Posts
SHUT UP AND PAY YOUR TAXES. STOP CHAMPIONING A CAUSE THAT YOU DON'T SUFFER FROM.
Oh yes, thank you Erik for enlightening me on something that I know something about, and you have no clue. Could it be that I am currently being "ENSLAVED" by taxes to pay for services that you and your family enjoy, but that you don't pay for. You are a HYPOCRITE, UNPATRIOTIC, AND A TRAITOR. Please tell me how to live better, when your way of life burdens me and the rest of Americans that pay for their country. Why don't you go and burn a flag, at least that is a protected form of protest versus burdening me with your illegal activities. Yes complain about the borders. Why? You are a legal resident that burdens Americans the same as an illegal alien does, according to your Minuteman propaganda.
I mean can it get any worse than a person screaming foul about something that he himself does?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
289 comments:
1 – 200 of 289 Newer› Newest»Is it true that Erik really doesn't pay his taxes? Did he admit that in his ebook? (I didn't take time to read it.)
He didn't admit it in his ebook that I know of - because I didn't read the crap. But, it was admitted in the comments of one of Candy's posts.
Their kids don't have SS#'s, therefore they are not claimed as dependents. They are not legally married, since they performed their ceremony themselves. Basically, Eric lives as a single man making hardly any money, according to the government.
The government probably doesn't bother with going after him for tax evasion because he doesn't make enough for it to be worthwhile - basically, he isn't worth their time or attention.
As for his rambling, it has always pissed me right the F off that he goes on and on and on about supposed taxpayer slavery when he doesn't pay his own damn taxes in the first place. That, right there, means he has no right whatsoever to say anything.
If you don't vote, you can't complain about the government. If you don't give to charity, you can't complain about where charitable money is spent. If you don't pay your taxes, you cannot complain about how taxes are used. Period. End of Story.
The man is a drain on society and a horrible example of the freedoms run amok; he's made himself more important than the better good of the country and that kind of person needs to be knocked down.
It was one of the staples of his run for congress. Look at the June 6th post that I did. I have a quote by Erik admitting that he does not pay taxes.
It is like flag burning really. I mean yes it is a constitutionally protected form of protest, but the fact that someone burns a flag (showing the most affordable freedom of speech I can thank of) to prove America is bad? What? I mean it is not like the monks torching themselves to prove a point. It always seemed hypocritical to me. To say I hate this country that is so incredibly free that it allows me to desecrate the very symbol for which it stands. Yeah terrible I guess? You just want to grab those people and kick them in the face, and point out the irony.
""I think the two parties ought to be Libertarian and the American Constitution Party," Brauer said. "The War on Drugs is definitely a violation of part of the Declaration of Independence, the part that says we're guaranteed 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' It's ridiculous that anybody wouldn't think it would cause the same problems Prohibition did."
Brauer hasn't filed an income tax return since 1997. "I am a 'Give me liberty or give me death' kind of guy." Although he's raising no campaign funds and spending none of his own money, Brauer says he's running to repeal seat belt, proof of insurance and motorcycle helmet laws"
this was from the paper in colorado during the election
Oh, this was on his campaign site, when he ran for office.
He got a bit testy with his constituents, or his supposed constituents, when they didn't give him money. It is so typical of his selfish arrogance. He is having a tantrum because he can't raise any money for his "campaign".
It seems they've deleted all this stuff, six years later, only recently but you can still find the page cached and through archives. I found this one here
July 1st - The official paper work for Erik J. Brauer U.S. House District 2 was turned into the Colorado Secretary of State. Fund raising began.
July 31st - I am amazed at the number of people who claim to be against socialism but are unwilling to contribute even 1 cent to stop it. So far the campaign has been pledged $185 and nothing has been collected. I bring home $1200 a month and have $1100 a month in bills, so this campaign depends on you.
I have found that people who have been in the freedom fight for years are usually resigned and cynical. Most of them do not understand how this approach is supposed to work and few will spend enough time talking to see the big picture. These people have turned out to be the most unhelpful and stiff necked. I suppose they would have already been taking this approach if they had the vision to think of it. We are going to have to free ourselves without them. I doubt I will waste any more of my time trying to approach these people.
I am prepared to spend less than $5,000 on this campaign and avoid the red tape associated with higher levels. The next 2 years can be used for fund raising. This means that currently, you are looking at waiting at least another 2 years for the big push, but I'm ready to go now if you are. If you are thinking about how much to contribute, consider how much an extra 2 years of income taxes will cost you.
I am going to pull weeds and work on cars now. Let me know if you are actually interested in freedom by contacting me at minuteman2000@truthmail.com to make a campaign donation. I can already say to my kids that I had the chance to do something and did it, how about you?
I beleive the whole run for congress was a ploy for donations, which is so hillariously ironic. Vote for me I will end the handouts, but on our journey my hand is out.
Too bad, really, because with 4 children and low income the government would PAY THEM (they pay us every year via child tax credits, and we're not really low income - $50k.)
They are probably common law married, though. And they DO pay taxes - Sales Taxes and property taxes (which are included in the rent, unless their landlord is a complete idiot).
Also communications taxes, gasoline taxes, and all the other taxes that are simply unavoidable.
What he probably means is, they don't pay SS or Medicare taxes or income taxes. I hope they are preparing their finances for if Candy is left a widow or the children are orphaned!
(Maybe their church they hate will take care of them?)
I couldn't read Erik's rant so I don't really have a comment on that.
Amazing. Thanks for those quotes.
Per the poverty table of 2002, (family of 4)--lived $4000 below poverty level. Erik is such a loser for not providing for his family when he is able.
Surely they don't reap any benefits that us tax paying folk pay for. Like the library, our roads, the park she chases people out of. They've never had to call the police? If her house were to start on fire would she call the fire dept., or would that be infringing on the rights of people who pay taxes?
I'd have to agree 100% on this post. I think there need to be major reforms in our social programs but we honor our obligation to pay taxes to the government as we should. I have no issue with what amount of income they have because I believe they have a nice home, certainly more than people around the world have. I think their is nothing wrong with being low income or with the meals they serve. It looks to me as if they live quite comfortably but the fact that Erik goes out of his way to secure employment that pays him under the table is just wrong. He does that to avoid paying what is due and there is no excuse for that. He may or may not be right about some things but it is just plain WRONG to refuse to pay taxes. I'm sure he's familiar with the scripture, Give to Caesar what is Ceasar's.
Glad I read the comments before posting since MMM pretty much summed up what I was going to say.
I do have a question for some of you. If someone is low-income do you always believe that they are not trying to support their family?
In 2005, we were a family of 8. My husband's gross income for that year was almost $17,000. Not because he wasn't providing for us, but finding a job was hard. I live in an area where jobs are hard to come by and sometimes you have to take what you can to provide for one's family. (I am excluding illegal activity.) He basically had to work as a self-employed person for awhile.
Money was tight during this time, but we did survive. But it was doable with God's help. I would never judge a person for their income level. At least there is an income coming in and they do live in a better house than most of the world's population. In fact, they are wealthy compare to most of the world.
It is true that people have to pay sales, gasoline, and communication taxes, but I don't know if Oklahoma has an income tax. The reason the IRS doesn't come after him is that he would owe no taxes after it is all said and done. So I guess my question would be "why is he so anti-tax?" He is he championing a cause for the rich, or is championing the future cause; if someone invests 20,000 dollars with no guarantee of return on their investment. Go to brauerengineering.com. There are some good quotes on there. I mean he basically calls anyone that has 20 grand a wuss if they don't invest in his inventions.
I don't think being low income has anything to do with it. The judgments people here have made have been based on the Brauer's own claims. Of course I do not think that anyone who is low income is "not working hard enough". Personally, their home is not an issue, nor is their food, their homeschooling, her claimed daily schedule...whatever. To each his/her own.
It is willful ignorance, and willful poverty, that I take issue with. And, with thinking you know all the answers. And, with thinking you can go on tirades about things that don't even have an impact on you. Erik is a crzy man when it comes to taxes and many of his ideas are so far off base they're not even in the field. Yet, he does nothing through the channels to fix the problems, and he doesn't even pay the taxes he complains about in the first place.
Mr., who has posted here, says that Erik is intelligent and capable, yet he makes the choice not to have a "real" job. Why is that? Does he think he is making some sort of statement? "See, I live in poverty and I am great anyway". What a load of bull hockey.
The choices one makes directly affect ones life. And the lives of those they are responsible for.
My husband lost his job of 17 years - to downsizing and outsourcing, a much larger problem in this country, in my opinion, than taxes - and spent months looking for something equivalent. In this day and age, it isn't possible to make the same kind of money he used to make as a starting wage. The search went on too long - over 6 weeks, which is too long in our book - so he accepted a job making a pittance compared to what he used to bring home. We just barely paid our mortgage and bought food, never mind anything extra. But, even while he worked the low paying job he continued to search. It took a really long time - almost a year - but finally he found a job in his field, making not what he was at his old job but with the potential to get to that point again. And certainly it was enough for us to live on, and it had great benefits which we also lost with the first job. We've never gone uninsured, but we were very under insured for several months.
We sacrificed a lot in order for him to have a job he enjoys, that uses his knowledge and education. So, I totally get that Erik believes he has a gift or calling or whatever, and I totally get the concept of a "dream job" or a perfect job. But, in the mean time, you better do whatever you can to take care of your family. If you don't, it is your failing, no one else's. And then to turn around and have nothing but blame for "the system" - because the choices you make are not lucrative or successful - is just plain lazy, arrogant and ignorant.
I posted this comment after Erik's reply in the comment section. Now lets see if it actually gets posted.
I personally do not have to use government programs however I certainly understand how someone could as I have a special needs child and have dealt with the financial situations. You can believe and seek in the Lord plenty but that does not change the fact that your child has to have thousands of dollars worth of therapy and medication. The Lord does not say that if you believe in him life will be perfect and you will have no financial struggles. I am not trying to condemn but I feel that this statement blindly comes from someone who has not had to deal with the financial hardships of a special needs child. I would never wish that on anyone but until you deal with it personally you will never understand it. Private churches and friends would never be able to help even without taxes because the bills can be downright astronomical. I have no problem having my taxes go to help people in need as it is a compassion thing that comes from within. Sure there are people who abuse the system but honestly I would rather know that those who need it are really helped and a few abuse it then to think that I could have helped but did not.
I just read Erik's reply in Candy's comments and he just gets under my skin.
I, personally, have zero problem with government assistance, in any way. Not only do my taxes pay for safety, roads, schools, police, etc. they help people in need.
If someone abuses the system, that is between them, their God, and their conscience - and whatever agency is charged with dealing with them.
As is always the case, the abuses of the minority make it harder on the fairness of the majority.
I'd rather my taxes go to feed inner city children in the summer than to have no taxes and let them starve. Yes, the family is responsible, but let's face it, we do not live in a perfect world. Many of these children don't have stable families to take care of them; that's how they get in this position in the first place. Are we supposed to let them starve? Steal? Grow up with no faith in their fellow man?
I won't even touch his incorrect claim that this nation was founded on God/Christ given rights. There are a billion forms of evidence to the contrary and most people know them; most people who know actual American History, that is.
Check out Candys SO compassionate response to the two women with special needs children who get by only because of Medicaid. Basically she tells them that they should just rely on family or "private charities like United Way".
For the record, United Way takes tax dollars.
