Tuesday 11 November 2008

Moron of the Week

And this prestigious award goes to Alton "Don" Billingsley for these brain-dead comments on his sect's website.

The choice of Senator Obama to become the new president by the American people (the tribe of Manasseh of Israel) was contrary to what the LORD had commanded of those who were to be established as kings (or leaders) over the House of Israel:
You shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren, you shall set as a king over you; you may NOT SET A FOREIGNER over you, who is NOT your brother (of the Israelites race)” (Deuteronomy 17:15).
The choice of Senator Obama by the American people (the tribe of Manasseh) is the rejection of a command from the LORD given long ago to Israel, as the chosen nation of God that had no time limits.
What a complete plonker.
In case Don wasn't aware...
Obama is a United States citizen, every bit as much as he is. Would Don really want to create a second-class category of citizens - those who couldn't prove their "Israelite" pedigree? (I guess the answer to that is "yes.") Could Don prove his lineage?
Obama has as many Caucasian genes (via his mother) as African. Does Don realize that?
The presidency of the US is not the same thing as monarchy. Has Don studied any history - American or otherwise? Did he ever take civics classes?
That's without arguing over the claim that America is Manasseh, which is patently absurd.
Statements like Billingsley's are reminiscent of Nazi race doctrine. In the 1930s views like these were lethal. Today, thank God, they're just plain pathetic.


Anonymous said...

Richly deserved Gavin! This is one of the reasons I wrote against crypto-racist (or racist plain and simple) shenanigans like the one mentioned on my blog:

My prayers for Preisent-elect Obama is that he is a successful president, receives divine protection and blessings for his family.

I am I U.S. Democrat? Uh no. Many people who know me that I am a centre-right black Canadian who has had membership in the Conservative Party of Canada and the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. Frankly, I believe people of faith around the world, regardless of where they stand on the political spectrum need to pray and pray hard for President-elect Obama, something that Mr.Billingsley, who has demonstrated that he has a cold heart and a hot head, is incapable and unwilling of doing just that.

Anonymous said...

Satan worshippers are "people of faith" too, you know.

Anonymous said...

Does Billingsly believe we should have elected a Native American?

And, Robert, what is the significance of the name "Billingsly"?

Don't forget, "Billings" rhymes with "shillings"!

God willings, I won't hurt your fillings.

Ralph said...

Gavin, you state that "Obama is a United States citizen", a basic requirement for appointment to the presidency. There appears to be some general controversy about this matter. Do you know of any evidence, apart from hearsay, that has been produced to support his claim to citizenship.

Gavin said...


Do you know of any evidence, apart from hearsay, that has been produced to oppose his claim to citizenship?

Anonymous said...

I can only say that he has refused to release his real birth certificate and release of the certificate has been sealed by Hawaii. It is also said that his relatives in Kenya before they realized why this was important (they now refuse to talk to the press), said that he was born in Kenya.

It is also said that he was adopted by his Indonesian Step father. It is said that under Indonesian law that this would void any American citizenship.

I have no idea what the US law is on this subject. Nor could I begin to predict what a hypothetical Supreme court decision might be.

Positive Dennis

Anonymous said...

Not that I'm supporting BI, but when the quoted verses were written, Israelites knew who they were and knew who weren't Israelites. And David's lineage had its share of non-Israelites.

What do the COGs expect? Many, if not most, of the COGs would say they don't vote. Not that it would make much difference if they all did...

Questeruk said...

On Don’s logic, there would have to be doubts cast both on King David, and Jesus Christ.

Biblical genealogy shows that both were descended from both from Rahab and Ruth, neither of whom were Israelites.

Of course the reality was that a foreigner could become a native Israelite.

What was good enough for King David and Jesus Christ should also be good enough for Barack Obama.

It’s not a matter of race, but allegiance to a particular country.

Anonymous said...


Long before he was a politician with any ability to "pull strings" for favors, Barack Obama had traveled abroad using a U.S. passport.

The U.S. State Department is not in the habit of issuing passports to people who are not U.S. citizens.

It is one thing to debate whether or not Obama's birth certificate proves that he was born in the U.S. (though, frankly, most sane people consider that matter settled). But there is NO credible argument suggesting that Obama is not a U.S. citizen. No controversy at all. Anyone who says Obama might not be a U.S. citizen is a crackpot.

Anonymous said...

"Satan worshippers are "people of faith" too, you know."

And if you run the stats, being one would probably make you more in tune with "love your enemy, bless those that curse you, pray for those that spitefully use you.."

This concept is even worse if you consider that it was Jesus who was the God of the OT before he dropped into the NT.

The number of people that were killed by God in the Bible is approximately 2,391,421, which, of course, greatly underestimates God's total death toll, since it only includes those killings for which specific numbers are given.

This does not include the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, the Exodus generation, etc., with which the good book is filled. Still, 2 million is a respectable number even for world class killers.

Add to this the number killed by God's chosen Churches the last 2000 years and whew!

But how does this compare with Satan? How many did he kill in the Bible?

Well, only ten, and even these he shares with God, since God allowed him to do it as a part of a bet. I'm talking about the seven sons and three daughters of Job.


God 2,391,421
Satan 10

Somehow this seems to negate the shocking horror that the selection of Obama to become the new President "of the American people" was contrary to what the Lord had commanded.

