I’m experiencing some connectivity issues with this blog. I am going to be tinkering with some settings in order to resolve the issue. My web hosting service claims its just my site and not their gear. Thanks for your patience.
Same Complaints Different Day
This post is about willful ignorance and my frustration with it.
Folks, over the last year, I have been crystal clear about the intricacies of navigating the legal and ethical dilemmas that I have encountered in my relationship with my special friend. The basic frustration that I have is that Americans tend to think that the whole world works by the same rules, laws, and rights as our own country. This is clearly not the case.
The old adage of my parent’s generation has often been stated as, “My house, my rules.” Somehow though, many people don’t think that this saying is relevant to countries other than our own. Every political entity has its own unique laws, regulations, customs, assumptions, etc. Our country may have common borders with both Mexico and Canada but trust me, both places have different laws, customs, languages, food, etc. than our own.
The common assumptions that undergird our country are things like English Common Law, Protestantism, religious liberty, freedom, and rights proceeding from God, etc. But what happens when you are forced to interact in a country that never based their culture and society on these things? Is it reasonable that they will see the world just as we do? My answer is “NO.”
Why was George W. Bush’s idea of nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan folly? Establishing democracy in an area that had no concept of individual rights was ridiculous. It had to fail. Folks, at least one lesson here is that imposing our culture and attaching expectations upon someone with no concept or appreciation of our values is stupid and can’t work, yet we continue to do it.
Ronald Reagan talked often about men yearning to be free but if that is true then why are so many in our country yearning to be led and enslaved by socialism and communism? Like Orwell’s 1984, they are screaming that “slavery is freedom.”
The answer to the above is that Reagan presupposes that the society is Christian while the Communist presupposes that humanism, evolution, and atheism are true. Different folks have different worldviews and assumptions that undergird their view of society, culture, and nation.
The problem that I face when talking to people about my situation with my girl is that they have no frame of reference to understand the situation but the one they are living in. Frankly, it’s a lot like talking to someone who is immersed in Premillennial Dispensationalism. You can show them a verse that disproves their worldview, but they can’t see it because they filter it through their presuppositions and can’t read the text on its own merits. As mama used to say, “It’s like talking to the wall.”
When I explain that my girl is eligible to marry me, folks can’t grasp the concept. The church in her country has declared that her marriage is over, she is the innocent party, and she can marry me. This should be the end of the discussion, but it doesn’t compute to people here. “How can the church declare anything about marriage?” they any ask.
The presupposition is that the State is in charge of marriage. My question is, “Where in the Bible do you find such an idea?” It clearly says in the traditional marriage ceremony, “Whom God has joined together, let no man pull asunder.” God makes marriages not governments.
Governments claimed the right to regulate marriage—at least in this country—about 120 years ago as a scheme for generating tax revenue for local governments not because God changed His mind. Yes, if you like then you can go back to the Supreme Court cases about polygamy in the late 1870’s but my point still stands; government claimed the power and churches were silent on the power grab. This silence by churches does not make the government overreach a legitimate act. Later government decided to allow tax benefits based on marital status. Further strengthening their hold on matrimony and thus its dissolution.
If government owns the power to create marriages, then it only makes sense that they remove the church’s power to end such unions as well. Naturally, the power to dissolve marriages also fell to the government and their brethren in the legal profession.
I think most folks will agree with my basic thesis about marriage in the United States, but what happens when you interact with a country that knows no such thing as divorce? Their presupposition is that marriage is in fact created by God and divorce is anathema in their society?
This question, boys and girls, is the hinge that takes you to a place that you can’t comprehend. A place with no divorce. The only way out of a marriage is to prove that one partner is defective and incapable of making a forever vow before God. Such a finding must be made, not in civil court, but before a trial judge with a full-blown court proceeding. This place is not a parallel dimension or gateway to the Twilight Zone but another country. Here you need to act in accordance with someone else’s laws, culture, and way of doing business. This ladies and gentlemen is what you encounter once you leave the borders of your home country; the good ole US of A. Welcome to the world of my girlfriend, the Philippines.
- In the Philippines, divorce is illegal.
- In the Philippines, a husband and wife agreeing to dissolve their marriage is illegal.
- In the Philippines, adultery is not grounds to end a marriage.
- In the Philippines, abandonment is not grounds to end a marriage. (Technically, the Philippine Supreme Court, via legislating from the bench, added abandonment as grounds for ending a marriage but no one has actually litigated a case on these grounds due to expected pushback by the legislative branch of the government. No lawyer wants to be the first to try such a case.)
- In the Philippines, abuse is not grounds to end a marriage.
The Philippines is one of only two countries in the world where divorce is illegal. Vatican City being the other. (FYI the United States did not recognize Vatican City as a country until 1984.) Instead, the legal process to end a marriage in the Philippines is annulment. As stated above, a court trial is mandatory. The process for a simple annulment is six to twenty-four months. A complex annulment—meaning children, properties, and acrimony between parties—can take as long as five years.