The nut of her response is that it doesn't matter how much you need public assistance, it's still wrong. Nice. My husband is a libertarian whose politics is in line with Erik's and even he was brought to silence with my question, what happens when one of the kids breaks an arm and Erik and Candy won't go to the county ER?
His comment about the church should be the one to help is a contradiction in itself. If he is paying his 10% tithe and the church is helping these people than he is still giving his money to be used for the same thing that he is opposing the government using it for.
"Yes, the family is responsible, but let's face it, we do not live in a perfect world."
My thoughts exactly.
Just FYI -- Oklahomans do have to pay income tax to the state.
Tia,
You said: I don't think being low income has anything to do with it. The judgments people here have made have been based on the Brauer's own claims... It is willful ignorance, and willful poverty, that I take issue with. And, with thinking you know all the answers. And, with thinking you can go on tirades about things that don't even have an impact on you.
I recognize that you say those things don't matter but people on this blog have been quite critical of their home, lifestlye, food choices, income, etc...
I don't think "willfull poverty" is a fair term. What our gov. deems as poverty level is quite relative - if you look the world over. Erik and Candy have a home with 5 children, they have air conditioning and at least one vehicle. They grocery shop regularly and have food stored in the event of an emergency or illness. They have 3 meals a day. They have clothes on their back and a television and toys and books and educational materials. They own several computers and many other luxury items. "Poverty" is a relative term and I can imagine there are millions of people the world over who would love to be so "poor". On top of that they seem happy and content. Just because a person can do better does not mean they should. Maybe they are doing all they feel they need to do. If Erik is fighting a fight that won't benefit him maybe he is doing it because he believes it is a good and right thing to do. Personally, I'd rather see someone take up a battle that doesn't serve them because they are passionate about it. I think he should pay taxes but he doesn't. Maybe we should be glad that he's not getting Earned Income Credit that he would be GIVEN - paid with your tax dollars and ours. If he was truly self serving maybe he'd jump on that. I DO think it is terrible that he doesn't pay but it seems he doesn't pay and it doesn't benefit him. Whatever, he isn't my husband. So, anyways, whether the tax thing is good or bad doesn't matter much to me. However, I do think this man is taking care of his family. They have a great deal and we are just an incredibly selfish culture - if you look at what we think we "should" have compared to what most of the world has. We live paycheck to paycheck. My husband has had opportunities to advance in his company to making a great deal more than he does now but together we have chosen not to take those promotions. Money isn't everything and I have a hard time thinking anyone in their family is wasting away. What do we need, really? If we break down the basic necessities it looks to me like they've got their fair share and then some.
For all the things she has said against the 'word-faith' movement in the past, wonder-hubby has just posted THIS gem:
"Also, when you say that the Government should violate the Rights God gave me because somebody needs it, you demonstrate that you do not believe Jesus when he said to first seek the Kingdom of God (do what is right) and your earthly needs will be met. Matt 6:33
Faith goes a long way toward seeing miracles of God. What if refusing to take the ill gotten gain of Government Handouts, would cause God to miraculously heal the person with the health problems? Shadrack, Meshack and Abednigo were will to do what was right upon pain of death, that's when God showed up."
Un.be.lieve.able.
Handicapped children aren't cured because their families didn't just let them lie in bed to whither and die, but actually did what they are supposed to, and provide for their needs however they can.
And they consider themselves such fine Christians. Sounds to me that they worship their interpretation of the US Constitution more than Christ who tells us to care for each other.
I agree, she sounds heartless in that comment. I've worked with people with physical disabilities. Their care can run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. I believe God is big enough to heal every pain on earth but if He wanted to do it I don't think He needs to wait for the government to stop taking taxes from citizens. I doubt if they had a terminally ill child or a handicapped child that she'd deny her child the care necessary to survive. Thankfully, as of yet, she's never had to make that decision.
Messed up that comment so I deleted it. Here is what I meant to post.
Sorry, but Erik is a moron. The Declaration of Independence was that.. a declaration of independence from the British empire, nothing more - nothing less. It is not a document of governance for the United States of America, a country that didn't exist at the time the Declaration was written.
The Constitution of the United States of America IS our governing document. It was written with the ability to be amended and the process for that amending spelled out. The 16th amended was duly and legally ratified in 1913. The idea that Erik is condemn parent's of children who use government social services on Candy's blog is tasteless and uncharitable to say the least. Someone is supposed to let their child die of cancer rather than go on Medicaid ? I wonder if Candy would stand by and watch her child die a slow and painful death to avoid "government handouts".
I have to agree with MMM - compared to the world over, the Brauers are actually somewhat rich. They all have what they need, and who cares if the kids wear clothes from Goodwill, eat canned salmon, or don't have videogames? Yeah, it would be nice if they could buy clothes from GAP, give each child their own personally decorated bedroom, own a Wii system or two, eat out a couple times a week at the Olive Garden, and have those other American "necessities" but none of those things are necessary, and I don't think we can really criticize them if that's what we consider poor. We are such a spoiled society.
Gosh lately I feel I am taking up for Candy, and I'm not. I still think she is weird and a liar...but some of these criticms go a little too far IMO.
One of their children broke his leg jumping from the top bunk? Or fractured it? Anyway, they took him somewhere for that diagnosis. Anyone able to dig up those entries?
Tia - You are great!! Everything you said, was great!
According to people who know the Brauers, their children do not get what they need. They do not have enough food to eat and several people have said that.
Rebecca - I think Ms. Candy is so miserable in her own life that she has had to live through a meez. Meez is her new reality. Looking at Erik's posts and all his internet craziness, I think I would prefer the Meez life too.
MMM, when I spoke/wrote, I was speaking for myself, not everyone. I was only trying to suggest their motivation and that they weren't making it up.
Poverty is subjective. Yes, that is true. What is a need for one is a luxury for another. We should all be grateful for everything we have. If we are using a computure right now, in our own homes, we're already light years ahead of many people around the world.
But, there are two people who have posted here who claim to know the Brauer's. One lives in their town and one knows Erik from the past.
These two sources have indicated that the Brauer children are not getting their needs met. They may have televisions, 3 meals a day and a roof over their heads. But, one of the posters, Julie?, said her church considered sponsoring them but declined because of Erik's attitude problems; that suggests the children are in need. In need of what, I don't know, but I'm sure you've read her blog and can gleam that she must stretch that budget further than it is probably capable of. If she does it successfully, more power to her.
But, the implications are this: Candy is not honest, and she and her husband are people who suck others in and tend to berate others who believe differently than they do. They claim perfection in their lives. No one can claim that in real life, so why is it acceptable to so many people who read her blog and praise her, just because they're reading her words on a computer monitor rather than hearing them spoken face to face?
I honestly have no idea of the real lives they live and it is, admittedly, none of my business. But, she makes her life public thus she has to accept what comes with it. She may make money off her little booklets, she may have bunches of women graveling at her feet and praising her and giving her the boost she so obviously craves, but with that comes the negative reactions, assumptions and implications.
People vent here. You know what? Considering how many people here crawled out of the woodwork when the blog was started, it's a good indication that Candy has rubbed more people the wrong way than most people thought.
I don't think there is true poverty in the Brauer household. I do, however, think their priorities are seriously flawed. Candy herself has said they live at or below the poverty line; the US Government has serious issues with its definition of poverty and too many people are living at the poverty level while the government claims otherwise, but if the Brauer's are at or below the one the government has determined, as Candy has stated, they are not financially well off. That in and of itself is not really an issue, unless their kids are going hungry so he can buy crap for his "inventions" and pay for high speed Internet and buy bibles at the drop of a hat.
Tia,
I get where you are coming from and I don't really disagree on much of it. My remarks were really only focused on whether or not the statement "willfull poverty" was appropriate. Truly, no one on this blog is eating dinner with them so we can't assume the children are malnourished. As for the other things - that is all for Candy or Erik to defend if they so choose. I just don't see being "poor" as a necessarily bad thing. I just wanted to clarify that :)
Where is my meez praise party for this Saturday night??????
no meez - but you could host one :D
I remember reading the comments the day that she posted that all government programs were unChristian: medicaid, WIC, and the like. She had MANY people leave comments saying they NEEDED WIC, and she essentially responded that they just didn't have enough faith in God.
Yes, God will provide, but God also helps those who help themselves. I truly believe that the God I worship does not consider me less of a Christian b/c I am on WIC. (Of course, I'm Catholic, so the God I worship is probably Satan and I'm just too blinded by the Pope to realize it.)
I think Candy's husband's comments to those two women with special needs children were downright offensive. How dare he judge them? Has he "walked a mile in their shoes"? Some very naughty words came to my mind while I was reading his responses. And the thing is, you can't engage him in rational debate because he simply parrots the same phrases and same words over and over ...
He said:
"Also, when you say that the Government should violate the Rights God gave me because somebody needs it, you demonstrate that you do not believe Jesus when he said to first seek the Kingdom of God (do what is right) and your earthly needs will be met. Matt 6:33"
I just can't see why any would want to associate with such a vial person as someone who would question someone's faith in Christ because they don't follow his twisted, whacky reasoning on taxation. What an offensive ass he is.
Erik and Candy's third son broke his leg sometime in early 2007...Jan. or Feb., I believe. They did not seek medical help for that child (2 yrs.) until one of her readers told her how they could get free medical help at the University of Oklahoma by doctors in training. They waited 4 days while that little boy had a severe break before seeking any medical help!!! Thankfully the growth plate was not affected, he received treatment, was casted for several weeks, and has fully recovered.
They left a toddler with a broken leg for four days?
That is evil. Evil. There is no other word for it.
Also a bit interesting...These kids have NEVER been to a dentist or eye doctor, had regular pediatric
check-ups or a single immunization. Candy believes she can treat any ailment with a home remedy....execept broken bones I guess.
I think the incident with their 3rd son would have been a wake-up call for them.. Most people would have thought, "Boy that was a seriously close call. We better make sure to get some type of insurance at least on the children." But for Erik and Candy the fact that they were directed by a blog reader on how to get FREE medical attention for a broken leg was just another example of, "We are such strong Christians, so the Lord provided!"
rosamundi,
I know it sounds unbelievable, but that is exactly what they did. They kept him immobile in the trailor, as much as you can keep a 2 yr. old from moving, and they begged online or prayers and ideas from readers on how to handle the situation.
I have a 2-year-old and the thought of her with an untreated broken leg for 4 days makes me want to cry. I can't believe any mother would willingly let their child suffer like that. That's child abuse and I'm truly shocked to hear of it.
MMM your insistence to compare apples to oranges drives me nuts. Yes others in third world countries would like to be our poor, but what does that mean. Are you actually saying that since there are people who are worse off in other countries that we should neglect our own. I can't stand that argument. I think that any country that is capable of purchasing shoes and sweaters for dogs have zero excuse for having malnurished children in their society.
Hey Erik, first pay your freaking taxes and then join the discussion, second what about people in other countries not afforded these rights by our Consitution? My point is that just because the Constitution was created does not mean the rights reserved in it are God's law or God's rights. They are rights afforded to man by men. They are not rights that are created by God (unless you want to take an inductive look and argue that God created man, man created document so it all comes from God kind of thing). I do not judge the Bruaers for being poor. I judge the Brauers for not being honest (i.e. "m;y taxes go" freaking lie right there, he doesn't pay them, and if he does pay them, then he lied before), holding an unrealistic account of their lives, and condemening people for not being like them. Those are my issues. If you want to deny you live in a mobile home fine, I will show you where you have lied. If they said they lived in a mobile home, and I found out they actually lived in a three story home I would blame that for that as well and with the same vigor.