But not to worry. Well at least we have nothing to fear from Satan. However, Don's god may soon be killing off the Democrats for this violation.

Religion does weird things to the mind.....

Anonymous said...

Up until the militias raised their ugly heads during the late '80s and early '90s, there really were not a plethora of people quite as kooky as our "wonderful" Armstrongite British Israel racists. And, the fact is that when the WCG imploded, some members did indeed join militias in Texas and Montana, and embrace the racial elitism and separatism preached by the militias. Apparently, it all felt quite normal for some.

Public perception has changed over the past decades as civilization has progressed. The WCG approach never really did appeal to the mainstream even back in the 1950s. But now, it's so patently weird, and really almost from a time warp, that very very few are attracted to it. If people want to keep the Old Covenant days, tithe, be kosher, and even believe in the apocalypse, there are plenty of more mainstream groups that don't teach all of the cultic garbage that goes along with Armstrongism.

I hope all of the "leaders" who have started their own Armstrong franchises will spout the same drivel as "Crash" Billingsly is doing. Makes them look like they all need Beanie-copter hats.


Anonymous said...


Obama was born in Hawaii to his White American mother and his Black Kenyan born Father. His parents met at school. In America even if both of your parents are NOT Americans (His mother is an American anyway), if you are born here you are an automatic citizen.

Obama is a citizen.

Go take a freaking civics lesson.

Anonymous said...

Lets see- there was a 100% Assyrian President of the US. His name was Dwight Eisenhower (both parents were German). Eisenhower had 50% less "Israelite" in him than Mr. Obama (mother an Israelite), yet I bet that biased minister would praise Eisenhower for being a great general (i.e. good at killing people).

Anonymous said...

Obama has yet to produce a real birth certificate to prove citizenship in the USA. In fact there is evidence to the contrary.
It is highly suspicious that he refuses to show it especially when average citizens must show 7 forms of ID to get a driver license in some states. Why is he afraid to bring forth a certificate?

HIs mother also does not meet requirements of having lived in the US for 3 consecutive years after the age of 18 for her child of a foreign national to be considered a citizen either.
Since she was 16 at his birth it does not count and she did not reside in the US for 3 consecutive years.

No one would fault China for not wanting a Tongan as their President, yet the US is expected to accept just anyone even without adequate proof of citizenship?

Anonymous said...

Gavin, evidence to the contrary is not required. He IS however, required to produce evidence that he is a US natural born citizen.

Anonymous said...


Stop drinking the Obama Cool-Aid!! You're just as bad as the socialist left media, so far up Obama's "tank" you're going to suffocate! You really need to check your facts!

Obama can't and hasn't proven that he is a US citizen as you and the liberal media hope to portend! He went to school in Indonesia, which by Indonesian law requires you to become a citizen of that Country. ( When did he become a US Citizen? Can he prove it?? I'll accept a birth certificate - which he refuses to release to the public!!

There is even a belief, getting more traction, that he was not born in Hawaii, but born in Kenya and therefore not even eligible to become the US President (Can you say - "Constitutional Crisis", for which I would think you would have a problem with, Aussi or Not!). You could do your own research, but I'll help you here again -

Obama could easily assuage this and even put a stop to it if he would just release his birth certificate... but he won't... hhhmmm, I wonder why not? Maybe there is some truth to it after all? Don't drink the Obama-Aid!

Anonymous said...

He would make a good running mate for Sarah Palin in 2012

Anonymous said...

As I've said many times before on this blog site, fellows like Don Billingsley are heart-breakingly tragic cases of folks who have just allowed themselves to buy into a system of beliefs that are based on nothing but absolute, unsubstantiated, unprovable nonsense.

This is what happens when careful and critical thinking, logic, legitimate evidence and commonly-accepted standards of proof are recklessly “thrown to the wind” in order to believe fantastical things on blind faith because they FEEL good, and gives people a sense of “I’m important because God has called me into His One True Church”

Yet I do believe with "every fiber of my being" (as Rod Meredith used to say!) that these people CAN change...if they WANT to. But in the vast majority of cases, they simply don't want to face up to the incredibly painful truth that they've been hoodwinked by "God's Apostle" and other such self-proclaimed "gurus of truth."

Folks like Billingsley are just so caught up in the sticky, tangled and intellectually-restrictive webs of their own fantasy world of British Israelism, God’s master plan as taught by HWA, God’s one and only TRUE church, etc., that perceiving things accurately, objectively and rationally anymore would require a huge amount of mental effort and the gradual changing of mental habits - and such mental "muscles" have been allowed to atrophy, certainly in Billingsley’s case, now for many decades.

But even after all these years, there is STILL a small spark of rationality in his mind that could burst into a warming and enlightening flame if he would only permit and encourage it.

Call me naive, but I really hope (yet don't expect) that he might do this, because he COULD if he so chose, and his life would be immeasurably improved thereby.

I know because it happened to me, and the difference is like night and day.

camfinch said...

On the Obama birth certificate issue, here's this from

Unknown said...

Even if Obama was not born here, his mother is an American citizen when he was born, and therefore Obama is an American citizen.

I am surprised however that no one seems to have scrolled further down Billingsley's comments to note that he is predicting a financial crisis leading to the Tribulation by January 2010. Which maybe puts him into the Moron of the Month category?

Questeruk said...

