What's new

Tim Ballard OUR Discussion

Handlogten's Heros

Well-Known Member
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
For those unfamiliar… google it…

Basically dude ran this possibly fake org trying to stop trafficking and used it to abuse women (allegedly… but I believe it). Member of the LDS church and they distanced themselves from him. He’s a hero to his followers… has some high level connections in Utah government… I went down a rabbit hole on this today and wanted to see what the thoughts of the group are here.
 
For those unfamiliar… google it…

Basically dude ran this possibly fake org trying to stop trafficking and used it to abuse women (allegedly… but I believe it). Member of the LDS church and they distanced themselves from him. He’s a hero to his followers… has some high level connections in Utah government… I went down a rabbit hole on this today and wanted to see what the thoughts of the group are here.
Read some of his books a while back, and found them interesting. Heard about his background and new endeavors but haven’t really followed him much.

These thoughts may not be about him, but are two sides of a coin for me. This is not 100% but most of the time, heroes for me do things that are small but unseen over and over, or big and anonymous so they can do it again without fanfare. They do it for the good or the people, not the recognition.

The child trafficking issues have to come to light to every day people. Just because we live in a bubble doesn’t mean it’s a world problem.

I’m just not sure it had to have his name/face attached to it. I guess if it brings awareness to the issues it’s better than no awareness. Better than keeping the movie hiding in a drawer for 10 years or whatever even if it’s not 100% factual. Geez, what movie is.
 
I began to be skeptical of him when the most conservative part of my family started praising the organization and encouraging donations.

Then I read an account of a reporter who had been with him on one of his raids, and she was horrified to realize that he was running the whole thing to get maximum exposure at the expense of the victims.

Valid sex trafficking task forces say that Mr Ballard takes credit for work they have done.

His movie "Sound of Freedom" became a MAGA calling card around here.

Sean Reyes, Utah's Attorney General, is close with Mr Ballard and has been on at least one raid with him. He is the leader in polls about who should run for Mitt Romney's senate seat, but he said he is stepping aside for his friend who is a true American warrior (assumed to be Mr Ballard).

Mr Ballard was on the news last night crying and carrying on about a statement from the PR guy for the LDS church who stated that they were not happy about him having name dropped one of the top leaders, making it sound like an endorsement. Mr Ballard could not believe his church would condemn him. It was quite a show.


Ballard was apparently requested to resign from the OUR, the organization he began, last year for reasons unknown. Today an article was printed in Vice claiming that this was due to sexual misconduct claims against him by at least 7 women.


All of this is alleged, of course, but I believe this is a fair representation.
 
Last edited:
I began to be skeptical of him when the most conservative part of my family started praising the organization and encouraging donations.

Then I read an account of a reporter who had been with him on one of his raids, and she was horrified to realize that he was running the whole thing to get maximum exposure at the expense of the victims.

Valid sex trafficking task forces say that Mr Ballard takes credit for work they have done.

His movie "Sound of Freedom" became a MAGA calling card around here.

Sean Reyes, Utah's Attorney General, is close with Mr Ballard and has been on at least one raid with him. He is the leader in polls about who should run for Mitt Romney's senate seat, but he said he is stepping aside for his friend who is a true American warrior (assumed to be Mr Ballard).

Mr Ballard was on the news last night crying and carrying on about a statement from the PR guy for the LDS church who stated that they were not happy about him having name dropped one of the top leaders, making it sound like an endorsement. Mr Ballard could not believe his church would condemn him. It was quite a show.


Ballard was apparently requested to resign from the OUR, the organization he began, last year for reasons unknown. Today an article was printed in Vice claiming that this was due to sexual misconduct claims against him by at least 7 women.


All of this is alleged, of course, but I believe this is a fair representation.
Thank you for doing the homework I was too lazy to do. This sums it up... there are some more nefarious rumors out there but they are rumors.

If there was just a profit motive that is one thing... but to use this to both profit and perpetuate the crimes you are claiming to be fighting is just next level BS. All while being someone that folks are making a hero.
 
Here is something I’ve tried to wrap my head around since I’ve heard it. One of the arguments against him is that yes he went in and saved children from sex trafficking situations. BUT.. he did it in a way to do them more harm than they were already in.

These children are already prisoners, taken from families, sold by families, locked up, no hope, forced to do things they should never have to do, most have most likely seen death and worse. Their souls are ripped from them day by day already. They are in shock most likely 24/7 to survive.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe they live in the Hampton and have it all but are forced to do things.

