<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18852">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Time for a bit of reality!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The "Hitler Youth" was scribbled in chalk.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If someone really wanted to express their view that the NSA
boys and girls were Nazis, they would have used spray paint on the NSA bricks or
swimming pool paint on the sidewalk, thus making their work almost indelible or
at least very difficult/expensive to remove. As I pointed out at the time,
in my opinion it is highly probable that the scribbler was one of the cult
determined to detract from the outcry of public criticism and disapprobation of
Cultmaster Douglas Wilson ongoing in the community at that time. I know
that several LE personnel also share this view.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Further, some law enforcement personnel also share the
view that the tagging on the Logos Gym door was also done by a member of the
cult to attempt to divert suspicion that some cult members were involved in at
least some of the taggings going on at that time in Moscow. Tagging
<STRONG>only </STRONG>the door of the gym was the giveaway (among other
things). If door taggers really wanted to do some serious
tagging, the metal siding of the gym was a much more tempting, easy target than
carefully limiting the tagging to the door (which was easily painted over),
and one where the tagging would not be so easily or inexpensively
removed.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>So let's drop the asinine position that the cult was the
victim of hate crime graffiti. They were the unsuccessful perpetrators of
trying to con Moscow citizens and others into believing that they were/are
the victims of intolerance rather than the reality: they are the intolerant<FONT
size=5><STRONG>*</STRONG></FONT>.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Wayne A. Fox<BR>1009 Karen Lane<BR>PO Box 9421<BR>Moscow,
ID 83843</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><A href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A><BR>208
882-7975</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=5><STRONG>*</STRONG></FONT><FONT size=3
face="Times New Roman">From <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Credenda/Agenda</I> (Christ Church Cult
Official Organ), by Gregory Dickison [Comments added]:</FONT>
<P style="MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><FONT
size=3 face="Times New Roman">"The<B> civil magistrate</B> is the minister of
God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer (<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Rom.</st1:place></st1:country-region> 13:4). God
has not left his civil minister without guidance on how to exercise his office.
The Scriptures set forth clear standards of judgment for many offenses. Capital
crimes, for example, include <B>premeditated killing (murder), kidnapping,
sorcery, bestiality, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one's
parents</B>..."</FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><FONT
size=3 face="Times New Roman">"In contemporary American jurisprudence, none of
these offenses is punishable by death, with the occasional exception of murder.
The magistrates have dispensed with God's standards of justice. Some Christians
believe this is an improvement. They would be horrified to think that the
"harsh" penalties of the law should still be applied. Sometimes this is the
result of the <B>mistaken belief</B> that the Old Testament has no further
application after the advent of Christ. This is an exegetical problem. Too
often, it is the result of a sinful view of the criminal. <B>This sin is called
pity.</B>"</FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><FONT
size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><I>"If your brother, the son of your mother,
your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your
own soul, secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods,". . .
you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor
shall you spare him or conceal him; <B><SPAN style="COLOR: red">but you shall
surely kill him</SPAN></B>..."</I> [Comment:<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><B><SPAN
style="COLOR: blue">Heresy</SPAN></B>: Beware, ye not of the
cult!]</FONT></FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><I><FONT
size=3 face="Times New Roman">"If two men fight together, and the wife of one
draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and
puts out the hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her
hand; your eye shall not pity her..." </FONT></I></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><FONT
size=3 face="Times New Roman">God commands the judge to evaluate the
<I>crime</I> rather than the criminal. <B><SPAN style="COLOR: red">If the crime
is one for which God requires death, then death <I><U>must </U></I>be the
punishment.</SPAN></B> Your eye <I>shall not pity</I>. <B>Neither is the
repentance of the accused relevant to the imposition of the sentence.</B>
</FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 5pt 0in; mso-layout-grid-align: none" class=MsoNormal><FONT
size=3 face="Times New Roman">"Thus, the Bible teaches that pity is not an
option where God has decided the matter. The [civil] magistrate, God's minister,
is to faithfully execute justice according to God's standard, not man's... This
means that we must return to an obedience which confines pity within the bounds
which God has established for us."</FONT></P>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 14pt"><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=vpschwaller@gmail.com href="mailto:vpschwaller@gmail.com">Glenn
Schwaller</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 08, 2009 12:23
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Vandalism
Deplored as Hate Crime</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I have no problem figuring out the difference between a
swastika, an<BR>epithet, and a "go home" sprayed on a Muslim man's truck in
CdA. What<BR>concerns me is if YOU have the problem seeing the
relationship between<BR>them. I'm sure someone as educated as Ms Mix
knows that the swastika<BR>was used by many cultures throughout the past 3,000
years to represent<BR>life, sun, power, strength, and good luck.
