POLITICS - TX Supreme court rules in favor of FLDS

[Kismet]

OTOH I would fight to the death to aid a woman/child who wanted to excape and was being prevented from doing so.

I appreciate that you agree that the situation had to be investigated and that it would have been appropriate action if handled properly (meaning based on sound evidence and law).

Based on the above quoted statement, though, I have just a couple serious questions for OI and others:
1) With a group like the FLDS how would you even find out if someone wanted out?
2) Is it right (legally or morally) to allow parents to raise their children so the the children believe it is acceptable for 14 year old girls to marry and have sex with adult men? (In which case they may not even know they can try to escape.)
3) If you want to hedge on #2, let's do the slippery slope. How about 13? How about 12? How about 5?

Isn't that what is so dangerous about a cult that really separates so completely from society like the FLDS? They run towns in AZ/UT. They have a self-sufficient compound in TX. How do we as a society draw the line between allowing them to believe whatever they want and to allow children the choice of whether that is they life they want? (Though just for the record, no, I would never agree that a 14 year old girl can ever choose that that is the life she wants.)

Michael in NH

[Old Ironsights]

OTOH I would fight to the death to aid a woman/child who wanted to excape and was being prevented from doing so.

I appreciate that you agree that the situation had to be investigated and that it would have been appropriate action if handled properly (meaning based on sound evidence and law).

Based on the above quoted statement, though, I have just a couple serious questions for OI and others:
1) With a group like the FLDS how would you even find out if someone wanted out?

The have to want out enough to risk themselves before I risk myself.

2) Is it right (legally or morally) to allow parents to raise their children so the the children believe it is acceptable for 14 year old girls to marry and have sex with adult men? (In which case they may not even know they can try to escape.)

That is a Religious and Sociocultural question that has no merit to a Political discussion.

3) If you want to hedge on #2, let's do the slippery slope. How about 13? How about 12? How about 5?

And we will continue the Slipery Slope: How about "sodomy" or Miscegenation?

Freedom is freedom. We don't have to like certain aspects of it, but if we want it it MUST apply consistently and universally.

Isn't that what is so dangerous about a cult that really separates so completely from society like the FLDS? They run towns in AZ/UT. They have a self-sufficient compound in TX. How do we as a society draw the line between allowing them to believe whatever they want and to allow children the choice of whether that is they life they want? (Though just for the record, no, I would never agree that a 14 year old girl can ever choose that that is the life she wants.)

Michael in NH

OOOH... people who don't believe in Government Oversight are scary....

We DON'T "draw a line"... unless we are willing to become Authoritarians.

There is no in-between. Either people are Free or people Must Be Controlled.

We spent the entirity of world history up to the American Revolution acting on the Second position.

I, like the Founders, believe in the First.

"A Constitutionalist (libertarian) is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

There are Principles that are more important than People - Adult or Child. Were this not true, we would all still be British... or be Nazis by now.

[Kismet]

A Constitutionalist (libertarian) is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.

So as I understand your position, nothing can ever be criminal. Or at least anyone that passes, supports, or enforces criminal laws cannot be a libertarian.

BTW, I have to believe that you are seriously conflating two ideas. The Constitution supports no such principle as you have laid out above.

Michael in NH

[Old Ironsights]

A Constitutionalist (libertarian) is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.

So as I understand your position, nothing can ever be criminal. Or at least anyone that passes, supports, or enforces criminal laws cannot be a libertarian.

Then you misunderstand utterly. No law can/should be made or enforced that involves a willing "victim". Victimless "crimes" are a Gooberment fantasy designed to mask Dogma and control the population.

BTW, I have to believe that you are seriously conflating two ideas. The Constitution supports no such principle as you have laid out above.

Really? Please show me how it DOES support the idea of the necessity to prosecute - with FORCE - victimless crimes.

No Gooberment has the Natural Right or Authority to define "injury" for another. Only the "injured" may do that.

You would do well to read "The Ethics of Liberty" by Rothbard as well as "Just & Unjust Wars" by Rawls.

[Kismet]

A Constitutionalist (libertarian) is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.

So as I understand your position, nothing can ever be criminal. Or at least anyone that passes, supports, or enforces criminal laws cannot be a libertarian.

Then you misunderstand utterly. No law can/should be made or enforced that involves a willing "victim". Victimless "crimes" are a Gooberment fantasy designed to mask Dogma and control the population.

BTW, I have to believe that you are seriously conflating two ideas. The Constitution supports no such principle as you have laid out above.

Really? Please show me how it DOES support the idea of the necessity to prosecute - with FORCE - victimless crimes.

No Gooberment has the Natural Right or Authority to define "injury" for another. Only the "injured" may do that.

You would do well to read "The Ethics of Liberty" by Rothbard as well as "Just & Unjust Wars" by Rawls.

Please re-read what you posted and tell me where it says anything about victims. You even made sure to bold the important part.

Assuming you are changing your statement, I am much closer to agreeing with you.

Michael in NH

[Leverdude]

Lottsa if's getting tossed around.
Lets not forget that "IF" the state was right things would be quite different.
If I had a daughter, I might never want her to get married. But the idea that another cultural group or whatever might think its ok at 14 doesn't bother or surprise me. In the US it used to be real common for men 40+ years old to marry young girls. Seems weird to me but thats my cultural perception.

