The Government's Double-Standard about the FLDS

SamCogar wrote:Well GEEEEEEZE, ...... it is better that the State of Texas take those 400+ children and put them in foster care ............. rather than "burning them in place" like they did at Waco.

.

Pardon me for jumping in here Sam.

I will but out if you want.

But are you sure it was State authorities who conducted the raid/seige/military assault at Waco?

I thought it was the Feds.

Matter of fact, I recall many people (myself included) saying Janet Reno should be fired over the botched way it was handled.

TerryRC wrote:
But being "intellectually dishonest" ....... is still being dishonest.

And there is no such thing as a "selective character trait" when a person's actions are being discussed.

You make no sense.

"DUH", you making such a comment shouldn't surprise anyone.

TerryRC wrote:People make errors, Sam. That isn't the same as being dishonest.

I know that, TRC. And I also know when you are being dishonest.

TerryRC wrote:You probably do not understand that, seeing as how you would rather eat white arsenic than admit to an error.

"DUH", I have admitted to every "error" that you have pointed out.

I believe there was two spelling errors and one "interchange" error where I inadvertenly substituted a word in error.

.

shermangeneral wrote:

SamCogar wrote:Well GEEEEEEZE, ...... it is better that the State of Texas take those 400+ children and put them in foster care ............. rather than "burning them in place" like they did at Waco.

.

Pardon me for jumping in here Sam.

I will but out if you want.

But are you sure it was State authorities who conducted the raid/seige/military assault at Waco?

I thought it was the Feds.

Matter of fact, I recall many people (myself included) saying Janet Reno should be fired over the botched way it was handled.

You are right Sherman, ....... I should have stated it more definitively by stating "like the ATF and the NG Military did at Waco."

To carry out the raid, BATF had procured helicopters from the Texas National Guard.[52] Unlike federal law, which allows some reimbursed use of the military even when drugs are not involved, Texas law only allows the use of its National Guard helicopters for law enforcement when there is a drug nexus.[53]

BATF also made use of the Alabama National Guard for aerial photography. The use was authorized by a "memorandum of agreement" between the Adjutant Generals of the Texas and Alabama National Guards.[54] Even if the drug nexus had been real, there are a number of problems with employing the Alabama National Guard in Texas. Texas law expressly requires the governor's approval for the entry of a military force that, like the Alabama National Guard, is not part of the U.S. armed forces.[55] But Texas Governor Ann Richards never knew about the use of the Alabama or Texas National Guards until after the raid.[56] Alabama law limits the operation of the Alabama National Guard to the state boundaries of Alabama.[57] Thus, the deployment of the Alabama National Guard in Texas was a flagrant breach of the laws of Alabama and Texas.

In addition, the "memorandum of agreement" providing for use the Alabama National Guard in Texas violated the United States Constitution. Agreements between two or more states require congressional consent, and Congress had not consented to the Alabama/Texas "agreement."[58] In other words, (p.631)the Adjutant Generals of the National Guards of Alabama and Texas executed a "memorandum of agreement" which purported to authorize cross-border use of the Alabama National Guard, even though the "agreement" as implemented was in defiance of the law of Alabama, the law of Texas, and the Constitution of the United States. It is precisely such military usurpation of civil authority--the destruction of the rule of civil law--which is the ultimate, and real danger posed by use of the military in law enforcement.

http://www.davidkopel.org/Waco/LawRev/CanSoldiersBePeaceOfficers.htm#h4

.

TerryRC wrote:So the parents aren't entitled to legal representation now? How about the children, they aren't entitled to representation? The courtroom was a circus because they treated well over 400 children as one entity. That should never be allowed to happen. They are individual human beings.

Relax, Steph. I said no such thing.

Someone pointed out that the courtroom has turned into a circus. I agree. Do a little google search and see who is summoning the clowns...

The FLDS and their lawyers are using the media and are not above pitching the crazy to do so.

It is their right. Just give them the credit they deserve for the fact that this has become a circus.

Terry,

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. In my opinion, based upon the reports I have read and seen on the news, Texas officials initiated this circus. They rounded up all of those children in one massive raid. There weren't accusations against all of those families, there was no evidence against most of those families. Those children were taken from their parents simply because the parents are members of that particular religion.

I have no religion. I don't believe in any god or any goddess, and that includes the government. No man, no government should conduct themselves as god either. That is what the state of Texas is doing and I find it contemptable.

This month it is residents of YFZ. Who will it be in May? Who may it be in the months and years to come? Who knows who they will decide to go after next. Keep in mind we have a fundie president, and a primarily fundie Congress. In case you hadn't noticed, West Virginia is loaded to the gills with fundies. How sure are you that our "godless" children are safe from this kind of persecution?

