Remember Ted Haggard? Founder and pastor of Colorado Springs “New Life Church” and president of the National Association of Evangelicals. Ted got caught with a male prostitute in an amphetamine-fueled sexual adventure which cost him his leadership position and six-figure salary. After spending a whole three weeks undergoing “restorative therapy” from which Haggard emerged and declared himself “completely heterosexual”, Teddy high-tailed it out of Colorado for sunny Phoenix, Arizona (too close to home). He and his family came to roost at the Phoenix First Assembly Pentecostal church (PFA) in the north central valley. Coincidentally, the Pastor of PFA, Tommy Barnett was among the counselors during Haggard’s three week hiatus in the Phoenix area at a secular treatment center.
After undergoing rehab (of sorts), Haggard supposedly repudiated his homosexual inclinations, but apparently kept his predatory financial tendencies, for he emailed former parishioners back in Colorado Springs, seeking money to support his new found enterprise in the desert. Claiming an inability to sell a $700k home in Colorado — due to a home market bust — and a desire to minister to sinners at a Phoenix half-way house, while enrolling in college full-time, Ted pleaded for “people who can give a one-time gift or make a commitment to help support us for two years.” (Lots of brass this Teddy has). See a transcript of Haggard’s email message, <<here>>.
Leaders at Phoenix First Assembly took no time denying Haggard’s claim that he would minister to and live with his family at the Phoenix Dream Center halfway house, noting the obvious problem of hiring someone who would fit more comfortably on the other side of the counseling table. Administrators at New Life chastised Haggard’s appeal to its members, in the following statement:
“‘Mr. Haggard’s solicitation for personal support was inappropriate,’ the overseers said in their statement. ‘It was never the intention of the Dream Center that Mr. Haggard would provide any counsel or other ministry. Mr. Haggard will not be moving in or working with the Dream Center. He will not be doing any ministry. He will be seeking secular employment to support himself and his family,’ the statement said.”
So was Haggard delusional when he solicited funds, or was he attempting to defraud his former friends and associates as he begged for financial support?
Strange as this may seem, it gets even more bizarre. Though Haggard gave his family’s Scottsdale, AZ address as one destination for donations, another preferred mail drop, was to an organization called: “Families with a Mission“. Funds sent earmarked for the Haggard family would be fully tax-deductible. However, Families with a Mission (FWAM) filed “Articles of Dissolution” voluntarily on February 23, 2007 according to records by the Colorado Secretary of State. Just type in “Families with a Mission” for the particulars in the Colorado government site link, referenced above.
It should be noted that FWAM has apparently re-relocated back to Hawaii, where they are a legal 501(c)(3) corporate entity in good standing since 2000, according to the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (DCCA) in Hawaii. <<See here.>> FWAM had moved their corporate office to Colorado in 2003 from Hawaii, until they moved back again to Pahoa, Hawaii early in 2007 — (a few months after the Haggard scandal rocked New Life).
The registered agent in Colorado Springs with FWAM while it was solvent, was someone named Paul Huberty , a twice convicted and registered sex offender in Colorado from Hawaii. (See Family Watchdog online). Also note Huberty is listed as an agent for FWAM in the Hawaiian incorporation. <<Again, see here>>.
So maybe Ted did not really find a miracle cure for what ails him after all? We wonder — will former parishioners be duped into throwing money at this con artist? A potential fox is in the hen house in Phoenix, and it will require close monitoring. Tommy Barnett and the PFA bring a notorious penitent under their tutelage, with the prestige associated with celebrity visitors, (much like the boost Barnett got for his support of Jim Bakker upon Bakker’s release from Federal prison, for defrauding his ministry supporters of hundreds of millions of dollars) — but so far the Haggard publicity has been all bad for Barnett and Phoenix First Assembly.
Tags: rabid-right, religious beliefs
The below included essay was received as email and is a very good read as far as it goes. It is important to understand the implications for our democracy, when authoritarian belief systems are tolerated or ignored. Fanaticism is a mental negligence — a ceding of rational thought and strategy to raw emotional belief. Whether one gives up authority to a supernatural agent or a political entity, it is a surrender of personal will, an unbalance of common good, a failure to check overt concentration of power. In all forms it should be contained to minimize influence on society in general.