DCS has valid uses, but they cant just arbitrailly do as they did here. We have stuff called due process & if those who enforce the laws cant do things by the book they need fixing. I think its inevitable with DCS type agencies. You cant give counselors & shrinks that kinda power. They think everyone has a problem & need to justify their jobs. Look at that raid as job security.

[bogus bill]

Fwiedner: Since I am lazy and dont want to type a ream, I just will refer you to this thread, to which I have the same bibical view on poligamy.
http://www.eadshome.com/polygamy.htm
and no, that aint near "about it!"
1. The young girls have absolutely no free will in who they marry.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... -sect.html
2. Many if not most, young boys are threw out young, on the road so
there is less competion for the geezers.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polyg ... my487.html
3. Their is high severe retardnation due to the limited gene pool.
http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,12 ... 23,00.html
4. There has been high welfare fraud
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polyg ... gamy5.html
5. The hilldale and colorado city police dept were poligamist (also the judge) lost their post certificates, and returned runway girls to their husbands. No where to run, or complain!!
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polyg ... my786.html
6. The young boys are made slaves for the group
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polyg ... gamy428.ht
7. There is high tax evasion
http://www.correntewire.com/flds_steali ... texas_laws

I am tired of this. It,s bedtime! Want more tomorrow?

[FWiedner]

Interesting stuff, Bill.

[Old Time Hunter]

Really, I would like someone that takes the government's position on this and explain why it was alright for our president (Grover Cleveland) at almost 60 to marry a young lady (almost 20) that he raised alone since puberty (13), but if a socially disfunctional 'religious' group "might" practice the same scenerio, we must attack them. Please explain.

Personally I do not advocate, nor approve of the FLDS practices, but who am I to interfere in their beliefs. Heck they might not like mine.

[bogus bill]

I wont try takeing that posistion as I wasnt around then, and he was a democrat! I googeled the story. He and a friend were both accused of fathering a kid out of wedlock. He paid child support. Ma, Ma, whos, yer pa? Became a campaign slogan. Later the SAME friend. oscar folsom died, the widow and her daughter visited cleavland. I belive cleavland had been paying support for a son. Anyway francis was in collage. (doesnt sound quite like 13 to me). He did marry her in the white house at 22.
Actualy, I wasnt much different! I met my 1st wife when she was 23 and I was 35. I was 12 years and 1 day older. We had a daughter, and she ran off with someone else. (took a fine gun collection with her).
After that, god forgive me, I lived a rather loose life myself, and lived with several women. Both died of cancer on me. Belive it or not, I had also lost another due to cancer prior to my 1st marrage.
Anyway, 5 years ago I met my present 2nd wife. I am just under 17 years older then her. So, I wont be casting stones age wise!
However, she was about 45 and I about 62. Now had I met her when I was 30 and her 13, they shoulda woulda hung me!

[C. Cash]

Thank you for those links Bogus Bill.

[Lefty Dude]

For more information go here;

http://www.azcentral.com

At the top type in " After Raid "

[bogus bill]

Go here for the most leads about poligamy I have found. Both all you want (or may not) want to read.
http://www.rickross.com/groups/polygamy.html

[El Mac]

Thanks Bogus Bill for hanging in there...

[JohnnyReb]

Thanks Bogus Bill for hanging in there...

Hanging in for what?
I have yet to see a post that advocates, condones or has any sympathy for FLDS practices that abuse women and children. I don't think anyone is taking up for their particular methods.

All the opponents of the manner of the raid have advocated is that the CPS abide by the law. According to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court they did not...

The taking of over 400 children in a sweeping raid with the minimal probable cause of the original warrant is an abuse of power.

Even worse, it is a bureaucrat department and trial court trying to legislate. It is very dangerous for unelected officials to try and make law by pushing the limits.
We have activist judges who legislate from the bench. Laws are to be made by elected officials and carried out by bureaucrats.

Don't like the law? There are legitimate ways to change it. It should never be changed or modified under threat of force.

[JohnnyReb]

In my opinion the most dangerous attitude a government official can possess is: "I will do as I think is right and correct until someone stops me"

That appears to have been the attitude of CPS in this case.

[Jeeps]

I'm going to have to say this is utterly amazing.

Some of us are trying to spell out that the authorities BROKE THE LAW when
they did what they did.

We get a bunch of folks saying "yes, but"......There is no but, do your job the
right way or be fired, that is all I ask. Obviously too much for some.

AND BY THE WAY KISMET, DO WE NOT HAVE PEOPLE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY
OUR 2ND AMENDMENT?

ARE THERE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO HAVE "WARRENTLESS SEARCHES" ON
FIREARM OWNERS HOUSES? HAVE THESE NOT BEEN BROUGHT UP IN ACTUAL
LEGISLATIVE VENUES?

Keep talking about my "tin foil hat".

I put up an argument and you bring out "tin foil hat", what a child you are.

[Jeeps]

*NO SHRUG*

I will always err on the side of freedom. It isn't just our military that sheds
blood for freedom, suffering is a part of freedom.

