Hank0331

Cry havoc...

I said he is not main stream, as in not representative of the vast majority of what are considered to be Mormons. As far as I know, even they (FLDS followers) don't call themselves Mormons. While the distinction may not be huge, it is significant enough to draw attention to and it is important to note that main stream Mormons neither follow nor condone the activities of FLDS followers. I also didn't call Warren Jeffs a good person, nor would I ever consider doing so. Using a small offshoot that has not evolved beyond the original doctrines of the religion and has no influence over the much larger religion as your example is probably not the best one to use when there are plenty of kooky things that modern, main stream Mormons believe and do.

And he wouldn't be, because Warren Jeffs isn't a Mormon, despite being equivocated to them in his example. It's like saying, "I can't say about all the apples, but this orange is gross."

Because Warren Jeffs does not hail from main line Mormonism. FLDS folk are to Mormons what Westboro Baptsists are to mainstream Baptists.

I certainly wouldn't argue against that statement.

That's just...sad. Though it doesn't mean that a requirement to have your retinas scanned and recorded in order to travel is any less onerous. It appears as though this is a choice you entered into rather than had to submit to in the moment. Does your choice mean the expanded use of this technology as a travel requirement is justified?

Welcome Aboard, But First US Marshals Will Scan Your Retina Article on fee.org by Jeffrey Tucker For some 15 years, airport security has become steadily more invasive. There are ever more checkpoints, ever more requests for documents as you make your way from the airport entrance to the airplane. Passengers adapt to the new changes as they come. But my latest flight to Mexico, originating in Atlanta, presented all passengers with something I had never seen before. We had already been through boarding pass checks, passport checks, scanners, and pat downs. At the gate, each passenger had already had their tickets scanned and we were all walking on the jet bridge to board. It’s at this point that most people assume that it is all done: finally we can enjoy some sense of normalcy. This time was different. Halfway down the jetbridge, there was a new layer of security. Two US Marshals, heavily armed and dressed in dystopian-style black regalia, stood next to an upright machine with a glowing green eye. Every passenger, one by one, was told to step on a mat and look into the green scanner. It was scanning our eyes and matching that scan with the passport, which was also scanned (yet again). Like everyone else, I complied. What was my choice? I guess I could have turned back at the point, decline to take the flight I had paid for, but it would be unclear what would then happen. After standing there for perhaps 8 seconds, the machine gave the go signal and I boarded. I talked to a few passengers about this and others were just as shaken by the experience. They were reticent even to talk about it, as people tend to be when confronted with something like this. I couldn’t find anyone who had ever seen something like this before. I wrote friends who travel internationally and none said they had ever seen anything like this. I will tell you how it made me feel: like a prisoner in my own country. It’s one thing to control who comes into a country. But surveilling and permissioning American citizens as they leave their own country, even as they are about to board, is something else. Where is the toggle switch that would have told the machine not to let me board, and who controls it? How prone is it to bureaucratic error? What happens to my scan now and who has access to it? The scene reminded me of movies I’ve seen, like Hunger Games or 1984. It’s chilling and strange, even deeply alarming to anyone who has ever dreamed of what freedom might be like. It doesn’t look like this. Why Now? I’ve searched the web for some evidence that this new practice has been going on for a while and I just didn’t notice. I find nothing about it. I’ve looked to find some new order, maybe leftover from the Obama administration, that is just now being implemented. But I find nothing. Update: a reader has pointed me to this page at Homeland Security: As part of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) border security mission, the agency is deploying new technologies to verify travelers’ identities – both when they arrive and when they leave the United States – by matching a traveler to the document they are presenting. CBP’s goal is to enhance national security and protect a traveler’s identity against theft through the use of biometrics. Biometric information (such as finger, face, or iris) measures a person’s unique physical characteristics. CBP incorporated fingerprints for biometric identification and verification in 2004, and is now testing facial and iris imaging capabilities to help improve travelers’ identity protection, the integrity of our immigration system, and our national security. I happened to be on the "one daily flight" that gets exit scanned. Another change has to do with new rules for Homeland Security just imposed by the Trump administration. They make deportation vastly easier for the government. I have no idea if these rules are the culprit for intensified emigration checks. What people don’t often consider is that every rule that pertains to immigration ultimately applies to emigration as well. Every rule that government has to treat immigrants a certain way also necessarily applies to citizens as well. Chandran Kukathas is right when he says that “controlling immigration means controlling everyone.” To be sure, there might have been some tip off that security officials received that triggered these special measures for this flight only. Maybe they were looking for something, someone, in particular. Maybe this was a one-time thing and will not become routine. Regulating immigration is not just about how people arrive, but about what they do once they have entered a country. It is about controlling how long people stay, where they travel, and what they do. Most of all, it means controlling whether or not and for whom they work (paid or unpaid), what they accept in financial remuneration, and what they must do to remain in employment, for as long as that is permitted. Yet this is not possible without controlling citizens and existing residents, who must be regulated, monitored and policed to make sure that they comply with immigration laws. The point is that it happened without any change in the laws or regulations. Whatever the reason, it was some decision made by security. It can happen on any flight for any reason. And who is in charge of making that decision? On the plane, finally, my mind raced through the deeper history here. Passports as we know them are only a little over a century old. In the late 19th century, the apotheosis of the liberal age, there were no passports. You could travel anywhere in the world through whatever means you could find. Nationalism unleashed by World War I ended that. And here we are today, with ever more controls, seeming to follow Orwell’s blueprint for how to end whatever practical freedoms we have left. And we are going this way despite the absence of any real crisis, any imminent threat? The driving force seems to be this: our own government’s desire to control every aspect of our lives. Think of it: there might be no getting out of the country without subjecting yourself to this process. It's a digital Berlin Wall. This is what it means to put “security” ahead of freedom: you get neither.