A note to Erik: This fallacy that you stand behind, not according to the founding father's documents, about not being involuntarily forced into servitude is just flat out wrong. ASK A BLACK MAN ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE FOUNDING FATHER'S DOCUMENTS ABOUT INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. HELL THEY BOUGHT AND SOLD THE VALUE YOU THINK THEY HELD SO DEAR.
I know it sounds unbelievable, but that is exactly what they did. They kept him immobile in the trailor, as much as you can keep a 2 yr. old from moving, and they begged online or prayers and ideas from readers on how to handle the situation.
One, that is neglect. Pure and simple. Two, the "readers" should wisen up and they should have reported their actions rather than offering them a way out of trouble. But, you're saying they got free medical care? Hmmm, that's three, that sounds to me like a government hand out? The University of Oklahoma is a state run institution and it is run by - the state! They offer free care by interns/residents - that is a handout! Someone is paying for it; taxpayers, students, donors, etc. By Erik's argument, he should have never set foot on that campus.
Never mind that in reality it is a community service.
He says others don't believe properly in Jesus when they don't support his convoluted ideas. He questions the faith of others, yet he does the exact thing he claims is wrong to do?
Their concept that the Lord provided is disgusting to me. It takes away all relevance to that phrase when it truly applies.
The Lord did not provide help for their son - the Interns/Residents at the University of Oklahoma did that. And, they did it because the state set up the programs to do so. And, they went there at the suggestion of a random person on the Internet. Therefore, that random person had more to do with it than the Lord.
I'm all for having faith, but to say everything in life is the Lord's doing is just stupidity, laziness and total and complete lack of responsibility for oneself and ones actions, choices and decisions. Here's why.
I am not a Christian. Yet, we have medical care, a home, food, dogs, clothes, extras, vacations. Irrelevant, to some, but blessed beyond measure by the standards of others. My husband had his esophagus removed five years ago; a surgery that wouldn't be performed unless his affairs were in order because it is so dangerous. Not quite as dangerous as the alternative, incurable cancer with no treatment. He came out of that surgery healthier than he has been in 20 years. Did the Lord do that, or did the doctors? Considering I don't think a single one of us sent up a prayer to God, did the Lord do that for my husband anyway? Why would he do that for my husband, a man who is vehemently not a Christian, while allowing the health of Christians who worship and pray for him to fail? My aunt - an IFB missionary who lived her entire life dedicated to God and mission work - died of breast cancer and left five children without a mother. Why did this devout Christian die when my husband got healthier? When she and her family prayed every minute of the day while I don't think anyone other than my mother in law & sister in law prayed for my husband. Oh, and their prayers are Catholic too, so worthless in the eyes of the Brauer's which brings us back to no prayers sent up to the Lord.
I don't doubt the power of prayer and God for those that believe, but I do despise the whole "the Lord provided" thing when it had nothing to do with God. For my husband, the doctors and specifically his surgeon, provided. For my aunt, I have no answers. For the Brauer's son, a reader and the University of OK and the residents/interns provided.
The Lord helps those who help themselves. It's simple, really. He gave us the means to reason and decide, he gave us free will, we have a conscience, we have brains and abilities. We are not meant to sit on our asses and let him do everything.
Sorry to go off; it's not meant for anyone here personally, but this Lord provided nonsense in ridiculous situations is one of the few things that truly sets me off on tirades.
Hypocricy is one of the worst character traits on the planet and the Brauer's are seething with it.
And, before everything I said gets dissected - note this is my opinion and it is not directed at a single person posting on this blog. If you hold that much faith in the Lord, so be it; it is your choice. I won't argue about it and I am not attempting to make anyone defend their reasoning.
TIA - I think you are wonderful. I just read all the posts and you say everything wonderfully. I am Christian, but I doubt sometimes and feel exactly like you put it.
I'm surprised the "doctors" didn't report them. But maybe that is where all the preparedness for CPS visits originated.
When my 2yr fractured her femur several years ago. By day five any part of her body not covered by cast became bruised looking - the orthopedist said it was due to all the internal bleeding.
She was in incredible pain before they took her into surgery to repair it that day. But she had morphine and codiene for days afterwards.
Christian or not, if this story is true we should all be concerned for these children.
I agree with Barbie.
If I would have seen those posts, I would have turned them in immediately. Prayer is not going to take the child out of pain or repair the broken bone. All of those children should be taken away from them immediately.
Maybe this is why she is changing churches. She was in a IFB church and they don't usually acknowledge prophecy and healing. Maybe she thinks if she changes to a place that does, she won't need that stuff called health insurance.
I am with you tia.
tia wrote,
"I'm all for having faith, but to say everything in life is the Lord's doing is just stupidity, laziness and total and complete lack of responsibility for oneself and ones actions, choices and decisions."
You have just given a very succinct and completely accurate summation of Erik and Candy. BRAVO!!!
I am sure he had concocted a believable story to tell the U of O staff when he brought his son in for treatment. I am also sure he did not tell them the real date of the accident, or they would have turned him in for an investigation. Although I don't know how much good it would have done. Erik and Candy, as many people have pointed out, are very practiced in what to say to CPS to get out of trouble.
Like I said in a previous post, I could give MANY examples of neglectful parenting, but I wouldn't know where to start. The readers here would flip if I took the time to detail what happened last Year with CPS and their oldest son! Sooner or later their house of cards will collapse.
CIC,
I was saying I have no reason to assume that the children are malnourished. It appears that they have more than adequate food to feed their family. I'm just careful about what statements I make about another person without having first hand knowledge of the facts.
As for the broken leg thing, that is shocking and incredibly disturbing. They could have walked into any ER in this country and had that taken care of immediately - and gone on a $5 per week payment plan while putting nothing down. There is no excuse for such negligence. A broken limb in incredibly painful and I can't imagine leaving any child to suffer with one if that story is indeed accurate.
mom, mommy, momma,
The children are probably not malnourished, they just don't get filled up. I was told that during their stay at their gradpa's house for their grandmother's funeral, they would eat whatever they could get their hands on...literally. If there was fruit or crackers on the kitchen table, they consumed it, no matter what time of day or when their last meal was served...especially the 7 and 5 year olds. This behavior is symptamatic of children who don't know when they'll get more food. Their cousins, the children of Erik's brother,( 6 & 8 yrs.) did not act this way. They were secure knowing that if they were hungry, they'd be fed until their bellies were full.
About the broken leg...of course it's accurate. I am not the type of person to make up such a horrendous lie. In other words...I'm no Erik or Candy. I'd tell everyone exactly who I am to validate myself, but I think my pipeline to information would become limited. Just the same way Candy blocks people on her blog who write things she doesn't like, my information sources may become blocked if pressure is put on them by Erik and Candy. Now, we wouldn't want that, would we?
I remember when the 2 year old broke his leg myself. And when the oldest boy got on his bike and ran away. He was in CPS custody for a few days if I remember her blog correctly, and I recall her blogging that they had nothing to worry about when CPS made their followup visits since she always kept the house clean. Don't you just bet those children are counting the days until they can leave that crazy house??
Mr,
I am not disputing any of what you said. I am wanting to make a point about my own 4 boys (11,6,5 and 3). My children are in no way left without adequate amounts of food. However, they will eat whenever they have an opportunity, especially if it is treats or snack foods that I don't normally buy. It is comical and I do not have unhealthy or overweight children - feel free to check them out on my blog. They are voracious eaters. When we go to Grandma's house they eat constantly. She makes all sorts of snacks because she gets pleasure out of serving them and they eat everything they are offered. We often laugh about it. I'm not saying that is or is not the case with Candy's children but I know that my growing boys will eat incredible amounts of food if given the opportunity. And, I am confident it has nothing to do with how little we provide for them. I'd hate to think that visitors who stop by my mother's house would think we don't feed our children properly because of the way they eat when they are over there.
mom, mommy, momma,
I understand your point completely. I know different children have different appetites. It's just that I have a lot of info on this besides the behavior at their grandpa's house. For example, a family member who has had dinner at the trailor stated that the amount of vegtables put on everyone's plates would barely equal one reasonable serving combined. Like it was a little bit over 1C split among 7 people.
mama22,
I don't know if all of the children are counting the days until they can leave, but the oldest one is. When he was picked up by the police after running away, he told them he didn't know his parents names!!! Does that sound like a kid who wants to be at home? Also, he never asked once to leave the CPS facility for the 3 days he was there...NOT ONCE did he ask to go home. But why would he? He had other children his age to socialize with, probably a full stomach, and he didn't have to spend his day cleaning toilets and doing laundry while Candy sat at the computer for hour upon hour blogging.
I can believe that, Mr. I was cheering the little guy on myself--at least he had a few days away. Candy's MEEZ has gone from swimming to hiking to flipping burgers in just a few hours (and she doesn't use the computer on the Lord's Day??)Wonder how many times she's been in here today to see what those evil-doers are discussing?
The most delusional part of the CPS scenario is that Candy thinks she outsmarted them. CPS's goal is to preserve the family unit unless all else fails. They want to get and keep the original family unit together unless the children are in danger and even then services are available to keep the family together --- eventually. But from what you read it would seem she actually thinks she got away with something.
So he ran away? "Or was he just riding his bike by the highway while they were all napping?"
What is their method of discipline?
On another note, I do not understand certain commentors on this page incessent need to constantly justify Candy's behavior.
It seems they are trying to play devil's advocate, but don't really understand the concept -if one wants to initiate a thorough discussion it is completely understandable, however it's beginning to look like a Complete Candyhead on some sort of Spree here ...time to decide on which side of the Tootsie you're going to roll.
Good point Barbie. Second point of your comment is what I've been wondering too.
Yeesh. If the kids have no birth certificates, GEDs or SSNs, they can't even enlist in the Army to get away. This is terrifying on two levels, first that they would knowingly hamstring their kids by not allowing these things and two that in this society such tracking is needed. I'm enough of an anarchist that I resent that I must have an SSN and all the identity papers I do, but if that's what it takes to allow my kid more choices in the world, by golly I'd get them for them. Yes, I'd sell my principles out for my children.
Interestingly, the homily at Mass today was that Jesus did not say that if you had faith your life would be spiffy. Quite the opposite. As the priest said, how could he claim that when he ended up pinned to a cross? Jesus didn't say that with faith life would be a bed of roses--He said to take up your cross and follow Him. So to knowingly make foolish choices while saying the Lord will provide is insanity.
He also urged people to read the Bible daily, think about the passage, and then let the Holy Spirit speak in our hearts. I wish Candy could have been there. Her mind would have been blown because this isn't what Boettner and Jack Chick say Catholics hear at Mass every Sunday!
yes I still do read....Tia.... your comments about your husband, I just wanted to say, in regards to his surgery, I am thankful he is alive. My mom died of Esophageal cancer. She died 2 years ago at 58, 3 days after her birthday one of which she did not even remember having. It is a nasty cancer and it takes its victims young. I was the sole care taker of my mom while she was alive. She never made it to chemo as it had already claimed her body. Surgery was never an option. Hers was caught way too late. Just Kuddos to you.
barbie,
The oldest boy ran away; he'd been severely disciplined for something the day before, and was resentful about it. When Candy thinks the crime is bad enough, she disciplines by having the child select a small branch, (she calls it a "switch"), with which to receive a beating. She takes the bible literally on "spare the rod, spoil the child". Anyway, he left very early, before anyone was awake. He also had sufficient bruising on his little behind for CPS to go immediately to the trailor and check the other 3 children for abuse.