Those that followed Jim Jones down to Guyana had the freedom to do so. Yes,
they had children. You can't find a group of people who don't have children, it's
part of the makeup of society they are always present. Jones was a filthy scumbag
who took advantage of people for personal grandstanding. The children were
innocent victims. Welcome to the real world.

That is utter stuff. Children do not need to suffer for "our" freedom. While I agree that, without more evidence, "for the children" is not a reason to take 400 kids into custody, in our civilized society there has to be someone that will advocate for children whose parents refuse to do so. I don't care if the parents in this case do not have a problem with their 14 year old daughter getting married to and having sex with an adult man. It is WRONG; it is ILLEGAL; and I support someone standing up for the children's rights.

You know the type of people in this country who scream that CPS did the right
thing????? Yes, most of them would like to see our children taken away for having
to suffer in a house with firearms present. This is the way they think. If they
don't agree with our lifestyle then our lifestyle should be eradicated.

Nice try. It is a common cry on this board. The government doesn't like pedophiles - gun owners could be next. The government doesn't like terrorists - gun owners could be next. Liberals don't like racists - gun owners could be next. GET OVER IT ALREADY. The vast majority of people in this country do not have a problem with legal gun ownership. Even if CPS's sole goal is to invade this cult and will do so at the drop of a hat, suggesting that going after gun owners is the next step is why the phrase "tin foil hats" gets thrown around. There are plenty of logical reasons to worry about the future of gun ownership because of the problems with illegal gun ownership/use, but sounding the horn every time the government does something you don't like that "gun owners could be next" is nothing but irrational paranoia.

ANYTHING that happens concerning a large group of people will involve children.
Don't let that be a "heart string" they can use to lead you around to do their
bidding.

It's the new "lever" that is used to get their work done.

It's not "for the children" even though they have convinced themselves it is.
It's for what they want and the kids are leverage.

CPS has a lot of power. CPS may at times abuse that power. That simply does not mean that we have to sacrifice children to abuse.

Sad, but true.

Sad? Yes. True? Not a chance.

Michael in NH

"UTTER stuff"? Where is there a town or group of folks that does not have
children present? You want to stand up for childrens rights? Use that college
brought brain and assist the authorities, they obviously need it.
"WITHOUT MORE EVIDENCE" EXACTLY, that is the point we are trying to make
here, you need evidence for a warrant, unless you are going after someone
KISMET doesn't care for I guess.
__________________________________________________

"GET OVER IT ALREADY"? "IRRATIONAL PARANOIA"? Are you serious???

Just here in NY the Governor decided that gay/lesbian out of state marriages
will be recognized in NY. (to use you words) "The vast majority" of NY'ers
DO NOT want this to happen.
Please explain the "irrational paranoia" to people who lived in socialist countries
where their arms were stripped from them and then all heck broke loose.
Yes, you will deny that this country is headed down the "socialist road to nowhere".

In my above post I capitalized two facts, please tell me they are wrong.

After that please tell me that in this "democratic republic" we live in we don't
have a problem with politicians/judges making laws up on their own that
"the people" disagree with.

I draw a common sense line from that and I am labeled "irrationally paranoid"? Please...........
____________________________________________________

"SACRIFICE CHILDREN"? What exactly do you think I am here, a monster?
All I want is for CPS to follow the law and I am "sacrificing children"?
____________________________________________________

I'll try to say this one more time, others have tried to do so to no avail....

I believe bad stuff is happening in the FLDS and would love someone with
the proper authority to do something about it. With all the "media hype" I don't
believe we will ever get to the bottom of this now. "Sad but true".

Every time someone points out what the authorities did wrong someone jumps
out from behind a bush and screams "BUT THEY ARE MOLESTERS".

If they had evidence of molestation I don't believe this post would have
even been started because the TX supremes would not have spanked
the people who broke the law in front of God and everyone.

All "the people" ask for is before you arrest/detain citizens please have the
proper evidence to back up your actions. Is this too much?

I know I probably dished out a few insults your way during these two posts.

I apologize for them, but try to refrain from using "utter stuff", "tin foil hat",
calling people "paranoid". It doesn't feel good to have people try to belittle
things you believe with all your heart.

[El Mac]

Thanks Bogus Bill for hanging in there...

Hanging in for what?

Hanging in for having the cajones to stand up and speak his mind and outline his experience with a cult.

[Old Ironsights]

Thanks Bogus Bill for hanging in there...

Hanging in for what?

Hanging in for having the cajones to stand up and speak his mind and outline his experience with a cult.

One country's "cult" is another's mainstream religion.

"Cult" simply means "system of religious practice". Look it up. Every religion has it's own cult. Some cults are weirder than others, but all are simply forms of religious practice.

Using "Cult" as a dehuminizing perjoritive does nothing to foster positive debate.

[C. Cash]

Thanks Bogus Bill for hanging in there...

Hanging in for what?

Hanging in for having the cajones to stand up and speak his mind and outline his experience with a cult.

