservative” in this GOP political process. Just whose principles are we talking about? Conservative, Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Capitalistic, Socialist, Islamic? Ron Paul is probably the most principled candidate of the four because of his consistency. The most principled people in the world are radicals and fanatics. But if we mean the most principled conservative, say the best of the best, the Republican with the least dirty laundry, we must remember that if we want to kick Obama out of the White House, there are millions of “unprincipled voters” out there who are not part of the Tea Party and religious right. Who can attract the vote of Patriotic Americans, the silent majority who work hard, pay their bills, educate their kids, may or may not attend church, believe in the American dream and mind their own business? Whoever survives the GOP “conservative” contest is going to have to win their vote.

If we equate emotion with the heart, and rational with the brain, we may feel good supporting that candidate whose principles are synonymous with our own, but can he win?

To reiterate, what are our priorities? Is it the economy, is it national defense, is it reducing big government, is it entitlements, is it national resources, is it immigration, is it trade, is it abortion and same sex marriages? Or is it, who is the tallest, the most religious or the best looking? Or maybe it’s stature and statesmanship? And don’t discount personality. Which candidate has the stature and personality, the vitality and stamina to demand and receive respect from our allies and enemies? If we take all that into consideration I think one man stands out, and it sure as hell isn’t Barak Hussein Obama.

Are People More Honest Now Than In the Nineteen Fifties?

John Llewellyn — 2012-02-09T15:23:35Z

ARE PEOPLE MORE HONEST NOW THAN IN THE NINETEEN FIFTIES?

In my opinion the answer is no! Dishonesty is a large part of the human condition, just like hate. We can’t get away from it. It’s in our DNA. But thank God for our brains. It is our brains that inhibit the intrinsic predisposition to be dishonest and hate others. (Don’t try and tell me you have never been tempted to steal or ever used the word hate.) Dishonesty and hate have to do with survival.

You may think I’m going over the top, but I don’t think so. I’ve lived a long time having been born in 1933, the first year Franklyn Delano Roosevelt took office. A lot has happened since then: War II, Korea, Viet Nam, Granada and the Gulf wars. And I’ve done a lot of historical reading and a little bit of traveling. Furthermore, I was a deputy sheriff who specialized in sex crimes, and observed dishonesty at all levels of the social strata and in all occupations – including law enforcement.

The modern conception of religion is that the goal of Christianity is to make us more honest and loving, or prepare us for the next life, a heaven reserved for the honest and loving. But what about the Inquisition and the Crusades? As a matter of fact and a matter of history, religion has not necessarily made us more honest and forgiving although many will argue otherwise.

Take the Koran for example, how often does it mention the word “love?” The following is taken from the Internet:

There are 70 mentions of love in the Qur’an of those 70,, 45 directly contain hate, Such as those times when it mentions the word love but only to say “Allah loves not” Love is most often used in the Qur’an to provoke hate, Other times it is used in such away (sic) as to steal credit from others or used in such a way that really has nothing to do with Islam like the claim giving islam’s (sic) deity credit for covering Moses with love when he was put in the river so that he would be loved by the enemy when they found him,

And then there is a time or two when it claims Allah put love between mates, but given Muhammad’s commands which encourage men to be whore’s who beat there (sic) wives, The love mentioned there is more like lust not love because Muhammad really didn’t know what the word love meant.

And then there are the mentions of love, Like where it says Out of love for Allah to feed the orphan and captive , In this instances Love is more used as a lure, not a real love. In every instance that love is mentioned it is basically defiled before or after that point with words of hate and violence or mentioned in a way where the word may say love but love is not really what it is, 14 instances where if you read where love is mentioned alone and don’t know the rest of the Qur’an or the context in which it is mentioned it could sound good but when you know the details even those basically amount to blasphemy of love.

Archeologists excavating three and four thousand-year-old tombs in Egypt’s Valley of the Kings found that most of them had been looted – indisputable evidence that dishonesty has been going on as long as recorded history.

The most despicable form of dishonesty is that committed under the flag of religion. The Koran and Hadith not only approve but mandate murder, looting and condones pedophilia and slavery. Nineteenth Century Mormonism also approved theft and murder (Blood Atonement). Brigham Young instructed the territorial legislature to lower the age a female could marry to age 12. The cost of immigrating from Nauvoo to the Great Basin was financed partly by theft from gentiles (non believers). A special group of Mormons called Danites, or Avenging Angels, allegedly participated in the thefts. It was called “milking the gentiles.”

Organized crime has been a perpetual nemesis to civilization whether in the form of gangs or sophisticated Sicilians. In 1942 the SS Normandie caught fire alongside New York docks as it was being refitted as a troop carrier. The Normandie, a huge, French ocean liner was seized by the United States after Germany invaded France. It was recommissioned the USS Lafayette after Marquis de Le Fayette of Revolutionary War fame.

Naval Intelligence suspected sabotage as we were at war with Germany. But their investigation was thwarted by hostile dock workers who were loyal to mob boss, Lucky Lucinano, who, since 1936, was serving a 30 to 50 year sentence for income tax evasion. To make a long story short, Naval Intelligence appealed to Lucinano who agreed to help in the war effort. The dock workers were suddenly cooperative. The official cause of the fire was a spark from a blow torch. The unofficial cause was Lucinano ordering the fire.

Lucinano went on to use his influence in obtaining the cooperation of the mafia in Sicily, paving the way for an invasion of Sicily by Allied Forces in 1943. After the war Lucinano was released from prison on the condition he leave the country and never return. He went to Cuba and then Sicily, his place of birth, where he continued his mafia crime ventures.

I remember as a deputy sheriff talking with members of the criminal element who unanimously stated that they trusted the mafia more than law enforcement. I am afraid that organized crime will always be with us, the same as cops, prosecutors, and wars. In the LDS, Book of Mormon, there are the mythical Gadianton Robbers. We even find organized crime in the Bible, beginning with the Able and Cain saga. In the civil action against the polygamist cult, Apostolic United Brethren, AUB, the Utah Supreme Court found AUB culpable in the theft of 1.54 million dollars, and described the defendants as participating in a “pattern of unlawful activity” – in essence a violation of the Rico Act. AUB, the FLDS and other organized polygamist groups have been labeled by pundits as “organized crime.”

I have a set of the eleven volume epic, Story of Civilization by Will and Ariel Durant, Will is one of my favorite authors. In reading these superb tomes I couldn’t help educe that in spite of the series of wars, deception and hatred in mankind’s history; it is amazing that we Homo sapiens are as civilized as we are.

I believe there is a direct correlation between dishonesty and opportunity – no new revelation there. There is much more opportunity in the Twenty-first Century than there was in the Nineteen Fifties, what with the Internet and all the other technologies that make identity theft profitable. Let’s face it; dishonesty is blatant in government, politics, business, sports, religion and in many marriages. Combating dishonesty is big business. Sometimes the combatants are as dishonest as the bad guys.

A story worth telling must have an antagonist as well as a protagonist. There must be an opponent, a villain, a bad guy. Life is about overcoming obstacles, competition, fighting back and prevailing in spite of unfairness. Islam is about submission. Yuck!

Now, I’m not really that pessimistic about the human condition. There are millions of honest people of all ethnic and social levels. If there weren’t we would have total anarchy. Unfortunately, dishonesty at its apex I believe is found in politics and religion where dishonesty is used to unify the masses. Who comes to mind: Hitler, Stalin and Mohammad. (I’m tempted to include a few other famous icons but I’m probably already in enough trouble.) And even in the land of the free and the brave, we see mudslinging between Romney, Gingrich and Santorum, vying for the privilege to replace Barak Hussein Obama.

Mudslinging, in my opinion, goes beyond disparaging criticism and connotes dishonesty. But sometimes, our politicians and religious leaders, by their actions and policies, invite deprecating attacks. Here is how I see the mudslinging: Rather than attempting to demonstrate that you are more honest, wise, competent and trustworthy than your competitor, it comes across as, he is more dishonest, dumb, incompetent and untrustworthy than me.

In following the GOP presidential contest it seems to me more voters are allowing their emotions to dictate their vote rather than a rational brain selection. And the candidates seem to have forgotten that Obama is the opponent, not each other. I want the candidates to compete in who can fault Obama on foreign policy, domestic energy, entitlements, Israel, the United Nations, NATO, military, etc., and why he has the credentials to kick Obama’s ass out of the Whitehouse and turn America around. The pitiful vote numbers in Minn, Mo. and Colorado indicated to me that the masses are getting tired of the negativity. I think Santorum and Paul’s vote numbers were protest votes. Both Paul and Santorum are nice guys but do they really have the credentials to beat Obama and turn America around?

“All is fair in love, war and especially politics and religion.” A pithy axiom by Sardonic Sam the satiric cynic.

thoughts about decriminalization

John Llewellyn — 2012-02-03T22:19:35Z

THOUGHTS ABOUT DECIMINALIZATION

The other day I received a phone call from a nice lady named Belinda, a journalist for TIME MAGAZINE. She was researching a story about decriminalizing polygamy and mentioned the Joe Darger family as a possible reason for decriminalizing. After chatting for a few minutes I referred her to Doris Hansen, host of What Love Is This, TV show, and Rebecca Kimbel, a tv, radio and Utube personality.

Since then I have been pondering the subject of decriminalization. If we decriminalize for the likes of Joe Darger and Kody Brown, we are also decriminalizing for the likes of James D Harmston, Warren Jeffs, Tom Green, Brain David Mitchell, Ross LeBaron Jr., and Dennis Matthews. But even more consequential, we will be decriminalizing polygamy for all the Muslims in the United States which comprise a much larger and more dangerous population. But that’s not all.

Decriminalizing polygamy essentially means letting the polygamists exercise dominion over plural marriages. Plural marriage would be controlled by priesthoods and prophets. In the case of Mormons, their rule of law will be Section 132, Joseph Smith’s plural marriage revelation, a doctrine that is entirely coercive and threatens to destroy defiant wives. The priesthood would be permitted to enact priesthood courts which by nature are arbitrary and capricious. Verse 7 in Section 132 not only gives the prophet authority but gives him access to nearly every aspect of the true believer’s life. Mormon fundamentalism, in essence, would become a sovereign country within a country. To allow this to happen would be irresponsible.

But even more serious is allowing imams to adjudicate plural marriages. Already in Europe and parts of the US, governments are giving in bit by bit to Sharia Law for the sake of appeasement. God forbid we should upset the Muslims.

Muslims, like Mormon polygamists, tend to gather together in theocratic communities. And these communities are culturally insulated even more than Colorado City is isolated. The larger the community the more it is insulated and becomes an environment for Sharia Law, in contrast to our Constitution. Evan more than the Mormon polygamist communities, Muslim communities are more politically dominating. Take a look at Dearborn, Michigan? It took Mormon fundamentalists about 90 years to get to where they are now. It has only taken two or three decades for the Muslims to establish a foothold in the US, and that in spite of 7-11 and all the other attacks worldwide by radical Muslims. Did you know there are five mosques in Utah?