Annulments are very expensive. Based on average wages earned per month in that country, we have thus far spent about 28 months’ worth of wages to get where we are in the process. Our next stop should be the trial court. Depending on which Internet search you wish to believe, we are two to five months away from completion of the process. Oh, thus far, we have been at this for a good eleven months.
Due to the cost—financial and in time—most people in the Philippines cannot afford the annulment process. This is why there are only about ten to twelve thousand annulment cases per year out of a population of 80 million or so souls.
Folks the only other routes for ending a marriage in the Philippines are a declaration of annulment by the Roman Catholic Church or divorce via Sharia Law. Both these alternatives cost more than the legally prescribed route for annulment, and neither is available for my girl as she is a Protestant.
If I chose to live there, I could simply marry her in her church and then live together without the expense of an annulment. However, I want to bring her to the United States. Since our government regulates immigration rather stringently, they demand that my girl present either a marriage certificate issued by the Philippine government or proof that she is eligible to remarry.
While I dispute the government’s claim to regulate marriage, I do acknowledge their right to regulate immigration. (Yes, biblically immigration should not work like it does now but that is a topic for another day.) Since the power of the sword is being used to ship people home for violating US law, I must recon with the current rules whether I like them or not. Thus, I am paying for the annulment process to clear the way to initialize the US immigration process.
The situation is this, per the church located in the Philippines, I am allowed to get married. Said marriage will not be recorded with the government but with the church. Said church has acknowledged the innocence of my girl as well as her eligibility for marriage. Once we exchange vows, we may live together, have children, and be members of the church in good standing.
Folks, there are a few different things in play here. First, Protestants only have limited recognition of their beliefs in the Philippines. Second, the Bible is only partially acknowledged as authoritative by the Philippine government. Clearly divorce is biblically allowed in some circumstances even if not allowed by the government. (See Ray Sutton’s Second Chance.) Poor people are more adversely impacted by the annulment laws than rich folks. Since justice cannot be had without money, the people there have found ways to skirt the system.
I’ve previously blogged about income and inaccessibility for women stuck in a bad marriage. If the husband is hell bent on fornicating with every wench at the local watering hole, the reality is that the wife can’t do anything about it but raise her voice and hope he doesn’t raise his fist in retaliation.
So, the bottom line is that I can get married in the Philippines but until government paperwork catches up with reality, I am unable to bring my spouse to the United States.
Folks, I’m to the point now that I am willing to record said marriage with the Philippine government as soon as I can just to get all the self-righteous folks here in the United States off my back about this whole deal. I was hoping to have a legally recorded wedding here just because it is a shorter wait to get a fiancé visa, but now I don’t care. I’m ok to let all the paperwork happen overseas just to get it over with.
Closing remarks
When I visit another country, I am expected to go by their rules. I think that concept should be easy to understand. That being said, my actions should always conform to Scripture. What should our response be as Christians when biblical law is illegal or ignored in a country?
Church and State are separate institutions created by God. Part of the issue being discussed here is what our response should be when the State gets itself involved in the affairs of the Church? Does the Church just roll over like it did for Covid-19 or does it fight to keep charge of what has been entrusted to her by God? Truthfully, the American Church is very willing to abdicate its role; especially in deference to the civil authorities.
Most Christians were wrong about Romans 13 and Covid lockdowns. Sadly, too many folks are in agreement that Caesar is really Lord of everything except your soul, and you ought to consider giving that to Jesus. Somehow the supposed shepherds of our souls like to keep singing “Have thine own way Lord” to the State instead of Christ.
Folks, yes, I’m just one guy, but the issues at play here are macro worldview issues. If you would just quit imposing your American cultural presuppositions onto me then maybe you can see there is more going on here than at first glance. It’s just easier for folks to throw me under the bus than to look at the issues.
It’s simple to me. When I am in the Philippines, I play by their rules, when I’m in the USA, I play by the rules here. Ignorant people want to project their presuppositions onto the whole planet because they are intellectually lazy. The bottom line is that both countries have areas where they fall short of biblical standards. I’m stuck in between them and eventually I will have to satisfy both to get my lady friend here one day.
I promised my former pastor that if he would give me the grace to get through this process that he would be happy with the end result. We parted ways because he didn’t like watching the sausage getting made. It’s his loss and perhaps yours too.
Goals Update—August 31 2026
Trigger Warning: the following post discusses mature issues such as body parts, reproduction, family relations, and other stuff. If you are thin skinned, narcissistic, or easily offended then stop reading now. You have been warned.
I will give you a countdown to change to another article.
5
4
3
2
1
Ok, thanks for sticking with me on this one. This post is about my vasectomy reversal. Again, if the topic offends you then turn back now.
First some history.
My wife and I were married in 2003. She spent almost all of the first two years of our marriage pregnant. Yep, three months into our marriage, she was pregnant for the first time. We had just started to tell people in our circle of friends, mostly at church, that she was with child and then she lost the baby.