Not living is the USA, I had not heard about the theory that Obama was not a US citizen.

Am I just being naive – but isn’t this something that would have been checked before he started to run as a presidential candidate?

Maybe, perhaps, his party would think of this before choosing him as a candidate?

I can’t really believe that having been elected suddenly the thought occurs ‘Hey, is he really a US citizen?’

Do people really make THAT much of an oversight?

Anonymous said...

Doubt about Obama's birthplace isn't completely unreasonable. On the basis of possible evidence, he may have been born in Kenya, soon after which his mother flew to Hawaii to obtain a certificate of live birth rather than a birth certificate. No birth certificate has been produced, and at least one Kenyan web-based newspaper, early on, referred to him as Kenyan. Most American-born citizens presumably can produce birth certificates, can they not? Snopes wisely leaves the question open (last paragraph). Why invite the whirlwind? Berg's lawsuit alleging Obama ineligible due to doubtful citizenship seems to have faded out of sight. We'll see...

Anonymous said...

"Call me naive, but I really hope..."

I think that BillyBoy has an extra barrier preventing him from grabbing hold of that elusive flame of rationality- it's called the Tithe O' The Faithful. BillyBoy is no fool, just like Rod, Gerry, and Dave. Preach what will bring in the cash.

Paul Ray

Neotherm said...

An appeal to rationalism is not going to is not going to work with
Billingsley. He believes that your rational analysis is trumped by his spiritual status as a member of the true church with an inspired understanding of the Bible.

The only way you might pry at a chink in his armor, is to challenge him inside his own carefully circumscribed belief system.

Hence, point out that Manasseh himself was half Hamitic. Manasseh and Ephraim were both half Egyptian.

When you serve this into his side of the court, he will attempt to prove that Joseph's wife mentioned was not really Egyptian but was of a "White" race of some sort.

Then you must ask why the Bible would then refer to these two sons of Joseph as being half-Egyptian if the Bible really meant something else. Should we not rely on the Bible's wording? Or why would the inspired scripture be preserved with this wording? Or if this is a huge issue to God would God not clarify the ancestry of these sons of Joseph?

The fact is, most BI advocates do not think very deeply and rely heavily on anecdote to support their views.

-- Neo

Anonymous said...

Dear Don...We read what you wrote.

"The choice of Senator Obama to become the new president by the American people (the tribe of Manasseh of Israel) was contrary to what the LORD had commanded of those who were to be established as kings (or leaders) over the House of Israel"

We're wondering if you have read what we wrote?

By the way, this is a newer version of how we feel about leadership with humans. Those OT Kings were screw ups from the git go.

Romans 13

1Everyone must SUBMIT himself to the governing authorities, for there is NO authority except that which GOD has established. The authorities THAT EXIST have been established by GOD.

2Consequently, he who REBELS against the authority is rebelling against what GOD has INSTITUDED, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

Now granted Don, we know that this particular portion of the NT was added into the text so the common folk would fall in line with the Romans who we all know could kill you for rebelling. But let's just go with it anyway. Yes...we all know this text is a little idealistic. I know they are not really my servants and that they really aren't there just for your good, but let's go with it anyway.

Just so we don't misunderstand each other...I don't care what the OT says anymore. America is not Israel and I've upgraded my thinking since then. I mean, most of the Kings over Israel were real dorfs. Some, and I'm not even going to worry you about it, probably did not even exist.

Anyway...wake up. Go with the flow. I am on my throne, or at least, that's what this text wants you to go with it for now.

Warm regards
God, Jesus and Paul, who was the biggest Roman kiss up the Church ever produced.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Mr. Obama's gene pool, he is 7th or 8th cousin of Dick Cheney, so, if Cheney is an Israelite, so is he. Obama's geneology includes families related to Brad Pitt, his wife Angelina, Robert Duvall (descended from French Hugenot) and many more. His mom's maiden name is Dunham, so his mom most likely was descended from the Dunham family that was part of the Pilgrim fathers. There are those who say he is really an insider through his heritage, so there is reall another side of the story. And, even he were born in Kenya or elsewhere, his mom was a US Citizen, so the birth cert should really not be an arguement.

In actuality his African heritage is known, unlike most African Americans who have no idea where their families came from after centuries since they were taken into slavery. That being said he does not really represent the "African Americans" per se, how could he, with the exception of some difficulty fitting in as child, his heritage does not have what some feel is the stigma of slavery in his background.

He is definately a passioned orator with differing world views than the conservatives, neoconservatives and moderates in the US. Only time will tell if he will help or hinder the USA overall.

Anonymous said...

This is all easily solved. We just aren't thinking big enough.

If we spit on a cotton swab, sent it to National Geographic, they will send you map of your DNA going back about 160,000 years to , yep you guessed it...Eastern Africa..or Kenya.

Uh oh....we're all Obamaites! Don! You're a Black man in disguise. And before that, you are Homo Erectus (sorry to use those two words in the same sentence. It scares some fundamentalists) and before that , Homo Habilis and before that.....

Sorry Don. You just have less Melanin in your skin, because you migrated North and needed more sun in higher latitudes for vitamin D so your bones didn't crumble. Those closer to the Equator are darker to prevent too much Vitamin D and protecting them from the sun.

So let's get the big picture here.
Israel schmisrael...we're all one and the same.