There are far more Muslims in Europe than the United States. It is estimated that there are between 3.5 and 6 million Muslims in France alone. France and Holland have the most. And what is observed is that when Muslims immigrate they do not assimilate. They retain their Islamic culture and establish communities, insisting that the host country comply with their religious demands. According to the Internet there are 7 million Muslims in the US. The United Kingdom has 4,422,000. Mormon fundamentalists only number about 30 or 35 thousand at the most. No one knows for sure how many there are. If you ask Principle Voices they will embellish the numbers. They would like you to think there is more Mormon polygamist than there really are.

The argument that decriminalization will reduce corruption and female oppression among polygamists and encourage victim to testify against their oppressors is wishful thinking. Both Islam and Mormon fundamentalism are authoritative, theocratic religions. The reality is that decriminalization will tend to tighten the hold of the imams, prophets and priesthoods over their victims.

some thoughts about the Florida Primary

John Llewellyn — 2012-02-01T17:08:45Z

SOME THOUGHT ABOUT THE FLORIDA PRIMARY

The Fox pundits complained about the negative ads but they are part of the problem. They would run back and forth saying Mitt said this, or Newt said this, what is your reaction?

I too am tired of the negative ads, all mostly half truths. I was glad when Romney gave his victory speech he didn’t go negative. I thought it was a good tactic on Mitt’s part to have his wife talk to the crowd and introduce him. It gave the people a good chance to see her and get an idea of what kind of a First Lady she would make – her performance was positive.

Newt was also mainly positive in his speech but when he made the comparison of “people power vs. money power,” it tended to turn me off. Are we supposed to think that if he had been able to raise the money Mitt has, he wouldn’t use it like Mitt has? Raising money is part of the game. If Mitt is the Republican choice Obama is going to use the same “money power vs. people power” agenda.

Newt had his wife along side. She appears stoic much like Newt. She is a pretty lady with an immaculate hairdo.

Last night Newt said that on his first day in office he would use his executive power to negate any policy that intrudes on religious freedom, meaning the Obama Care mandate that has irritated the Catholic Church. I couldn’t help think of the other dozen or more things Newt has said throughout his campaign he would do his first day in office. If he is elected that first day is going to be really busy.

Mitt and Newt have different personalities. Fox showed both candidates while on the stump talking to potential voters. Mitt was smiling, handshaking, talking and working the crowd like he was one of them. His countenance was warm and approachable.

Newt was more stoic, unsmiling while scanning the crowd as if sizing them up. In watching Newt’s demeanor I get the following impression. He’s smart and he knows he’s smart and expects to be treated as the smartest guy in the room. There is an aloofness about him that may not be intended, but that is how it comes across. He doesn’t seem to have the warmth of Mitt, assuming Mitt’s warmness is genuine.

I think Newt has to be careful in drawing attention to Mitt’s wealth as if being successful and wealthy is a sin. It will backfire on him. Mitt has been very generous with his wealth giving $15 percent to charities. By my standards, Newt is also wealthy. I don’t begrudge either Mitt or Newt for their wealth. As far as I know s their wealth was obtained honestly. After all, isn’t success and wealth part of the American dream? Isn’t that what Newt would like to do is reshape America so it can continue to be the place of successful dreams?

Sarah Palin and Herman Cain came to Newt’s defense in the last couple of days before the vote. It didn’t help. I think Sarah’s influence has waned. Sometimes when she is interviewed, when she gets excited she almost screeches. She obviously doesn’t like Mitt and her interviews are always presented in a way that you must read between the lines to get the gist of what she is attempting to convey. If Mitt wins I doubt that Sarah, Herman or Rick Parry will be considered for any cabinet positions.

The political leaders who will have the most influence in this campaign will be people like Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan and Mitch Daniels if they decide to through their support to someone.

What would I like the candidates to talk about? Oil, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Islam, nuclear energy, socialism, capitalism, our military, unions and of course just how they would reduce government and create jobs. Government has grown by leaps and bounds under both Bush and Obama.

For example, just how badly did we need Homeland Security? Isn’t the FBI, CIA, ICE, ATF, CID, Naval Intelligence and the other Federal law enforcement agencies doing their jobs? From my vantage point HS only made government bigger. Shortly after HS was enacted I was interviewed by two HS agents interested in White Supremacy and Anti-American sentiments among Mormon fundamentalists. I got the impression they were trying to drum up business and thought, HS is going to turn into another huge government bureaucracy. Big government generally means top heavy bureaucracies that are bottomless money drains. The bigger the government the more opportunity for corruption.

Obama is supposed to be for the little guy but look at the exorbitant costs of his vacations, parties and Michelle’s shopping excursions. Will Mitt or Newt be that extravagant and ingratiate themselves before European socialists, Islam and Hollywood liberals? I don’t think so.

Are People More Honest Now Than In the Fifties?

John Llewellyn — 2012-01-31T20:36:12Z

ARE PEOPLE MORE HONEST NOW THAN IN THE FIFTIES?

Take the Koran for example, how often does it mention the word “love?” The following is taken from the Internet:

The most despicable form of dishonesty is that committed under the flag of religion. The Koran and Hadith not only approve but mandate murder, looting and slavery. Nineteenth Century Mormonism also approved theft and murder (Blood Atonement). The cost of immigrating from Nauvoo to the Great Basin was financed partly by theft from gentiles (non believers). A special group of Mormon called Danites, or Avenging Angels, allegedly participated in the thefts. It was called “milking the gentiles.”

Now, I’m not really that pessimistic about the human condition. There are millions of honest people of all ethnic and social levels. If there weren’t we would have total anarchy. Unfortunately, dishonesty at its apex I believe is found in politics and religion where dishonesty is used to unify the masses. Who comes to mind: Hitler, Stalin and Mohammad. And even in the land of the free and the brave, we see mudslinging between Romney and Gingrich, vying for the privilege to replace Barak Hussein Obama.

Mudslinging goes beyond disparaging criticism and connotes dishonesty. But sometimes, our politicians and religious leaders, by their actions and policies, invite deprecating attacks. Here is how I see the mudslinging: Rather than demonstrating that you are more honest, wise, competent and trustworthy than your competitor, it comes across as, he is more dishonest, dumb, incompetent and untrustworthy than me.

“All is fair in love, politics, religion and war.” A pithy axiom by Sardonic Sam the satiric cynic.

Prophet's Prey, a review

John Llewellyn — 2012-01-29T23:33:14Z

Prophet’s Prey – By SAM BROWER

A Review

Sub title

My Seven-year Investigation into Warren Jeffs and the

Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.

Preface by Jon Krakauer

Prophet’s Prey shows us Sam is not only a fabulous detective but a good writer. What it essentially does is fill in the blanks not covered by all the newspaper articles, especially about what Warren Jeffs was doing while on the run and incarcerated. It also gives us an inside look at the Texas CPS and how overwhelmed they became when they removed 416 children from the Yearning For Zion Ranch.

I think a reader who already has knowledge of the Mormon subculture, how the doctrines have distorted the thinking of adherents, will get more out of the book than the reader who is learning about Mormon fundamentalism for the first time. The reader who is familiar with the FLDS will be able to read between the lines, especially concerning the political ramifications that not only indirectly subsidized FLDS power with grants but attempted to quash a certain and lasting disposition of the FLDS criminal enterprise. I experienced the same tepid reaction from the Federal Government in attempting to get IRS criminal complaints against the Defendants in Hill vs. Allred, AUB, et. al. The IRS Criminal Investigator, who was more than cooperative and in agreement, approached the local US Attorney who declined prosecution. I learned that the fallout from Waco and Ruby Ridge was still strong and politically debilitating as it apparently was in prosecuting FLDS leaders. The Feds were simply afraid of another standoff with a radical religious cult.

There is one unsung hero in Prophet’s Prey that apparently only rated a couple of pages, which may be because there is still a lot of mystery surrounding her. I suspect the Texas Rangers have penetrated the mystery but aren’t talking, and why should they? In case you haven’t guessed, it was 33-year-old Rozita Swinton, a young African American lady living in Colorado Springs.

As I read Sam’s account, while trying to remember what I had read in the newspapers, I thought one of the first questions I would have asked Sarah if I was CPS is how she was able to have access to a telephone. She was apparently able to talk for as long as an hour, a puzzling situation for a young, abused girl confined in the Yearning For Zion Ranch. Something else that is puzzling? According to a newspaper article Rozita had researched the Yearning For Zion Ranch and had literature in her possession that affirmed that. At the time little was known about the Ranch and the people in it. But the information she was able to give the Texas CPS was extremely accurate which included a lexicon of phrases, names and sound bites indigenous to the FLDS. It was so convincing that the CPS and Texas Rangers would have been extremely derelict had they not acted and raided the ranch. But then why look a gift horse in the mouth? I find it ironic that a Black lady, multiple personalities or not, triggered the event that has sent several pedophiles to prison, including the megalomaniac, Warren Jeffs. For those that are not familiar with the archaic, racial Mormon decree, the African race is supposed to be a cursed, inferior race.

Megalomaniac means a “mental disorder marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur.” Omnipotence means “having unlimited authority or influence.” Warren Jeffs also thought he was omnipotent, meaning, all powerful – and of course he was to the true believers.

Sam did a good job in tracing Warren’s activities while on the run. I was amused to learn that he made two trips to New Orleans and on one trip he took in the Mardi Gras, a sinful, hedonistic festival. He apparently also spent a lot time in Las Vegas, colloquially known as Sin City. In the hotels Warren and his confident wife, Naomi, would watch pornography on TV. Of course after indulging in sin, what he was really doing is obeying a divine duty to observe so he could condemn, which he did by shaking the dust off his heels and calling down destroying angels from on high. Of course all this sin searching had nothing to do with God or protecting his true believers. What Warren was doing is fighting the very thing that turned him on.

You don’t have to be a psychologist to see that Warren Jeffs is a narcissist. Paranoia is often associated with the narcissist personality, especially when he has doubts about his effectiveness to control. He is therefore constantly testing his follower’s loyalty. Testing is also a creative way of obtaining the feedback that he craves. The more ridiculous the test like trashing children’s toys and forbidding the color red, the more gratifying is the feedback. And apparently, Warren has a never-ending supply of ridiculous edict with which to test his true believer, and the true believers never question or fail to obey.

Joe Darger in his book Loves Times Three claims Warren Jeffs is an anomaly. Not so! Narcissistic tendencies are found in all cult leaders which includes those phony prophets who build upon Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. James D. Harmston and Ervil LeBaron are examples.

It is my opinion that the very nature of Mormon fundamentalism, the power, ego, sex and money to be had contributes to or encourages narcissistic characteristics. Put another way, the fundamentalist doctrines provide an environment where a narcissistic personality can grow to the extreme. The more isolated and insulated the environment or organized community, the more extreme the acting out. Mass murderer Ervil LeBaron and Warren Jeffs the pervert, are examples of what can happen when fundamentalists isolate and insulate. If you think it is the statutes against polygamy that forces the polygamists to seek isolation you are wrong. They isolate so information can be controlled. The robotic behavior of the FLDS laity is proof in the pudding. It is my opinion that if AUB, TLC and the Kingstons could isolate like the FLDS they too would be much more radical. As it is the all-seeing, inhibiting eye of mainstream society is peeking over their shoulders. Even still, they attempt to dictate austere styles, language and association. All fundamentalists hate apostates and use hate to unify.

