Wednesday, March 30, 2011

The Movement to Disbar Mary N. Kellett

You can help the movement to put a Man-hating Attorney out of business for good. Visit

Gross prosecutorial misconduct and civil rights abuse of men and fathers is taking place in the Bar Harbor region of Maine by Assistant DA Mary Kellett.

Some have called it a modern day Witch Hunt where men are targeted and persecuted with little or no credible evidence of a crime.

This video details one case involving a father who tried to leave his wife of 16 years and gain custody of his children. What happened next is reminiscent of the 1600's Salem Witch Trials.

In 1690's New England was gripped by the Witch Hunt Hysteria which destroyed the lives of countless innocent people and their families solely by the false testimony of their accusers and the misconduct of their prosecutors.

Today, over 300 years later, a new insidious Rape Hysteria grips a small community in Maine's Bar Harbor region, and again, countless lives are being ruined solely by false testimony of their accusers and the misconduct of their prosecutors.

Numerous men have been arrested and jailed in Ellsworth Maine, often solely because of someone's accusations. Some of the accused men spend many months in jail until they are finally tried on the flimsiest or even fabricated evidence. Virtually every man who is accused gets arrested, charged, and has his life publicly ruined.

The accusers are sometimes young, mentally or emotionally impaired, girlfriends, occasional sex partners, and even wives in bitter custody battles with their husbands.

In a small county of only 50,000 people, as many as 4 men per month have been indicted on multiple counts of Rape, each carrying up to 30 years in prison.

The driving force of this Rape Hysteria is Assistant District Attorney Mary N. Kellett of Brooklin, Maine.

Vladek Filler is a decent, loving, and dedicated father, brother, and son, who decided to leave his 16 year relationship with his wife Ligia Filler (aka Ligia Barrientos), and save their children from her mentally unstable and abusive behavior. Up to the time Mr. Filler decided to leave, his wife repeatedly praised him for being "the most loving and caring man and father that she has ever seen in her entire life," and that he was "the only man for her".

Vladek Filler tried to leave this relationship in an honorable and civilized manner, but his wife considered it betrayal, and accused him of abandoning her like all others did. Hysterically she declared that the loss of this relationship meant that she "lost in her life".

Almost instantly, as she did with all her other relationships, she considered Mr. Filler as her enemy, and made outrageous and filthy allegations against him in an effort to seize custody of their children and punish him for trying to leave her. To achieve this, her allegations had to be outrageous since Mr. Filler was a loving husband of many years whose children loved him and wished to be with him.

Outrageous accusations are all it took to instantly sweep Mr. Filler in to the Rape Hysteria of Ellsworth Maine.

Labeled as having "mental issues" by the Gouldsboro Police, and "certifiable" by a Washington County Deputy Sheriff, Ms. Ligia Filler failed in gaining swift custody of their oldest son by alleging abuse. On April 24, 2007, she was apprehended and restrained after running on the streets partially undressed with a toddler while screaming that she wished to kill her husband and cut him in to pieces for molesting and abusing their children. She alleged that her husband would murder their 12 year old son. All of these allegations were investigated by DHHS and proven to be lies. But allegations that her husband sexually assaulted her escalated to multiple charges against this innocent man.

For more information visit:

The False Rape Society: Prosecutor's Conduct in Vladek Filler Case Both Heinous and Unpardonable

The Spearhead: The Movement to Disbar Mary N. Kellett


Fathers 4 Justice Global

Friday, March 11, 2011

Presidential Candidate ''Average Joe'' Schriner: The last shall come first?

Average Joe Schriner for U.S. President Campaign

Joseph Charles Schriner (b. March 3, 1955) (aka “average Joe” Schriner) is an Independent candidate for President of the United States. Once a proud resident of Bluffton, Ohio, Schriner ran in the 2000, 2004 and 2008 U.S. Presidential elections and has already begun campaigning for the 2012 race.

Schriner graduated from Bay Village High School in 1973. He earned a Bachelor of Science in Journalism from Bowling Green State University in 1978.

After several years as a journalist and drug counselor, he traveled around the United States looking for people who had developed creative, common-sense programs to help their communities. After 8 years on the road he developed his idea to run for the presidency.