After the 3rd set of "YOU KNOW THIS MAN!" I had to turn it off.

First found FDR a few years ago and have been listening/reading in earnest over the last 6 months or so. Nice to be here and looking forward to meeting y'all.

I'm confused also. There was a considerable amount of text in the post when I clicked "submit."

I posted the following anonymously on Reddit in the USMC sub. It was received much better there than I anticipated. I figured that it would also serve as an adequate introduction here. "In 2004, starting on April 6th and running through the 10th, the Battle of Ramadi raged. It has been called the heaviest urban warfare American forces have seen since Vietnam by some historians. By the end of the battle, 13 of my brothers will have been killed (most of these in the opening minutes) and another 40 wounded; We, in turn, sent several hundred Iraqis to an early grave. At the time and for years after, I had no sympathy for those we faced and blamed our casualties on the men who pulled the triggers that day. Most of us stepped on those yellow footprints with the idea that we would become warriors for freedom. Defenders of a nation. We believed ourselves to be protectors. A front line against tyranny and evil. We were naive. Our noble ambitions and national pride were skillfully directed to achieve the aims of a global political and corporate elite. We became pawns in a chess game we were too misinformed to see. I have since allowed myself to see the truth that I actively avoided while in that desert hell: We were the invaders. I would have behaved no differently than my “enemies” if our roles were reversed and imperial troops were at my doorstep. I have no regrets regarding my enlistment. I have no animosity toward the men I shared those experiences with. Most of my regrets lied, and died, with my ignorance. The men and women that used us as a bludgeon in an attempt to subjugate the population of Ramadi and the rest of Iraq may never face justice, but they taught me a valuable lesson: The cost of tyranny will always be borne by those who can least afford it. To those that suffered through this conflict: I wish that I could have brought your sons home. I wish that I hadn’t had to choose between my family and your family. I hope your hearts are healed. Going forward, I will do everything I can to deny the tyrants fresh blood to sustain their march against freedom." *Edited for clarification*

As soon as a child is able to differentiate between preferable and undesirable action, it's time to educate. To put this in perspective, my nephew came upon my brother's carry pistol, which was "secured" in a CCW bag. Despite being 3 at the time, he was able to open the zipper and discharge the weapon which was still in the bag. Thankfully, my brother was the only casualty as the bullet passed through both of his feet. Due to a negligence to teach his son about firearms, my brother had to undergo 3 surgeries and countless hours of physical therapy and my nephew suffered at-this-point unknown levels of trauma. That experience only served to reinforce my opinion that there is no such thing as too much firearm education and it can't be started too early. My opinion on whether or not to teach kids to abstain from "shooting" people in play is mixed. I played guns with most of the neighborhood kids and have never had the desire to actually shoot anyone. Even when it was my job to do so, I avoided it whenever practicable. My belief is that play shooting leads to actual violence the same way violent video games leads to real-world violence.

In my experience, most people who believe that guns are so dangerous that they are a plague on mankind have zero experience with them outside of movies and TV. Those that fall into that crowd will often find their minds changing if they take a few minutes to understand the thing they have vilified and even enjoy shooting if you can get them to the range. The key to dealing with this mindset is the same as teaching a child a new topic: Start slow and simple and don't get agitated. I was introduced to the discipline fairly young and learned early the importance of the rules: 1) Treat every firearm as if it were loaded. 2) Never point a weapon at anything you don't intend to destroy. 3) Keep the weapon on safe until you're ready to fire. 4) Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you intend to fire. Unofficial rule: Know your target and what lies beyond. (The first 2 rules are the ones that really count. Everything else is just reinforcement for when you disregard the application of the first 2.) I started my son on firearm safety at 3. At that age, I taught him the rules above, but the only rule he needed to follow was "don't touch it, go get dad or grandpa." As he's gotten older, we've built upon the foundation and he's now at an age where he is able to handle a firearm safely. As with all things in life, it's all in the education and preparation.