Sam does a good job in expanding upon the newspaper accounts describing Warren’s mental status while incarcerated. Warren’s self-deprecation goes with his personality. His masturbating in plain sight of his jailors is more than a perverted reaction to fantasy; it is a method of relieving stress, although he may not realize it. A sex offender is more apt to act out while under stress.

What Prophet’s Prey does is support and validate Elissa Wall and Carolyn Jessop’s books regarding the submission and vulnerability of the FLDS laity. Where Elissa and Carolyn were somewhat sympathetic with the FLDS followers, no doubt because they both have family still under the spell of Warren, Sam has no such inhibitions.

It may be difficult for some readers to imagine the power an unscrupulous, narcissistic leader has over a people, especially in the USA. But it goes to show what brainwashing can do when polygamist prophets control information from birth to adulthood.

What lessons are to be learned from Prophet’s Prey? Foremost, that organized polygamist groups are criminal enterprises. Secondly, when they are allowed to govern themselves by their own rules corruption and abuse are inevitable. Thirdly, when sexual intercourse, a biological, DNA driven instinct is accepted as a religious mandate, it is only a matter of time before there is trouble. Fourthly, anytime a religious doctrine defines women as inferior and should be submissive with little to no rights, abuse and oppression results.

Chief Justice Robert Bauman in Canada got it right when he ruled that more harm than good comes from Mormon polygamy.

In conclusion, Prophet’s Prey is informative, well written and moves along like a novel.

Remember Jimmy Carter

John Llewellyn — 2012-01-23T20:51:37Z

REMEMBER JIMMY CARTER

Remember the Alamo. Remember the Maine. Remember Pearl Harbor. Remember 9-11.

The trouble is Americans tend to forget and forgive. I was 8 years old Dec. 7, 1941, and remember the day very well. But for many of our children and grandchildren it is ancient history. If it were not for movies like Tora, Tora, Tora, and Saving Private Ryan, many of today’s generation would not only be not interested but not even care who we fought in the Second World War.

Remember Jimmy Carter? He was our 39^th President during the years 1977 – 1981. Jimmy Carter was, rather, still is a liberal Democrat. Former President Jimmy Carter is 88 years old at this writing and is still adjuring liberal views. I remember his presidency well. He bought the idea of a gasoline crisis and lowered the maximum speed limit to 55 MPH nationwide.

And do you remember the 1979 Iranian Embassy hostage takeover? 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. It happened under Carter’s watch and according to Brigitte Gabriel in her book, They Must Be Stopped, Why We Must Defeat Radical Islam and How We can Do It, she makes a compelling case that Jimmy Carter’s liberal policies helped make it happen. In view of the current Obama Administration’s policies towards Islam, Carter’s course of action, or lack of action towards Islam is worth remembering.

Carter took sides in the 1979 Iranian revolution between Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenini. Iran under Shah Pahlavi was secular and the Shaw ruled by democratic standards.

Khomenini detested the Shaw’s secular policies and friendship with the West. In 1962, Khomenini began undermining the Shaw with Islamic purism. In 1963 the Shaw exiled Khomenini to Turkey. From Turkey he moved to Iraq where he began a literary jihad against the Shaw, distributing his vitriolic rhetoric throughout the Iranian mosques. From Iraq he went to France until 1978 when the Shaw was disposed with the help of Yasser Arafat and the PLO.

“The Carter administration publicly sought Khomeini’s friendship and vocally supported him through the 1979 Iranian revolution, which quickly deposed the shah and established Khomeini as Iran’s dictator. “ They Must Be Stopped, page 40.

“Ironically, and to the world’s chagrin today, former President (1976 – 1981) Jimmy Carter saw the shah as a great abuser of human rights when he cracked down on dissidents that were a threat to dismantling his government. In his naiveté, Carter intentionally overlooked that Iran was a secular nation ruled by a man who implemented laws similar to that of a democratic society. Instead, Carter instituted a campaign to depose the shah because of his abuse of human rights. In a further ironic twist, Carter denounced the shah’s imprisonment of some three thousand political prisoners, many of whom, when Khomenini came to power in 1979, were executed along with an additional ten thousand to twenty thousand pro-Western ones. In fact, the Ayatollah butchered more people during his first year as supreme ruler of Iran than the Shah had during his entire twenty-five year reign.” Page 41.

The Ayatollah Khomeini became known as the “Father of Modern Jihad.” He is credited with the phrase: “America, the Great Satan.” It was Khomenini who inspired radical groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran, under the Shah was an American ally, just as Egypt was under Mubarak.

“… Carter willingly helped establish a theocratic society in an oil-rich region that is now exporting terror and developing nuclear power to fight the West. Even though he had good intentions, the end result is the same: Carter’s naiveté and his democratic impulses were used as a tool to end democracy.” Page 43

How much like Carter is Barak Obama? He bowed to a Saudi King. He apologized to Islam. When dissidents in Iran looked for support from Obama, it was withheld. He will not allow his administration to refer to Islamic terrorists as Islamic terrorists.

During a Ramadan dinner Obama threw for Muslims in the White House in 2010 he told them he supported the construction of a 16 story Islamic Center two blocks from the 9-11 site.

At a speech in 2010 at the Pentagon he told our military that the attack and war declared on the West has nothing to do with Islam. A quote: “As Americans, we will not and never will be at war with Islam.”

He wants to build bridges with the Islamic world.

He praised the new Islamest government of Turkey.

He has repeatedly praised Islam as “the religion that teaches peace, justice, fairness and tolerance.”

He wants to appease Iran’s mullahs, he wants to hurriedly establish a Palestinian state, he wanted Israel to go back to the 1967 borders, his policies in Iraq benefits Iran and he snubbed Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

I could go on but for a more complete exposure of Obama’s tolerance towards Islam read:

Obama and Islam | FrontPage Magazine

frontpagemag.com/2010/12/24/obama-and-islam/

Dec 24, 2010 – But as David Horowitz and Robert Spencer forcefully argue in their new pamphlet, “Obama and Islam,” Obama's Islamophilic outreach ...

On the Internet.

Well, you might think, if Obama is so soft on Islam how do you account for his killing Osama Ben Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki? He didn’t kill them, our military did. He just took the credit. If he had vetoed the killing of Ben Laden it would have hurt him politically.

Have you heard Obama speak out against Iran’s threat to close the Straits of Hormuz? No, it has been our Navy.

In conclusion, Obama’s policies are as ineffective as the policies of Jimmy Carter and playing into Islam’s hands.

Disgusted

John Llewellyn — 2012-01-19T18:00:07Z

DIGUSTED

Yeah! I’m disgusted with the Super Pac ads against Romney and Gingrich. They are so full of distorted facts and outright lies that none can be depended upon as truth. Even ads defending Obama are joining in the mudslinging against Romney.

In Romney’s case his opponents suggest it is a sin to be successful. The Obama people are expected to portray Romney as sinful for giving so much money to the LDS Church. Romney’s Republican opponents are contributing to the class envy agenda of Obama by suggesting that if Romney only paid about 15% tax on his investments, that it is sinful. The fact is, who wouldn’t have done the same thing in his position. Do the Romney opponents think he should have given much more to Obama so he could piss it away on stupid stimulus packages or businesses like Solendra?

I won’t go into how attack ads on Romney have been exposed as downright treacherous and false because you can see them for yourselves on Fox.

And now an ex-wife has been exploited by the Democrats accusing Gingrich of wanting to have an “open marriage” so he can mess around with other women.

Are we to base our vote on he who we think has the less baggage? Or are we to base our vote on who is the best for America? Or are we to base our vote on who is the most intelligent? Or who is the best debater?

At this point it seems to be that the debates are the most reliable way to judge who will be the best candidate, because the attack ads are unreliable.

Rick Parry is now out. Tonight’s debate will probably be the most important debate so far and could be the one that decides who will apt to be the Republican candidate. It will certainly be Romney’s most important debate. And I hope all the candidates give Obama hell for vetoing the Keystone Pipe Line. And today, according to Dick Morris, Obama is giving Russia our antimissile technology. What a crazy world!!!!!!!!! How on Earth did we get such stupid people?????????????? How come 47% of Americans don’t pay income tax???????????? Because of politicians like Obama who want the masses to be dependent upon big government.

As a senior citizen I am disgusted with how our generation has screwed up our country. And I’m disgusted with those Americans that want something for nothing.

Love Times Three - A Review

John Llewellyn — 2012-01-12T16:05:47Z

Loves Times Three – A Review

I wasn’t going to read Loves Times Three because I was pretty well saturated with Mormon polygamy after 17 years of a steady diet of muckraking and iconoclasting. I wanted to move on to something else like the impact of Islam on the American way of life. But I am glad I read Love Times Three, thanks to Doris Hanson. Doris had asked me to appear on her television program, What Love Is This, and review the Darger book.

I started out by only reading the first sentence of each paragraph to see if it hooked me, highlighting those statements that I questioned. But when I came to Valerie’s autobiography and the problems she had with her first polygamous marriage, I became a little more circumspect. But before commenting on what it was that caught my attention I would like to make the follow contentions that may surprise you.

I think that Joe Darger and his wives are pretty decent people. I think they are living Mormon polygamy as best they can. And I hope they are as happy and compatible as they would have us believe. All four of them have been raised to believe plural marriage is a pure and correct lifestyle and that when things go wrong like with Warren Jeffs it is not the “principle” that is at fault but the people.

That is the position Mormon fundamentalist apologists take, it’s not the doctrine but the people, and it is the same position Islamic apologists take. And of course, I emphatically disagree. D & C, Section 132, Joseph Smith’s plural marriage revelation, is the driving force behind Mormon Fundamentalism just as the Koran is the driving force behind Islamic fundamentalism – and both doctrines incite both good and bad behavior. And just as Judge Robert Bauman ruled in the Canadian polygamy debate, bad behavior far outweighs good behavior.

I don’t think the Darger family volunteered to write their book or to portray themselves as the quintessential Mormon polygamy, media poster family. I think they were recruited by Principle Voices and Brooke Adams and are being used as stooges to further the decriminalization movement spearheaded by Principle Voices. And I’ll bet it irked Brooke to have to take a backseat in the authorship of the book.

In case you are not aware of my background I was once associated with AUB and had three wives. My family was very much like the Darger family – we blended in with mainstream society and had many non polygamist and non Mormon friends. What I did was wrong. I allowed my emotions to do my thinking rather than my brain. But I cannot disavow the wonderful children that resulted. Nevertheless, I was living a myth and so is the Darger family, which is why I have compassion for them, especially the lovely women who are Joe’s plural wives – particularly Valerie. Valarie’s former AUB husband is one of the most despicable men I have ever met. Despicable is the best word I can use to describe this man without using profanity.

She shared in her autobiography what it was like to be married to Donald, a pseudonym. She did not want to use his birth name for obvious reasons, he is a ruthless coward but because she is the mother of some of his children, he is in a position to make trouble for her, just as he has done to his other estranged plural wives. So I will briefly alert you to what a loathsome piece of work he is for her.