I remember the drive home from work in the middle of the afternoon. Trying to drive and bawling my eyes out is difficult but I made it to the hospital. My wife was in the emergency room at Kaiser South Sacramento. She was sitting in the emergency room for way too long and nobody was in a hurry to see us. Once I got there, she pulled out her trusty cell phone and called Carolyn. Carolyn was a friend and a doctor on staff at that hospital. She came immediately to the ER to help her friend, my wife. She walked us from the ER to see an OBGYN doctor. No paperwork, no waiting, just service. Ten minutes after calling Carolyn my wife was finally being helped.
A few months later, my wife’s ex, her children from the previous marriage, and her former in-laws all took a trip to Mexico. It was Valentine’s Day week in 2004. It was during this period of no children in the house that my wife became pregnant again. Our son James was born in November of that year.
In the spring of 2005, pregnancy number three happened. Again, just as we were prepared to tell people, she lost the baby.
At this point, my wife took a trip to the OBGYN. After that fateful visit, we had a talk. During her pregnancy, she had gained a lot of weight and never lost it after our son was born. The verdict of the OBGYN was that my wife was too overweight to successfully have any more children. Thus, a proposal was put before me, either I had to have a vasectomy, or she had to have her lady parts “fixed”.
Since it was easier for me to have a vasectomy than for her to get her tubes tied, she pushed me to get the vasectomy. I reluctantly agreed. In exchange for me getting the surgery, she promised me more frequent sexual relations since we wouldn’t need to worry about any more children.
Editor’s Note: never do anything for a women based on a promise of more and better sex in the future. Such promises are hollow and unenforceable.
Reluctantly, I agreed. Folks I never wanted to do this, but it was the only time she played the “if you love me…” card during our marriage. I wanted to please her and who says no to more sex with their wife?
About ten years later, she had her ovaries removed as a preventative, in an effort to avoid getting cancer. Ironically, she later died of cancer, just a different one.
Following her death, I received a small insurance payment. With that money, I had promised to take a trip that we would have enjoyed going on together. That was my trip to Ireland last year.
At the same time, I was booking the Ireland trip, I decided to right a wrong that I still regretted from our marriage. I wanted to be whole again. Thus, I made an appointment to get a vasectomy reversal. I researched the topic and landed on a place in Ogden Utah that specialized in the reversal procedure. I paid for the surgery and got on the waiting list. The surgery was scheduled for September 9, 2025.
FYI As it turned out, Charlie Kirk was assassinated the day following my surgery. Charlie died about two miles from my hotel room on the day I checked out of the hotel.
Folks, by the time I booked the vasectomy reversal, I had been doing enough online dating that I knew that I wanted someone younger than me. I have stated before on this blog that I didn’t want to be dating someone that looks like my grandmother. I had decided that I wanted to find a woman about 40 years old. I knew that women in that age group still desire the possibility of children but a guy that can’t offer that is handicapped when they are sterile.
After booking the surgery, I met my girlfriend, fiancé, wife, or whatever the correct title is. We discussed the issue of children. And, yes, she would like a few kiddos in her world. However, she said if God will give us children, then that will be good, if not, we can try other ways of having a family. Being with me was more important than children but she would like both.
Seven weeks after the vasectomy reversal, I flew out to see her for a month.
The surgery place in Ogden provided me with four test kits. Periodically, I was expected to send in samples for testing. The test prior to my trip was negative. The test after my trip (December) was negative as well. Spending a large sum of money only to be shooting blanks was painful and discouraging.
Following the surgery, I told some friends that knew about me getting a reversal that all my private parts were black, but not bigger. Folks, the amount of bruising was remarkable. It took over six months for the dissolvable sutures to go away. The healing of my scrotum was uneven and slow. The horizontal cut was substantial. I later found out that even though the reversal utilizes microsurgery that the testicle is fully removed from the scrotum so the doctor can do the operation. Oh, the vas tube they attach is almost the diameter of a human hair. In my case, the vas tube had to be directly attached to each testicle. Sorry, I didn’t get a splice job, I got the deluxe reversal surgery.
This brings us to the present.
I am going to see my lady for two months at the end of September. I tentatively plan to return around November 30. On this trip, we will be participating in a “blessing ceremony.” (Something that didn’t happen on the previous trip.) Whether said ceremony is recorded with the government is unknown at present. It is mathematically possible that the annulment will be completed during my stay, which makes recording a possibility.
Anyway, prior to my trip, I wanted to pull out the old test kit and see what the lab in Ogden said. I mailed sample number 3 on Monday of last week. The package was delivered on Thursday. Since I didn’t hear from them on Friday, I was expecting the results on Monday. When the results were zero, they were always followed up by a phone call saying to hang tough, it’s not the end of the road yet, so don’t be discouraged.
Last Sunday night, I got an email from the place in Ogden. Yep, at 8:20 PM on a Sunday night, the test results rolled in.
My first thought was, what the #!@%?