Born in Cleveland, Ohio, he is married and has three children.

From the Consistent email newsletter 03/11/2011:

Joe Schriner is an independent U.S. presidential candidate for 2012 whose platform revolves around a Consistent Life Ethic – opposed to abortion, euthanasia, poverty, pollution, nuclear proliferation – "anything that can end life prematurely," he says. Schriner has campaigned in four successive election cycles, traveling with his family. A former journalist, he’s looked for people who have developed models to stand up for life in all its dimensions, then takes the information about from town to town. "If people pick up on these, we can get policies enacted long before we ever get to D.C." During his tours, he looks for Consistent Life Ethic contacts and their stories. He can be reached at

Joe Schriner's Platform

Pro Life · Pro Peace · Pro Health Care · Pro Environment

"Average Joe" Schriner
Presidential Election Committee
2039 W. 38th St.
Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Tuesday, March 08, 2011

The Order of the White Feather

The False Rape Society: Flashback: The Women's Group Organized to Shame Young Men Into Being Cannon Fodder

Mindless nonsense and propaganda knoweth no cultural bounds when it comes to trying to get youth of support the conflicts of Governments that can't get along with each other.

Thanks to the False Rape Society blog for calling attention to this dark chapter of history. Here's one of the links they referenced, and some content:

James Lovegrove was only sixteen when he joined the army on the outbreak of the First World War.

On my way to work one morning a group of women surrounded me. They started shouting and yelling at me, calling me all sorts of names for not being a soldier! Do you know what they did? They struck a white feather in my coat, meaning I was a coward. Oh, I did feel dreadful, so ashamed.

I went to the recruiting office. The sergeant there couldn't stop laughing at me, saying things like "Looking for your father, sonny?", and "Come back next year when the war's over!" Well, I must have looked so crestfallen that he said "Let's check your measurements again". You see, I was five foot six inches and only about eight and a half stone. This time he made me out to be about six feet tall and twelve stone, at least, that is what he wrote down. All lies of course - but I was in!"

(6) Francis Beckett, The Guardian (17th May 2008)
The war's extraordinary vividness is because it left a whole generation deeply and irreparably damaged, and that generation is close enough for many of us to have known members of it - and because millions of people can still do what I have just done. After reading, in quick succession, these four books about the men who fought the war (not a course of action I recommend as the preliminary to a carefree weekend), I took out a box of flimsy, yellowing letters, and tried yet again to imagine what my grandfather went through.
He had three small daughters, which saved him from conscription, and his attempt to volunteer was turned down in 1914 because he was short-sighted. But in 1916, as he walked home to south London from his office, a woman gave him a white feather (an emblem of cowardice). He enlisted the next day. By that time, they cared nothing for short sight. They just wanted a body to stop a shell, which Rifleman James Cutmore duly did in February 1918, dying of his wounds on March 28.
Read more here:

Also check the following:

"White Feather" Feminism: The Recalcitrant Progeny of Radical Suffragist and Conservative Pro-War Britain
It was Emmeline Pankhurst’s call for universal compulsory national service for both sexes that especially served the conservative line. Female service would be played out on the floor of the factory. This new work force would be in direct opposition to the concerns of the “socialist” trade unions:
In 1915, at the request of Lloyd George . . . the tiny but dynamic nucleus of the WSPU organized a mammoth Women’s Right to Serve demonstration in London to help overcome the still lively resistance of trade union leaders to the mass introduction of female labour. (Mitchell 51)
The conservative British establishment utilized Emmeline Pankhurst’s influence in their effort to curb “socialist” movement. Emmeline Pankhurst utilized a conservative stance to place her underlying concerns for suffrage and women’s rights in a better light and in a better position politically. She ultimately cozied up to the power structure of British society, many of whom she had previously considered the enemies of women, to advance the feminist agenda.

Tuesday, March 01, 2011

Rob Bell On Trial: The Hell-Acious Response Of Conservative Christianity

I saw a couple of Rob Bell's short videos about 5 years ago when I stayed in Chicago for a brief spell. I remembered something about him being filmed in a small cafe' setting, talking to the camera (as if you were the person he was having coffee with.) They seemed to me like solid, compassionate efforts at communicating God's truth to those who are struggling to understand why bad things happen in this life.