Half of the teen girls at YFZ were pregnant ! (I just know somebody’s gonna say the teen girls were impregnated by the teen boys, so it’s not all that bad.)

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. In my opinion, based upon the reports I have read and seen on the news, Texas officials initiated this circus. They rounded up all of those children in one massive raid. There weren't accusations against all of those families, there was no evidence against most of those families. Those children were taken from their parents simply because the parents are members of that particular religion.

There were complaints. One of them turned out to be false but the COTUS is clear about the police acting in good faith. They had a warrant. Once there, they found enough evidence within the scope of the warrant to act.

The state considered the group dorms the families lived in to be one "household". I don't know if I agree, but it then gave the state the power to deal with all of the kids at once.

Since then, more evidence has come to light that girls under the AOC have been "married" to and impregnated by adults.

There is no debating these facts. To say that there was no evidence against this group and that there were no complaints is untrue.

Back when Jeffs was first convicted, I saw at least two different women on the various networks that had left/escaped from a similar group that he had led. Surely they have lodged complaints.

There is evidence a plenty and there will be more when the DNA results come in.

I don't want the state or the fed kicking in my doors, either. I also don't marry my barely teen daughters off to people that I owe or that I want to have owe me.

It is also true that I just don't like these people. They teach that non-whites are animals. They isolate their members from the outside world and keep them penniless so they are functionally retarded and powerless. The also practice what is basically sexual slavery for women.

Freedom of religion only goes so far and these people have flaunted to law for a long time.

A Wiki , for what it is worth.

BTW, want an example of crazy from the FLDS and supporters? Try this:

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=3147476

Terry,

You're missing the point, entirely. Those people are still Americans. The fact that you and I disagree with them, that we believe they are crazy, is irrelevant. The fact remains they are entitled to live their lives and raise their children as they see fit.

Many of the teenage girls are pregnant? My daughter's rural high school with an enrollment of 270 has a number of girls pregnant now too. As a matter of fact, there is an 8th grade girl that rides her bus pregnant for the second time! I wonder how what percentage of parents with pregnant teenaged daughters have their children stripped from them in the state of Texas? We both know the pregnant teens on that ranch are not the only pregnant teens in that state.

You're also ignoring the fact that children were taken from all the families. Not all of those families had married or pregnant underage girls. That would be like the state coming into my community and taking custody of all of the children who attend the Baptist church down the road because there are allegations one of the men is a child molester and some of the teenaged girls are pregnant.

I believe you are allowing your dislike for this group to cloud your judgement.

I believe you are allowing your dislike for this group to cloud your judgement.

And I believe that you are allowing your dislike of government meddling in the lives of citizens to cloud yours.

Right or wrong, the law is what it is. Why should this cult of LDSers be exempt from the same laws everyone else in Texas, and every other state in some fashion of other, is subject to?

Just because this cult's pedophilia and incest are practised on a grander scale than we usually see should not exempt the perpetrators.

ziggy wrote:

I believe you are allowing your dislike for this group to cloud your judgement.

And I believe that you are allowing your dislike of government meddling in the lives of citizens to cloud yours.

Right or wrong, the law is what it is. Why should this cult of LDSers be exempt from the same laws everyone else in Texas, and every other state in some fashion of other, is subject to?

Just because this cult's pedophilia and incest are practised on a grander scale than we usually see should not exempt the perpetrators.

Now you're injecting incest to this discussion? I must have missed those reports. That is entirely possible because the media has gone hog wild with this story and I have been very busy.

I admit to a complete lack of confidence in most government officials and an intense dislike to governmental interference into our personal lives. However, it has long been my understanding that our legal system was founded upon the principle that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to wrongly convict a single innocent man. The actions of Texas officials leads me to believe Texas does not share that view.

The comments of many of my friends and associates here in this forum leads me to believe perhaps this concept is just dead in this society. Some of you appear to be applauding the abduction of hundreds of children from their parents based upon past bad actions of their associates, gossip, & suspicion. They think some of the kids may have been abused so they are justified to remove all of the children, their best interests be damned.

Perhaps it truly is time for my family to "find a better country".

They think some of the kids may have been abused so they are justified to remove all of the children, their best interests be damned.

Again, it is not about the best interests of the children. It is about the law. And the law says that what is happening here, and what happens when any other household is believed to be committing / allowing to be committed such offenses, that the children are to be protected first.