+1

It has been interesting to see the reaction to a few guys saying basically....."they really botched this up good, but gee, I'm still worried about those girls." Many of the folks here will not even consider what the record of this church group is. Some key ideas/words that are getting missed here: forced coercian of underage girls to have sex. It's the track record of this group. That is wrong in any culture, society, etc. Whether it Appalachia or the mean streets of Detroit, any young girl should not be forced to crawl into bed and and have sex. Again, to the folks here who scoff at the possibility that this is or has happened, please do some further investigation on the FLDS. Whether it was right for 12 year old girls to marry older guys in the 19th and early 20th centuries, however awkward and immoral it is to many of us, is entirely different than a system which forcefully coerces a young girl to give her body to someone else(aka rape). The key word words being forceful coercion(as in, if you don't do this, you are gonna PAY until you do do this!). Also, there are many obvious differences between a cult and a church, the primary difference being CONTROL vs. FREE WILL of it's members, but I will refrain from going into that as we all seem to have our minds made up here.

[Charles]

There seems to be some folks who think the Texas CPS folks are bad or evil people. Thugs just waiting to abuse their power and kick the little guy around.

That is not who they are. They are folks like you and me and worry about what is going on behind that fences of Yearning for Zion Ranch. They know bad stuff is going on with the young girls, because that groups practices and history is well known.

In their concern, the took a prank call to be more than it was, jumped the gun, exceeded the law and went way, way beyond what they could do and still stay within the bounds of the laws.

The Texas Court system, corrected their excesses and followed the law.

Before this is all over there will be pink slips issued at CPS, because this overreaching, in addition to being just plain wrong, will cost the State of Texas many millions of dollars.

There will also be criminal charges filed against some of the men who had sex with the female children. This will be difficult as the victims are not being cooperative.

All of this talk about plural marriage is mostly smoke. These guys have only one legal wife. The rest are just shacking up with the guys and calling it a "Spiritual Marriage" according the the rule of their nutty religion.

[Old Ironsights]

By in large I agree with your comments here Charles...

Though I doubt the CPS people are actively evil, they ARE, in my experience in a number of States, callous, officious "we know what's best for you" Gooberment types who have to do things their way - no matter who it hurts.

That doesn't make them evil, just Gooberment.

All of this talk about plural marriage is mostly smoke. These guys have only one legal wife. The rest are just shacking up with the guys and calling it a "Spiritual Marriage" according the the rule of their nutty religion.

Just like in every urban area in the country... except there they're called "Baby Daddies" and were CREATED by CPS/welfare policies...

[bogus bill]

Thanks, el mac, but being old, fat, ugly, retired and not running for office, I got nothing to lose!
I guess another factor of my intrest in studying the flds and "cults" was prior experience with my sisters family getting into scientology far back as the late 1950s. That cult totaly ruined her family to this day, and affected extended family badly. A big agravateting factor to me that I reconise in both scientology and the flds is how people totaly let the top punjabs totaly control their lives. Unfortunatly, its effect on the people born into it regenerates.
I see many similaritys in both. I have studied both cults deeply because of some connections to both.
In the case of scientology, my sister had 6 kids. They were "audited", (brainwashed) a process they use, very young. Of the 6, 3 were screwed up enough to go to mental institutions and be on the system. My brother in law died very young and it somehow fell on me to take care of two of the mentaly challenged boys for a number of years.
I could go on and on about this, but I just wanted to explain my intrest in studying these groups. My involvment goes back long before the recent raid and the recent news.

[Charles]

Ironsight... Power does funky things to people. Many, many people believe that if you have it, you must use it. They look for opportunities to use the power. We all know folks like this. Mostly they are low or mid-level folks who seek to demonstrate to others they are more imortant than they really are.

Most folks on the upper rungs, know that power it to used sparingly and as a last resort. They know that forcing people to do things seldom have a high quality outcome. If you have to use your power, you have pretty much lost the battle anyway.

Goverment folks, come in all types. Some understand power, most do not. We see the same thing in all businesses and organization. It is not a goverment thing. It is a a human thing.

[Old Ironsights]

...Goverment folks, come in all types. Some understand power, most do not. We see the same thing in all businesses and organization. It is not a goverment thing. It is a a human thing.

Yes, but being a Human Thing, those who are attracted to exercising power over others are drawn to those places where they are given Power to exercise... you see it in the Gooberment and the Mob (one and the same thing here in Chicago...)

[sore shoulder]

exosing children of that age to prearranged sex with a man (spiritual leader) is a crime. This is not the dark ages. :

Apparently it is, since most of the petty little third world countries that make up the UN practice that very behavior.

Care to name a few?

Oh, pic just about any 3rd world middle eastern, African , or southeast asian country. What's your point?

[Jeeps]

Ironsight... Power does funky things to people. Many, many people believe that if you have it, you must use it. They look for opportunities to use the power. We all know folks like this. Mostly they are low or mid-level folks who seek to demonstrate to others they are more imortant than they really are.

That was put quite nicely Charles, those are the ones that scare me the most.

Unfortunately, they are also the ones who have the most ability to wreck peoples
lives.

My only wish is that people know and understand to keep an eye on such folks
and to understand that we have a duty to let them know they are being watched
while they do what they do. We are management. They work for us.

I would try a test, and next time my boss asks me what I'm doing I'll say
"never mind, just go back to your office, nothing to see here!"