Folks, for the last few weeks, I have been planning when would be the best time to redo the surgery after this report came back with bad news too. Oh, BTW, my answer was January. I even told my girl that redoing the reversal is cheaper than the other alternatives that I’ve seen on the internet. Believe me, I’ve been researching this for a few weeks now. Folks, everyone screams do IVF, but it has some serious ethical issues that I wish to avoid.
Anyway, I got up the nerve to read my reject letter. Most of the first paragraph was even in red letters. This turned out to be boilerplate language about verifying my contact information. As I continued to scroll down, I saw my name and date of birth. Yep, that’s me and that’s my birthday. Then I kept scrolling. Date of analysis was August 28th. Yep, Friday. Then was “Total sperm concentration: 7 million/ml.”
BINGO.
Yep, 7 million is a great number for a vasectomy reversal. I reread it. I was shocked. I texted my girlfriend and then select members of the blog staff to share the news.
This guarantees nothing as far a children goes, but it means I can do my part in the process. The reversal I wanted has happened. Folks, a lot more things have to align on the female side before invoking words like “family” but it’s a start. I wanted to promise the possibility of offspring and now I can do that.
God has answered yet another prayer for us. Boy, am I a happy camper.
Final Thoughts
Folks, I know there are a lot of naysayers out there that think I should crawl under a rock somewhere and wait to die of loneliness or old age. For them the thought of someone my age getting into another relationship is preposterous. To them I say, “Go pound sand.”
God put us on this earth to convert the world and exercise dominion over this planet until every square inch acknowledges Christ as King. This was the message of Charlie Kirk. Biblical faith is the long game. Those people waiting around doing nothing as they wait for the Rapture are the useless people wrecking it for the rest of us. Their disbelief is the biggest problem in our society not Democrats, Islam, or socialism.
Charlie Kirk was right and I’d rather go down like him, instead of sitting on my butt watching Fox News and contributing nothing. Family, faith, and hard work are the way out.
My grandfather lived to be 96. My dad is almost 90 and in great health. If I make it as long as either of them, then starting another family is a no-brainer to me.
My last comment is that there is no such thing in the Bible as retirement. We are to work until God takes us home. I choose faith and family over frivolity.
Matthew 24: Gary DeMar vs Kenneth Gentry, et al.
Kenneth Gentry, and some others that he uses as proxies, have been attacking Gary DeMar publicly (much of it on Facebook) since 2023 about the three questions controversy. Gentry and others have been alleging that DeMar is a closet full preterist. (More on full Preterism later.) In their minds, that makes DeMar a heretic and thus guilty of unorthodox eschatology.
In response, DeMar has simply pitted one supporter of the three questions against another to show that none of them agree with each other, so why should he respond directly. As a debate tactic, this is brilliant.
Furthermore, the original three questions lacked any citation of Scriptures to defend their claims. The originators of the three-question letter controversy base the whole thing on church tradition and not Scripture. This is why they are divided on their understandings. It is this hole in their logic that I would like to comment upon.
As DeMar likes to point out, when it comes to the historic Creeds of Christendom, nobody decided to “show their homework.” The Creeds make claims about the Christian faith but never cite any verses as proof texts; neither do they have any minutes of the meetings to explain the logic of why statements were included. In short, all that is preserved for us are the conclusions and not anything to back them up.
For the purposes of this blog, I am limiting discussion to the Nicene Creed. FYI the Nicene Creed was drafted in 325 AD and updated slightly into its final form in 381 AD.
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son,* who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
Two comments on the above version. First, this is from a Roman Catholic website and a word or two might be different in another English translation. Second, in the paragraph on the Holy Spirit, “who proceeds from the Father and the Son” is the difference between Eastern and Western Christianity. Yep, “and the Son” highlights the difference in the understanding of the Trinity between Churches; although there is much history behind this division.
Preterism
Preterism, in its simplest form is believing that some parts of the Bible are in the past. If you believe Jesus is the prophesized Messiah and fulfilled related Old Testament prophecies, then you are a preterist. If you believe that some prophecies were fulfilled in the destruction of the Second Temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD, but others are still future to us then you are a partial preterist. If you believe everything in the Bible including the last few chapters of Revelation are fulfilled in some way, then you are a full preterist.
Sadly, the difference between full and partial Preterism is really more nuanced than what I just stated. There are people that are in between full and partial preterists. Some folks believe that some things began in the past, continue to be true today, and will not know complete fulfillment until sometime in the future.
The two sections of the Creed getting the most attention in the controversy are these:
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
I could dissect these parts in much detail but not too many folks would care so I’ll try to keep this simple.
The type of questions being asked are like this:
- Where are these statements found in the Bible (Proof texts)?
- How did the original audience understand these statements?
- Were the statements based on Scripture, future or past when written into the Creed in 325 AD?
- When is or will be the resurrection of the dead?
- When is or will the Kingdom begin?
- What and when is the world to come?
- If Jesus is on the Throne now, what is he doing or waiting for?
- When is the resurrection of the dead?
Again, we have to reverse engineer the Creed to figure out such questions.