Either way, I’m trying to wrap my head around how saving them from their situation is worse than leaving them even if they think it could have been done better.
 
So other than him most likely being a creep and perv and more based on what is reported and not reported, with him out of OUR for a while, is it still being run? Is it a legit operation? Can it go on without him? I hope so if it’s real.

If it’s real, my main concern is if it can be effective now that what they do has been turned into a movie.

I never want what our special forces are doing or their locations reported, that makes me want to lock up the reporters tbh.

If this is/was a real thing, I have serious doubts it can still function now, and I think any country that used similar tactics to burn those plans to the ground.

Maybe it can transition to an operation that helps protect, feed, transition, place the kids after they are found. That would be huge
 
I guess that has been one of the complaints about what OUR was doing - they didn't do follow up care with the victims, which likely ensured many of them became victims again. I have no idea about the best way to handle all of this. I agree that organizations to provide after care and resources would be a great thing for am organization to pursue.
 
Usually these supposed lone wolf hero types are created into these mythological figures for one reason and that’s money. Take the guy from American Sniper, Chris Kyle. A large portion of what he said in his book was fabricated. He was never in some bar fight in Tijuana (or wherever) and never kicked the **** out of Jesse Ventura. He never killed some dude at a gas station in Texas. He never killed his middle Eastern counter sniper. Was he a very good sniper with a lot of kills? Yes. Was he sadly killed by a fellow vet one day? Yes. But the people who sell books like stories. They did it with Marcus Luttrell in Lone Survivor. They made up stories (or he did as well) and convinced him to just roll with it for the sake of a better book—that then got optioned into a movie. And he convinced Kyle to do the same. A ton of it is ******** and your Patriotic flag waving Americans who are too dumb to know any better eat that crap up.
 
Here is something I’ve tried to wrap my head around since I’ve heard it. One of the arguments against him is that yes he went in and saved children from sex trafficking situations. BUT.. he did it in a way to do them more harm than they were already in.

These children are already prisoners, taken from families, sold by families, locked up, no hope, forced to do things they should never have to do, most have most likely seen death and worse. Their souls are ripped from them day by day already. They are in shock most likely 24/7 to survive.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe they live in the Hampton and have it all but are forced to do things.

Either way, I’m trying to wrap my head around how saving them from their situation is worse than leaving them even if they think it could have been done better.

Your first paragraph should help reconcile your last one.

But he did it in a way that did them MORE HARM THAN THEY WERE ALREADY IN.

So lets say they were getting raped and smacked around and he removed them from that abuse and put them into a situation where now they are not only getting raped and smacked around but also water boarded and starved to death while getting raped and smacked around. Wouldnt that be worse than leaving them where they were?
 
Often people who are loudest against child abuse are child abusers themselves

Like obviously everyone is against child abuse, but the people who make it their thing and call everyone a pedophile/groomer with no actual evidence or common sense reasoning are the ones you got to look out for.
 
Often people who are loudest against child abuse are child abusers themselves
That same concept carries far beyond child abuse.


Today we see that same idea in the anti-racism movement being race essentialists commonly pushing for racial segregation, a.k.a affinity spaces. People are the same as they ever were.
 
Your first paragraph should help reconcile your last one.

But he did it in a way that did them MORE HARM THAN THEY WERE ALREADY IN.

So lets say they were getting raped and smacked around and he removed them from that abuse and put them into a situation where now they are not only getting raped and smacked around but also water boarded and starved to death while getting raped and smacked around. Wouldnt that be worse than leaving them where they were?
So, putting things together, this is what I have.

He leaves the CIA, or Homeland, or whatever the truth actually ends up being… because from what I heard the US won’t extract kids from other nations as they don’t have jurisdiction and it gets too messy.
He quits and starts OUR which is private and doesn’t have the governmental red tape, but also doesn’t have resources or contacts near the same.

This skeleton crew finds cells of girls/kids, comes in with guns blazing and frees them, but without a plan after. Only US kids if any could even be brought back anyways, the rest have to be dumped on the doorstep of the local government that don’t have the resources to support, help, relieve these kids. For that matter we have no idea if the traffickers stay in jail or how long, does it depend on the local government?

OUR leave because that’s all they do.

The kids end up on the streets again and get picked up by the next batch of abusers?

Is that basically what they say are happening?

I could be wrong, but this is what it sounds like as to why they are worse off after being “saved”. If this is true.
 