", however it's beginning to look like a Complete Candyhead on some sort of Spree here ...time to decide on which side of the Tootsie you're going to roll."
I find this kind of comment disappointing. I too loathe Candys totalitarian, fundamentalist, arrogant, simple minded "my way or the highway" manners. I'm afraid the above comment makes the commenter sound as though she has more in common with Candy than she might like to imagine.
I have read through the comments and can't find any fawning 'candyhead' defenses. I assume you must be referring to some of the more cautious comments by 'mummy mommy'. Hardly fawning candylove. Anyway, who cares? This isn't totalitarian candyland remember. We don't need to roll on the right side of the tootsie here, do we?
Good Lord!
http://ladyofvirtue.blogspot.com/2007/09/really-frugal-home-binder.html
This is the link to a comment Candy posted where she states when she started modeling. If you thought she was self absorbed...well this will show it started at a young age. I've never heard the term "meology" before lol.
MMM, I may not know squat about homeschooling, but I CAN tell you about children who do not get enough to eat. My sister & her husband fostered 3 kids that were taken from their home. Those kids did exactly what Candy's kids did. They gorged ANY time food was present. I know the difference between going to grandmother's house and having her shower you with goodies. Trust me, it's not that kind of gorging. This was explained to ALL of us by the social worker so that we would not be alarmed when feeding them. We were also informed they may hide food. They may eat until they vomit because they do not know when their next meal will be. They will shove food into their mouths and hold more in their hands. And yes, I witnessed this first-hand myself when I would watch them. It was very heart wrenching to think that a 2 yr old and a 3 yr old are worried about having enough. Candy has said they do not believe in between meal snacks. These are growing kids we are talking about.
And the broken leg.. Candy blogged about that. And the child running away.. SHE blogged about that also. These are not madeup things.
All the "god will provide".. sounds like the lazy way out to me. What goes around comes around. Oh wait, that would be considered "works" by them and they are against it!
And all his garbage about not paying taxes.. ahem, I pay mine willingly so that it can help others. I think if everyone contributes.. it takes the load off of those family, friends and churches. Besides, if he DID pay his taxes.. the rest of us wouldn't be paying MORE than our fair share for all the nimrods under the radar who are still using the services provided by our tax dollars. Amazingly, if you broke it down... just how MUCH is actually going to the "handouts" as he calls them? I wonder if there is a breakdown online of where your tax dollars are going.
As for the "meology" thing starting at age 14....
That's a pretty typical 14-year-old girl thing to do (I've been one and I have one now!). And it's actually a pretty cute phrase.
The problem is......she's never moved beyond the typical teen girl self-absorption, so far as she presents herself on her blog. Kind of sad, really.
I have to agree with Barbie. There is at least one commentator on here that will spin any negative comment about Candy. I am glad I am not the only one who sees it. There is just no way any sane person can look at Candy's blog and think, wow...this lady has it going on.
I thought I remembered that post,but couldn't place where I'd seen it.
I commented on the same one as prayzgod... should I be proud or embarrassed?
milehimama,
I do that same thing with decorating pictures. I don't keep them in my HMB but I keep them in a home folder. I'm hoping someday I'll find a way to incorporate my favorite ideas in our next home.
After reading absolutely nothing on keepingthehome.com, I have conclusion that Erik and Candy are freaking out with this website. I have not seen Candy for awhile. My boys are asking why we are going to Walmart instead of Super Target. This site is getting around Bethany and somebody knows somebody who knows somebody that goes to Maranatha Baptist Church and will pass this CIALAFP URL and keepingthehome URL on. I would really like Candy to shut the keepingthehome website down but then what would we blog about? What a dilemma? Hmmmmmmm
Julie,
After seeing the posts from a couple of people on here, I am scared for her children. What do the towns people think? I totally agree with you that Candy is freaking out about this site. It wasn't a big deal when just a few people were reading it, but I think she lost it when Candyland posted the link and the site exploded. I think her site will shut down soon or nothing controversial will be on there anymore.
I wonder why CPS isn't on them more. I believe in spankings when necessary, but I certainly do not believe in bruising a child.
Julie,
I have a feeling that all her anti-Catholic rants will go away soon. I think they are willing to do whatever it takes for a lot of us to go away.
I am just hoping the house doen't become a landmark because they end up on the news in a bad way. My heart breaks for those kids.
I know and then you hear they are checking out other churches again..the prophecy talk...the new level of oddness on her blog.
Leaves you to wonder what is effecting them and if another RV trip is in the future for that family...
I replied to his comment. He is obviously uncompassionate and has never had to deal with a true hardship in his life. God gives some people a special needs child as a blessing so why would he "heal" them. God only says that he will provide us food and raiment not therapy and medication for our children. I also quoted Proverbs 21:13 to him and asked him how he compared that to his feelings of it being servitude rather than of helping someone in need.
If anyone is interested, here's the archive of Candy's old blog
http://web.archive.org/web/*hh_/genuineprofit.lifewithchrist.org/
Okay, in reading her archived old blog, I came across this gem on potty training:
I'm giving him 6 months to handle that (with training and reminding) or I'll start hosing him off in the back yard for each pooppy "accident." My first was almost 4, and still having "accidents," so I started hosing him down. A few times of that, and he suddenly had no more "accidents."
Okay, I'm more hard core than most parents. I read and enjoyed "To Train Up a Child". I have implemented some of their recommendations with great success.
That said, this is CRAZY. I just don't even know where to begin with how wrong this is.
Amanda,
I've never done anything of the sort myself, seeing as potty training has never been something I felt needed to be reached by a certain age. I've yet to see a 2nd grader in a diaper (for non medical reasons). Still, I've heard of SEVERAL people who do implement this method and say it works amazingly well. It does sound extreme but I think it is not at all uncommon. Mike did talk about this is one of his parenting books, did he not?
MMM, do you not see how you always turn her insanity around?
I'm not turning her "insanity" around. I said it "does seem extreme" and that I think it is not all that uncommon. I am not defending her practice as I think it is quite unnecessary. I've never forced my children into potty training and don't think anyone should. I assumed that was clear by the statement that "I've never seen a 2nd grader wearing a diaper".
(Deleted the previous comment to add another amusing spelling.)
Let's also check out these spellings:
skitsophrenic
Ridiline (Ritalin)
Amanda,
I've never done anything of the sort myself, seeing as potty training has never been something I felt needed to be reached by a certain age. I've yet to see a 2nd grader in a diaper (for non medical reasons). Still, I've heard of SEVERAL people who do implement this method and say it works amazingly well. It does sound extreme but I think it is not at all uncommon. Mike did talk about this is one of his parenting books, did he not?
I do think I remember reading in TTUAC, but it was one of the bits of advice I took with a grain of salt. I have no doubt it works, but I'm not sure I want to scare my child into potty training.
I guess when I read the book, but I did so with the idea that I could glean what sounded good and discard the, well, wacko. And the "hosing" method of potty training was definitely one of the "wacko" bits that I discarded thinking, "Surely no one else really does this." Clearly I was wrong.
Like I said, I agree with a lot of TTUAC. My son gets his hand slapped when he doesn't listen the first time, and I'm proud to say that he listens far better than most kids his age (18 mo.). (Nor is he afraid of me, as a lot of people would have you believe will happen when you slap your kid's hand.)
I guess I'm just a little flabbergasted that someone would take the entire book to heart, even the obviously outlandish bits.
rofl If I hosed my daughter off outside she would be laughing hysterically and would probably pee on herself again just so I would do it again. I like many of the Pearls things but as it is not the Bible I pick and choose what I want to follow. I think some of their discipline methods are a little harsh so I stay away from those and I also do not agree with Debi in that to be a good helpmeet you have to blindly follow your husband with a smile even when he is cheating on you and abusing you. It is all about discernment.
I am convinced that Candy has a serious mean streak. I am surprised that any mother calling herself Christian would ever post a kind or supporting comment on Candy's site. It makes it appear as though her craziness is ok and supported when it is really disgraceful.
ANYONE who take the advice of that book, should be immediately evaluated by a psychiatrist.
When you degrade yourself to level of hitting a child you are simply not intelligent enough to come up with a better idea.
The Pearls should be prosecuted.
MMM, Cajonchic, I am right with you on that, I like a lot of what the Pearls have to say and have implemented some of their stuff into our home, but, with any parenting book, or any book outside of the bible, I take what works for my family and leave behind the junk.
Barbie,
Just as I believe every one has the right to choose their religion, which is why I come here, I also believe that everyone has the right to decide how to discipline their child. As long as it does not merge into abuse, spanking is a decision that is totally up to the parent and not what deems that someone needs psychiatric help.
I went back and read a couple of posts of Candy's from the archives/link of her 2005 blog. I got as far as her handsome sweet hubby is a "genious" and he repaired Lear jets. Oh really? In all honesty, besides her hate of any religious beliefs other than her own (oh, and not just Catholic--she's ragged on my denomination as well as others) I think she's unbelieveably (and I mean that literally) amusing...except when you think that there are 4 innocent children caught up in the madness. How long will it be before they are bitten by a brown recluse, or injured or become seriously ill and the unthinkable happens? That is truly scary, and I do believe she has a lot of pent up rage, either at her handsome hubby or her situation in general, and you know who is bearing the brunt of that, of course....it's not the handsome hubby. Who she isn't actually married to anyway. I recall they went out into a field somewhere in Colorado and recited some vows and handsome hubby said they "marched into the local courthouse and changed her last name to his." Alrighty then. From her last few posts, which seem to change with the direction of the wind lately, it seems she is losing her somewhat precarious grip on reality.
yeah, you're right. EVERYONE should take a willow switch and "whup" their four month old. That is totally sound judgement.
That does not constitute discipline my dear, that is abuse. Four month old INFANTS do not require discipline.
I'm only referencing one of his idiotic notions...I'm sure people are googling like mad here, but
I do not believe in banning books.
EVER.
I think everyone should be free to choose everything!
I think he has some great things to say about bonding to your child, but it was sooooo engulfed with the abuse of infants and children.
And that's my belief.
In our house we don't hit and we don't make hitting motions. NO ONE. But then maybe I'm a little bit more evolved than the Pearls.
As I said, I would never recommend that anyone blindly follow all that the Pearls say.
About the time my son started crawling (around 6 mo. or so), it was also clear that he understood exactly what "no" meant. When it was clear that he understood "no" I began slapping his hand when he didn't listen the first time. Nearly every time, it was an issue of safety: he was pulling on a cord, a shelf, etc... I've read all the "you need to put things out of the way" stuff. I'm sorry, but I cannot eliminate every cord, shelf, and table cloth in my home. It seems far more effective to teach my child to listen to me.
I am not, nor have I ever, abused my child. I do not appreciate the implication that I slap his hand, not out of concern for his long-term safety, but because I'm too ignorant or lazy to learn a "better" way.
As somone else said, I don't judge you for the way you discipline your children and I would appreciate the same respect.