Folks, this sounds simple at first blush but once you start looking at this, it is evident that you are treading into deep theological waters trying to fully grasp the concepts tossed out by the writers of the Creed.
The Creed speaks of a future coming of Jesus, presumably at the end of the world but where is that in the Bible? Most of the coming passages are understood by the signers of the three questions letter as coming in judgment in the First Century, but “The Church” has historically believed in a final and consummating coming at the end of history.
This leaves a theological mess. Were the coming passages fulfilled (full Preterism)? Mostly fulfilled (partial Preterism)? Mostly in the future (Premillennial)? Requiring double fulfillment? Or something else?
Here’s an example from Paul to illustrate the complexity of the issue. He writes that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. This verse is often quoted to give comfort to grieving families. It was quoted at my wife’s funeral. But how do you get to be “present with the Lord” without being judged in some fashion so God permits you to enter his presence? This implies that judgment is not at the end of the world but upon death. So, if you are judged at death then why not also be given your resurrected body at the same time? We spend eternity in bodies not as spirits floating around on clouds playing harps.
Gentry and his friends presuppose that the Creeds and Church tradition are correct about much of this being future and then interpret the Bible with these presuppositions trying to discern which bucket that a particular verse belongs in. If you agree with him then he calls you “orthodox” and if you disagree—especially about the timing—then I guess you get a letter calling you “un-orthodox.”
Matthew 24
Generally, Matthew chapters 23-25 are all one dialogue by Jesus frequently called the Olivet Discourse. Chapters 24 & 25 are said in response to questions asked of Jesus by his disciples. Some folks like DeMar believe that chapters 24 and 25 are a single unit speaking of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD. Others split chapter 24—some like Gentry at very odd points—into part being fulfilled in 70 AD and part of the prophecy being future.
J. Marcellus Kik and many others split Matthew 24 between about verse 34 to 36 so that the first part of the chapter is about 70 AD and the rest is the traditional Second Coming.
Kenneth Gentry does this too, plus he pulls Matthew 24: 27 as a stand-alone verse concerning the Second Coming even though it comes in the midst of the part which most think applies to AD 70.
“For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”
I don’t want to get into the weeds about this except to say that Gentry didn’t always hold this position but has adopted it in more recent times. It makes no sense, but he is hell-bent in accommodating the Creed into his post millennial position. He needs verses to support both AD 70 and the traditional Second Coming. Gentry is a lone gunman on verse 27 but holds this unique position.
If you look at the Olivet discourse, what many such as Kik try to do is book end the statements about “this generation” to fit an AD 70 application (Matthew 23:36 to Matthew 24:34) and then futurize the rest of chapter 24. Gentry randomly cherry picks verse 24:27 that he is compelled to futurize in the midst of the “this generation” passage.
Gentry is obliged to shoehorn verses into the future because of the Creed and Church tradition; not the context.
Were Matthew the only account of what shall be the signs of the end and coming of Jesus, then maybe Kik could have a point, but this bifurcation of Matthew is destroyed by looking at the same account in the other synaptic Gospels.
Conflicting Versions
Once you compare Matthew 24 & 25 with the parallel accounts in Luke 21 and Mark 13, then the structure forced onto the account in Matthew collapses. It is clear that all three accounts in their entirety are about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. It was a local judgment that could literally be escaped on foot by fleeing to the mountains. As proof that this was so, there are zero historical records of a single Christian being killed in the siege of Jerusalem. Secondly, Christians knew it would happen all the way back to the beginning chapters of Acts. Why was the Church in Jerusalem the only place where property was sold and the proceeds held in common by and for the Church? It was not socialism in the Bible; it was a testimony that the city would be lost within a generation as Jesus prophesized.
The problem that Gentry and other signatories of the three-question letter have is that there is not a single verse in the Bible that all parties signing the three questions letter agree apply to the end of the world. At least some of the signers believe verses should be applied to the AD 70 judgment.
On the one hand they want the traditional view that Jesus returns at the end of everything and at the same time they know that most verses apply better to an AD 70 fulfillment.
Folks the truth is that Jesus doesn’t really tell us how it all ends. Neither does he tell us what heaven will be like. In the end, we will have a body like his. We will not marry nor be given in marriage. We will have jobs of some sort and worship God. There is no more death or sin. Anything beyond this is speculation.
Between now and then, the Gospel will spread across the world. Most people will be believers at some point in the future. So many folks will be saved that when it is all over, it can truly be said that Jesus is the savior of the world. The end, whatever form or time it happens, is thousands of years from now. You are still living in the early church so buckle up and get to work.
Mike Lindell Gets Back on his Bull Sh*t
Mike Lindell is better known as the “My Pillow Guy” CEO. He was a very successful businessman. Sadly, in his later years of his life, Lindell has turned into a conspiracy theorist. He was one of the ring leaders of Donald Trump’s “the election was rigged” in 2020. Full stop, I believe there were shenanigans that night, but let us be honest, there is/was no proof. You cannot prove something with no proof. I’m going to need a little more than “I think” or “I’m pretty sure”.