Today we see that same idea in the anti-racism movement being race essentialists commonly pushing for racial segregation, a.k.a affinity spaces. People are the same as they ever were.
They had a good conversation going. Please stop dumping on it with your favorite lies.
 
I guess that has been one of the complaints about what OUR was doing - they didn't do follow up care with the victims, which likely ensured many of them became victims again. I have no idea about the best way to handle all of this. I agree that organizations to provide after care and resources would be a great thing for am organization to pursue.
I think you answered my question best. It’s not how he/ OUR did it. It’s what they didn’t do after.
It’s that they did it at all without a proper after plan in place.
If it’s messy for the government, it’s probably going to take a whole lot of money to do right in the private sector.
 
So, putting things together, this is what I have.

He leaves the CIA, or Homeland, or whatever the truth actually ends up being… because from what I heard the US won’t extract kids from other nations as they don’t have jurisdiction and it gets too messy.
He quits and starts OUR which is private and doesn’t have the governmental red tape, but also doesn’t have resources or contacts near the same.

This skeleton crew finds cells of girls/kids, comes in with guns blazing and frees them, but without a plan after. Only US kids if any could even be brought back anyways, the rest have to be dumped on the doorstep of the local government that don’t have the resources to support, help, relieve these kids. For that matter we have no idea if the traffickers stay in jail or how long, does it depend on the local government?

OUR leave because that’s all they do.

The kids end up on the streets again and get picked up by the next batch of abusers?

Is that basically what they say are happening?

I could be wrong, but this is what it sounds like as to why they are worse off after being “saved”. If this is true.
I have no idea about any of this stuff. I just saw you saying he went in and saved children from sex trafficking situations. BUT.. he did it in a way to do them more harm than they were already in. Then saw you saying you couldn't understand how saving them from their situation is worse than leaving them even if they think it could have been done better.

Im just saying that if your first statement is true (that he does them more harm than they were already in) then its easy to see how saving them is worse than leaving them. Because saving them apparently puts them into a worse situation according to your post. (I have no idea if its even true that him saving them does them more harm than they were already in, I got that from your post)
 
That same concept carries far beyond child abuse.


Today we see that same idea in the anti-racism movement being race essentialists commonly pushing for racial segregation, a.k.a affinity spaces. People are the same as they ever were.
I don't think it's as much for racism, or at least it's a far different type of thing.

It's for things that are more engrained in your DNA and you're ashamed of, so it's a type of defense mechanism to not only hide your true nature from people, but from yourself as well.
 
I don't think it's as much for racism, or at least it's a far different type of thing.

It's for things that are more engrained in your DNA and you're ashamed of, so it's a type of defense mechanism to not only hide your true nature from people, but from yourself as well.
It's deflection and projection, essentially. My daughter, who came out as bi in high school, had a friend who went crazy anti-gay and totally became my daughter's bully. And now, just this summer, she came out as gay. She was also hyper-religious, which I think fuels some of this. It's fighting to fit the mismatch with what they are feeling vs what they were taught to believe. For these other folks it can be feeling the pressure in their public life to act a certain way to get or stay ahead while behaving true to their nature behind closed doors.
 
I don't think it's as much for racism, or at least it's a far different type of thing.

It's for things that are more engrained in your DNA and you're ashamed of, so it's a type of defense mechanism to not only hide your true nature from people, but from yourself as well.
Both ethnicity and tribalism are ingrained in DNA. The ONLY reason it is different is that it is socially acceptable in the current day. You can be as racist as you want to be so long as the races you are favoring or disfavoring are the "correct" ones, while both homophobia and child abuse are broadly condemned. At its core, all are the same defense mechanism and it most definitely isn't new. There is a line in Hamlet penned in 1604 that goes "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." which captures the sentiment.

I would even put feminism in that same category. If you were to say that Jews run Hollywood or the media, that would be considered antisemitic. If you said there was a patriarchy, that would be socially acceptable speech.
 
Last edited:
Man… Utah has had a bad string of AGs…

Shurtleff
Swallow
And now Reyes

What a creep. No wonder why Ballard was so confident he could get away with all of his criming.

A new filing in the lawsuit brought by five women accusing Tim Ballard of sexual assault has added an allegation of rape, as well as a host of new assertions — including a startling accusation that Ballard arranged a penthouse with women and cocaine at a private club in downtown Salt Lake City for Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes.


 
Top