When you go public with your lifestyle, especially if it’s controversial, you open yourself up to scrutiny. Each member of the Darger family had to know that. So what I’m about to say about Valarie’s AUB husband is not a reflection upon her – but corroboration of what she and her sister wives had to endure. And I’m sorry Valarie, but Dennis Matthews reflects more of what Mormon Polygamy is really like than Joe. Warren Jeffs is not the anomaly, you guys are.

When Valarie said she married a man in AUB with five wives who had a big house in Mapleton, I begin to get suspicious. Then when she said he was in the fireworks business and had moved her to Pleasant Valley, there was no mistake. That description only fit one man, Dennis Matthews.

Dennis was a key figure in the theft of 1.54 million dollars from Virginia Hill. He was part of the inner circle of Owen Allred, the prophet and leader of AUB. He and Owen let the money slip through their fingers, out foxed by John Putvin, the brains behind the theft and laundering scheme.

I was one of two investigators for Virginia Hill that ferreted out the evidence that was used by Virginia’s attorney to successfully sue the defendants and obtain a 6.6 million dollar judgment. In the investigation I interviewed Dennis several times, serving him with papers – a story in itself. You can read about it on my blog or in my book, Polygamy Under Attack.

Dennis is a man without scruples, loyal only to himself, and plays all the angles. According to his buddy, Tom Green, Dennis joined AUB because that is where the largest pool of potential plural wives was located. He worked his way into the good graces of Owen Allred. At the same time he was cultivating a relationship with John Shugart, one of Owen’s arch enemies.

Shugart thought he and Dennis were soul mates in the preexistence. When Virginia came along Shugart won her confidence and talked her into purchasing the DI Ranch (the Desert Inn Ranch was the once recreational ranch of the Las Vegas mob). Shugart asked Dennis to broker the purchase. Dennis brought John Putvin into the transaction. Putvin was a defrocked realtor who had lost in license due to dishonest transactions and was also part of Owen’s inner circle.

Dennis used his friendship with Shugart to obtain the money then took it to Owen Allred where the conspiracy to convert it to AUB’s use was hatched. Dennis continued to play Shugart and Virginia while acting covertly as an agent for Owen Allred and AUB. While pretending to be a friend he used Virginia’s money to purchase a new car, paid off an IRS debt and did some remodeling on his Mapleton house. As it turned out the deception on the part of all the defendants, even against each other, was a comedy to behold. For men who were practicing higher laws they all behaved like common criminals.

It was after John Putvin scammed the stolen money from Dennis and Owen that Dennis’ fate made a turn for the worst. That’s when he moved his family out to Pleasant Valley. I visited Pleasant Valley running down some leads and after looking at the place, a desolate sagebrush hill, I decided that whoever named the place Pleasant Valley must have been on LSD.

It had to be one of the most unpleasant communities in Snake Valley which is another sordid story involving Dennis’ buddy, Jeff Norman who had laundered much of Virginia money. But in the interest of brevity, the plight of Cathleen Covington, one of Dennis’ other plural wives characterizes how Dennis treated his plural wives.

Cathleen and four or five children spent a harsh winter in a ramshackle house trailer with broken windows, the only heat a sagebrush fire and no running water. She was dependent upon the good nature and deeds of the other Pleasant Valley “pioneers.” For two weeks Cathleen and her children lived on bread and water while Dennis, tormented over losing Virginia’s money, squandered what little money he could earn as a laborer at the Wendover gaming tables, hoping to hit it big. Cathleen, unable to continue to watch her children go hungry (at night they would all huddle together to keep warn) drove to Ely where she went to the state welfare offices and poured out her heart.

She returned to Pleasant Valley with a car full of groceries and other necessities. When the other members of the community found out they were angry with Cathleen for fear it would alert the authorities of their location. When nothing happened, the others drove to Ely and applied for welfare.

All of Dennis’ wives left him except one. Dennis befriended another AUB member, Richard Kuntz, who was an invalid confined to bed. He talked Richard into purchasing some property with two houses near the town of Mayfield in central Utah. According to some of Richard Kuntz’s angry siblings, Richard purchased the property in the name of Dennis’ wife and Richard’s plural wife, Lilly. According to reliable informants Dennis no longer works but portrays himself as guru-type apostle presiding over and living off a small gathering of AUB acolytes. It has been rumored that Dennis has now joined Jim Harmston’s TLC polygamist group. But I think it would be more accurate to say Dennis is working Harmston the way he worked Shugart – one foot in the TLC and the other in AUB – while doing his own thing.

Enough about Dennis and back to Love Times Three: Inside the dust jacket is states “…the first-ever memoir of a polygamous family….” That’s not quite true. Roy Potter self-published a book entitled, I Married Three Wives. Anne Wilde who is very close to the Darger family, was undoubtedly aware of Potter’s book for it was her husband, Ogden Kraut who did the printing.

In the first segment of the book under “A Note to Readers,” it states, “: we are Independents – the largest category of Fundamentalist Mormons, …” This in my opinion is a gross exaggeration. I was acquainted or aware of many Independents and I don’t think their numbers exceed 1000 families which is far fewer than the FLDS and AUB memberships. I remember Ogden telling me he estimated that there were 100 thousand Independents. He based the figure on the assumption that thousands of LDS Church members were secretly living plural marriage. Although I had a lot of respect for Ogden, I think it was wishful thinking on his part.

Also in “A Note to Readers,” in the last paragraph it states: “:polygamy is the most widespread family structure in the world, permissible in more cultures historically than any other.” That was true once but not now except in darkest Africa and Islam – not the best of credentials. Back in the seventies I met a policeman from Pakistan who told me they found monogamy to be preferable over polygamy. Wherever polygamy was practiced in antiquity, including the Bible, it was a cultural thing. Polygamy has never been a religious tenet or a condition to exaltation until Joseph Smith came along. The Dargers assert that to them polygamy is a sacred religious belief but stop there. Then they portray themselves as generic polygamists strategically skirting over the nuts and bolts of Section 132, an inherently coercive doctrine.

The doubts and jealousy a plural wife feels especially when a new wife enters the family was accurately denoted. The Dargers had too, for common sense tells you that if plural wives didn’t experience those negative feelings they wouldn’t be normal. It is implied that they have overcome their foibles but I don’t think that any self-respecting, plural wife ever overcomes doubt and jealousy, they just learn to shelf it. When a plural wife claims that she vanquished jealousy in a matter of a few days as Anne Wilde once claimed, don’t believe it. It is unnatural for a monogamous wife to want to share her husband and their assets with other women without some inducement – and that inducement is Mormonism, to wit: Section 132 – and they wisely don’t want to go there because of it’s obviously coerciveness.

I noticed on page 267 some cognitive acrobatics. It states:

“It is not essential to get into heaven, as many critics of the lifestyle falsely assert. Mormon theology holds that there are three different degrees of glory (or levels of heaven) that a person can attain in the afterlife, with the highest being the celestial degree. Fundamentalists Mormons believe that to reach that level, it is necessary to live celestial marriage.”

It’s a tactic Muslims use in converting Americans, they don’t tell the whole story. Celestial marriage means plural marriage and the celestial heaven is a highly discriminatory place, reserved for Mormon polygamists who will become a god of many worlds, a world for each wife. The Dargers try to draw a distinction between them and Warren Jeffs, but within the context of their religion, Warren Jeffs has not sinned and will have the greater glory with 60 wives and who knows how many children. The people delegated to the lesser kingdoms or degrees are inferiors, dregs, unworthy humans because they did not accept Mormonism. And the honorable men on Earth, men like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson will be the servants of celestial polygamist like Warren Jeffs and Dennis Matthews. Don’t be mislead. Just because Warren and Dennis are perverts and thieves doesn’t mean they won’t go to the Mormon celestial heaven.

On page 119 Joe Darger describes a seminal moment when he first laid eyes on Valarie, a single mom.

As I looked at her, I heard a voice from deep within me say, She is to be your wife! Simultaneously, I felt as if I’d received an electric shock. I turned away quickly so no one would see the stunned look on my face and ask what was wrong with me.

My religion teaches us to listen to the “still small voice” of the Holy Ghost.

I’m sorry to break it to you Joe, but that “still small voice” was not the Holy Ghost, it was your Y-chromosome, the same small voice that gave Joseph Smith his plural marriage revelation.

Now we know that Joe had his eye on Valarie, but when his wives came to him, having been allegedly inspired that Valarie should join the family, Joe feigned surprise and disinterest. This little deception was wise, for it is best that the wives think a new wife in the family is their idea. While jumping for joy on the inside, the outside pretends reluctance. Joseph, like Mohammad is the iconic example.

When Joseph approached Ben Johnson, his eye on Ben’s sister, he spun a yarn that has been allegedly repeated by Rulon Allred and James D. Harmston. Joseph said the Lord had introduced the doctrine of the “true and everlasting covenant of marriage” and had directed him to take plural wives, one of which was Ben’s sister. Joseph claimed he was reluctant to take a plural wife because it was counter to Christian tradition. But the Lord sent an angel with a drawn sword who threatened to lop off his head if he didn’t start living polygamy.

It wouldn’t be fair to leave Mohammad out of this erotic discussion. It seems that Mohammad happened to walk into the bedroom of Zaynab bint Jahah, his daughter-in-law and saw her either nude or partially nude. Being a passionate man he was naturally excited. But also a gentleman, he withdrew and feigned that he had not been excited. Now Zaynab was exceedingly beautiful and when his wife Aisha suggested he might take Zaynab as a plural wife he pretended disinterest. And even when Zaynab’s husband, offered her to Mohammad , The True Messenger, he again feigned disinterest. It wasn’t until Allah ordered him to take Zaynab that he willing obeyed. Islamic apologists claim Mohammad did not marry Zaynab out of lust, but in obedience to Allah.

This little anecdote reminds of the time when Joseph Smith went to Heber C. Kimbel and said, “God wants me to give your wife to me.” Without hesitation Heber said okay and was about to go get Vilate when Joseph said, “Wait, it was only a test.” But a few days later Heber and Vilate gave their sixteen-year-old daughter, Helen, to Joseph as a plural wife.

It seems that Allah, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are also cupidic gods.

The book touches on important family imperatives, portraying the Dargers as mainstream in every respect except for multiple wives. That they believe plural marriage is what Jesus Christ wants them to live I will give them the benefit of the doubt, but that they provide all the nurturing and attention to all their children’s needs, I do doubt. You will notice that almost throughout the book, except for one chapter about the children, all the dialogue is devoted to the fears and needs of wives and their loving relationship with Joe. I believe that Joe tries to do his best regarding the children, but I know from experience that keeping the peace and perpetually reinforcing the wives’ needs, for you are constantly tested, the children are deprived of time and attention. That is one of the biggest regrets I have in my polygamous misadventure, that I did not adequately inculcate on the minds of my children the importance and power of an education. In far more many cases than not it is the mother who morally educates the child while the father is about priesthood duties, making a living or sniffing around for more plural wives.