So to recap. You're a hairless ape that gradually changed into a modern African man and then took a long journey out of Africa into the World Wide Church of God, where they turned us all back into chimps.

Anonymous said...

What about the Royal family of England being German?

Anonymous said...


You're getting a taste of the American far-right conservative's penchant for grasping at anything to slander an opponent. These guys never give up. Not born in the U.S., indeed! Would he have really gotten this far without having that discovered?

It looks like we have several additional candidates for Moron of the Month!

Anonymous said...

Someone brought this passage in Deuteronomy up to me at a UCG service last weekend. (No, it wasn't the pastor.)

I asked if Mr. Obama couldn't be "grafted in," a la Romans 11. He said no, because that's spiritual. Deut. 17 is physical.

So I made this passage a Bible study topic this week. It turns out John McCain also should be disqualified from being President. The U.S. should never have asked God for a human leader in the first place. And Mr. McCain is on his second wife, while having seven houses (see verse 17).

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 03.35:
BI advocates teach that Manasseh was mixed in with Germans until their long-forgotten Israelites genes experienced a quite unaccountable urge to migrate to USA, so then the real Manassehites were separated from those pesky "Assyrians". Manassehites acquired names like "Eisenhower" because of all the centuries they spent with their "captors".
Presumably Manasseh was mixed in with Anglo-Saxons, Scots and Irish as well.
That all being the case, why couldn't they have been mixed in with Africans as well? ;-)
Must be a mixed up bunch, you Manassehites.....

Gavin, someone called you an Aussi!!!!

Gavin said...

Kiwi wrote: "Gavin, someone called you an Aussi!!!!"

Yeah, but I was too shocked to respond. After a cup of tea and a lie down I'm still not quite over the horror of it all ;-)

Anonymous said...

Rachael said -

Even if Obama was not born here, his mother is an American citizen when he was born, and therefore Obama is an American citizen.

Not necessarily so... I was born in the USA as a US citizen, but my children were born when I was overseas. The local US Consulate told me they weren't US citizens because I did not have the minimum US residency period required for conferring US citizenship on my children. I left the USA with my parents when I was 15, which was a few years short of meeting the requirement.

Not that it makes any difference in the issue being discussed.

Anonymous said...

Kiwi - re: Manasseh/Assyria

I think Steve Collins' refinement of BI supports your statements. He said something like, HWA was almost right about Germany, except only Prussia is "Assyria".

Remember when Dennis reported the result of his genome test? Has any COG attempted to address genetic testing regarding our ancestory? The only backing off I know of was Ron Dart (who said he was uncomfortable with HWA's doctrine) who accepted BI as being typological but not physical.

Anonymous said...

When these "experts" on the tribes of Israel forget or dont mention is when their ancestors left Britain for freedom and a better life didn`t their own ancestors reject Britains King !!!!!
Ok he may well have been mad George but he was mad KING george.

Anonymous said...

Questeruk wrote:
"Not living is the USA, I had not heard about the theory that Obama was not a US citizen."

Questeruk, this was a molehill turned into a mountain by right-wing evangelical conservative groups who were terrified of a possible Obama presidency.

Ultra conservative religionists have become a very politically influential group in the States - and in my view are every bit as dangerous as ultra left-wing liberals. Rarely does factual reality inhabit the polar extremes of any issue.

I checked into the Obama birth certificate controversy myself after it became an issue here last spring or summer, and it's totally groundless. Yet folks WANT to believe it because it's something that can be used to “get their bowels in an uproar” prophetically-speaking.

The COG's are always on the lookout for nefarious "proof" that they can then offer to the gullible as evidence that "the end is near for the U.S. and British nations."

Anonymous said...

Paul Ray wrote:
"I think that BillyBoy has an extra barrier preventing him from grabbing hold of that elusive flame of rationality- it's called the Tithe O' The Faithful. BillyBoy is no fool, just like Rod, Gerry, and Dave. Preach what will bring in the cash."

Yes, I see what you're saying, sort of like a religious drug pusher providing their customers the weekly hit of "old time religion" they've come to expect and have become mentally dependant upon in exchange for cash.

That may very well be a motive on his part. I do know that Billingsley's group is just a very small handful of people, mostly aging, dyed-in-the-wool Armstrongites who will continue to “hold fast to the truth once delivered” and who have pretty much grown immune to most any form of rational thought or factual evidence that counters their belief that HWA was the end-time Elijah.

Many different factors, I'm sure, motivate people when they INITIALLY get involved in religious groups – mainly ignorance, lack of life experience and poor critical thinking skills, for I know that most religious conversions around the world take place between the ages of 15 and 19.

But it seems to me people then STAY with nutty religious ideologies not only because they are fully convinced in their minds that such ideologies are literally true and factual, but because they somehow fill other psychological needs in their adherents.

I'd really like to study into this issue in greater depth.

Anonymous said...

Neo wrote:
"The fact is, most BI advocates do not think very deeply and rely heavily on anecdote to support their views."

Well, this pretty much is the methodology of virtually all of COG teaching, not just British-Islaelism.

I've had many such conversations as you describe in your full comment above. The vast majority of COGer's, even those who are otherwise quite well-educated, somehow are able to turn off their thinking capacities when it comes to defending their religion.

The wider COG community have proven remarkably incapable of defending their views, and that’s at least one major reason why they have become so ineffective in preaching their message to the world.