What the essay lacks IMHO, is the foresight to point out where fanaticism may reside in this country, as well as the rest of the world. Pointing a finger at Muslims, Japanese, Germans, Russians, or whoever; while failing to recognize similar internal symptoms in American belief systems, turns a blind-eye to these issues in our own culture.
To quote Sinclair Lewis in his eerie 1936 novel “It can’t happen here“, “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross.” To understand this quote, is to fathom the underlying basis in the pronouncements of the unnamed author of the essay on fanaticism, while remaining ever watchful for superstition and its effect on our society.
A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War Two owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.
“Very few people were true Nazis “he said,” but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”
We are told again and again by “experts” and “talking heads” that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.
Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave.
It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals.
The hard quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority” the “silent majority” is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population, it was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet.
And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
There is an HBO film — Friends of God – Evolution about superstition and fanaticism which truly appalls me. That such ignorance concerning evolution can exist in this day and be taught to naive children strikes me as despicable and fanatical. One needs only look to our current President and his administration to see how pandering to this and other superstitions in the guise of patriotism, marks our country’s dangerous slide toward fanaticism with its corresponding concentration of power. Remember, half of the Republican presidential candidates expressed reservations about concepts of evolution.
Tags: cultural anxiety, fanatics, fear mongering, superstition
I wrote recently about Bush and his critique of the State Children’s Health Insurance Programs (S-CHIP). A successful program which bridges the gap for children without health care insurance and has the support of fair-minded organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics. SCHIPs also runs more efficiently than Medicare programs which allow private pay components, under the mantle of choice without the efficiencies of a single payer plan. Public funds are paying private insurance company HMOs and PPOs without bringing to bear economies of scale. Expanded SCHIP funding would also come from Tobacco taxes, another best means to discourage a negative behavior — smoking. It is truly devious of Republicans to argue against a well-designed publicly-funded children’s health care plan, largely because it is successful and efficient, as they concurrently promote Medicare payouts to private health providers while railing against the cost and waste of Medicare programs.
So this past Saturday, Aug 4, 2007 — Congressman Shadegg guest editorialized in the AZ Republic, explaining his vote against the recently passed expansion to SCHIPs. It was the usual diatribe against socialized medicine, demonizing single pay health care insurance as the dredges of entitlement and the last resort of lowlife poor. I couldn’t bear it, so I submitted my 200 words or less to a “letters to the editor” online. 200 words won’t rebut Shadegg adequately nor provide sufficient background material, so it helps if you read the Congressman first. The following was my reply:
Congressman Shadegg argues against reforming the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, (“Dems SCHIP just won’t sail“), since it would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), by cutting payments to private insurers operating within the Medicare program.
According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission and the Congressional Budget Office, Medicare plans which allow private plans (like HMOs and PPOs) cost Medicare 12% more per person, on average, than traditional Medicare program. Medicare Advantage is one such plan.
In a 2007 analysis by the CBO, researchers determined that “for every 100 children who gain coverage as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children.” CBO speculates that state programs offer better benefits and lower cost than private alternatives. In 2007, researchers from BYU and ASU found that children who drop out of SCHIP cost states more money because they shift from routine care to more frequent emergency care.
Fear of future adult health care coverage only credits SCHIP in augmenting affordable health care coverage. Congressman Shadegg has reasons against expanding public health care coverage, but minimizing insurance costs for American children surely must not be one.
It is unfair that the Congressman gets 710 words to smear an example of Government health care insurance done right, especially since his criticism targets children. Shadegg is vulnerable this election cycle, his Democratic challenger, Bob Lord is fund-raising as much or more than Shadegg (which is unfortunately one measure of success). With some work and the memory of partisan efforts against programs like SCHIPS, perhaps we can turn the rascal (and others like him) out.
Tags: health care reform, insurance industry, medical malpractice, rabid-right
Some think there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two dominant political parties in the US. The sentiment is heard all the time, whether the talk is of civil defense, military spending, education, equal rights or big business — and let’s not even begin with negative connotations (they’re all doing it). Right.