My primary criticism of Love Times Three is not necessarily what has been said, but what was led up too and then not said - like a superior, exalted heaven reserved for potential Mormon polygamists like Warren Jeffs and Dennis Matthews. Joe and Principle Voices attempt to distance themselves from the likes of Warren Jeffs but they can’t. Warren is driven by the same doctrine as Principle Voices and Warren and his pedophile acolytes are a valid part of the Mormon fundamentalist subculture. Besides, neither Warren nor David Brain Mitchell has sinned against their religion. They had merely disobeyed a lesser law, rape, to keep a greater law – the everlasting covenant of marriage. For it is Mormon fundamentalist doctrine that Adam disobeyed a lesser law (eating the forbidden fruit) to keep a greater law (multiply and replenish).

The Dargers were offended that when they came under government scrutiny after their little daughter, Kyra, died. They had done nothing wrong, nor had they been negligent. They felt discriminated against because they were polygamists. In that regard they were right. But they shouldn’t blame Children’s Services, they should blame the many irresponsible, dysfunctional polygamists in their subculture who have neglected and abused their children. Children’s Services would have been derelict had they not conducted an investigation and made sure all was in order.

Joe Darger implied that the birth of each child had been planned in advance. I will take him at his word. However, I have noticed among polygamists that biological drives are stronger than religious pretensions. What is generally the case is that recreational sex is so prevalent that pregnancies just happen. In some families plural wives use sex to compete with other wives and win the attention of the husband. Using Tom Green as an example, the copulating and child bearing far exceeded the ability of Tom to adequately provide for his many children without government assistance and fraud. It was essentially Tom’s inability to keep his fly zipped up that lead to his being charged with Criminal Non Support.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this book review, I suspect that the Darger family are stooges for Principle Voices. They may think they are fast friends of Brooke Adams and the gals behind Principle Voices but I suspect that down the road they will find they are expendable – just as abused wives and children are expendable. I know that Principle Voices are just as aware as I am of the abuse that goes on in the Fundamentalist subculture. These poor people are expendable in lieu of the perpetuation of Mormon plural marriage, a far greater cause. Every mass movement and great cause has its casualties.

From what I have noticed on their TV appearances the Dargers, like the Browns, have been caught up in the pomp of the limelight. The media will flatter and cater to them as long as they are useful, but in reality all they are, are specimens for sensationalism and ratings. They have given up their privacy and will forever be living in a glass house. I hope they are enjoying the cloud they are floating on now because one day that cloud will dissolve and the rest of the trip is going to be mighty bumpy.

According to emails Joe Darger is attending the Safety Net Meetings where he is treated as a celebrity and an authority. Joe apparently thinks the Safety Net should be more involved in the decriminalization of polygamy. If the Safety Net takes that position I suspect it will be in violation of their grant.

According to informants the Safety Net people are still trying to entice leaders of the organized groups to get involved. When I last attended a couple of years ago they were trying then to make inroads into the FLDS and TLC. They couldn’t understand even back then, when they, the Safety Net, was so non judgmental and supportive of the lifestyle, why Jeffs, Harmston and Jenson did come running into their open arms.

It is a question of power and authority. The leaders of the organized groups may allow sycophants to attend Safety Net meeting to see what is going on as it seem Paul Kingston is doing, but the other leaders are not going to make any move that might be seen as usurping their power and authority – especially a government funded organization.

One last word. Mormon polygamists are habitually portraying themselves as victims who are constantly in fear of arrest and persecution. Nothing can be further from the truth. As long as Mark Shurtleff is the Attorney General, Utah will be the safest place in the world for Mormon polygamists. And I would bet a dollar against a dime that before the Dargers agreed to go public, Principle Voices got the okay from the AG’s Office – meaning they had nothing to fear.

In conclusion, it is my impression that Principle Voices would like the world to view the Darger family as the epitome, or the actual model of the true nature of Mormon polygamy, suggesting that the Dargers represent the majority of Mormon polygamists. To promote this myth, Principles Voices has used their influence for the Dargers to give “numerous presentations to college classes and at conferences for social workers, child abuse experts, attorneys and law enforcement officers. “ (Page 264) But if we can judge these presentations by the tone of Love Times Three the presentation is all frosting, with no mention of the rest of the cake where the true nature of Mormon polygamy is found.

The Dargers, manipulated by Principle Voices have every right to try and change the social perceptions of Mormon polygamy. But in doing so they knew very well that it is an unpopular and a non Christian lifestyle. Mainstream Christianity frowns on polygamy for many valid reasons. Historically, polygamy has seldom been an equitable lifestyle. Coercion is ubiquitously used to force female submission. Take a look at Islam for example. Mohammad married Aisha at age five and consummated the marriage when she was nine-years old. Asma bint Marwan, a poetess who mocked Mohammad was assassinated on Mohammad’s orders. He also assassinated Abu ‘Afak, another anti Islamic poet. Yet, there are books authored by people associated with CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood that describe Mohammad as “meek, mild, and full of love and compassion.” Osama be Laden in his several videos portrayed himself the same way. Yet, Mohammad was a warrior-prophet who committed total genocide on more than one Jewish community – just because they were Jews.

On page 269 it states Alina testified in January 2011, before the Canadian Supreme Court of British Colombia concerning the constitutionality of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She testified that she had complete freedom of choice and was not abused. But Chief Justice Robert Bauman presiding over the case ruled that the Canadian statute was constitutional because the polygamist lifestyle resulted in more abuse than freedom. The ruling was correct. Following is an excerpt taken from the Internet authored by Byran Cu and Erica Bulman:

“B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman found the prohibition of polygamy prevents harm to women, children and society, and is consistent with Canada’s international human rights obligations.”

He acknowledged that the law infringes on freedom of religion and may encourage polygamists to seek isolation, but he said it was justified as even fundamentalist Mormons can choose monogamy without sacrificing their religious beliefs, and Muslims are not mandated to have multiple wives.

He said the law is meant to advance monogamous marriage as a fundamental value of Western society.

"Polygamy has no place in modern society and the prohibition is consistent with Canadian values, the charter and the Canadian Bill of Rights," said Canada's justice minister Rob Nicholson, who approved of the ruling. "In our view, polygamy is harmful to society, to those involved with it, particularly to women and two children born within polygamous families."

You can tell from the above excerpt that the pro-polygamists have succeeded to a degree in inculcating the idea that the bigamy statute drives fundamentalists into isolation. But the main reason they isolate and insulate is so they can control information. The contrast is easily drawn by comparing the FLDS with AUB and the Independents. The more isolated, the more tyrannical, the less isolation the more liberal. Nevertheless all the organized groups practice isolation and insulation just as much as the can – for example the Independent polygamists tend to only associate with their own kind so they can reinforce their beliefs.

In my studies of Section 132 and the discourses by Brigham Young and his priesthood cronies concerning plural marriage, it is clear that by its very nature Mormon polygamy can easily lead to discrimination against women, corruption, abuse and violence – as it has both in the past and present. There are many examples to support that contention: Ervil LeBaron, Ron and Dan Lafferty, James D. Harmston, Warren Jeffs, David and John Kingston, Tom Green and Dennis Matthews.

Just as Joseph Smith’s plural marriage revelation has led to discrimination and violence, so has Mohammad’s Koran. Society has not forced Joe Darger or his wives to live polygamy. But their religion states that if they do not live polygamy they will be damned or destroyed. (Section 132, Verses 6, 54, 64 and 65) So Joe, Alina, Vicki, and Valerie, if someone disagrees with your lifestyle, that doesn’t make you victims. You knew what you were getting into.

On page 272 Joe makes a plea for decriminalization. The contention is, if polygamy was no longer a crime they could talk about their lifestyle without fear. Does that mean they could proselytize? But it seems like they are doing just fine, talking, writing, giving presentations, appearing on television – in fact they are the toast of the town. I’m not offended by Darger’s lifestyle, in fact I wish them well, but don’t try to make me think it is a benign, absolutely consensual, a free and honest lifestyle when the evidence says it’s not.

Joe tosses around prestigious sounding organizations like Utah Children’s Polygamy Study Group, The Remarkable Mother’s Event, Polygamy Action Group and the Principle Rights Coalition which appears to be auxiliaries of Principle Voices, and only involves a handful of people. If you Google “Principle Rights Coalition” it takes you to the Principle Voices website. There you can read a statement denouncing FLDS practice of child marriages. In reading the statement you get the impression that Principle Voices is as shocked as the rest of us and that it was news to them. But the statement is deceptive. Principle Voices has been aware of child brides in Mormon fundamentalism for years. I know because I have talked with Anne and Ogden about it. Tom Green was the quintessential polygamist pedophile who was introduced to me in Anne’s house.

The State of Utah has apparently welcomed Principle Voices and allowed them to make presentations to public employees, advocating for “special rights” for polygamists and promoting decriminalization. Utah is therefore essentially endorsing Principle Voices as an official, government approved pundits and authorities on the subject of Mormon polygamy without inviting opposing views and presentations. Why?

There is much more I could say in opposition to what is claimed and proposed in Love Times Three. For one who has been on both sides of the issue, meaning me, Love Times Three is accurate in many respects but it stops short in telling the whole story. Because neither the Dargers or their book epitomize the subculture as a whole, deliberately holding back evidence of polygamist corruption which could contaminate their cause, silence can be a sign of dishonesty. I therefore have no choice but to label Love Times Three propaganda.

OVERVIEW: Joe Darger seems to think Mormon polygamists should be given full reign and allowed to live by their own rules (that’s what I meant by special rights). Well to be fair, Muslims should be given the same “special rights.” Let Muslims import plural wives from Islamic states and impose Shaira Law. It would be the political correct thing to do, after all it’s their sacred religious belief.

Is The World Driven By Hate?

John Llewellyn — 2012-01-09T02:41:09Z

IS THE WORLD DRIVEN BY HATE?

A paradox: The history of civilization is a history of wars. You would think that a civilized people would find means other than war like mediation to resolve differences. The Romans and Greeks are the foundations of what our democracy was patterned after. However, the Greek Hellenistic Era was the result of warriors like Phillip of Macedonia and his son Alexander. The Roman Empire was won and preserved by warfare. No matter what part of the world one studies - Africa, Europe, Asia, South America, Mexico or North America you will find many wars. And the best warriors are the warriors that hate. It therefore behooves a leader to instill hate in his warriors.

The word hate can be used as a noun or verb. But due to the human condition it is used mostly as a verb which denotes action. Hate is synonymous with the verbs disdain, despise, loathe, detest, abhor and execrate. So where in the human condition does hate emanate?

Hate is often associated with violence. Psychologists in looking for the causes of violence in humans have focused on genes coded with Monoamine oxidase A or MAOA enzymes and the neurotransmitter Serotonin. But this type of violence applies to individuals who suddenly act out like wife beaters. But the hate driven violence I’m concerned with is the violence of a people against another people like the American Civil War between the North and South.

It is not enough to say the American Civil War was fought over slavery or a way of life. In reading the history the actual fighting didn’t start until both sides had worked up their hatred. It started when Senator James Lane raided Missouri (a slave state) inciting the border war between the Missouri Bushwhackers and the Kansas (Free State) Jayhawkers. Hatred reached its apex on the border with Quantrill’s retaliatory raid on Lawrence, Kansas, May 21, 1856.