He was Trump’s main advisor on trying to overturn the election result in 2020; again without proof.
Well, he ran for governor of Minnesota this year. Just a sidebar comment, Minnesota has the weirdest folks who have been governor, Jesse Ventura being one, Tim Walz is another odd duck. Lindell lost in the primary to the State Senator Lisa Demuth by 11%. He has raised questions about the legitimacy of the outcome and denied the results. He has not conceded. It was a Republican primary, not the general election.
Folks this is straight up election denial and a bad look. He is claiming the GOP primary was rigged? Come on. 11% is outside the margin of fraud and of lawyers. He lost fair and square; he comes off looking like a whacko. Yes, I am sure losing an election probably leaves some bruises and bumps on your ego but come on.
Folks, I have flipped on voter fraud; however, I believe for the most part, our elections are clean. Sure, Spencer Pratt in Los Angeles, has a legit beef but he has gone away. The 2020 election definitely was suspicious. The result of Lindell’s election is not voter fraud or anything illegitimate, and frankly it’s sad to see a man spiral like he has.
I will say this on the way out. I do believe there are elections that are not legitimate. Spencer Pratt in LA being the most recent one.
However, when you lose by 11%, lick your wounds, admit defeat, and go home. I’m sorry but one reason I left the GOP in California was an influx of whackos. I can deal with a Tony Andrade (RIP) but when you have Andrew Levy and Jorge Riley, it’s a bridge too far. I’m happy to be gone. They aren’t smart enough to realize this, but they are killing their own party by driving off decent folks. How many doors has Levy or Riley knocked on, or calls made? I’m betting next to zero. As a result, I’m not surprised Leo Naranjo is thrilled about .01% of the vote. Participation trophy and a sticker for the fridge.
The Chief
Luigi Mangioni Cops a Plea
Blogger’s Note: This is a commentary with info not believed by this blog, it’s speculation only.
For those who didn’t follow the news, Mangioni was charged with killing United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
It was an interesting reaction from all corners of the US. There was shock as the killing happening in broad daylight, and folks saying the CEO deserved it. United health customers went online with statements like this: “My ______ was denied treatment by United Health and he got what he deserved” was actually a thing. The latter, while not a majority of the US, was likely a higher percentage of folks than expected.
Mangioni faced both a federal and state trial for murder. His legal team actually got a couple of wins. Federal terrorism charges and the death penalty were off the table. Terrorism charges are a thing due to the Patriot Act, which says essence that killing or threatening to kill someone can get you labeled as a terrorist. Oh, that charge comes with a death penalty eligible sentence.
I honestly thought this was headed for trial, I believe William agrees. The trial would have been held in New York and there are enough bleeding-heart types there that I think you could have had a hung jury. Think about it, the number of conspiracy theorists, whack jobs, and folks who share the belief the CEO got what he deserved there was likely a better than 0% chance he could walk.
I spoke to a friend of the blog from law firm Low, Ballem and Lynch and she had an interesting take on this. She stated Mangioni’s legal team likely got bad news at a hearing about evidence and decided they were cooked. Rumor on the interwebs is there was a manifesto essentially stating he wanted to kill this CEO, and he apparently called the company claiming he was a multi-millionaire and wanted to invest in the company, hence he got the details on the whereabouts of the CEO that day.
(Reminds me of the John Malkovich character in Clint Eastwood’s “In the Line of Firm” movie.)
My lawyer friend said evidence like that essentially means you are cooked and copping a plea is the right move.
She made another interesting point that I never had thought of. His legal team is playing the long game. He will do 20-30 years in federal prison. Federal prison is far nicer than state prison. (He is also charged with murder in New York State Court). New York is home to a couple of brutal state prisons; Rikers Island and Attica. She thinks you cop a plea and argue in state court that their charges constitute double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is a legal term that you can’t be charged by two entities for the same crime. Whether he wins or not will be interesting. If the state charge is thrown out, he will walk out of prison a free man one day.
I understand the reason to cop a plea, but it would have been interesting to go to trial. One item most overlooked in criminal trials is the jury needs to be unanimous to convict, one hold out hangs the jury. Civil court only requires a majority. Just takes one.
Editor’s Note: the t-shirts used as graphics in this post are actual shirts for sale on the Internet and not AI generated by Really Right staff.
Review: What is the Gospel?
The church that I am attending began a book of the month club this summer. This month’s installment is What is the Gospel? By Greg Gilbert.
The book is only 8 chapters. Much of it is very good and I have no complaints but chapters 6 & 7—which are built on each other—are simply cringe worthy. Chapter 7 is what my math teacher used to call, “error carried forward.” Since chapter 6 is wrong then the premise used to introduce chapter 7 is wrongly stated.
Chapter 1 establishes the Bible as God’s authority
Chapter 2 is God the Creator
Chapter 3 is man’s rebellion
Chapter 4 is Jesus as our substitute
Chapter 5 is our response to God’s offer of salvation
Chapter 6 is about God’s Kingdom.