Ahh but like I said you use discernment and decide what you should take with a grain of salt and what to apply. That is abuse and I personally think that Candy's schedule shows a little neglect in that they never do anything interactive besides school and cleaning with their parents. However I am talking about spanking without abuse. You said that anyone who hits a child not that anyone who uses a switch needed to go a psychiatrist and was not intelligent. Personally I do not spank my children but that does not mean that I think that no one should be able to.
BTW my post was directed to Barbie not Amanda.
I'm with Barbie on the 'spanking' issue. Hitting is hitting, whatever you name it doesn't make it acceptable. If there are alternative ways to teach your children something, why why WHY would you choose the one that causes pain? Oh, and Candy is clearly insane, and a control freak. I hope those kids don't turn out like their parents.
I know everyone expects me to say "have a sense of humor here", or "exageration for effect", but in all honesty I do question the intelligence of adult towering over a child hitting in whatever form.
Justify it however you want. I will always believe it abusive. I treat my dog better.
We can also determine that Pearl was the inspiration for the blogger who held the kiddie "Boot Camp" that we heard so much about a while ago.
Don't even get me started on why we should teach our children to question authority....
We're humans. We judge, hell that's how we all ended up on this blog.
Cajunchic and Amanda and anyone else who has benefitted in some form or fashion by the teaching of Mike and Debi Pearl, Dr. James Dobson or any of the other well regarded (by many) teachers on parenting and child rearing, I join you in saying that selective use of their child training methods more often than not produce wonderfully trained, cheerful and obedient children. I think it is outrageous that anyone would accuse you of child abuse for actions such as spanking or hand slapping. I've seen many a little one, at age 6-9 months, doing something wrong and saying "no-no" or shaking their head no while they do it. Children test their boundaries from a very early age and prompt and consistent correction can save a parent great frustration further down the line. As well, it teaches a child to avoid dangerous behaviors in a non-damaging way. I don't believe any woman should sit around being abused or allowing it to happen to her children but that doesn't mean that families who glean from the Pearls or anyone else with a similar message should ignore sound teaching. Many families have been immeasurably blessed by their resources. Our children are normal, mischievous children from time to time. Yet, almost every time we are out in public someone compliments us on how well behaved they are. I am thankful for the things I have learned from parents who are older and wiser. I do spank when necessary.
Mr.,
Please share the incident that happened last year with CPS.
I must have missed the incident with the 2 yo's broken leg. That just makes me shudder to think about it.
How do you get to her archives? When I entered the web address above, I got a page that says "sorry, no matches."
Me, too, Nightowl.
I've searched "prayzgod and (insert key words)" then choose the "cached" link and that's how I've usually found what I'm looking for.
Hope that helps :)
This link worked for me,
http://web.archive.org/web/*hh_/genuineprofit.lifewithchrist.org/
Dora the explorer posted it earlier. Thx!
me..
the last part of the link is missing - it was in Dora's too
Robin- did you put it directly into the address bar? That's what I did and it worked... *shrug* Otherwise, what MMM suggested, googling 'prayzgod' pretty much works too.
I used to think that was a problem but if you higlight and copy the link, then paste it on a new tab it will work. Somehow it copies it even though we can't see it.
the end of that link is christ.org Just add that to the end of the of the link that Dora posted and it will work.
Thanks - the last part of the link was missing and I didn't realize it. (christ.org) Now that I finally figured it out my lunch break is over and I don't have time to read anything...lol
Thanks, Nightowl (I had tried that MMM - didn't work for me!)
Instead of clicking comments to read. Click on the title of the post. Then it will give you the comments at the end. All the links come up in full that way.
If you don't want to do that try breaking it up. Just copy and paste.
http://web.archive.org
/web/*hh_/genuineprofit.
lifewithchrist.org/
Justify it however you want. I will always believe it abusive. I treat my dog better.
Then I'm sure you'd have me turned into the ASPCA for animal abuse, because I have no problem with swatting my dog's nose, either.
Amanda,
You aren't alone - I must be a criminal dog owner too ;) My poor, stupid dog is so devoted to me, in spite of my abuse.
(MMM/Kaira)
Interesting tidbits from her archives...
You know just to change the subject!
*********************************
(Mon. 2/26/06)
"When I got pregnant with my oldest, I was working at IBM. I knew I didn't want to keep working, once I had children. I read in Proverbs 31:24 where it says:
She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
That got me thinking... I didn't know how to sew clothing, so I couldn't sell that, but what about working from home? I spent the rest of my pregnancy researching that very thing.
I majored in Business in college, and that learning was finally going to be put to work,..."
**********************************
(Mon 2/06/06)
A disturbing comment
"There was quite a disturbing comment that I received recently. I deleted the comment, because after looking into this person's "blog," I question the comment's authenticity. Here was the comment:
From reading your blog, I see that you are a fairly dedicated Christian. Maybe your readers are as well. A few years ago, I embarked upon a mission to enhance my faith and go from an average Christian to a great Christian. In doing so, I discovered more questions than answers. Really hard questions. Foundation shaking questions. My faith in Jesus and Christianity are hanging on by a thread and I am seeking the wisdom of individual Christians all over the world to pull me back from the edge. To tell me how I�m wrong. -Gil S.
Gil then went on to tell me that he wrote a "thesis" about it, and that he has a blog I should visit. When I went to his "blog," I saw practically nothing, except for advertisement of a book that he's written. It looks like the book is aimed at turning Christians away from the faith. (?)
Furthermore, his page said that he was a Catholic, and wanted to go from an "average Catholic to a great Catholic." In the comment to me, he said the same thing, but replaced the word �Catholic" with the word "Christian."
One of the reasons this disturbs me, is this - as I can recall, almost every person who has wanted me to answer their "faith shaking" questions claimed that they were once "Christian," then turned to atheism, or unbelief, etc, and upon further questioning, I found that no, they weren't "Christian," they were "strong" Catholics.
I'm not bashing Catholics here, because I know there are some Catholics who truly are saved Christians. However, I also know that not all Catholics are Christians. In fact, one of the steps in rising to the higher levels of Satanism is for the Satanist to become a mass-practicing Roman Catholic priest.
I don't doubt that Bible study has further confused this poor Catholic man. The Catholic versions of the Bibles often contain the Apocrypha (apocrypha mihgt as well mean false ). The apocrypha is not canonized scripture, and it can be proven in various ways why the apocrypha is not God's Word.
Also, the Douey-Reims (I'm probably not spelling this right) version of the Catholic Bible takes the first prophecy of Jesus, in Genesis 3:15, and says that it will be the woman that smashes the serpent, instead of the seed of the woman. I've looked in many of the "Catholic" Bibles - I've even delved a bit into Jerome�s version of the Latin Vulgate (the true Vulgate was before Jerome, and very accurate. Jerome was told to mess up the Vulgate on purpose.)
The Catholic Bibles tend to be translated from the corrupted Alexandrian line of ancient texts. Unfortunately, many modern Bible translations are also translated from the corrupt Catholic texts.
Many of the Catholics I've spoken to, have not been able to give the one correct answer to this question: If you were to die right now, and God asked you why He should let you into heaven, what would you answer?
There is only one answer - do you know what it is? Post your answers in the comments of this post.
Meanwhile, I posit this enigma: Gil, on his site, said that once he read the Bible through, he found problems, contradictions, discrepancies, etc. What version was he reading? Was he understanding what he was reading? How many times did he read the Bible? I've read the Bible over a dozen times cover to cover (KJV) and have never found any contradictions."
**********************************
(Fri. (1/27/06)
"If you've noticed that the comments section of this site have been more peaceful lately, then give the praise to God.
It has been verified that the same person was cause most or all of the trouble. That specific person has been banned from this site, and is no longer able to post. Let's continue to pray for her."
(Apparently the Catholics have been haranguing her for years!)
**********************************
Barbie,
That is interesting, and thanks for the redirection ;) We might have needed that. It is easy to hop off on rabbit trails.
After reading what Barbie posted, I can just say that Candy has re-confirmed my opinion that she is an idiot.
This comment is from her archives dated )4/7/05.
"It scares me that liberals are trying to take away the very device (guns), that allow women to be on an equal footing with agressive men, who could otherwise have overpowered them."
It bothers me a little that she would say this because I think this is like saying, "Stay with your aggressive, abusive husband and get a gun."
(No, I'm not anti-gun)
From Candy's archives that barbie posted:
"I majored in Business in college, and that learning was finally going to be put to work,..."
Just to reiterate....
THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE. She has had no formal education beyond the 11th grade.
That is just the type of crap she writes that drives me crazy!!!!!
It bothers me a little that she would say this because I think this is like saying, "Stay with your aggressive, abusive husband and get a gun."
At some point, a reader writes to ask about her abusive husband who's going to jail. Candy told her to write letters, assure him she still loves him, etc... b/c she doesn't want to get a divorce, b/c the bible only allows divorce in the event of adultry (which he had not committed).
Clearly, she and I worship different Gods, b/c the God I worship would not expect me to stay in an abusive relationship. (Ah, but I am Catholic, so I'm sure I do have a different, heathen God.)
Wow! Thx Amanda, I must not be that far yet in her archives. Guess I don't worship her God either that is why her comment bothered me lol!
You know the funniest part about that last comment from Candy is that Catholics didn't believe in divorce either, but the king of England did, and thus spawned Protestants. Hurray!!!!!!!
Wow! Thx Amanda, I must not be that far yet in her archives. Guess I don't worship her God either that is why her comment bothered me lol!
I'll have to see if I can find it back; I'm sure Ginger or someone else is going to want a direct quote.
I am not surprised she says that as I know many women who feel this way and this is what Debi Pearl says in her Created to be his Helpmeet book. I do not agree with this at all. The bible says that a wife should be submissive to her husband but it also says that the husband should love his wife just as Christ loved the church.
Okay, the original question and response:
Q Hi Candy. I'm going through such a difficult time right now. I was wondering if you could please give me some advice, and pray for me and my family. My husband treats me horribly. I won't get into every detail, but he is verbally abusive, sexually abusive, and brainwashing, and he has been physically violent. Just last night, he pulled me out of bed onto the floor, and dragged me as fast as he could and through me out the door with no coat. I am afraid of him. I DO realize that there are many things I can do to calm him and try to make our home happy. I've read CTBHHM, and I love and fear the Lord. But Candy, he is so very hard to live with. I am trying to be a good wife, but he makes me feel stupid and worthless. And controls me to the point where I can't even get medicine I need, or even take a shower sometimes. Do you have any advice for me??? He is severely addicted to computer games. PS, he is uninterested with our children, but he does not abuse them. -Heather
A I agree with what some of the ladies suggested to you in the comments section. You may need to get away, and take your children with you. Your husband may need some time in jail.
If you and your children leave your husband, don't divorce him; he needs your help, love, and support. Write him letters, but don't let him know where you're at. Send him cards saying how much you love and miss him, and are praying for him. Send him pictures of the kids, and pictures they made for him.
If your husband goes to jail, then visit him once or twice a week. Bake him a cake, make him cookies, and write him love letters. Show him that you love and support him.
Keep us posted; we're praying for you. Remember, the Bible says that all things work out for good for those who love God.
A reader questioned this advice; here is her response:
Q In reading the question about the woman in an abusive situation, what is the reason that you would advise her not to divorce? Sometimes jail time is not enough to correct behavior, and what would happen if they were to reconcile and then the behavior started over again? I'm not trying to start a debate, just trying to understand. -Shannon
A I haven't read any grounds for divorce in the Bible, except if the spouse has an adulterous affair, or if one of the couple is an unbeliever, and leave the believer. The book of Malachi says that God hates divorce, and so should we. With God, anything is possible, including healing a sad, troubled man from committing abuse on others.