According to geneticist, Bryan Sykes, author of Adam’s Curse, male aggression can be traced to the Y-chromosome. If he is correct, and I think he is, we humans have a predisposition towards aggression and competition. Although the Y-chromosome does not initiate hate, it is the mind that rationalizes aggression in the form of hate. Rationalized hate becomes justification like our invasion of Iraq. Sometimes the differences between hate and fear are hard to distinguish. Hate can trigger aggression. In other words, did we really fear Saddam Hussain or was it hate disguised as fear?

The Bible seems to understand that hate is part of the nature of man: “A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.” Ecclesiastes 3.8

Some Christians believe the Bible is the express word of God, just like some Muslims believe the Koran is the express word of Allah. For the sake of argument lets say that both the Christians and Muslims are correct which presents somewhat of a conundrum because Allah and the Biblical God are suppose to be one and the same. But never mind about that for now. Let’s take the position of both the Christians and Muslims: If God says there is “a time to hate,” then it must be okay to hate.

So why would God say there is “a time to hate?”

Now, as willing as I am to trust God, I am afraid I must look to the wisdom of man for the answer, because the answer is not in either the Koran or Bible – even though there is plenty of hate in both scriptures.

When God made man from the dust of the earth he implanted in our DNA a predisposition toward competition and aggression. To intensify aggression he also blessed us with the emotion, hatred.

So how does hatred enhance the human condition? For surely, God, or Allah wants us to be all we can be. Therefore, using a little deduction, it must be that because we are all capable of hate, hatred is an asset.

Hatred intensifies. Hatred, like alcohol breaks down inhibitions. Hatred makes you feel stronger. Hatred is interesting. Hatred means action. Hatred destroys. Hatred unifies. All of which can only mean God hates. Man is an extension of God, man carries out God’s will. It is quite obvious from reading the Koran that He injected into man His attributes, His emotions, His prejudices and His hatred. Or is it the other way around. God is an invention of man and so that God justifies man, man injected into God his attributes, foibles, prejudices, his inadequacies, his fears, his weaknesses his hatred and his ruthlessness. As it pertains to the Koran, everything Allah is, man is; or should I say everything Mohammed is Allah is.

Wafa Sultan, born and raised in Syria, is the author of A God Who Hates. Wafa is one of those rare women raised as a Muslim who didn’t allow Islam’s inculcation of hate dominate her thinking. She is a free thinker, something unheard of in Islam. How dare she, a woman, present herself as an equal with Muslim men. She not only rejects the Islamic mandate that women are inferior to men, but while being interviewed on the Al Jazeera network, when the interviewer kept talking over her, she told him to, “shut up, it was her turn to speak.”

Why did Wafa Sultan choose a title like A God Who Hates? Did she do it because the notion grabs your attention? Was it for the sake of controversy? Controversy attracts attention. It’s none of the foregoing. After reading excerpts from the Koran, the Sunnah and Hadith A God Who Hates is an appropriate title. And by the way, the excerpts represent the context, the message of which is, Allah hates women and all those who reject or will not accept Mohammad and the Koran.

Wafa Sultan is not the only author born a Muslim that connects hate to Islam. Brigitte Gabriel wrote Because They Hate, in 2006. She created the website, Act America. The mission statement of Act America is as follows.

Create a nationwide network of chapters in order to more effectively inform, educate and mobilize Americans regarding the multiple threats of radical Islam, and what they can and must do to protect themselves and their country against this determined enemy.

Although Brigitte targets radical Islam, organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, the connection between the radicals, the Koran, Mohammad and Allah cannot be denied. What the radicals are doing is obeying the Koran and the traditions of Mohammad by imitating him. And they are also obeying the God Who Hates by yelling Allahu Akbar after each conquest.

There is one thing about hate that is hard to deny. When misfortune falls upon the hated, it delights those that hate. Upon learning of 9/11 Palestinians danced in the street of Gaza.

Hate is the driving force behind the Koran and Allah’s True Messenger, Mohammad. I like to think of it as the Islamic Trinity – Allah, Mohammad and the Koran. And who do they hate, that is, hate the most: Jews, Christians and women. The dynamics behind this hate is a psychologist’s gold mine.

There is a little known axiom that says, “The poor envy the rich,” which simplifies the story, only instead of envy, with Islam it’s hatred. Mohammad is a typical narcissist who can’t stand rejection. When the Jews and Christians would not accept his divine status as a prophet he turned against them. Speaking as if her were Allah, he claimed that the Bible once contained scripture predicting his appearance as Allah’s last, True Messenger, but the Jews deleted it from the Bible. His enmity extended to the Christians when they too would not accept him. Consider the following:

Allah did aforetime take a convent from the Children of Israel … But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them … From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. (Quar’an 5:12-16)

Is it a coincidence that Allah shared Mohammad’s inadequacy and fear of women? Inadequacy, especially sexual inadequacy, is a characteristic of pedophilia. The pedophile targets little girls; because of their inexperience they don’t detect the inadequacy the pedophile feels. And of course it is well known that Mohammad married Aisha when she was 5 and consummated the marriage when she was 9. And the posit that it was not unusual for older men to marry little girls during that Islamic era does not free Mohammad from his apparent inadequacy.

When it comes to women Mohammad covers (a form of fighting) the very thing that turns him on. And of course the coverings are the head scarf, burka and hijab. Why did he do it? Because almost every part of a woman’s body turns him on. He therefore uses religion to oppress them into submission – thereby preserving his fragile masculinity. Warfare is also a way of preserving one’s masculinity. So is multiple, submissive wives. When not portraying the warrior prophet, he took upon himself the persona of the meek, compassionate, humble prophet. (Of the 27 battles waged by Mohammad, he only participated in 9.)

In Islam Mohammad is the quintessential example to imitate. Osama bin Laden, a self-appointed warrior imam, fits that profile. You may recall the unwarrior-like videos of Osama looking uncomfortable and inharmonious with a rifle, looking more like a humble imam than a freedom fighter. The poor, the disaffected Muslims, the hopeless, identify with this profile: the humble imam fighting the evil Jews, Christians and Americans.

Hatred is the most powerful of all the unifying agents. What love is unable to do, hate can do. It is not love and compassion that unifies Muslims but hate. As Eric Hoffer so aptly observed, “ Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil.”

A common enemy takes one’s mind off his impotent self. Jealousies and inadequacies are shelved while the individual becomes an anonymous part of a “flaming mass.” However, an enemy must not be an abstraction, but tangible and identifiable. Probably even more hated than Jews, Christians and Americans are heretics. The punishment for an Islamic apostate is death. Mocking Mohammad means death. In the Sixteenth Century when Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Thesis condemning the sale of Catholic indulgences on a church door, the punishment for heresy was death. In the Nineteenth Century the Mormons created the secret doctrine of Blood Atonement chiefly because of apostates. Although the Mormons attempted to spin the shedding of an apostate’s blood into an act of love – claiming that shedding a sinner blood was his only hope of salvation - it was in fact an act of hatred.

Every mass movement (Islam is a mass movement) and every war waged must have something or someone to hate. The degree of a mass movement’s rise can be proportionately measured by the degree of hate. During War II, the Japanese soldier was taught to hate the US Marine, and the Marine soon learned to hate the Jap. It was hatred, not doctrine that made both fierce fighters.

Hitler and his execration of the Jews is an example of mass hatred. He not only united Germans but used hatred of Jews to neutralize his adversaries. The Poles and Hungarians willing turned over to the Gestapo their Jews. The more formidable the enemy (devil) the more intense the hatred; and the ideal devil is a foreigner.

What about unreasonable hatred? From our vantage point, Islam’s hatred of us is unreasonable and unjustified. Muslims say that we deserved 9/11, and some libertarian Americans agree with them. They even defend the massacre at Fort Hood, because America supports Israel and America is responsible for all of Islam’s woes.

The denigration of America goes much farther than mere demagoguery. It is a nasty and deadly business. We must keep in mind that it is the imams, mullahs and Ayatollahs that the Middle Eastern Muslims rely upon for information and that is where the enmity towards America is the strongest. I know for a fact as I asked question while touring Egypt and Jordan that the grass root Muslims do not always get the truth. America is not perfect. We have our weaknesses and fanatics. But there is no country that expresses and vouchsafes freedom and free thought more than America. Therefore, in order to instill hate and unite the Muslims, their leaders must distort truth. And as we see, distorting the truth works if the conditions are right.

According Eric Hoffer hatred has a dual purpose. Of course it is meant to hurt the object of the hate but more importantly, it energizes a movement. It suppresses an “awareness of inadequacy, worthlessness, guilt and other shortcomings of the self.” What essentially happens is self-contempt is “transmuted into hatred of others.” It’s a win,win situation for Islam because it resonates with others in the same boat, wining allies. It doesn’t matter that it may not be the truth or that the disaffected know it’s not the truth. The effect is similar to cognitive dissonance. By believing and acting on the lie it provides the impotent, purpose and releases pent up frustration. This same principle is axiomatic worldwide. We saw it in the anti-Wall Street Protests. We see it when liberals pit the have-nots against the haves – the poor against the rich.

In Austria a housewife was convicted of “denigrating a religious symbol,” a criminal offense. She reportedly referred to Mohammad as a pedophile because he married Aisha when she was 5 and consummated the marriage at age 9. The use of the word “pedophile” was her down fall as far as the Austrian law is concerned. What she said about Mohammad is essentially what I have said in this thesis.

Can you imagine a similar law in the United States? We wouldn’t be able to criticize Mormon fundamentalists or Joseph Smith who took a sixteen-year-old as a plural wife.

When you have a religious institution like Islam that states it is the one and only religion that God respects, that Islam is the only way to salvation, and if you don’t believe and conform you will be destroyed and go to hell, it invites scrutiny. But an Austrian law would cripple our freedom to challenge and scrutinize. This my friends is exactly what Islam would like.

FERMAN AMERICAN BUND ANTHE ISLAMIC PREDOMINATE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT

John Llewellyn — 2012-01-01T19:00:18Z

GERMAN AMERICAN BUND AND THE ISLAMIC PREDOMINANT SCHOOL OF THOUGHT

What is the difference between the German American Bund and the hundreds of madrassas (schools for the study of the Koran) that are popping up all over the United States?

The Bund numbered 50 to 60 thousand Americans in the 1930s about the time Adolf Hitler took power. The incredulous purpose of the Bund was to “preserve Germanic culture in the USA through history, language, and folk art both for members and the general public.”

The Sunni Predominate Schools of Thought are Islamic schools teaching the Quran, the Sunnah (a collection of traditions about the life of Muhammad) and religious jurisprudence – meaning Sharia Law.

The differences are minor compared to what they have in common – imposing their politics on an unsuspecting America. Their ancestry was different, their language different – but their agenda is the same. In the case of the Bund, Hitler was pulling the strings. In the madrassas, Sunni, Islam is pulling the strings. In essence, what they are doing is exporting their totalitarian agendas with the intent to dominate the world.