Something tells me it wouldn't go over to well

[Comal Forge]

There seems to be some folks who think the Texas CPS folks are bad or evil people. Thugs just waiting to abuse their power and kick the little guy around.

That is not who they are. They are folks like you and me and worry about what is going on behind that fences of Yearning for Zion Ranch. They know bad stuff is going on with the young girls, because that groups practices and history is well known.

In their concern, the took a prank call to be more than it was, jumped the gun, exceeded the law and went way, way beyond what they could do and still stay within the bounds of the laws.

The Texas Court system, corrected their excesses and followed the law.

Before this is all over there will be pink slips issued at CPS, because this overreaching, in addition to being just plain wrong, will cost the State of Texas many millions of dollars.

There will also be criminal charges filed against some of the men who had sex with the female children. This will be difficult as the victims are not being cooperative.

All of this talk about plural marriage is mostly smoke. These guys have only one legal wife. The rest are just shacking up with the guys and calling it a "Spiritual Marriage" according the the rule of their nutty religion.

That's about the most sane and succinct summary I've seen on the whole issue.

The other thing this action will do now is to allow CPS to monitor the situation without prior notice. That in itself will put the FLDS on high alert that they should keep their ducks in a row or risk going through this again - and the next time, the kids will be taken away permanently.

[pomofo]

A big agravateting factor to me that I reconise in both scientology and the flds is how people totaly let the top punjabs totaly control their lives. Unfortunatly, its effect on the people born into it regenerates.

I hear you. My father was involved with a cult once, too. Had a decade plus of brainwashing in their "schools," served in their security forces in an occupied country for a few years, and then started working for their protection racket, forcing people to pay close to half their income in order to fund the cult's reach over ever-larger portions of the globe. Then he started working on the cult's plans to ensure that the cult leaders would be able to continue their cult in the event of a nuclear attack. They had some top leader they called POTUS, whom they trusted to run every detail of their lives. Even though I grew up in the belly of the beast, I never really bought into the cult, but I notice that every year more and more people give this POTUS guy and his cronies more and more control over every aspect of their lives. And those of us who stand up to the cult are disparaged with the epithets "old-fashioned," "uncivilized," or "behind the times." But it's good to know that there are people out there who aren't going to take this lying down. Keep up the good fight.

[El Mac]

Thanks Bogus Bill for hanging in there...

Hanging in for what?

Hanging in for having the cajones to stand up and speak his mind and outline his experience with a cult.

One country's "cult" is another's mainstream religion.

"Cult" simply means "system of religious practice". Look it up. Every religion has it's own cult. Some cults are weirder than others, but all are simply forms of religious practice.

Using "Cult" as a dehuminizing perjoritive does nothing to foster positive debate.

OI, I'm kinda simple really. I worry more about the "what is" vs the "what ifs". And to me its kinda like the definition of pornography - I know it when I see it.

School kids learn it when learning about ducks.

But hey, thats me.

[Old Ironsights]

...OI, I'm kinda simple really. I worry more about the "what is" vs the "what ifs". And to me its kinda like the definition of pornography - I know it when I see it.

School kids learn it when learning about ducks.

But hey, thats me.

Kind of like the BATFE's definition of a Machine gun. THey know it when they want to harrass you...

[El Mac]

...OI, I'm kinda simple really. I worry more about the "what is" vs the "what ifs". And to me its kinda like the definition of pornography - I know it when I see it.

School kids learn it when learning about ducks.

But hey, thats me.

Kind of like the BATFE's definition of a Machine gun. THey know it when they want to harrass you...

Whatever OI. I ain't BATFE. But I'll let you worry about the complexities of your strawmen.

[Old Ironsights]

...OI, I'm kinda simple really. I worry more about the "what is" vs the "what ifs". And to me its kinda like the definition of pornography - I know it when I see it.

School kids learn it when learning about ducks.

But hey, thats me.

Kind of like the BATFE's definition of a Machine gun. THey know it when they want to harrass you...

Whatever OI. I ain't BATFE. But I'll let you worry about the complexities of your strawmen.

I'm not the one who brought upthe idiotic "I know X when I see X."

That is an absurdity based upon subjective point of view and therefor no basis for persecution.

Prosecute real complaints made by real people who haven't the means to prosecute it themselves... don't prosecute hearsay complaints made by people not personally impacted by the percieved "crime". If that were legal/rational I could go put a bullet in the heads of the morons in my neighborhood who have "raised" two criminals and are, IMO materially and psycologically destroying a third little kid.

But hey, those kids are already "in the (CPS) system" and the fat harridan that I hear screaming from a block away gets her (kid's) cheques, so nobody cares.

I pray for the day Timmy comes to our house and asks for sancturary - but untill he does, I can't do stuff... and as sad as it is, that's the way it should be.

[El Mac]

...OI, I'm kinda simple really. I worry more about the "what is" vs the "what ifs". And to me its kinda like the definition of pornography - I know it when I see it.

School kids learn it when learning about ducks.

But hey, thats me.

Kind of like the BATFE's definition of a Machine gun. THey know it when they want to harrass you...

Whatever OI. I ain't BATFE. But I'll let you worry about the complexities of your strawmen.