Yes, I agree God can heal "a sad, troubled man from committing abuse on others." But I don't believe that God expects me to continue to endure abuse while he works on healing him.
That is exactly why Candy should not have a blog and advise anyone on anything. NO ONE should stay in an abusive relationship.....PERIOD. I would expect nothing less from a woman who abuses her own children.
In regards to previous posts today, I am SHOCKED that anyone would spank an infant.
Concerned,
Spanking an infant is a gross exaggeration of the method of training with a child under one year old. If you care to know more, pick up To Train Up A Child, or visit, www.nogreaterjoy.org for this and Created to be his Help Meet. The owners of this ministry are Mike and Debi Pearl.
This is what truthfully scares me about Candy - she has women asking HER what to do in situations where she has no right whatsoever to give advice or answer. Why do these women go to her? What, in their own search for answers, leads them to Candy, a woman with a blog? Anyone with half a mind would go to a friend, relative, professional, or if they must resort to a random individual on the Internet, Dr. Phil has a web site, as does that American Medial Association, local law enforcement agencies, online psychologists...there are hundreds of other options.
The fact that there are women in the world who, for whatever reason, go to Candy for advice? And Candy gives it?
This is definitely a "what the F" situation.
Crazy people who set themselves up as prophets or leaders do the same thing. They somehow make themselves important and their opinion valuable. In this case, some poor, abused woman thought Candy an important, respectable, reputable enough person to go to for help? What has Candy done to set herself up in this position, and what has she done to promote it? The dangers of such a mind, such arrogance, such self praise are numerous, and astounding.
I can't even wrap my brain around it. It is just - wrong.
You know the funniest part about that last comment from Candy is that Catholics didn't believe in divorce either, but the king of England did, and thus spawned Protestants. Hurray!!!!!!!
Not precisely accurate. Henry VIII regarded himself as a Catholic until the day he died, just not one subject to the authority of the Pope.
Protestants of various stripes existed for over 140 years before Henry VII was born.
MMM- I read about 2 pages of that horrible site. You cannot seriously advocate someone who suggests a 6 month old needs to be corrected with a rod?
Well, Henry really didn't remain Catholic. Henry VIII was a man who did what he wanted, when he wanted, and he changed the rules as he went along. In practice, he sometimes worshiped as the reformers did and sometimes as those loyal to Rome did. When he held to tradition, Mass remained almost exactly as it was before he broke with Rome. But, when he wanted to be a reformer, he changed the rules again. He was in it for the money as much as anything else. When he broke with Rome, all the money went to him instead of to Rome. That remained his motivation for the rest of his life. The money, and England's position in the world.
His 4th wife, Anne of Cleves, was Protestant. She was meant to seal his Protestantism in the eyes of the world. When the tides changed, as they did often in the 16th century, and Spain and France were breaking their alliance, Henry didn't need a strong Protestant force against them, so he divorced Anne and tried to "team up" with the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, who happened to be the nephew of his first wife - the one he wanted to divorce, thus his breaking with Rome.
As with everything in 15th & 16th century England (and the world, actually), and particularly during Henry VIII's reign, things changed daily and were convoluted. He became a senile tyrant, and since he controlled the church and the state, he'd be Catholic one day - and say everyone had to be, then he'd be reformed the next, and again say everyone had to do the same.
I think ultimately he held to the religious views of his childhood and young adult life, but he didn't hold to them strongly enough to follow them. He used his religion, and that of his country, as a bargaining chip in everything he did. Like almost everything in his life came to be in the end, nothing mattered but what he thought, or wanted, at that very second.
Me,
I do not base my assumptions or suggestions on bits and pieces of information. You may disagree and that is fine. I'm not out to convince you or anyone else of anything; however, I think it lacks substance when one makes impulsive judgement calls when they don't have all the facts. The Pearls, Dr. Dobson and many other like-minded individuals (parents, authors, speakers, teachers, etc...) base their teachings on scripture and many years of research and experience. These ministries are used by millions of families all around the world and are highly regarded by many.
~Kaira
Thats my point "me" yes, Pearl did have some bits of wisdom...in his "tying strings" section for instance...where one should do things with their child, etc.
But the second I was reading ANY book that said something so contrary to common sense, even after agreeing with some of the things written, I would set it aside as idoicy.
Just because someone gets published doesn't make them an expert.
Me, I can't speak for MMM, but I'll answer for myself.
As I've said several times, I take their advice, with a grain of salt. They suggest weed whacking line or a spoon to train the child. I don't think that's necessary. I've only slapped my son's hand with my own hand, hard enough to sting and get the point across, but certainly never hard enough to leave a mark.
And I do heartily believe that the average 6 month old fully understands the word "no" and that a slap on the hand, in the long run, does far more good than harm.
It is sad that any moron can have a child, but one has to take a driving course and test to drive. It sickens me that someone would spank and infant. I just can not get past that.
Well, Henry really didn't remain Catholic.
I never said whether he did or he didn't. I said he "regarded himself as a Catholic until the day he died, just not one subject to the authority of the Pope." Many Anglicans see themselves in the same way now.
You can see yourself as a good Christian whilst actually being a dreadful one. Doesn't stop you thinking you're a good Christian though.
Amanda,
Thanks for allowing me to speak for myself. This is not a blog on child training so I'll make an earnest effort not to get too involved in any discussion on it. That said, I would swat the hand of a 6 month old without any problem. It is evident that they understand not to do things and when they are "testing". It is also remarkable how quickly and easily they can be trained to obey - often without any tears. There are training methods that work beautifully in many cases and I've learned that from personal experiences as well through watching close friends who have implemented them.
wow and the claws come out. Is not the issue we have with Candy that she makes sweeping accusations about something she knows nothing about? Unless the person speaking is abusing their child then no one has the right to tell someone they are an idiot or moron for swatting a child's hand. Everyone chooses their own discipline method and unless it is abusive no one has the right to comment on how someone else raises their child.
Hmmm. Just a couple of weeks ago candy posted this:
"I dedicate the below song to Elena and the other anti-Candy-ites:
The Lord has called me to do a very special job, to spread the Gospel of Christ, and I WON'T BACK DOWN... :-D"
http://myblessedhome.blogspot.com/2008/06/yay.html
We were treated to a music video intended to underline Candys bold determination not to 'back down' but to continue, presumably, to 'take the fight' to the 'anti-candyites'. it was a conceited and hubristic display that no doubt she is regretting.
she has never been much of a model of Christian charity or maturity, but it's quite clear that Elena and the other ladies at VTC were actually exceedingly restrained despite the severest provocation. It was evident that she is an attention seeker and delighted in goading them. They, in turn, were restrained by boundaries of their own choosing as they had decided to 'take the high road' and focus on intelligently refuting her nonsense and avoid the overwhelming temptation to slag her off. I really admire them for that, but Candy, in her arrogance and hauteur, would not desist.
This blog is the result of her own foolishness and she has brought it all on her own head. I can't help but feel a little sorry for her. She is a silly prideful girl who has set herself up as an arbiter of the things of God.
Pride comes before a fall.
We all need to be EXTREMELY careful before we denounce churches and belief systems as evil. If Candys fallible understanding of theology is wrong ( which may JUST be possible non?) then she has, among other blasphemies, called the beloved Bride of Christ a whore. Its not smart to be so sure that you're right that you lose your fear of God. Even my friends who are sceptics regarding faith understand this and tend to avoid being REALLY nasty, 'just in case'.
We're fallible mortals and God is God. What to we know? Personally I'd rather not provoke him by banging on about the 'errors' I percieve in some of his children.
God doesn't like it when we hurt his children.
Some of this must be a little scary for Candy. I notice that her blog is uncharacteristically quiet.
Candy, I want to say to you that you have been very, very silly. Many people have come to you very peacefully to alert you to the error and harm you are doing. In your pride you would not listen to them. You deleted their comments and ridiculed them and their faith on your blog.
I wonder if you are capable of listening now. It must be really unpleasant to be the subject of this kind of speculation on a public blog. perhaps you feel 'stuck' right now.
Here's a radical idea for you, but it requires real humility and it will hurt a little.
Apologise on your blog for setting yourself up as an arbiter of what God thinks.
Apologise to those people whom you have hurt.
Resolve to proceed more humbly in the future.
If you can do that it really is incredibly liberating and fruitful in terms of your personal peace.
can you do that?
I actually had to look up "hubristic", I love learning new words :)
Your posts are always well written, Clare, even the parts I don't agree with and I can really respect that about you. I appreciate the decency with which you approach the things you disagree with as well. You are a true lady.
I'm sorry to go back to this issue, but I don't believe that God is advocating beating our children with rods.
When the bible talks about using the rod of correction or not to spare the rod etc, it's a reference to the rod or staff used by a shepherd. Does the shepherd beat the sheep with the rod? No, he uses it to guide and direct the sheep.
I have, and occasionally do, give my children a single smack on the bottom but always with an open hand and never hard enough to do any more than sting momentarily. I personally don't find it an effective method of discipline but it has on the occasion produced the desired results. I find it offensive for anyone to suggest using an object to hit my kids with, but that's the way I think.
There is certainly damage done when people promote these types of disciplinary methods because there are many who lack confidence in their own abilities to make good sound decisions, who will blindly follow to the letter. Here is one such example:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/3/16/132347/107
Yes Dora,
One can find a few of those stories but trying to tie that story to the Pearls is irresponsible. For one, that mother was not at all following the direction that they give. I heard of that story some time ago and suspected that was the link you were giving. One can not criticize a method of training without understanding the whole of the instructions. That mother DID NOT follow the instructions to the letter - she went FAR beyond the instructions and became abusive. Maybe, if you'd like to continue on with this topic, you should open up your blog to it and ask for discussion on it there.
Dora, you just scared the crap out of me. I've heard of the Pearls and even read some of their ravings on their web site, but I've never read the book - and never intended to, either. They struck me as creepy and I wanted no part of that.
Now I know why. The bits I read on that website made me want to vomit.
Abuse and control in the name of God. How disgusting can two humans get?
No wonder CPS is over loaded.
After reading more of that article, I came across this.
"The Pearls' advice from their Web site: A swift whack with the plastic tubing would sting but not bruise. Give 10 licks at a time, more if the child resists. Be careful about using it in front of others -- even at church; nosy neighbors might call social workers. Save hands for nurturing, not disciplining. Heed the warning, taken from Proverbs in the Old Testament, that sparing the rod will spoil the child."
Isn't it sick how abusers teach the tricks of escaping CPS. The Pearls should have to stand up, have their hands tied up and ben beaten by the items they tell others to use. Those people are SICK. There is no two ways about it.
mmm, I'm still reading the rather extensive article, which has many exerpts from the book. If these are correct, than I don't need to see any other context or read it in further detail because I find it horrendous. Why would I want to read a book that advocates physically punishing a 7-month-old for not going to sleep etc etc.
You are someone who is able to choose the good and discard the very very bad but there are many women, who for what ever reason are unable to make the distinction.
I'm not planning to open a blog on this topic, I've said my piece and it's not aimed at attacking or insulting anyone who was able to glean something useful out of this toxic book.