Nineteenth Century Mormons had the same idea, world domination, but democracy caught up with them before they became strong enough to dominate. The LDS Church has since turned into a family orientated, patriotic, religious institution, but the same cannot be said about Mormon fundamentalism. The fundamentalists, those that believe they are perpetuating the original doctrines of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, especially the practice of polygamy, have shelved the world domination agenda and are currently fighting to decriminalize the practice of polygamy. Consider the following religious and cultural characterization by authors Lewis and Pryce-Jones:

A hierarchical-authoritarian mentality: “The boss is almighty; others can only obey.”
Group identity: “The group always comes before the individual”; if you do not belong to the clan/tribe (group) you will be treated with suspicion or, at best, not be taken seriously.
A patriarchal mentality and culture of shame: The woman has a reproductive function and must obey the male members of her family; failure to do so brings shame on the family.

`The authors of the above did not have Mormon fundamentalist groups in mind but as you can see, it certainly applies. The quotation was taken from The Caged Virgin by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, as it pertains to Islam.

The point of all this is that since the 1930s there has been totalitarian regimes attempting to corrupt and overthrow by stealth our American way of life, from inside as well as outside. In that regard communism and socialism should be added to the list. There are still Nazis within but their tiny numbers do not make them a threat. In the case of Mormon fundamentalists, it is only the prospect of sex with multiple women that keeps fundamentalism alive and well. But don’t be fooled, they hate government. The threat of communism, although they’re still active in America, have largely been replaced by socialism.

Socialism is currently the most serious opponent to capitalism. However, Islam is the more stealthier and in the long run constitutes the greater threat. Both socialisms and Islam in their nascent stages use the same tactics – lies converted into fear and hatred. The most vulnerable Americans are the minorities, disaffected, frustrated, misfits, the ambitious, social intellectuals, sinners, fanatics and the poor.

Why have these anti-American entities been able to make inroads in our society? The answer is easy, they are exploiting our Constitution. What a paradox. Our Constitution permits dissidents to burn our flag and promote doctrines that are antithetical to our way of life – a way of life that made the United States the most free and greatest country ever. Dissention is allowed, based on the theory that good will prevail. Our enemies are the enemies of free speech and responsible scrutiny and they attack us by using “political correctness,” a controversial social standard imposed by liberals. Political correctness has been used to censor free speech, constructive criticism and justifiable doubt. For example, to question or doubt the Koran in many Islamic countries is a capital offense. In the United State and Canada, Islamic organizations like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) use political correctness to intimidate and stifle reasonable Islamic scrutiny. In that regard the term, “Islamophobe” has been invented, meaning "dread or hatred of Islam as well as fear of Muslims." But hasn’t the Koran and radical Muslims given us good reason to fear absolute Islam? How often has a Muslim yelled, “Allah Akbar,” and an American died?

It is the nature of the human condition that he who sits atop “Bunker Hill” must expect that there will be those that will conspire to unseat him. After World War II, and even after the stalemate in Korea, American was on top. But we have been weakened by economic and political conciliation and Islam is exploiting that weakness. At least that’s my opinion.

Keep in mind that “predominate” means superior in numbers and power and that is what the Koran says about Islam. As we enter this New Year of 2012, how many more free Americans will die at the hands of moderate, peace-loving Muslims? How many more little girls will be circumcised in worship of Allah’s last true Messenger, Mohammad? How many dysfunctional Americans will convert to Islam? How much farther will the conciliatory, Obama Administration go in the hopes of appeasing Islam?

Happy New Year

FERMAN AMERICAN BUND ANTHE ISLAMIC PREDOMINATE SCHOOL OF THOUGHT

John Llewellyn — 2012-01-01T18:59:51Z

GERMAN AMERICAN BUND AND THE ISLAMIC PREDOMINANT SCHOOL OF THOUGHT

What is the difference between the German American Bund and the hundreds of madrassas (schools for the study of the Koran) that are popping up all over the United States?

The Sunni Predominate Schools of Thought are Islamic schools teaching the Quran, the Sunnah (a collection of traditions about the life of Muhammad) and religious jurisprudence – meaning Sharia Law.

A hierarchical-authoritarian mentality: “The boss is almighty; others can only obey.”
Group identity: “The group always comes before the individual”; if you do not belong to the clan/tribe (group) you will be treated with suspicion or, at best, not be taken seriously.
A patriarchal mentality and culture of shame: The woman has a reproductive function and must obey the male members of her family; failure to do so brings shame on the family.

Happy New Year

Why Do Women Convert to Islam?

John Llewellyn — 2011-12-21T23:36:52Z

Why Do Women Convert to Islam?

An even more compelling question would be, why do American women convert to Islam? There is no easy answer – but I think there is an answer. And the answer is not spiritual but psychological and cultural. It’s not that the Muslim god, Allah, is more believable or benevolent, or powerful than the Christian god, Jehovah. It goes far deeper than that. I am convinced that the same circumstances which induce Americans boys and girls to convert to the Unification Church (Moonies), or Mormon fundamentalism, or other religious cults can be found in the mental states or circumstances which induce American, Canadian and British women to convert to Islam.

You can Google, “Why Do Women Convert to Islam” and find numerous sites including UTube testimonials of beautiful young ladies dressed in Muslim garb wearing attractive colored, silk headscarves. Just looking at those gorgeous gals may cause an objective thinker to assume, there must be something to this Islam business for such pretty girls to convert.

But in listening to their testimonials they are not convincing. I have heard the same “sound bites” said by women converting to Mormon fundamentalism. Sound bites like: “I had a spiritual awakening,” which was the comment of Lauren Booth, the sister-in-law of Tony Blair. She thought Muslim women were happy and it was when she went inside a mosque that she had her spiritual awakening.

Others have said, “Christian beliefs just didn’t do anything for me.” Many other female converts said they use to drink and go clubbing, indicating they were ready for a life change. They claimed Islam made them feel “fulfilled.” They liked the idea of an Islamic afterlife and didn’t want to go to hell. They thought Islam was much more about faith and that Islam fulfilled something that was missing in their lives. One convert said Islam brought her a feeling of peace.

To justify the conversions imams tell us thousands convert each year in the United Kingdom. They claim 20,000 Americans, including many women, convert to Islam each year. They profess that there are 6 million Muslims in America.

The mullahs and imams tell us that 9-11 created an interest in Islam and as a result, Americans researching Islam wound up converting. The same phenomenon can be said about the publicity over Mormon fundamentalism. But it is my contention that, yes, something was missing in those people’s lives, and that something made them ripe for conversion to a mass movement.

In attempting to understand what is in the mind of female converts, consider the following remarks of Ayaan Hirsi Ali on page 85 in her awesome book, Infidel. So that you understand the excerpt, Ayaan was describing her feeling while attempting to conform to the role of a Muslim woman.

I asked my mother for money so Sister Aziza’s tailor could make me a huge black cloak, with just three tight bands around my wrists and neck and a long zipper. It fell to my toes. I began wearing this robe to school, on top of the school uniform that hung on my scrawny frame, with a black scarf over my hair and shoulders.

I had a thrill to it, a sensuous feeling. It made me feel powerful: underneath this screen lay a previously unsuspected, but potentially lethal, femininity. I was unique: very few people walked about like that in those days in Nairobi. Weirdly, it made me feel like an individual. It sent out a message of superiority: I was the one true Muslim. All those other girls with their little white headscarves were children, hypocrites. I was a star of “God. When I spread out my hands I felt like I could fly.

I was one of the first to robe in school. Some of the Yemeni girls, like Halwa, wore long buttoned coats, but these were tailored to fit the body; you could see female shape inside. The hidjab I draped over my scrawny frame was overwhelmingly enveloping: there was simply nothing left see except a small face and two hands.

My wife and I have toured Israel, Jordan and Egypt three times, fascinated by the archeology. In the Muslim neighborhoods you seldom saw women on the streets and when you did they were mostly wearing the hijab or headscarf. It may be interesting to note that the hijab is not a mandate of the Koran, but of the hadith, the statements and actions of Mohammad – which are just as binding.

Cairo back in the nineties was mostly secular but in the suburbs and smaller cities along the Nile to the South it was common to see the men in their native dress, the kurta, or an ankle-length pajama like gown that slips over the head.

I was particularly intrigued by a young couple in the lobby of Ben Gurion Airport. He looked to be in his late twenties so I assume she was also but all I could see was a slit in the burka where her eyes should be. The burka, a heavy brown fabric, covered her entire body from the top of her head to the ground. It was hot outside and I thought the poor woman must be sweating terribly in that outlandish costume.

She was following her husband about four paces behind in conformance to Islamic tradition. Her demeanor was stately, of course stoic, and she seemed to float rather than walk. I discerned that they were upper class, ultra conservative Muslims. And I couldn’t help wonder what that poor girl looked like hidden under that super austere cloak. Is it the habit of Muslims, I wondered, that the more beautiful the wife the more she is covered? But strangely, I have to admit, there was a primitive beauty about it all.

He was dressed in expensive blue jeans and an expensive long sleeved shirt. His hair was well groomed, his face clean shaven. He looked like he could be a student at UCLA. I thought, “What a hypocrite,” he was comfortable in his western attire while she followed him in her mobile sauna to preserve his honor.

In reflection, the superior sensation described by Ayaan while in her cloak is very similar to the feeling of power a voyeur experiences while peeping through a window at a woman undressing.

So if my contention that non religious factors are more telling in why women convert to Islam, what are they? In that regard I turn to my friend Eric Hoffer and his peerless book, The True Believer.

The True Believer is a tome that doesn’t necessarily target religion but without saying it, shows us that we humans in looking for relief, tend to transform frustration into symbolic faith. The implication is that a truly autonomous, well educated person has no need of Islam, Mormonism, Communism, Socialism, cults, spiritual metaphysics, some eccentric mass movement or great cause to give his life meaning. Turning that thought around, it is the autonomous man who goes to church that gives the church meaning, not the other way around. A person converts to a movement like Mormon fundamentalism or Islam because something is lacking in his present state.

According to Hoffer, frustration with the present is usually the impetus behind a new faith, a faith which tends to insulate the true believer from fact. Conversion in many cases is an escape from an intolerable present or an act of defiance “against an established order.” The individual feels “spoiled.”

I think the UTube ladies who were unhappy “clubbing” were looking for an austere structure as penitence for a hedonistic lifestyle. In essence, I suspect guilt has driven then to an opposite extreme. If they were looking for a structured, severe lifestyle they sure as hell found it. But I’ll bet the imams that tutored them did it on a level much more liberal than the Islam practiced in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria or by the Brotherhood. The following excerpt is from Wafa Sultan’s A God Who Hates, page 137:

Muslim education has stunted women to the point of depriving them of their mind and their conscience. This education has had a profound effect on the minds of Muslim men and women alike. It is no longer just men who are responsible for the situation women are in; women themselves have begun to defend the situation. Women have seen themselves relegated to the status of men’s animals. They accepted this status and can now no longer escape it.

… (The Koran and imams have) persuaded them (women) that this distorted image was sacred. Islam views women as defective beings, and because of the education they have received, women have become convinced of their defectiveness and have indeed sanctified that defectiveness as divine decree. The problem is no longer simply one of Islamic education. It is being perpetuated by women who defend this education.