In discussions I’ve had through the years with a number of the more intelligent COG adherents they never seem quite able to intelligibly answer or respond to my basic lines of reasoning with anything more substantial than a condescending version of “Well, I’ll be praying for you, that God will lead you out of your confused state of mind” or “I truly pity and feel sorry for you” or “It’s pretty clear to me that God never really called you.”

But are such pale and anemic “responses” all that they can come up with? — especially for those who, supposedly, are individually hand-chosen by the Almighty and invited to partake of His very Spirit; one “of power and of love and of a sound mind” — and who are further instructed in I Peter 3:15 to “always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you...”

Why can’t these people just be more honest, up front, and state things more plainly, both to themselves and to others: something along the lines of, “Look, you’ve brought up some very good points that I’ve just never thought about before, and that I simply cannot answer, and so I’m not even going to try” and leave it at that.

At least I could respect that more genuine approach.

Anonymous said...

When a candidate refuses to release information, such as a birth certificate, it is bound to create more controversy, not less.

Given that, I believe the Clintons would have used the issue if there was one there, or even hint of one.


Anonymous said...

Hey Dennis, I participated in National Geographic’s DNA GenoGraphic Project test about two years ago, and you're right in your comments!

But I'm afraid DNA evidence is something most Church members are remarkably ignorant of as well, so it’s kind of useless using this line of evidence in discussions with them.

Just last Sunday evening, for example, I had a FIVE HOUR telephone discussion with a member of the United Church of God about the subject of evolution (among other issues), and he arrogantly (and ignorantly) said that DNA testing has now proven conclusively that evolutionary theory is a complete hoax! And this guy is actually a reasonably intelligent, well-read person - and quite rational in other areas of his life!!

I don't know where in the world this fellow got his information from (he never could quite say when I inquired), but in fact just the exact OPPOSITE is actually the case: DNA evidence that has been steadily accumulating lends even further evidence to an ever-increasing and overwhelming stockpile of information that evolution HAS taken place, and to argue against it now is becoming a more and more fruitless endeavor leading to nowhere. Even many Christian scientists now recognize this reality.

Even Intelligent Design theorist Dr. Michael Behe - although a recognized darling of the creationist community - is a 99% evolutionist, a fact that most creationists don't seem to remotely be aware of. Perhaps it’s because most of them have never read his books!

Anonymous said...

The other evening, I was watching Tavis Smiley's program on PBS (which is public broadcasting, to explain for the benefit of our non-USA friends). One of Tavis's guest was Tommy Smothers, whose program was cancelled from network television back in the '70s due to the Smothers Brothers' views on the Viet Nam War and other issues of the day.

Tommy pointed out that while freedom of speech is a right which is protected constitutionally here in the USA, freedom to hear is not.
There is a difference between the two.

This made me think of all the implications, and the relevancy to our WCG and post-WCG experiences, because it affects all of us to one extent or another. We all have our comfort levels, or discomfort levels, and we all have our methods of dealing or not dealing with facts, opinions, intellectual honesty, selective hearing, censorship, etc. I believe that truth seeking can only thrive in environments where there is complete freedom, not only to express one's ideas, but also for those ideas to be heard.

Purity of virtually anything is a very rare commodity, and when undiluted, often freaks people out. It has been said in many ways on these blogs and forums (and rightly so!) that in our past we have been enslaved, or at the very least, controlled. Hopefully we can all recognize control methods when we see them, and understand how such methods interfere with purity of the heart and intellectual honesty. Such control methods can become a pitfall for believers and non-believers alike. Sometimes I believe that control is one of those elusive things which has been embedded into the very depths of our souls by Armstrongism. This issue of "control" often provides a very excellent barometer to help us in discerning how far along each of us is in recovering from Armstrongism.


Unknown said...

Another thing that poor Don doesn't realize is that John McCain was actually born in the country of Panama. Normally this would invalidate him to be a candidate, but he was born on a US Military base located in Panama, so officially it was US soil.

Anonymous said...

"I don't know where in the world this fellow got his information from..."

Probably his pastor, or if he is a bit more "well read", a Kreationist website or book, and even then probably took the Kreationist's Komments out of context.

Paul Ray

Anonymous said...

When a candidate refuses to release information, such as a birth certificate, it is bound to create more controversy, not less.

Very true. In this case, however, Barack Obama produced an authentic, notarised short-form birth certificate issued in June 2007 by the State of Hawaii. The allegation that Obama refuses to release his birth certificate is nothing more than tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, and the most charitable and irenic thing one can say here is that only complete and utter morons think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii but faked all the evidence that proves he was born in Honolulu. This whole story was propped up and promoted by a Democrat lawyer named Philip Berg who was upset that Obama had trounced his candidate Hillary Clinton, and his windmill tilting was inevitably taken up by the conspiracy fringe of the right wing. Berg's lawsuit was dismissed, however, and among the reasons the judge cited for the dismissal is that the notion that Obama was born anywhere else but Honolulu is so incredibly unlikely that Berg would not be able to establish that he would suffer any damages if Obama were to become president.

Given that, I believe the Clintons would have used the issue if there was one there, or even hint of one.

Yep. The Clintons play the political game as hard and as dirty as anybody, and if Hillary's supporter Berg had anything going for his claims, they would surely have hopped on board.