I'm not the one who brought upthe idiotic "I know X when I see X."

That is an absurdity based upon subjective point of view and therefor no basis for persecution.

Prosecute real complaints made by real people who haven't the means to prosecute it themselves... don't prosecute hearsay complaints made by people not personally impacted by the percieved "crime". If that were legal/rational I could go put a bullet in the heads of the morons in my neighborhood who have "raised" two criminals and are, IMO materially and psycologically destroying a third little kid.

But hey, those kids are already "in the (CPS) system" and the fat harridan that I hear screaming from a block away gets her (kid's) cheques, so nobody cares.

I pray for the day Timmy comes to our house and asks for sancturary - but untill he does, I can't do stuff... and as sad as it is, that's the way it should be.

I'm not their persecuters either. Just a joe like you.

[FWiedner]

The other thing this action will do now is to allow CPS to monitor the situation without prior notice. That in itself will put the FLDS on high alert that they should keep their ducks in a row or risk going through this again - and the next time, the kids will be taken away permanently.

This may be the worst part of the whole exercise. The governement has inserted themselves into these people's lives forever, without just cause.

The court has decided that there was insufficient justification to kidnap all of the children in the community and has ordered the return of those children to their families, but still CPS is placing conditions on returning those children to parents who have done nothing wrong, and CPS somehow has the authority to continue to abuse and harrass those families until the end of time.

I disagree with Charles. The CPS and those employed by them ARE evil and they fully intend to be. They are the lowest of oppressors, seeking to exercise power over people by attacking their children.

[Hobie]

I am constantly surprised that very few of you seem to realize that the precedent will be used against gun owners if allowed to stand. The CPS should have been able to prove their case under the very liberal rules governing CPS in most states because they had an undercover agent inside the compound for 2 years (I read this in three different reports, albeit from "news" sources). BUT, they couldn't prove anything! With such standards applied to gun owners and Lautenberg also applied... jeez, what would you say then?

[bogus bill]

They just released news of one young female I belive named jeffs, refuse the option of going back to her family. She thought she would be
further abused if she went back. However, I will be first to admit if you
removed 400 kids from typical secular familys there probley would be some that would use the option to stay away from home too! We will wait and see what is behind that report.
I think it would be prudent to wait and see what shakes out of this court reversal appeals decision. The way I hear it, the court isnt saying that there was no abuse, basicly saying there was no evidence to warrant mass removeal of over 400.
I am guilty of starting the original thread asking of opinions here of it. Kind of reminds me of those stupid soccer game riots where fans of both sides beat on each other over the game result. I didnt mean to start ill feeling with each other on the site with my question!

[Leverdude]

Some people dont think trowing rocks is dangerous,,,,,until they get clocked in the head.

CPS is a socialist mechanism pure & simple. They harass you if they THINK they MIGHT find something & if they fail they wont let go & arent required to do so. About as unAmerican as you can get.
They should not exist, if a kids parents commit a crime, lock them up, if they didn't leave them be.

To have our own govt sitting like a vulture waiting to snatch away someones life is not something to be proud of.

[Charles]

Hobie.. You have been in your bunker too long. The lesson here, is that the Texas Courts steped in and protected the children and parents from the CPS with all it's liberal rules and discretion. That is the precident! The rights of the citizens win, even if the citizens belong to a nutty religious group. This is the way, things are supposed to work!

Ironsight.. I think we are going to have to agree to disagee. I realize full well there are a number of folks on this board who regard the "gobberment" at all levels as a negative, repressive force in American life. They show up in force when these political threads take life. This bunch of folks filter events though their pre-existing bias/prejudice with the predictable outcome.

I am not one of you. Goverment, both civil service and elected, attracts all kinds of people. Those include the lazy, the power hungry and also the idealistic, the caring and those who seek to make our country a better place to live.

I firmly believe that all people and all groups should be judged on their individual actions. This includes goverment, business, religion and so forth. When they are right they are right and when they are wrong, they are wrong.

The gun community is made up of many different peoples and groups. Some of these folks have nothing in common but a mutual interest in firearms. There are some of these groups I would not want to be associated with. Yet, and anti-gun folks like to lump us all together and characterize and tar us all with the same broad brush.

If it is not fair to be judged collectivly, then it is wrong from us to do the same.

This is just the way I live and don't have any plans to change.

[El Mac]

Charles, you are a man of reason and logic. A breath of fresh air.

[Leverdude]

The lesson here, is that the Texas Courts steped in and protected the children and parents from the CPS with all it's liberal rules and discretion. That is the precident! The rights of the citizens win, even if the citizens belong to a nutty religious group. This is the way, things are supposed to work!

I agree with most of the stuff you said Charles.

But its too late for the courts to protect these people & they wont be given any satisfaction at all. As has already been mentioned these people, that the court said were wronged, will now be watched 24/7 as the CPS waits. I know people will say that if they do nothing wrong they have nothing to fear but is that how we operate now?

For the court to actually protect future families from this travesty, its too late for the ones in this case, they would need to mandate reform, not say, ok folks they goofed & forget about it.