Bell's forthcoming book "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived" has sparked a brouhaha before it has even hit the shelves. Mostly it's centered around not the book itself, but the "Trailer" for it, shown above. No surprise that Justin Taylor, (who's also in the publishing business as vice president of editorial at Crossway Books) has along with John Piper and a few others, already condemned Bell as a universalist. I've come to expect this kind of knee-jerk outrage from the more Conservative theological camp & Calvinist Good 'Ol Boy Network.

Jason Boyett in his Beliefnet blog articulates the scope and complexion of the debate:

From the publisher's copy about the book:
In Love Wins: Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, Bell addresses one of the most controversial issues of faith--the afterlife--arguing that a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering. With searing insight, Bell puts hell on trial, and his message is decidedly optimistic--eternal life doesn't start when we die; it starts right now. And ultimately, Love Wins.
Sound controversial? It is. It's supposed to be. And we're not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but on Saturday influential blogger Justin Taylor (who's also in the publishing business as vice president of editorial at Crossway) decided to judge the book based on its cover description. Citing that and a short video provided by the publisher, Taylor outed Bell as a universalist. While he admitted that he hadn't read the book yet (!), he felt OK making this statement about Bell:
It is unspeakably sad when those called to be ministers of the Word distort the gospel and deceive the people of God with false doctrine.
And this one, too, in an explanatory follow-up statement:
If Bell is teaching that hell is empty and that you can reject Jesus and still be saved, he is opposing the gospel and the biblical teaching of Jesus Christ. You may think that's judgmental to say that; I think it's being faithful. I would encourage a careful study of 1 Timothy to see what Paul says about false teaching and teachers.
As of this morning, Taylor's post has more than 20,000 Facebook recommendations and 1,000 comments. But that's not all. Highly respected author and pastor John Piper read Taylor's post and recommended it to his Twitter followers with a link and this simple line:

Farewell, Rob Bell.

Piper's tweet got retweeted and passed along and pretty soon, #robbell was in Saturday's top 10 trending topics, which is usually reserved for Middle East unrest, dead celebrities, and Justin Bieber.

Read more:

Denny Burk begins his strawman attack on Bell by quoting from the above trailer and responding (of course, Bell isn't there to answer if Burk is or isn't correct in his presuppositions, but never mind that.) Here's Burks "phony debate" in part:

Bell: Gandhi’s in hell? He is? And someone knows this for sure?

Answer: The Bible teaches that there is no other name given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). The Bible also teaches any person who does not believe in Jesus falls under the judgment of God (John 3:18). Anyone (including Gandhi) who refuses to trust Christ alone for salvation will die in their sin and will not be able to follow Jesus into eternal life (John 8:21).

Hello??? I happen to know Christians who would say the same thing as Bell, and they believe in eternal punishment. They would agree with him about Gandhi, because Jesus said not to judge.

Nothing in that Bible passage can tell us exactly where Gandhi is with God. (Duh, because it was written some 2000 years prior to Gandhi's life on Earth!) We know E Stanley Jones, the great 20th century Methodist Theologian, witnessed the Gospel to him. At one point Jones wrote to him and expressed that although he previously though Gandhi had "gotten it," (saving faith in Christ) he had to admit he had not.

But that's IT! That's ALL we know! Anything to the converse is pure speculation because we don't know the guy and have no idea if he ever later reconsidered his views!

Can God communicate with us telepathically? Can he so so in a speed faster than light? DUH, what do you think? Perhaps something like this happened:

*Sound of Gun Shot*

Gandhi: "Oh no... no..." (according to the movie anyway!)

Holy Spirit: "Hi Gandhi this is God. You have just been fatally shot and unfortunately, this is it for you. Your mind will soon be going blank and your body will be entering the process of rigor mortis after that. Before your soul completely vacates your body, I just have one question for you. I see my servant E. Stanley Jones took the time out to explain The Gospel to you. What do you think. Do you believe my Son Jesus died for your sins, or no?