The conspiracy theorists claim Obama "refuses" to release his original long-form birth certificate. This just shows their ignorance of privacy laws and state laws pertaining to vital statistics. The long-form birth certificate does not belong to Obama. It's the private property of the State of Hawaii, and apart from state officials, only Obama or a close relative or representative whom he has authorised is permitted access to it. Obama has the right to look at it, and he can get a short-form certificate drawn up based on the original long form, but he is not allowed to take the certificate and show it publicly. Of course he could go to court and try to get a judge to order the State of Hawaii to make an exception to the law and publish the long-form, but why should he bother if a notarised short-form is sufficient to establish his citizenship? (Hint: Ask yourself why Obama's campaign asked the State of Hawaii to prepare a short-form certificate last year? Maybe because presidential candidates have to prove they are U.S. citizens? Hmm? Maybe?)

Inundated with requests for Obama's original long-form certificate, the head of Hawaii's Department of Health and Hawaii's head registrar on Oct. 31 publicly told the press that they personally have verified the long-form certificate is on file in Hawaii. That would kind of explain, wouldn't it, how Hawaii was able to draw up the June 2007 short-form. All the claims that the short-form certificate is a fake have been debunked.

Then there is the newspaper birth announcement from just a few days after Obama was born. This is the kind of thing I happen to know something about, since I'm a journalist and a genealogist. The conspiracy theorists claim Obama's maternal grandparents, who lived in Hawaii, may have placed that announcement just to let their friends know about the birth of their new grandson. That's pretty implausible, though, because in those days the established practice was for the hospitals to draw up lists of new births every day and hand that list to the newspaper. The fact that an ordinary, "hospitalese" birth announcement appeared in a Honolulu newspaper just days after Obama was born is very, very, very weighty evidence to support Obama being born in Honolulu. This wasn't a personalised, "vanity" announcement submitted by a family such as we have today (since federal HIPAA rules now prohibit hospitals from telling newspapers about new births) -- it was just a couple lines, and Obama's name is not given, although the Hawaiian address of his parents is listed.

So we have documentation that Obama was born in Hawaii, but there is no documentation of Obama's alleged birth in Mombasa, Kenya. But, the conspiracy kooks claim, his grandmother and aunt said they witnessed his birth in Kenya, and then the day after he was born his mom took him and hopped on a plane to Honolulu.

Right. Because in 1961 it was no big deal at all for a post-partum mom to take a major intercontinental flight just hours after giving birth. I'm afraid the "oral tradition" of a couple of Obama's Kenyan relatives, who have had little contact with him in his life but are undoubtedly proud that they're related to an important elected official in the U.S., is not enough to falsify the evidence of the birth certificate and newspaper announcement. In tracing my own genealogy I have found several "traditions" about my dad's parents, aunts, and uncles that we all believed for our entire lives, right up until the point that we found the documents that proved our "traditions" were completely bogus. If the Kenyan branch of his family can produce proof of their tale, let's see it. But I note that they have stopped telling that tale, and there is still no sign of any documents from Kenyan contradicting the documents from Hawaii.

So if you want to go on believing Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, go right ahead. We'll be looking for you at your convention next year, which will be held next door to the convention of the Flat Earth Society.

As for Obama's adoption by his Indonesian stepfather and his past Indonesian citizenship, I’m afraid that doesn’t invalidate Obama’s U.S. citizenship either.

”U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.”

A 6-year-old boy obviously could not have voluntarily applied for Indonesian citizenship with the intention of giving up U.S. citizenship. The status of U.S. citizenship law at the time Obama was taken to Indonesia has since been clarified by court cases that establish the above-quoted requirements described by the federal government website. There’s just nothing regarding Obama’s probable past Indonesian citizenship that would stand up in a legal attempt to establish that he is not a U.S. citizen. That’s one of the reasons Philip Berg’s lawsuit to that effect was dismissed by the federal judge.

Here's a useful website countering the claims of the conspiracy kooks:

Anonymous said...

Take a look at his overall pedigree chart:

From, "Obama could count at least two royal ancestors: William I “the Lion”, King of Scotland, and Henry II of England. He is related to at least six US Presidents: Jimmy Carter (half 7th cousins three times removed), Harry Truman (7th cousins three times removed), the 2 George Bushes (10th cousins once and twice removed, respectively), Woodrow Wilson (husband of Obama’s 6th cousin five times removed), and James Madison (3rd cousin nine times removed). He is also a ninth cousin once removed of Vice-President Dick Cheney. He has several relative lawmakers and Supreme Court Justices, as well."

so if the BI stuff were true, he is a relative of King David since he has royalty in his blood.

Anonymous said...

Biblically speaking, in terms of Israelite identity, tribal inheritance is exclusively patrilineal. When a family produced daughters only, the daughters received their fathers' inheritances on condition that they married a close relative within the father's tribe. This kept ownership of the land within its proper tribal definitions. (Inheritance of Jewish identity is cultural rather than tribal, and descends matrilineally.)

The record of descent from any male ancestor, and in this discussion an eponymous one such as Ephraim or Menashe, is genetically marked, a matter of Y chromasomes. So there is no possibility of cultural assimilation removing tribal identity.