I have always thought the Republican emphasis on “your” family values (they certainly don’t seem to be theirs), was just a smoke screen to hide a bias in the party for corporate interests and against the average joe. Let’s see if that is so. Are Republicans as likely to support wage earners as Democrats? You might think so, what with Republicans generally crowing about NASCAR dads, soccer moms and the throngs of god-fearing church-goers — all supposedly part of the Republican fold. But, what is this…? on May 29,2007, the US Supreme Court issued an opinion in favor of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., limiting to 180 days the ability of plaintiffs (read: employees) to file sex or race discrimination and disparate pay claims against an employer who well… cheats their employees.
For some background see: Ledbetter, Lilly v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
The gist of the story, is whether Lilly Ledbetter had been pay shorted for over 19 years, and whether she was owed compensation. Lesser courts ruled in her favor, but Goodyear took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which in a 5-4 ruling limited back-pay to 180 days from the time the claim was filed, citing precedence and telling Congress, if they wished an extended remedy in discrimination cases, then they would have to legislate the specifics. Toward that end, the House offered legislation — the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would enhance employee ability to sue an employer for back-pay owed. July 31, 2007, the House passed this measure by a vote of 225 to 199. Breaking the vote down by party, the vote came out: (223-6) among Democrats and (2-193) for Republicans. Perhaps blue collar workers should be told how well Republicans look out for their interests, when the interests of corporations are also at stake.
But even worse, the decider has declared his intention to veto the measure if it ever reaches the White House. There is much more to this issue, but keep in mind, the core claim revolves around how difficult it is for an employee to learn what co-workers are earning. Without this legislation, the taboo about discussing wages among employees, works for the employer and against the employee and as expected Republicans are working for their rightful constituents — big business.
——— UPDATE ———–
A small addendum, since AP (on Wednesday, August 1) quotes White House scare tactics on the mechanics of this bill.
The legislation “would allow employees to bring a claim of pay or other employment-related discrimination years or even decades after the alleged discrimination occurred,” the White House said.
Not true as written, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would not allow a claim years old, unless the grievance is continuous and the final injury occurred within the last 180 days. In short, claims must be filed 180 days from the last injury, not the first. That’s the fairness in the Fair Pay Act.
Analysis by Barbara Ehrenreich of W’s speech in Cleveland on 10 July 2007, where among other things, George spoke up vs. socialized medicine — or in Bush-babel, “Federalized medicine”.
GWB: “I strongly object to the government providing incentives for people to leave private medicine, private health care to the public sector. And I think it’s wrong and I think it’s a mistake. And therefore, I will resist Congress’s attempt … to federalize medicine … In my judgment that would be — it would lead to not better medicine, but worse medicine. It would lead to not more innovation, but less innovation.”
EHRENREICH: “Now you don’t have to have seen “Sicko” to know that if there is one area of human endeavor where private enterprise doesn’t work, it’s health care. Consider the private, profit-making, insurance industry that Bush is so determined to defend. What “innovations” has it produced? The deductible, the co-pay, and the pre-existing condition are the only ones that leap to mind. In general, the great accomplishment of the private health insurance industry has been to overturn the very meaning of “insurance,” which is risk-sharing: We all put in some money, though only some of us will need to draw on the common pool by using expensive health care. And the insurance companies have overturned it by refusing to insure the people who need care the most – those who are already, or are likely to become, sick.”
Well OK, then…
Keep in mind “43” was arguing against any expansion of federal law — the State Children’s Health Insurance Programs (S-CHIP), which provides health coverage for uninsured American children, as authorized under Title XXI of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. States may set eligibility requirements within broad Federal guidelines, but the thrust of the legislation — to provide a safety net for children with medical needs, who otherwise could not afford care.
Ironically, W was speaking in Cleveland, a city of burgeoning unemployment and poverty, both metrics which have expanded since George took office. Incredibly, in the lengthy Q&A following Bush’s speech, W complained: “Anybody work here in this town? ” — of course, referencing the length of the public appearance, but none-the-less, a faux pas when spoken in America’s poorest big city.
On a related note from Ohio in May of this year — the city council of Oberlin, Ohio in Lorain County, passed a resolution urging Congress to enact impeachment proceedings against the boy emperor, W. As is sung in the limbo song, “how low can you go?”
Tags: conservative anxiety, fear mongering, health care reform, insurance industry, lobbyist influence, social welfare