I agree with Mac, you are a man of reason & logic.
Is it reasonable, or logical to allow this thing to go unpunished? Not collectively but individually. Someone ordered this, theres a leader, a person who is responsible that would be happily giving interviews if this went the other way. At the very least that person should be removed from authority. If its a group, so be it.

[Kismet]

AND BY THE WAY KISMET, DO WE NOT HAVE PEOPLE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR 2ND AMENDMENT?

We do. I simply disagree that this kind of action by CPS is a proper comparison. Nearly every time someone posts about a misuse of power, someone else jumps and says, "the same thing can happen to gun owners." Of course similar things CAN happen (e.g. misuse of power against gun owners), but just because CPS went after the FLDS that doesn't suddenly mean that gun owners are bad parents.

I put up an argument and you bring out "tin foil hat", what a child you are.

Again, I disagree that you put up an argument. You used a scare tactic equating allegations of child molestation with being a gun owner. I don't think that is an argument.

__________________________________________________

"GET OVER IT ALREADY"? "IRRATIONAL PARANOIA"? Are you serious???

Just here in NY the Governor decided that gay/lesbian out of state marriages
will be recognized in NY. (to use you words) "The vast majority" of NY'ers
DO NOT want this to happen.

And how does posting something completely irrelevant (and likely factually wrong) to the topic at hand support your argument that CPS is going to come after gun owners? The fact that you would even post such an "argument" suggests to me that you will try to link any number of government actions that you don't like together whether they are analogous or not. Given that I believe at least some government is a necessity in this day and age, I don't think that is a productive tactic.

____________________________________________________

"SACRIFICE CHILDREN"? What exactly do you think I am here, a monster?
All I want is for CPS to follow the law and I am "sacrificing children"?
____________________________________________________

I don't think you are a monster. But please reread your post. Here it is again:

I will always err on the side of freedom. It isn't just our military that sheds
blood for freedom, suffering is a part of freedom.

Those that followed Jim Jones down to Guyana had the freedom to do so. Yes,
they had children. You can't find a group of people who don't have children, it's
part of the makeup of society they are always present. Jones was a filthy scumbag
who took advantage of people for personal grandstanding. The children were
innocent victims. Welcome to the real world.

What I get from this is that you don't believe that children's rights should be protected. If the parents screw up and buy into cult B.S., then children suffer - and suffering is part of freedom.

Feel free to clarify your statement to eliminate my confusion.

I know I probably dished out a few insults your way during these two posts.

I apologize for them, but try to refrain from using "utter stuff", "tin foil hat", calling people "paranoid". It doesn't feel good to have people try to belittle things you believe with all your heart.

I appreciate that you believe these things with all your heart. I'm sorry if you felt belittled. I think we are both big enough to discuss this passionately without going over the line.

I feel strongly that many people here are so anti-government that they will use anything they don't like on the part of the government to advance their agenda - even if it requires stretching the facts and/or making up some constitutional law. I think that attitude is almost as destructive to society as being a sheeple.

Michael in NH

[sore shoulder]

AND BY THE WAY KISMET, DO WE NOT HAVE PEOPLE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR 2ND AMENDMENT?

We do. I simply disagree that this kind of action by CPS is a proper comparison. Michael in NH

I disagree. I believe they are both analogous of the willingness of government to overstep it's bounds and violate our civial rights whenever they think they can get away with it. In fact, the illegal gun confiscations during Katrina would be a prime example of a government agency issuing an illegal order and LE blindly following it. and being completely unapologetic. Both examples were excused as being in the best interest of safety. I think Ol Ben Franklin had something to say about the idiots who believe that kind of logic.

[El Mac]

AND BY THE WAY KISMET, DO WE NOT HAVE PEOPLE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY OUR 2ND AMENDMENT?

We do. I simply disagree that this kind of action by CPS is a proper comparison. Michael in NH

I disagree. I believe they are both analogous of the willingness of government to overstep it's bounds and violate our civial rights whenever they think they can get away with it. In fact, the illegal gun confiscations during Katrina would be a prime example of a government agency issuing an illegal order and LE blindly following it. and being completely unapologetic. Both examples were excused as being in the best interest of safety. I think Ol Ben Franklin had something to say about the idiots who believe that kind of logic.

And I believe it was Ol Ben that said something along the lines of "the people get the government they deserve"... now tell me, didn't the people of New Orleans hold fair elections and they put the chump known as Nagin in charge as their mayor?!?! And he is the de facto leader of that wretched dump and that wretched 'police' department that confiscated those guns. They got what they deserved. And then they turn back around and re-elect him. Sheesh. Why should anyone be suprised?

Sorry for the topic drift...

[CowboyTutt]

OK, I've really been trying to shy away from this post as I usually get lambasted on political threads by those who are better "debater's" than I.