Speculation? Of course! And so is dogmatically stating that Gandhi is in hell.

Come to think of it, wasn't there someone in history, in the Bible as a matter of fact, who was saved by God without a Bible, Evangelists, or any adherence to 5-Point theology? Why yes, his name was Abraham!

I don't know if Rob Bell is a Universalist. I do know he's a breath of fresh air compared to the trend that permeates much of modern Christianity where some just read books by Piper, Horton, Sproul, et. al. rather than a broader cross-section of authors. But what disturbs me more than anyone's conclusions is the insinuation that the questions are ipso facto wrong to have. I once heard Charlie Peacock say that God is not afraid of our questions, but He is more than capable of shutting you up.

Someone who knows the Pastors who are criticizing Bell has shared with me that they have previewed chapters of his book in advance, and at his request. However, one Blogger has read the entire book, and disagrees with the conclusions being drawn by others. Here's also a good collection of thoughts on the topic.

But getting back to the controversy, I have to say that I've seen this movie before. The Reformed Good 'Ol Boy network gets to unilaterally decide for everyone else what is or isn't orthodoxy. And then they congratulate each other for a job well done not listening. I remember when decades ago, Tony Campolo had a heresy trial (that he asked for,) and J.I. Packer was one of the judges. I'll believe something is wrong with Bell when I hear people from other Theological Stripes weigh in on it.

John R.W. Stott whom many Evangelical Conservatives quote as an authority, isn't Orthodox on this issue, either. And yet I don't recall very that many people got their undies all in a twist over it! Hypocrisy? I'll let the reader decide for his or her self.

And why should they? I sometimes wonder if the Evangelical Covenant denomination might be right after all. They require no one to believe in anything that is not in and of itself Salvific. I'm sure many will staunchly disagree. But I think the unity of people in Christ as a reflection of Christ is more important than propositions *about* Christ.

I take NT Wright's definition of the Gospel to heart here and I am comfortable limiting it as such the same way he does:

When Paul talks about “the gospel,” he means “the good news that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and therefore the Lord of the world.” Now, that’s about as brief as you can do it. It’s very clear in Romans. Romans 1:3-4: This is the gospel. It’s the message about Jesus Christ descended from David, designated Son of God in power, and then Romans 1:16-17 which says very clearly: “I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God unto salvation. That is, Salvation is the result of the gospel, not the center of the gospel itself.”

The Gospel is: the good news that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and therefore the Lord of the world. Why not limit our boundaries of fellowship to that? Then all of the folks at differing levels of Orthodoxy don't have to be ostracized! Or are we too in love with Ostracization to be persuaded otherwise?

The only Ecumenical Council that was ever convened that had any Biblical Authority behind it was in Acts 15. In that scenario, thorny issues were hashed out, a decision was made that all were in agreement with. No one was kicked out.

I think we should start affirming whether these things are done Well in God's sight not so much by their words, but by their outcome.

And are we bold enough to imagine a Christianity free of differing over anything that will not intrinsically bring salvation? Perhaps we misunderstand the way Jesus intended to lead his flock, and how that's devalued into orgainizationalism & sectarianism.

Trevin Wax is another Bell Basher, but this time I'm not going to quote his blog, but the comments section. A respondent named Mason offers the most clear-headed thinking I've heard so far:

I guess my “issue” with heaven and hell is the idea of eternal punishment (of course I understand that God really does not care if I have an issue with it or not, nor does my issues make it any less Biblical).

In the OT God is quite clear that the punishment should fit the crime. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth type stuff. You sacrifice children to Moloch and I wipe you out. God’s judgment is proportionate to the crime. But God is not seen as giving out more punishment than is necessary or deserving. God is just. having said that where is the justice of taking a sincere religious person who gives to charity, supports efforts for justice and mercy to widows and orphans and basically “behaves” maybe even better than most Christians and when that person dies God places that person in eternal torment forever and ever just because that person did not accept Jesus as Lord??

As I read the scriptures Jesus is clear that there are degrees of punishment…remember when Jesus says that it will be more tolerable for Sodom in the Day of Judgment than for other cities b/c the other cities rejected the Gospel. It appears that judgment is given out based on the sole judgment of God.