Unfortunately its use by<BR>the Nazi's (and perhaps other Hitler Youth?) for a
few short years<BR>pretty much buried the harmonious intent of the original
design. So,<BR>swastika = bad.<BR><BR>And I'm sure you are aware that an
epithet may be defined as an<BR>abusive or contemptuous word or phrase, or a
disparaging or abusive<BR>word or phrase that expresses a character trait of
someone. "Hitler<BR>Youth" = swastika (by association) = not so bad in
this case?<BR>Perfectly innocent and containing no ulterior motive (as long as
it's<BR>NOT on personal property). Have I got that correct??<BR><BR>If
"Hitler Youth" was not an epithet leveled at a group or groups in<BR>Moscow,
then it must have been nothing more than a group of Hitler<BR>Youths notifying
all of their passing through the fair city. Is this<BR>what you are
trying to say Ms Mix??? You seriously believe<BR>that??!!??! If
that is the case then I suggest you would likely<BR>believe the Cd'A "hate
speech" (your quotes, not mine) was a way for<BR>some young Muslim scholar to
make a point in the hope that it would be<BR>blamed on some
foaming-at-the-mouth liberal -- and impress the Big Men<BR>in the local
mosque. Oh no, it can't be that because it was done on<BR>personal
property, not public. Makes all the difference in the world<BR>does it
not?<BR><BR>Had they painted these “things” ON THE PUBLIC STREET to the side
of<BR>the vehicle, would it have been "First Amendment Rights freedom
of<BR>expression"? Perhaps had this been the case it would have been
just a<BR>wish for good health and luck, and an admonition to be sure and
be<BR>home in time for dinner, for whomever happened to be parking there
at<BR>the time. After all, that would have just been “randomly chosen
(like<BR>a sidewalk for instance) with no intent leveled at any one”.
I'm<BR>certain then, that even Ms Mix would have to agree the Cd’A
incident<BR>(paraphrasing) "was never, and never would be, an epithet leveled
at<BR>someone". Am I reading you correctly here Ms Mix?<BR><BR>So, for
the sake of argument, let's put aside the legalities and the<BR>fact this was
someone’s personal property, and look at the "intent,"<BR>"mind-set," or
"personal character" displayed in both cases. Is there<BR>a difference,
humanistically, philosophically, morally, or socially,<BR>between these two
incidents? A simple yes or no will suffice. I, of<BR>course, will
vote No.<BR><BR>I believe the answer(s) may suggest who amongst us, at the
very core<BR>of their being, are racist, bigoted, and intolerant.<BR><BR>And
sorry, I STILL have no offices in the downtown area.<BR><BR>GS<BR><BR><BR>On
Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Tom Hansen <<A
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</A>> wrote:<BR>> And
who can forget the infamous police complaint filed by Doug Wilson at<BR>>
about the same time as the "NSA/Hitler Youth" vandalism, a complaint
that<BR>> he (Doug Wilson) did not want investigated, merely maintained on
file.<BR>><BR>> A quote from that police complaint (attached) . .
.<BR>><BR>> "Other than their evident public malice expressed in other
settings, I<BR>> have no evidence to say that the following people are
responsible. But,<BR>> these are some of the foremost people involved in
displaying public<BR>> animosity.<BR>><BR>> 1. Jackie Wolf aka J.
Ford on Vision 2020<BR>><BR>> 2. Charlie Nolan - multiple aliases on
Vision 2020<BR>><BR>> 3. Michael Metzler - <A
href="http://www.poohsthink.com">www.poohsthink.com</A><BR>><BR>> 4. Tom
Hansen<BR>><BR>> 5. Terry Morin"<BR>><BR>> By the way, how did
that Writ of Mandate thing turn out?<BR>><BR>> Oh, you don't
recall.<BR>><BR>> Maybe this will refresh your memory.<BR>><BR>>
<A
href="http://www.tomandrodna.com/writofmandate/">http://www.tomandrodna.com/writofmandate/</A><BR>><BR>>
Hmmm.<BR>><BR>> Tom Hansen, Intolerista<BR>> Moscow,
Idaho<BR>><BR>> “I’ll just speak for our church, in Christ Church. If I
found out that a<BR>> member of our church or a church officer was lying to
non-believers in the<BR>> community, as a way to get by or protect themself
or protect his<BR>> reputation, yes, he’d be disciplined.”<BR>><BR>>
- Doug Wilson (January 31,
2007)<BR>><BR>><BR><BR>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
<BR> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>