Chapter 7 is focusing on the gospel
Chapter 8 is entitled “The Power of the Gospel”
Chapter 6 starts out with a lot of promise, but it ends up like a line drive hit that curves foul just as you are rising to your feet to cheer the home run.
The author established that the Kingdom of God is a now thing, not just a future reality. This is a direct rebuttal of the Premillennial Dispensationalist position that claims the Kingdom of God is a future thing because the Jewish leaders in Jesus’ day rejected the offer, so God had to go to Plan B, the Church. This view is unbiblical but widely held by many, including a number of folks in my congregation. The idea that man’s free will can thwart God’s plan is heresy. (More proof Scofieldism is the cultural sin of the modern American evangelical church.)
However, instead of saying that Jesus should be Lord of every area of our lives because God is Savior of the whole man, reversing the curse of creation, he pivots to “me and God are a majority”. The Kingdom of God is reduced from its rightful place to a claim that the Gospel is only concerned with saving your soul. He pivots to some sort of pietism, Gnostic form of salvation, or some strange version of amillennialism.
In the Book of Daniel, the Kingdom is described as a rock that smashes the world empires and grows into a mountain that fills the whole earth. In another chapter Gilbert even quotes the verse about the knowledge of the Lord covering the earth as the waters cover the sea but in the final analysis, he balks at the truth of the Scripture and goes in a wrong direction.
I must attribute this error to the fact that he nowhere mentions that God rules in terms of covenantal institutions. Scripture has at least four governments established by God that he rules through, self-government, family, church, and the state.
Thus, in chapter 7, Gilbert mocks the idea that the Gospel not only transforms individuals but also cultures. Biblical transformation is bottom-up while evangelicals try top-down political change—which is not the same thing.
To quote a book that I read last week, “the Kingdom of God is Christian civilization.” Jesus commands us in the Great Commission to disciple the nations not just individuals. God demands that every area of our life be subject to his Lordship. This includes your family, your job, your spare time, your church, your city, county, province, state, nation. Plus, education, arts, music, media, entertainment, everything.
Jesus is Lord of all. The Gospel is an all or nothing proposition. No part of your life can be held back from Him. The “fair exchange” is only valid if we die to ourselves in everything, only then can he give us his life.
We don’t just add Jesus to our lives the way some career women add a husband to their lives or buy a new pair of shoes. Jesus isn’t here to make your life complete. Such a view is a lie. Jesus is here to make dead people live. That thinking is very foreign to most Americans, even those sitting next to us in church.
Greg Gilbert checks the boxes for what God did for us in salvation, but he totally muffs it in regard to what salvation is all about. The comprehension of what salvation does to individuals, churches, and communities is dismissed as irrelevant in his book. This reduction of Christianity makes salvation some Gnostic, pietistic, or otherworldly thing that doesn’t transform every part of a Christian’s life.
The old saying to “give your heart to Jesus but your ass belongs to the United States Army” is a lie. Jesus claims lordship over the Army too. And not just ours, but every army in every country belongs to him.
Jesus is ruling from heaven, but he rules all the affairs of men and has for a very long time. Gilbert misses this aspect of the Kingdom and reduces it to some ethereal, spiritual thing with no reality in this present world.
Gilbert’s book will get you to the Cross of Christ but not beyond that point; for that you must look elsewhere.
Bobby Dog Update
I paid money to see a local attorney about the pit bull killing my dog. They took a pass on any intervention. Ditto with the local police. The pit bull must either attack a human or kill two more animals—along with people filing police reports—or nothing will happen. I was advised to work things out with the owner of the pit bull or take my chances in small claims court.
Even though the pit bull should be put down, nobody will compel the owner to do so. I was told that if the other dog owner pays the vet bill that I’m getting a deal; after all, we’re still neighbors when this all blows over. At best, the lawyer said, maybe they will give me enough money to get another dog.
Folks, I don’t want another dog. I made up my mind about that years ago. However, I thought my puppy friend would grow old and die of natural causes, not unnatural ones.
This trail, mess, or whatever it’s called, is not going how I imagined that it would. I would like restitution and to know that I did something to prevent this from happening again. Neither look likely without going to court. Whether that battle is worth fighting is unknown. Sadly, my only option at present is to wait and see if the pit bull owner makes me an offer.
Update
Sadly, what I wanted and what I got through this ordeal was very different. Shortly after this blog was posted, the owner of the pit bull, Scott, did give me a check for the vet bill for Bobby’s injuries but he offered zero compensation for my actual loss.
While nothing can replace Bobby, during his lifetime we invested several thousand dollars on keeping Bobby cared for, safe, and loved. Again, he was the last part of my marriage with Sheryl that I had left. He was representative of our happy times together wrapped up in fur and four legs. The last part of Sheryl that I had is gone.
My house is cold and empty without him. Every morning I look out the window and see the grave where he was laid to rest. Bobby, thanks for being my puppy friend. I really hope you are with mommy now.
I can’t begin to tell you how much I miss a small boy singing about corgi dogs ten years ago. I miss them both so much, it hurts.