The great Genesis 10 families of the earth are still on record, deep within the DNA of humanity, as are the 12 tribal families of Ishmael and of Israel. The descendants of David, Levi, Aaron and Zadok are no less known at the DNA level, so it would seem quite probable that these "lost" identities should one day soon be known as certainly as they were in ancient times. DNA research is, after all, a relatively new science.

Anonymous said...

I did some reading on Billingsley's website and discovered that he says that "about 35" people attend his church on a weekly basis. I lost track counting how many splits from splits from splits it took to get from HWA's church to his current organization.

Anonymous said...

We can see that Alton Biliously is obviously working overtime.

Dear brethren,the Advent Season is almost upon us and certain ex-Worldwides are thinking of pooling their singing skills to produce a seasonal CD,most uplifting in its tenor.

The titles of some of these carols are:

We Three Kinks of Orient Are
Deck The Halls With Boughs of Folly
Stealer Narked,High Liquor Narked
Adeste Fee Deo-lis (Tithing)
Once In Royal David's Shitty
The Thirst No-Hell
God Rest Ye Gerry Mentalmen(wonder who that would be?)
Away In A Mangler

And many other spirit-filled (hic!!)songs for your enlightenment,entertainment and enjoyment.


Anonymous said...


Don didn't use the King James version. Maybe the New King James.

Anonymous said...

I am directly descended from a King of Denmark who was German,namely Frederick 1
(1523-1533).His mother was Dorothea of Brandenburg,a Hohenzollern.

That must make me an Assyrian.Yipes.

Let's face it,the Germans and English are closely related.So,therefore,the English must be crypto-Assyrians.So much for the Herbal Verbal about Ephraim.



Anonymous said...

Leonardo quoted "It’s pretty clear to me that God never really called you."

With that statement, ask yourself "how many COG folks felt like killing themselves after hearing those cruel words?"

Yep, plenty. Just like those who were banished by the Armstrongite leadership. Salvation lost, time to die! Catholic's did this also to control thought. This is the past and present legacy in the land of cogism. It NEVER ends!

SmilinJackSprat said...

Re. Leonardo's comments on evolution...

Respectfully, some folks just don't like the word, evolution. I suppose they cannot bring themselves to speak in terms of the evolution of knowledge, automobiles, aeroplanes, electronics, what have you. For such people perhaps the use of another word, like development, would solve at least part of the problem.

I'm convinced of Creation, but have all but no common ground with Creationism.

Rejection of God and Creation is obviously the bugaboo being avoided by those who resist evolution, at least by that term. Their loyalty to the Genesis account seems predicated on the supposed inviolability of our beloved English translations. But no translator can bring all the potential, both obvious and concealed, from a supernaturally inspired Hebrew document into another language, including English. All translations, no matter how responsibly made, are by nature at least partially untrue.

How many years did it take for the genius of mankind to develop math and science to a point where Relativity could be inferred? And if the Scriptures penned by Moses were indeed inspired by the Infinite Intelligence that brought the universe into being, then the Genesis creation account must depend in part on understanding the astounding nature of the universe, both micro and macrocosm, no? After all, we do have a vastly ancient fossil record here on earth; and all we know about the universe insists upon its even more ancient age -- with a measurable beginning.

Religion seems to feel it must cram all of Creation -- the product of Infinite Intelligence -- into its woeful ignorance of God, Torah and Science. No wonder Creationists are treated with contempt. They feel that loyalty to God insists upon their denying the overwhelming scientific evidence that surrounds them everywhere. Perhaps they don't realize that God is really, really smart, and all those smarts are part and parcel with the document He gave us through Moses.

In due time it will become manifest that the Hebrew Torah is no ordinary document, that it is a product of ineffable genius, with unfathomable depths open to all who care to dig, and completely compatible with scientific discovery. I mean, come on. If God made -- more accurately "is making" -- the universe, then doesn't it stand to reason that anything He inspires will stand up to even the most exacting standards of scientific scrutiny? Yes, including the uncertainties built into quantum physics.

In other words, the fossil record is true, the universe is ancient, homo sapiens was already fully developed for a hundred thousand years when Adam received a soul (neshama), and all of this is thoroughly supported in the Genesis creation account.

Since it would be foolhardy to dismiss Genesis, "development" might be a better term than "evolution" for describing the lengthy intricacies of Creation. Evolution connotes for some the absence of a Creator, and the consequent lack of accountability of mankind to his Maker. This misuse of an otherwise good word is a crummy reason for pretending that everything just happened spontaneously -- that all of us are simply random expressions of purposeless processes. Evolution doesn't have to mean that. The nice folks who think it does need to dig deeper, more intelligently and perhaps a little more courageously, for their understanding of what Moses wrote about how the universe, and mankind, came into being. It's a work of genius, and needs to be understood as such, or the student might too easily miss its subtleties.

Anonymous said...

"The only backing off I know of was Ron Dart (who said he was uncomfortable with HWA's doctrine) who accepted BI as being typological but not physical."

What the HELL does that even MEAN?!?!

Anonymous said...

"....homo sapiens was already fully developed for a hundred thousand years when Adam received a soul (neshama)....."

Except for the fact that there was no "Adam", no "Eve", and no "garden".

And your point was?

Rob said...

I am "natural born citizen" of the united States.

I was not born in the US and did not live there until I was 18.

My mother was a US citizen but was not required to prove any residency term in order for me to qualify for citizenship.