It is your perogative to defend the Pearl's if you so wish, but I wont be reading their book or implementing their techniques in raising my children.
is it just me or is she deleting things again? (candy I mean)
Clare, you rock. That was incredibly gracious. I can only hope Candy reads your comments and takes them on board but, considering how she treats the lovely ladies at VTC, I'm not holding my breath.
I read the first page of your blog. It's a shame you're not still writing. Your entries are a delight.
Dora,
I don't see why you would need to open up a blog to discuss this anyway. This blog is designed to discuss anything and honestly, this subject seems to pertain to Candy herself.
I am with Dora on the whole Pearl thing. We can take people at their word, but just because people say they take some of it and leave the rest does not mean they do and NO MMM...this is not directed to any one person. Just a plain statement.
Dora,
fairly written, lets just agree to disagree on this one. God gave your children to you because He, in His perfect wisdom, picked you to raise yours. And as such for me and the Pearls. We all parent very differently. Let us try not to judge each other whenever possible.
yes, working...she is deleting all her husband crazy crap and a few other things.
Clare,
A couple of points: (1) your vocabulary is going to proceed past the IQ of your reader, (2) the answer will be most undoubtingly no, and (3) you write like a poem. Thank you. Candy has brought this upon herself, by the way she acts. Don't get me wrong there is a part of me that would watch the train wreck, regardless. There is something about making your own detergent and buttermilk that makes me giggle. That is the mean streak in me, and the fact that it is soooo different from where I live. I guess it sort of like watching the shirtless African women dancing around on the National Geographic channel. That is the dichotomy that I face, and mine alone.
It would be nice for Candy to come clean and step down from the soap box, but then I am not sure exactly what that would mean for her readers. I am not sure exactly what that would mean for her blog. Even if she came clean, it would be difficult to see the sincerity of her plea. Once again, a dichotomy that most would have to deal with. It is like the saying, "if a guy told you he was a habitual liar would you believe him?"
When people buy the Pearl's book but pick what they want out of it and "leave the junk" as someone said, they are still supporting the Pearl's.
You know, people have attempted to boycott Disney and McDonalds because of their involvement with GLAD and LGBT/GLBT organizations, i.e.homosexuals. They boycott Nestle because they send formula to poor countries and this inhibits nursing. And, there are countless other boycotts for any number of reasons that offends someone. (Note, I am using the term "they" in a total and complete generic sense. There is always a "they"). So, regardless of the fact that the Walt Disney Company and McDonalds Corporation do good for society, donate to - and operate - charities, sponsor child welfare organizations - they are to be boycotted for one single stance on one single issue. Apparently.
I find it totally unacceptable for parents to buy this book and say they only use what they see fit. By only using what they see fit, they are still supporting the entire Pearl "ministry" and money making machine. Money they make off misguided people who may be at their wits end.
Same with Candy. Read her blog because you get good homemaking stuff out of it, and "ignore" her anti-catholic and anti-anyone who believes differently than her tirades and diatribes. You are still supporting her and you are still giving her an audience for her bigotry, hatred and in many cases total and complete lies and misinformation.
So, what is it? Take a stance for something or don't? It can't be done half way.
That is so weird she is deleting stuff. Just odd.
Do you really think it is weird that she is deleting stuff? I think it's pretty standard for her. It certainly isn't something she has never done before. In fact I'd bet she does it more often than not.
Should have been a post, but it feels off topic, so sorry for the long response:
To Train up a Child by Michael and Debbie Pearl:
“Select your instrument according to the child’s size…” “For the under one year old, a little, ten to twelve-inch long, willowy branch (stripped of any knots that might break the skin) about one-eighth inch diameter is sufficient. Sometimes alternatives have to be sought. A one-foot ruler, or its equivalent in a paddle, is a sufficient alternative. For the larger child, a belt or larger tree branch is effective
“When she screams or flees, calmly follow through by physically subduing her. Sit on her, if you have to, and slowly explain that you will not tolerate this resistance. Explain in a normal tone (She will eventually stop screaming and listen) that you are going to give her, say, five licks for the original offense and an additional two licks for the fit. Slowly apply the five licks, counting out loud. When I say slowly, I mean with a thirty second gap between each lick and a calm explanation to the screaming child that you are not the least impressed except that you are going to spank harder and she still gets the additional two licks plus one more for her ongoing screaming. When you have finally arrived at five well- anticipated and carefully counted licks, say, “OK, your spanking is over; that is the five licks you got for hitting your brother, but now I must give you two more for trying to run away.” Give her one lick and say, “Now, that is one of the licks for running away; you have one more coming….””
Okay I am sorry but that is nothing more than torture. I mean seriously my Dad gave us spankings, and they were horrible, but the only redemption was that it was over quick. This long drawn out depiction, really; sign me up for water boarding.
From their website:
“Switching with a length of quarter-inch plumbing supply line is a real attention-getter.”
Listen I don’t mean to be harsh or anything, but don’t be a prick to your child like these people advocate. All you are doing is alienating, creating a future monster, and losing out on this irretrievable time. Don’t sit on your kid, be rude to your kid, or demean your child. Discipline however you want. Spank, choke, lock in a closet, or beat them with fish, but make sure you love your kid. The Pearls advocate some really mean stuff. I don’t see how you look your kid in the face after doing some of those practices. It is the same with Candy. Yes there maybe one or two things that are great about her, but the other 90% of lies, deceit, and judgment really diminish any good she could ever do.
Don’t spank an infant either; that is just flat out wrong. The stuff that the Pearls advocate is rude, demeaning, and will be detrimental to your relationship with your child. I mean you will get short term results, like a prison or a scared animal (which the Pearls refer to children like animals), but as they grow up they will look at you in a scared manner and not a loving one. That is just not what I want, y’all. I take that back; I am positive that is not what I want.
I posted that on the other topic. It is just strange that she is deleting the stuff after such a slow activity in posting. she just went and rested at this is how you do it all in a day. I just find that odd. Plus she did not let it stick around very long, unless the taxes issue is a sore one.
Tia, on your post regarding supporting the Pearls. Love it.
Mattie (CIC), =-)
I think the biggest atrocity is not that they did this to their own children, which is beyond inhumane, but they decided to share their despicable ways.
I believe Candy had posted last week about trying to be able to have a little vacation. Not her exact words and I don't know that that particular post is still there.
That may account for why she hasn't been posting regularly. I think last time she went camping her post were the same way.
I think she is either
A. Trying to see how long it takes for things to be googled and archived
B. She got a good number of negative comments on her hubby's stupid, hateful thing and is trying to "dissappear" it.
I have been reading Candy's blog for a couple of years now. I do not agree with many things she does and says. With that said, I am not one to bash anyone and that includes Candy.
I'm sorry if I missed it, maybe I did because there are so many posts, but did Candy post Elena's address, or just a satellite view of her home?
AJ - I believe she posted both. What a jewel that Candy is. A true Christian lady that one.
Also, she is deleting things because that is what Candy does and she is flat out crazy.
Wow, here latest post puts to rest any question about her reading here.
Now if she could just lay off the Catholic rhetoric I might loose interest in her completely.
RUH ROH, Candy is responding to this blog!
There are so many lies in her "response" comments to all that has been posted here, (even though she doesn't read these blogs),That I can't clarify all of them now. The first one isn't really a lie, just her usual misleading statement,
"Our vacation was wonderful! We stayed in a cabin in the woods, swam by waterfalls and in rivers, ate too much ice cream, and just had a wonderful time."
I was informed that Erik's father paid for this entire vacation. Why couldn't she just write that her father-in-law treated them to a nice little break?
Anyway, I will post more on her well thought out defensive responses when I have more time...probably tomorrow.
Anyone else wondering why she didn't address the whole "my husband was inducted into the Inventor's Hall of Fame"?
About the hosing off your kid potty training thing, don't forget that the Pearls do not use that on their own children.
Their own children are potty trained from birth.
Whoo Hoo! Meez party tonight!
Not saying her father in law paid for their vacation doesn't mean she lied. It is technically irrelevant. It has no bearing on her as a truth teller or liar. She said she went on vacation, what else does anyone need to know?
We went to a cabin for a week with our family for 7 consecutive summers. The last year, my husband lost his job just a month before we were to go. We decided that we couldn't afford the extra expense of the trip so we said we wouldn't go. Instead, my mom & sister pitched in and paid for our cabin for us. It was no one's business and no one needs to know that. No one ever did, not even the rest of the family we were with. Not until a few years later when it came up in conversation. It was a kind gesture by family who wanted us to be with them. We wanted to be there too and accepted their gift.
I realize that things with Candy get out of hand, but let's not take them further than they go on their own. But, even though she has a blog and has set herself up for scrutiny, that does not mean she has to tell every last detail of her life or be called a liar.
Who paid for their cabin is so not important or relevant to anything, nor is whether or not she tells the world who paid for it. It is no one's business who paid for it.
Come on, folks. Let's just not go to extremes and look for stuff. There is enough on the face of it without making something out of nothing.
Hmm, looks like she reads this blog in some depth, doesn't it? To have addressed in her own twisted way so many of the points brought up here. I guess her "lovely Christian lady friends" clued her in as to the evil going on over here. Right. Any one who likes to hear herself talk as much as Ms. Brauer does probably googles her own name so often it's catalogued in her "favorites." I see she's playing the role of the hurt blogger and got a not-so-subtle plea for sympathy and understanding going. Sorry, Candy, I don't think you're as misunderstood as you make out.
Wow, I can't believe I'm defending her, but arguing she's lying by stating she didn't even pay for that cabin...just sounds like someone with a vendetta.
Okay, here we go,
I will put Candy's own words in quotes to seperate them from mine.
"I don't have time or interested to get into detail, as I have nothing to prove."
Then why this long defensive response?
"SPANKING - I RARELY ever spank my children. And when I do, it's usually just a pat on the rear to get their attention."
Well then maybe she was lying when she wrote these statements.
"The Bible tells us that not using the rod is abuse."
"Using the rod on your child is biblical, and so is giving reproof. The rod and reproof together, is how the rod is used in training a child to obey. For example, if you tell your child to clean his room, and he says "no!", and runs off, what do you do? You should spank him with a rod, and then have a little talk with him. Before you spank him, tell him why you're spanking him. After the spanking, tell him again, to clean his room. If he does not do it, or does it, but with a bad attitude, then the rod and reproof will need to be used again."
"If you don't use the rod and reproof for EVERY infraction, or you are not 100% consistent, then you are leaving the child "to himself". You are not teaching him right from wrong. You are not teaching him godly character traits, and you are not helping him to purge his guilt from wrong doing."
"Some parents feel that they just can't use the rod. When they use it, they feel bad, because the child may cry. The Bible addresses this as well:
Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying. -Proverbs 19:18"
There are numerous other postings on this from Candy, but I'm sure you get the idea.
"I went to public school until after I completed the 10th grade."
So I was wrong on this one, I thought she made it through 11th grade in a public school system.
More later...good night.
About the cabin post...I wrote, "The first one isn't really a lie, just her usual misleading statement,"
I wanted to use the cabin thing as an example to point out that her entire response is full of misleading statements, along with her usual bold faced lies. But I do get what you guys are saying about it not being anyone's business...I'll try and do better:)
From her comment section, I feel confident in saying that MMM is one of them. I threw up in my mouth a little after reading MMM's comments on Candy's blog. Hmmm, I thinking of sheep right now.