But I have to chime in here. I'm a school psychologist and have been for 5 years. I do not share the experiences of those who say that CPS "over stepped" their bounds. In fact, their reputation locally is to do less than what should be. I had a case with a young man who I mentored who was placed into a group home because of severe neglect. His mother had left him to the biological father who had physically neglected him so bad, he was removed from the fathers care by CPS. The mother was left to harbor some blame for this, and without divulging to much, rightfully so. When I met this young man, he was a 6th grade student. We put him on a 504 Plan for his medically diagnosed ADHD. That didn't work. I eventually qualified him for special education in my role as a school psychologist. To make a long story short, the group home he was in was going to change his diagnosis from ADHD and Oppositional Defiant Disorder to Conduct Disorder, which means you are blaming the child who you decide is willfully choosing to misbehave. This is because they had failed to change his behavior despite poor practices of combining their counselors and disciplinarians into one role which has been proven to not work. Why would a child confide in you if you know you are going to discipline him for it? It simply doesn't work. Never has, never will. I went ballistic when I found out that this is what they were up to. But this was their plan as they were going to ship him out to a more restrictive placement group home. Blame the kid, not the facility. His case manager somehow got her director to write a scathing critique of me because she despised his biological mother. This group home case manager was famous in my district for being, well, strange. My Special Education Director defended me to the hilt, and my guy was eventually transfered to a much better, but also more restrictive group home. Frankly, I was glad he did get transfered as his current group home was a disaster. To be honest, before he left my middle school, he was smearing feces on the walls in the public restrooms. He did this 3 times before he was caught. This was a result of the extreme neglect he had experienced as a child.

I had another case of a child from an incredibly disfunctional family who had failed in public school, then was moved to a private school by the family, only to be kicked out a year later for foul language and behavior.

He came back to my elementary school and somehow just made it into middle school. His parents had refused an assessment for special education although they already had a case history with CPS. A case worker was again asigned while he was in middle school. He did nothing, which really upset me off. I went to the deputy director of Social Services, who told me, the "laws were not designed to obstruct us from helping children". He offered ways to support me, and a week later, I had the parents permission to do a special education assessment. This woman had left her husband 4 times, and still went back to him. It was reported to me directly by a social worker in CO who worked with the mother when she had briefly left the state, that her husband and the father of her children used to watch her via video camera when she was home. It was only after the mother had decided to return to her husband that she had suddenly "clammed up". These were classic symptoms of an abused spouse.

I recently had a case where a middle school girl placed into a foster home was refered to me for a special education evaluation. She had a foster care worker, and a social worker. She also had a good foster care placement as I had had worked with this particulular family before, and they had presented very well. She had been so sexually abused prior to this placement, that any male she came into contact with, she also felt sexually attracted too. She made overtures to her foster Father. She eventually had to be removed from the home because of her behaviors. She could "hold it together" at school, but at home, her behaviors were extreme. Which brings me to the current events.

I know that Old Ironsights, and Fwiedner can argue politics much better than me.

Buy you have no first hand knowledge of these situations and the results of your decisions.

FW, you claim that CPS was hiding under "color of law" when they removed these children from their homes. I put to you, that this despicable cult is also hiding under "color of law" and their rights to "practice religion". Furthermore, I would say that they are doing far worse, and hiding "under Color of God", while they sexually abuse their own children under a pretense of religion.

I have nearly lost my job, more than once, because I have defended ONE SINGLE CHILD! Some of you here pretend to know the law better than the rest of us, and perhaps you do. I have to ask, as a simple man, how many children have to be harmed under your interpretation of laws, before you do something? For me, it only takes one child. Again, I have stake my reputation on it more than once.

Yes, the local CPS overstepped their bounds because as of the last article I read, there were only 5 children who convincingly had been sexually abused. ONLY FIVE! I will try to find the article again if I can.

I deeply respect Bill and others who have held fast against such an anti-goverment approach as most on this forum want to present. We are not talking gun rights, we are talking about the well being of children. Look your own child in the eye and tell me how many other children need to suffer. Gun laws, and the law regarding children are not the same thing!

These people are evil. It disturbs me that so many here want to defend them. I've seen what these people can do.

-Tutt

[Lefty Dude]

Well stated Tutt, and thank you for your service for our Children.

[CowboyTutt]

Lefty, thank you for the compliment, but it is not warrented. I am a single guy without a wife or any children of his own. Strangely, this only fires my resolve and gives me patience for the children of others. I'm like the Grandfather who gets to enter other childrens lives, and spoil them! It is not a bad place to be.

-Tutt

[FWiedner]

Tutt, I had prepared and posted a long diatribe about school psychologists. Actually, it was about one school psychologist. I really launched into it.

I decided to delete it because it was... negative.

It wasn't a slam against you, just a review of a bad personal experience that has shaped my outlook.

Suffice to say, that not all professionals in your field are as well intentioned as you seem to be.

[Old Time Hunter]

Tutt, well written rebuttal and explanation of cause and effect, but one question that has bothered me since college regarding behaviour. At what point do we take social deviant behaviour and classify it as a "sickness" that can be "cured" thru "proper" treatment?

Did not Russia in the Stalin era use this same theory to cure those that had issues with Stalin's version of society?

On a one on one personal issue, like you expressed in your post, I can see the validity of trying to steer a misguided youth in a more societal accepted behaviour. But not as a group and not to "label" as that opens up another bag of worms.

My contention to this entire epsiode is less the behaviour of the FLDS, but more that the government is supposed to be held to the highest standard. Not to be swayed by innuendo and supposition, and especially not to act on rumor and accusation. I hope that those of us that find the actions of the local court, the CPS, and the local LE reprehensible based on not holding to that higher standard.