The fact that I also have citizenship in other nations does not prevent me from continuing to be a US citizen.

Anonymous said...

Mr. B. should have retired years ago.

Anonymous said...

'Let's face it,the Germans and English are closely related.So,therefore,the English must be crypto-Assyrians.So much for the Herbal Verbal about Ephraim'
Or, many - not all -Germans are indeed 'Anglo-Saxons' who never migrated from the territory now known as Germany.

Anonymous said...


As I understand it, Ron meant that some characteristics of Britain and the USA appear to match descriptions of Ephraim and Manasseh in some end-time prophecies. He wasn't suggesting British and Americans actually descended from those tribes, which is central to HWA's doctrine.

Previous BI proponents believed Ephraim and Manasseh represented churches, not populations.

Anonymous said...

smilinjacksprat wrote:
"Respectfully, some folks just don't like the word, evolution."

You're absolutely correct on that observation. When I talk to Church members I try to avoid that very word, because I too once cringed when I heard it said out loud.

Funny though how such folks seem just fine with the phrase "theory of gravity" or "atomic theory" or "heliocentrism."

But as you point out, probably because such ideas, at least nowadays, don't threaten cherished religious ideologies.

Your comment about translation reminded me of one made once by Dr. Stavrenedies, who taught Biblical Scholarship during my time at AC. In that class some self-righteous young AC kid challenged Dr. Stav by parroting HWA's oft-stated mantra that "The Bible interprets itself!"

Dr. Stav replied by mentioning that any time ancient scriptures, including the Bible, are translated from one language to another, that they, in fact, are being INTERPRETED at the same time they are being translated, and that the dynamics of human language makes this an inevitability.

You wrote:
“How many years did it take for the genius of mankind to develop math and science to a point where Relativity could be inferred?”

Only about 300 years or so – once mankind began seriously developing and using the methods of empirical science rather than trusting in ancient authority, the Old Testament included. Look at any culture that still primarily relies on ancient religious scriptures, and they are extremely primitive compared to the Western world, or at least very dependant on creative innovations originating in the West if they are advancing at all.

Incredible life-enhancing material progress began to explode forward once the Enlightenment period gradually swept aside religion as a primary cultural force.

You wrote:
“No wonder Creationists are treated with contempt. They feel that loyalty to God insists upon their denying the overwhelming scientific evidence that surrounds them everywhere.”

I agree. And that’s why I always say that if young-earth creationists were to be totally CONSISTENT in their methodology, then they would have to disbelieve and reject virtually ALL of the major discoveries of science that have occurred the past 400 years or so. The Bible, for instance, does not reveal the truth about heliocentrism. It took the empirical methods of science and math to figure out this important metaphysical reality – one, by the way, that was ardently fought against by religionists for a long time after the evidence for it became overwhelming.

I can’t say I agree with much of the rest of your comments – or perhaps more accurately, I just didn’t quite understand them - but that’s for another time!

Anonymous said...

Regarding this Assyrian bit,if you look carefully in the prophets,there is reference to the land of Assyria being laid waste,and it reads as though it could be future.It applies to the land of Mesopotamia,not Germany.

Food for thought.


Anonymous said...

Yes, indeed.Not all Anglo-Saxons are Germanic.The Brits are a right mish-mash of races.

Some say that Germany was anciently called Ashke-nazi,which opens other cans of worms.


Anonymous said...

Don's remarks relate to our odd way of classifying races here in America: a person may be only 1/8th black and the rest white, yet s/he is still considered black! How much sense does that make?


(And would as many people be going on about questionable citizenship if Arnold Schwarzenegger had made a similar claim about his mom and won the election?)

Anonymous said...

"Previous BI proponents believed Ephraim and Manasseh represented churches, not populations."

That doesn't make BI any less anti-Semitic or racist, anon, I'm sure you agree....?

Anonymous said...

Neo: --Hence, point out that Manasseh himself was half Hamitic. Manasseh and Ephraim were both half Egyptian.

When you serve this into his side of the court, he will attempt to prove that Joseph's wife mentioned was not really Egyptian but was of a "White" race of some sort.

I had forgotten the white part! Herman Hoeh tried to prove in his Compendium that the non-native Hyksos were sitting on the Egyptian throne in Joseph's day, and that they were white.


(Are you alluding to the old saw? "Q: Where is tennis mentioned in the Bible? A: When Joseph served in Pharaoh's court!")

Anonymous said...

discusses the fact that everyone is related to everyone else--and quite recently.

I retract what I said about his birth certificate. Jared makes a good case for the preponderance of the evidence as his being born in Hawaii.

Positive Dennis

Anonymous said...

PH - I'd agree BI was an excuse for racism, but it was obviously pro-Semitic. In particular, slavic church members were made to feel inferior to the sons of Joseph. These members clutched at straws like kinship to the Jewish diaspora.

Re Germany/Assyria mix: I believe Steve Collins claimed HWA "was basically correct" but confined the Assyrians to Prussia. He also flashed a few verses that made Assyrians look like end-time good guys.

Anonymous said...

"In particular, slavic church members were made to feel inferior to the sons of Joseph."

Not in one of my congregations. There was a German in the lay-ministry, and boy howdy, did he ever act like Gestapo --- he even proudly displayed a copy of Mein Kampf, just because Herbie had one.