Also, when you do a study of “hell” in the OT and NT people are often surprised how little the word Hell is actually used. Sheol is not hell neither is Gehenna. Sheol is the holding place of the dead similar to Hades. Gehenna is a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem where children were sacrificed to Molech during the OT. some could argue and i do not want to write Bell’s book for him, but that Jesus’ words concerning Gehenna are similar to Jeremiah’s warning to Jerusalem that if they did not repent then they would be subject to Gehenna..meaning they would be judged and destroyed in the fires of Gehenna, the city of Jerusalem would be leveled to the ground and bodies thrown into Gehenna, not eternal torment but consumed in judgment meaning perhaps and leaving open the possibility of nihilism, that they would suffer for a short time and then cease to exist.

Therefore Jesus’ discussion on Gehenna could be the same as Jeremiah (7.3). Jesus could be simply saying that if you refuse to be part of the Kingdom of God (which includes recognizing me as the one true Messiah and aligning your life in accordance with my kingdom) you too will be judged just as in Jeremiah’s day and be subject to the fires of Gehenna. Sure enough that is exactly what happened 40 yrs later when Titus marched on Jerusalem and leveled it and piled up all of the bodies in Gehenna.

Notice also in Revelation, hell is not mentioned. Death and Hades are mentioned, but those “places” are not hell. The only place that could be understood in the traditional since as hell is the lake of fire. But those thrown into the lake of fire are not said to burn forever. One could argue that they are consumed. Meaning they no longer exist. Some have argued that there is such a thing as “conditional immortality.” Meaning that humanity was created with the possibility of being immortal but they were not created inherently to be immortal.

There is only one immortal person and that is Jesus (1 Timothy 6.16). We are immortal as long as we are in the immortal one (Jesus). Without Jesus we are not immortal and we die. We cease to exist. Just a few thoughts…I think that we need to read Bell’s book before we jump to conclusions. All I am saying is that our traditional few of hell if correct should not fear challenges from those either inside of outside the church. If it is true it will stand the test of time. I would ask though that we make sure that our beliefs are shaped by the Bible and not by medieval literature (Divine Comedy).

Someone responds to Mason further down in the comments section with Eph 2:5, but I'm not sure if I can buy that persons' exegesis of it.

But I do like "Mason's" comment, and for this reason: He (?) goes right to the Raw Data of Scripture and wrestles with whats there!

Could he be wrong? Of course! But I think he's on the right track. The old "fret over that guy who could be going over the edge of what we consider Normal Christianity into heresy" tactic just doesn't cut it anymore. We should also ask: How faithful to Jesus has so-called "Normal Christianity" been?

In our 2000 year history: Crusades. Inquisition. Racism. Persecution. Misguided political agendas. Slavery to Salvation by Works instead of by Grace. Are these the hallmark of what Jesus had in mind?

It's not an unfair question to ask if we as a whole took a wrong turn somewhere, not at all.

And if your counter-argument boils down to a simplistic "because I said so" then you don't get it.

Because sometimes the "Traditional" view may be proven wrong. And if so, we'd better be prepared to abandon it!

And I might add: No one has shown me anything in Bell's video or the pre-publicity that couldn't go either way.

As an example, this from the Product Description:

Bell addresses one of the most controversial issues of faith—the afterlife—arguing that a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering. With searing insight, Bell puts hell on trial, and his message is decidedly optimistic—eternal life doesn’t start when we die; it starts right now. And ultimately, Love Wins.

Arguing that a loving God would never sentence human souls to eternal suffering" is one of the buzz-phrases used in Pre-publicity for Bell's book that's being kicked around by Burk & others. And yet as I previously pointed out, many Christians use the apologetic that God sentences no one, only People sentence themselves to hell!

It could also turn out to be the result of premeditated "pre-publicity." An ad campaign has been brought forth to get people in on the Buzz. Everyone's beating the drum on this thing at the behest of HarperCollins (and possibly Bell himself) - who may have concocted this as a mere charade. But asking questions is not a bad thing, either.

But we won't know for sure... and none of us really do... until the Book itself has hit the streets.