Page 138: … Muhammad in a hadith told his followers: “Oh ye women, you are the majority of those who dwell in hell, for when you receive you express no thanks, when afflicted you show no patience, and when I keep aloof from you, you complain.

Did those American women converting to Islam really know what they were getting into? Were they ready and willing to submit (Islam means submission) to that described above? Do they realize that if they or a dog passes by a Muslim man while he is praying, the prayer is nullified? (Page83) Do they know that if a Muslim woman is raped the sin is on her, and if she bears a child Islamic law prohibits any Muslim to adopt the child? During the war in Bosnia 30,000 illegitimate children were born and not a single Muslim nation offered to adopt a single child. (Page 137) Does she know that in the hadith, “A man has the right to expect his wife, if his nose runs with blood, mucus or pus, to lick it up with her tongue?” (Page 139) Do these pretty American ladies pray five times a day as required, in Arabic? If so consider the following from Page 168:

A Muslim prays five times a day, and on each occasion he recites the Fatiha, the first verse of the Koran, a number of times. This verse describes Christians as “those who have gone astray” and Jews as “those who have incurred Your wrath.” We see from this that Muslims execrate Christians and Jews a number of times in the course of a single prayer, which they repeat five times a day. Non-Arab Muslims are unaware that they are cursing the Christians and the Jews, because they pray in Arabic without understanding what they are saying.

According to Islamic law the prayers must be recited in Arabic. The word, execrate, means to denounce as evil or detestable. That means that when these gullible women convert, they submit to Islamic law and automatically become the enemies of Jews and Christians. And I don’t know if they realize it but by submitting to Islamic law, Islamic law is placed over and above, or usurps all other laws which includes the United States Constitution, the very Constitution that protects their right to convert to Islam. This my friends is “stealth jihad.”

I’m trying to understand what it is about the psychic of we Americans that a few of us will reject our Constitution and capitalist way of life for an inferior lifestyle or form of government – whether it is Islam, socialism, communism or Mormon fundamentalism. We read about the cartel drug wars in Mexico where thousands have been slain, competing for the illegal American drug market. Our youth are the world’s largest consumers of mind altering drugs. Drug addiction, like an excessive use of alcohol, is a sign of something lacking in a stable, autonomous psychic. And it is my contention that it is something very similar to those addicted to drugs, something lacking in the psychic, that makes a person vulnerable to Islam or Mormon fundamentalism.

For example, I think women will at times do something outrageous out of defiance or for the shock value. I am aware of a pretty young lady running from an unhappy polygamous marriage that immediately started dating African Americans knowing that the fundamentalists would then consider her tainted and unworthy. She would never have to worry about licentious polygs thereafter.

It is said that most of the Islamic world was converted by the sword. That is true. A conquered people and minorities were given the choice of converting, becoming slaves, or die. Still others were permitted to pay the jizya, a tribute. Still others, as in the case of the Jews, were annihilated – euthanized. In Egypt, as I write these words, Muslims are killing, raping and driving Christians out of Egypt. But in Britain, Canada, America, Holland and other European nations the conversion is by stealth. The sword is held behind the back with one hand while an olive leaf is extended with the other. In Islam, lying to infidels is permitted, even preferred.

I have read Skinner, Jung, Freud and Fromm’s Escape from Freedom, but when it comes to the human condition I keep returning to Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer, the subtitle being, “Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements.” If you don’t know who Eric Hoffer is look him up on the Internet, it will be worth your while. The True Believer like Hoffer’s other books is short, to the point, on target and in a language that is easy to understand. If you are interested in human behavior, The True Believer is unprecedented.

Before I purchase a book I look at the Table of Contents. With some authors the Table of Contents doesn’t seem to harmonize with the title or it reflects the author’s skill in abstractions. Not so with Hoffer, there is no mistaking what he is talking about. As I go through the Table of Contents, quoting from chapters, I am confident you will begin to see why people convert to Islam, Mormon fundamentalism, socialism, or other causes which Hoffer refers to as “mass movements.”

Author’s Preface

“All mass movements generate in their adherents a readiness to die and a proclivity for united action; all of them, irrespective of the doctrine they preach and the program they project, breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance; all of them are capable of releasing a powerful flow of activity in certain departments of life; and all of them demand blind faith and singlehearted allegiance.”

“… The true believer is everywhere on the march, and both by converting and antagonizing he is shaping the world in his own image. And whether we are to line up with him or against him, it is well that we should know all we can concerning his nature and potentialities.”

Part One – The Appeal of Mass Movements

The Desire for Change
The Desire for Substitutes

“It is a truism that many who join a rising revolutionary movement are attracted by the prospect of sudden and spectacular change in their conditions of life. A revolutionary movement is a conspicuous instrument of change.”

“Discontent by itself does not invariably create a desire for change. Other factors have to be present before discontent turns into disaffection. One of these is a sense of power.”

“The men who rush into undertakings of vast change usually feel they are in possession of some irresistible power.”

“The Nazis … had faith in an infallible leader and also faith in a new technique.”

“Thus the differences between the conservative and the radical seem to spring mainly from their attitude toward the future. Fear of the future causes us to lean against and cling to the present, while faith in the future renders us receptive to change.”

(A mass movement appeals) “to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation”

“Their innermost craving is for a new life – a rebirth – or, failing this, a chance to acquire new elements of pride, confidence, hope, a sense of purpose and worth by identification with a holy cause. An active mass movement offers them opportunities for both. If they join the movement as full converts they are reborn to a new life in its close-knit collective body, or if attracted as sympathizers they find elements of pride, confidence and purpose by identifying themselves with the efforts, achievements and prospect of the movement.”

Still, the fact remains that a practical concern cannot endure unless it can appeal to and satisfy self-interest, while the vigor and growth of a rising mass movement depend on its capacity to evoke and satisfy the passion for self-renunciation. When a mass movement begins to attract people who are interested in their individual careers, it is a sign that it has passed its vigorous stage; that it is no longer engaged in molding a new world but in possessing and preserving the present. It ceases then to be a movement and becomes an enterprise.” (The FLDS, AUB, Kingston Klan are all enterprises.)

“Take away our holy duties and you leave our lives puny and meaningless. There is no doubt that in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem. The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice utmost humility, is boundless.”

“We cannot be sure that we have something worth living for unless we are ready to die for it.”

“Emigration offers some of the things the frustrated hope to find when they join a mass movement, namely, change and a chance for a new beginning.” (Muslims who emigrate do not themselves change but conspire to change America to suit themselves.)

Part Two deals with the potential converts – the “disaffected,” those I said were lacking something in their psychics. He categories them as follows: “the poor – misfits – outcasts – minorities – adolescent youth – the ambitious (whether facing insurmountable obstacles or unlimited opportunities – those in the grip of some vice or obsession – the impotent (in body or mind) – the inordinately selfish – the bored – the sinners,” and then he discusses in detail each category.

I hope I have hooked you to the point you will purchase and read The True Believer as you will never again look at Mormon fundamentalism, Islam, socialism, communism or other radical mass movements in the same way. The book was first printed in 1951 but there are plenty of used copies available on Amazon.com. Furthermore, the philosophy of Hoffer is as pertinent today as it was in 1951.

Part Three discusses make-believe, doctrine and fanaticism and its relativity to the convert. I

found the part dealing with Unifying Agents particularly interesting: “hatred, imitation, persuasion and coercion, leadership, action, suspicion and the effects of unification.” Anyone who is familiar with Mormon fundamentalism will be able to identify with Hoffer’s views, especially the subject of leadership, and the qualifications of an effective leader. His views `will automatically resonate with all those phony prophets who hijack key sections of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith or Section 132 to build a following.

Part Four discusses “men of words, fanatics, men of action, good and bad movements.

I think that Americans who have converted to Islam and Communism have something in common, or I should say a common disaffected characteristic which makes them fodder for conversion. Many African Americans have converted to Islam, creating their own version of Islam like the Nation of Islam. I think the motive behind these movements is racism and power. They view Christianity as a white man’s religion. And then there is the Black Panthers? Of course their objective is power. They are covertly political with an Islamic head scarf.

Right now we are told 47% of Americans don’t pay income tax. Islam would like to convert that 47% and more. Islam and socialism hold hands because they share the same damning rhetoric against capitalism and the American way of life.

It is an old tactic in a war of words to accuse an enemy of doing the very thing that it is doing. For example, the Brotherhood accuses America of wanting to destroy Islam when the truth is the other way around. Islam claims to be a religion of peace and tolerance when the reality is the other way around.

We find many of the same totalitarian motives found in Mormon fundamentalism, found in Islam only compounded by hundreds of thousands. The way to combat radical Islam, besides education, is by eliminating the psychological and economic conditions that make people vulnerable to Islam. If we look at the last two years of the Obama administration – his apologies, socialistic policies, dependence on big government, fiscal irresponsibility and so forth, Obama is creating a positive environment conducive for conversion to radical groups like Islam, socialism and communism.

At the risk of being repetitious for I have made this statement many times, I will once again explain why women convert to Mormon polygamy in support of my contention that actual faith is secondary.

The typical female converting to Mormon polygamy is a single mom who had a bad monogamous relationship. She has a testimony of Joseph Smith but feels uncomfortable in the LDS Church where marriage is stressed. She is introduced to fundamentalism by word of mouth. In most cases she is struggling. At this point in the conversion scheme many of the reasons Hoffer articulates kick in. She is welcomed with open arms, she finds security. It is assumed that any man willing to provide for two or three wives must be a good man. She falls for the oft said axiom: It’s better to have part of a good man than all of a bad man. And then there is the man of words, a charismatic prevaricator who condemns the present and glorifies a future in Islam, Mormon fundamentalism, or whatever.

Unification become a decision making factor. Where she was in the shadows in the LDS Church she is now in the spotlight. Once she is acclimated, religion, and only then does religion become the justification.

If you ever have the opportunity to interview an American woman who has converted to Islam, don’t necessarily talk about the future or the doctrines, but about her past – because that is where you will find why she converted to Islam.

Furthermore there are four sects within Islam - Sunni, Shia, Wahhabi, and Salafism. The Sunni and Shia don’t like each other. The Wahhabi is most prominent in Saudi Arabia which is Sunni. Salafism is the most severe form of Islam, also found in Saudi Arabia. Iran is Shia. Syria is Shia. Egypt is Sunni. And then we have Hamas (Sunni), Hezbollah (Shia), CAIR, and the Brotherhood (funded by Saudi Arabia) and dozens of other subsects. It would be interesting know which chair those American converts to Islam are sitting in.

In conclusion, why do American women convert to Islam when there is so much about Islam that a free society and free women dislike?

Mormon fundamentalists oppress women and brainwash children. But the problems created by Mormon fundamentalists are but a fraction of what the problems America will have if Islam gets a toe hold, which they are not that far from doing. There is so much similarity between Mohammad and Joseph Smith, Islam and Mormon fundamentalism, that opposing Sharia Law, which is the same as opposing Islam, would automatically be opposing Mormon fundamentalism – because their doctrines towards the subjugation of women are the same.