I love how all the comments in Candy's blogs are all the supportive ones. What happened to "I am going to take questions today and answer tomorrow." I know several people who have posted questions on her blog and NONE have been posted yet. Once again, she only puts up what she wants people to see and that is all the "gushing" over Candy.
Brushetta,
You really should go brush you teeth and rinse your mouth out - that's disgusting.
MMM - what are you doing here? Shouldn't you be over at Candy's telling her how wonderful she is and updating her on every words said here?
Brushetta,
Really, where do you get this crap? You have such an obsession with me, it really is quite unhealthy. For a person like yourself, there were dozens of comments that you could have locked on to, the ones where women plead with Candy not to shut down her blog. But no, you are obsessed with me and my comment - which was pretty mild. You really need to grow up and get a freaking life. And, please, find someone else to consume your thoughts with.
Oh, and I've been invited to come her as often as I'd like by Matthew, the owner of this blog. So, that is what I'm doing here.
Caveat: I also have a loaf of bread in my fridge that I baked myself from a sourdough culture I grew myself. It's very easy and I'll be happy to tell anyone who wants to know how to do it.
I do notice from Candy's comments that she refuses to distinguish from the nice ladies at VTC (where I contributed a comment that's a small essay on why "KJV-only" is wrong) and this blog where face it, we're mean. However that is part of her smear campaign against Catholicism which she seems to have this pathological need to promote.
ROFLMAO - MMM, you CRACK me up. If you only knew!
Anywho, I said something about YOU because you post on here all the time. I don't see the others gushing over her on here. I kind of thought you could figure that out on your own, but....
Stephanie,
Do I understand that you believe that the KJV is a bad Bible? Do you have other Bibles that you think are bad? What is the "good" Bible, in your opinion.
I've heard many arguments for the NIV and other versions, yet I don't know that I've ever heard an argument claiming the KJV is a "bad" Bible. I recognize you did not use that wording, but that is what I am curious about.
Brushetta,
If only I knew... what? Do tell...
Could you please show me ONE example of my "gushing" over Candy? Could you show ONE example of my stating that Candy is "WONDERFUL"? Please, do, for the umteenth time - BACK UP THE STUPID THINGS YOU SAY! Move on to something else. Your constant attention focused on me makes you look foolish.
umpteenth time
This is gushing...
Candy,
This is a great post and I'm hoping that it will settle the busy minds of many as to things they feel you simply MUST explain. I appreciate hearing your side of things too. I have heard these stories from the "other side" and the one about the broken leg and was quite surprising... it sounds like treatment was sound. I have a friend who is an ER doctor who says that what you describe is not at all unusual treatment. As for hungry kids, I've got them too. I feed them and they eat until they are full and then literally half an hour later they start wanting snacks. We try to do no snacks between meals but sometimes crackers, fresh fruit or a granola bar help tide us over.
I'm just happy to hear you speak out about this. I have no questions Take care and be careful, there are some people out there who would like nothing more than to see your family destroyed. Praying for peace and understanding and reconciliation for all involved.
Kaira | Homepage | 07.07.08 - 8:14 pm | #
Uh oh Stephanie, you better watch out. MMM is probably on the wire now telling Candy how Stephanie said, the KJV bible is bad, WHICH YOU DID NOT SAY. They may be attacking you soon.
Ok, I am outta here. MMM has made me laugh so hard that I am exhausted. Love ya MMM!
I've read the puke-inducing comments on Candy's latest and I have to say Kaira's one is pretty mild. I'm happy to have her here. She doesn't agree with all the other commenters here, but so what? She's always polite, which is more than can be said for you, Brushetta. You do seem kinda obsessed with her. I thought this blog was about poking fun at Candy, not Kaira?
Brushetta,
Can you define "gushing"?
v. gushed, gush·ing, gush·es
1. To flow forth suddenly in great volume: water gushing from a hydrant.
2. To emit a sudden and abundant flow, as of tears.
3. To make an excessive display of sentiment or enthusiasm: gushed over the baby.
Now, let us examine my comment to Candy - since you seem to have an unnatural focus on me.
"Candy,
This is a great post and I'm hoping that it will settle the busy minds of many as to things they feel you simply MUST explain. I appreciate hearing your side of things too."
*** No gushing here, just saying I think it is a great post - and I've said that to MANY people here on this very blog. I really do appreciate hearing her side of things. Half of the posters here have been waiting to hear how Candy addresses these very issues.
"I have heard these stories from the "other side" and the one about the broken leg and was quite surprising... it sounds like treatment was sound. I have a friend who is an ER doctor who says that what you describe is not at all unusual treatment."
*** Not really GUSHING, seeing as I am telling her that I was quite surprised to hear the story of her son's broken leg. I went one step further to speak to a physician friend who describes this as common and appropriate treatment. How is that gushing. She explained something I had wondered about in a satisfactory manner.
"As for hungry kids, I've got them too. I feed them and they eat until they are full and then literally half an hour later they start wanting snacks. We try to do no snacks between meals but sometimes crackers, fresh fruit or a granola bar help tide us over."
***** I said this same thing on this blog. Not exactly gushing.
"I'm just happy to hear you speak out about this. I have no questions Take care and be careful, there are some people out there who would like nothing more than to see your family destroyed."
******
Maybe you should review the definition of GUSHING! I'm happy to hear her address these topics. Someone who wants to talk about another person without wanting to give that person a platform for defending themselves or explaining themselves is nothing more than a petty gossip. I value knowing ALL SIDES of issues.
"Praying for peace and understanding and reconciliation for all involved."
**** Is there something especially offensive in this?
Gushing, by definition, would have been saying something to the effect of:
"Candy, I am SOOO happy to hear you tell those wicked and nasty people how it really is. I am sooo glad to hear that they are all liars and you are perfect. I hope you never, ever consider shutting down this blog because I LOVE it and it is SO helpful to me everyday. I think you are WONDERFUL and I hate those vile people who say such nasty and untrue things about you."
Only, that is not at all what I said or how I feel.
Stephanie,
Rest assured, I have no need to run to Candy to share your thoughts with her. I'm assuming that since Candy has internet connection and knows how to use it that she can read everyone's comments, wherever they may be, if she so chooses.
I am truly curious as to your thoughts. It is how some of us learn, from each other :)
Brushetta, I'm happy to have mmm a/k/a Karia here.. the owner of this blog has stated that all will be allowed to post and mmm has always said that she reads Candy's blog.. she never once has said that she didn't read it.. so she has always been honest about that and she has also said she likes some of it and doesn't agree with other stuff but she is open to both sides and hey.. that is way more than Candy or any of her other readers.. so please.. let everyone post and discuss and maybe learn from the other.. peace!
Back on subject (mocking Candy), I do have to point out one error in her defense of herself:
I did not graduate college, and never claimed that I did.
Yes, she did. I distinctly remember reading it today in the archives of her old blog. I know I won't find it back tonight, but I'll look for it while I'm at work tomorrow.
First after looking at Candy's blog. Again, hate to look like a defender, but it MAY be that she is just putting up comments tonight and she'll answer the "questions" in her blog tomorrow?
Now for the MMM/Brushetta Series:
I think this is the quote in your post that was probably the most problematic:
"Take care and be careful, there are some people out there who would like nothing more than to see your family destroyed."
Why add that? If that was supposed to be some reference to this blog or the people participating (of which you are one and a major one) it has been said MANY times that no one here wishes any ill will towards the Brauers.
While this page did originate as a means to refute Candy, it is obviously evolving as we can see from the comments today alone.
MMM has said some pretty severe things to fellow commentors when she felt she was under attack. She says she appreciates others decency and demeanor in their responses, yet calls others "asshole" asks them to "shutup", to "grow up and get a freaking life", to "back up the stupid things..." just to name a few.
You're like a wolf in sheep's clothing. Brushetta may be a lot of things -I don't know, but she's never called her a name that I recall.
Alas, I have to admit that I was wrong (and damn, do I hate to admit that in reference to Candy!).
She did only say the following:
I majored in Business in college[...],
not that she had a degree in business.
I stand corrected. However, I don't think it's much of a stretch to believe that most people would read that statement and assume she got her degree, as well. (And based upon her many "half-truths" I don't think it's a stretch to say that she worded it in such a way so as to lead people to believe she had a degree.)
I think I need to say that I don't think Candy is a bad person.
I have to say in recent weeks I have worried about the potential effect of this blog on a person who wasn't mentally stable. -Not saying that she isn't, just when her blog started going quieter and quieter and then such personal information kept bouncing around my mind wondered.
I have to say that I'm sure she believes she has been totally honest. That omissions of truth are not lies in her reasoning. Her perception is her reality.
I guess I must fall into the category of commentors who want to her explain her need for the attacks on the Catholic faith, which is how I was lead to her blog originally.
I asked her about it, we'll see if she responds tomorrow.
Barbie,
On Candy's blog I said:
"Take care and be careful, there are some people out there who would like nothing more than to see your family destroyed."
You said:
Why add that? If that was supposed to be some reference to this blog or the people participating (of which you are one and a major one) it has been said MANY times that no one here wishes any ill will towards the Brauers.
Yes, I frequent this site and I have no reason not to. There are people on this blog and elsewhere who do wish ill will on her. I am not saying you are one of them, but on this very page you will find these two quotes:
"If I would have seen those posts, I would have turned them in immediately. Prayer is not going to take the child out of pain or repair the broken bone. All of those children should be taken away from them immediately."
"It was discussed to call CPS but there is only heresy from a blog."
The second of the two posts is shocking to me as a parent. Calling CPS on ANYONE is not something to be taken lightly. This goes WAY beyond proving Candy to be untruthful and becomes a potential attack on the welfare of her children. I find that sort of behavior appalling. Can you imagine if someone disliked you so much that they, not knowing you personally, seriously considered trying to have your children removed from your home?
You ask why I said that, because it is TRUE and because I find that quite concerning. Further, up above, Mr. (who claims to have much first hand knowledge) makes them out to be neglectful. Yet, if that is so he would rather have a pipeline to info, so that we have something to "talk about" than to do the decent and right thing and protect children he BELIEVES to be in harms way. That is deplorable.
You said:
"MMM has said some pretty severe things to fellow commentors when she felt she was under attack. She says she appreciates others decency and demeanor in their responses, yet calls others "asshole" asks them to "shutup", to "grow up and get a freaking life", to "back up the stupid things..." just to name a few."
I directed the label of asshole to Concerned as he was acting like on, imo. He wasn't being decent or reasonable or even offering anything of value. He was just being an asshole.
The other comments I made to Brushetta after she continued and continued to badger me. Whatever makes you assume that I can't speak up in such a circumstance. She has been nothing but obsessive over my every move. She is like a stalker and my comments to her, after much harassment, were perfectly reasonable.
You said:
"You're like a wolf in sheep's clothing. Brushetta may be a lot of things -I don't know, but she's never called her a name that I recall."
I'm as open as they come. I have nothing to hide. I've shared my family and myself with you through linking to both of my blogs. I've been willing to have sincere discussion with Brushetta yet she chooses to behave in an absurd manner when it comes to me. She doesn't have to "call anyone a name" to be less than decent. I have a right to respond in kind, and for the most part, I have taken the high road here.
Barbie,
I can really appreciate your last comment and I am in agreement. If she has been less than truthful, it is possible that she hasn't intended it. I don't know because I am not Candy but I hope that you get the answers you are looking for tomorrow. If she has hurt you, I hope you can forgive her in time.
Post a Comment