Attorney Mario Update August 2026
In his book, The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli famously said that justice cannot be had without money.
The same can be said about Attorney Mario and the legal system that he navigates. Pesos (expended by me) yields progress.
The annulment process for my girlfriend has finally taken a leap forward as measured by every metric that I can find on the subject. Her ex-husband lives outside the country and to check the attempted notification box once and for all, we had to pay for publication of a public notice in a Philippine-based newspaper with an international circulation. This is a statutory requirement under their law. Yes, the law requires an old-school, dead tree variety, newspaper notice. The text and the pricing were provided by the courts.
Contrary to some claims, I’m not made of money. Said money tree in Elk Grove died about 20 years ago. Oh, to be fair, it was really called “the money tree” because it was the smallest tree in the yard (an apricot or peach tree if you need to ask) and our debt at the time was like the largest tree on the property (a lemon tree).
The text that the court wanted published for the public notice was about a 25-page MS Word document saved as a PDF file. The court wanted the notice published twice, once a week, for two weeks. The court provided one bid for the Philippine Star to publish this wonderful document. $2,550. Yep. That’s United States dollars not pesos. I about wet my boxers. I responded “Heck no! That’s way too much.” I asked for other options.
The court then provided two more choices, both for much less money. The next one was about $1,800 and the third was about $1,125. Reluctantly, I paid the money for choice number 3. Western Union put a 4 day hold on the transaction, but it finally went through. Mario was given the money and then for two and a half weeks, nothing but crickets. Early today, Mario responded that the public notice would be run on August 17 and 24th.
I found a thumbnail of the pages of the August 17th newspaper online. The public notice took up one entire page. Yep, we paid for two full page ads to blast out the legalese required by the court.
Once the notice runs the second time, the newspaper provides the court with copies of both ads and an affidavit attesting under penalty of perjury that they ran the ads as instructed.
Then the court has two internal boxes to check and then we finally get a court date.
Per the search engine of my choice, the projected timeline for the rest of this legal process is about 8 weeks or roughly the end of October. It is alleged by Attorney Mario that the judge is a stickler and if everything is in order, that the court process will be brief and swift. That would be a refreshing change of pace, if true.
Lastly, I have an agreement to be reimbursed for the annulment process after it is concluded. Gladly, there is little else that requires payment. The witness fees are part of the court process, but I hope at least a few of the scheduled witnesses can be skipped since this is an undisputed proceeding.
Once the annulment process is concluded, then the U.S. immigration process can begin. Option A is about ten months, and Option B is about 16 months. There are pluses and minuses for each. Of course, the choice with the shorter timeline is about $1,000 more and lots more paperwork.
The fourth quarter of 2026 looks to be very interesting.
Why did you run for office?
Title is self-explanatory. Seventy-some-odd people ran for governor, about eight were actually qualified. When I say qualified, I don’t mean that they are a resident, meet age requirements etc. Here is what I mean.
- Ability to raise significant money or self-fund. It takes 40-50 million to run for governor in this state, that’s just to be viable. If you can’t raise that, why would you run? It’s pointless and maybe it’s just to feed your ego.
- Have an actual platform. Sorry but lower taxes and less spending is not a platform, those are just basic talking points that have been around forever. Show me actual ideas.
- Drop the niche ideas no one cares about. A candidate I assisted years ago was all-in on a part-time legislature. That idea, while novel, appeals to CRA and central committee types only. The number of people who do not care about or understand what that means is quite a large swath of the electorate.
- Know the issues of the seat you are running for. Another candidate I helped spoke about how the school district was loaded with debt and we’re doing “another” school bond. The first door we knocked on, a retired administrator said the debt is very manageable, and we have not done a school bond before. Yikes! Credibility shot just like that.
- You could be serving as a vote siphon. Think of it this way, perhaps you are taking votes away from a more viable candidate. Look no further than the Michigan Senate primary this past week. An Isreal hating whacko came in first, look him up. He is a nut. The more sensible candidate lost by around 14,000 votes, less than 1%. A sensible third candidate who dropped out too late got around 65,000 votes. Figure most of those go to the sensible second place finisher and viola, the viable candidate moves on.
Bottom line: run for an office you think you can win. As mentioned earlier, a gubernatorial campaign will cost you 40-50 million dollars; that may be on the lower end. Senate? Ditto. Congress; probably 4-5 million depending on where you run. Assembly or State Senate; about a couple million, likely. Hard to get your message out when you have no money. A race like city council, school board, or water board may be more your speed. Start at a lower race, you may even get lucky and face no opponent. Heck water board you could win just by knocking on doors in your neighborhood.
Running for governor and congratulating yourself for getting .01% of the vote is just juvenile. Congratulations, you are the tallest midget, and your actions could have caused trouble. What if Steve Hilton missed the run off by 5,000 votes? Crazier things have happened. Saying you exceeded expectations is laughable in its own right. If your expectation was to get more than a statistical 0% of the vote what a sad, pathetic life you have.