I don't like the way any of this has come down. But to be consistent this should have talken place sooner- years sooner. But it hasn't only because, up until now, this sect of the LDS religion has been mostly allwowed a free pass from the laws everyone else is supposed to live by.

I agrre with you. I will even suggest that what would happen to these children in foster homes could be even worse than in the LDS dormitory. But at least on the outside, when these children become adults they can make their own decisions- right or wrong. But as long as they are until the control of LDS regilgous nuts, they do not have the option of making up their own minds.

This is but one more example where organized religion makes victims of its adherents. With Warren Jeff's God as their authority, they can justify anything.

ziggy wrote:

They think some of the kids may have been abused so they are justified to remove all of the children, their best interests be damned.

Again, it is not about the best interests of the children. It is about the law. And the law says that what is happening here, and what happens when any other household is believed to be committing / allowing to be committed such offenses, that the children are to be protected first.

I don't like the way any of this has come down. But to be consistent this should have talken place sooner- years sooner. But it hasn't only because, up until now, this sect of the LDS religion has been mostly allwowed a free pass from the laws everyone else is supposed to live by.

I agrre with you. I will even suggest that what would happen to these children in foster homes could be even worse than in the LDS dormitory. But at least on the outside, when these children become adults they can make their own decisions- right or wrong. But as long as they are until the control of LDS regilgous nuts, they do not have the option of making up their own minds.

This is but one more example where organized religion makes victims of its adherents. With Warren Jeff's God as their authority, they can justify anything.

Are you telling me the best interests of the children are not the primary criteria used in determining child custody in Texas as it is in RI? Isn't that the criteria used in WV?

Every article I read regarding this case has stated that authorities have the option of taking all the children in a home when one child has been abused. That is not the same thing as a requirement, which is what you seem to be suggesting is the law in Texas. I don't think that is the case. Do you have information contrary to this?

They are not interested in the best interests of those children. How does that make them any better than the people they took them from?

Stephanie wrote:They are not interested in the best interests of those children. How does that make them any better than the people they took them from?

I don't know that it does. But again, what about the law?

You have a problem with a government that snatches children from their parents. I have a problem with a government that makes so many laws that priorities get so turned up-side-down that no one makes good judgments about what is right and wrong. For example, if the resources of government weren't squandered away trying to find every pot plant and jail every pot user, we could put more resources into child protection services. That is just one example of up-side-down priorities.

But anyway, your average local friendly child molester usually cannot get by with hiding his perversions behind the facade of religion- although a few do. But the LDS child molester freaks can and do. And I have a problem with that, too.

Stephanie wrote:

ziggy wrote:

I believe you are allowing your dislike for this group to cloud your judgement.

And I believe that you are allowing your dislike of government meddling in the lives of citizens to cloud yours.

Right or wrong, the law is what it is. Why should this cult of LDSers be exempt from the same laws everyone else in Texas, and every other state in some fashion of other, is subject to?

Just because this cult's pedophilia and incest are practised on a grander scale than we usually see should not exempt the perpetrators.

Now you're injecting incest to this discussion? I must have missed those reports. That is entirely possible because the media has gone hog wild with this story and I have been very busy.

Stephanie, try a Google search for "Fumarase deficiency".

Here is a sample of what you might find:

Fumarase deficiency is caused by a mutation in the fumarate hydratase (FH) gene in humans, which encodes an enzyme that converts fumarate to malate in the mitochondria. Other mutant alleles of the FH gene, located on human chromosome 1 at position 1q42.1, cause multiple cutaneous and uterine leiomyomata, hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer. ^[1]. Fumarase deficiency is one of the few known deficiencies of the Krebs cycle or tricarboxylic acid cycle, the main enzymatic pathway of cellular aerobic respiration.^[2].
The condition is inherited as an autosomal recessive^[3], and it is therefore usually necessary for an affected individual to receive the mutant allele from both parents. Some of the children involved have been born to parents who were first cousins.^[4][5] It can also be associated with uniparental isodisomy.^[6]

Fumarase deficiency is extremely rare. Until roughly 18 years ago scientists knew of only thirteen cases worldwide . However, recently twenty additional cases have been documented in the Arizona/Utah border towns of Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah^[9] These two towns constitute a closed and controlled community, and were settled in the 1930s by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is a breakaway sect now unaffiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As such, many of the surrounding communities refer to this disease as "Polygamist's Down's"^[10]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumarase_deficiency}

Watch for those DNA tests.

The comments of many of my friends and associates here in this forum leads me to believe perhaps this concept is just dead in this society. Some of you appear to be applauding the abduction of hundreds of children from their parents based upon past bad actions of their associates, gossip, & suspicion. They think some of the kids may have been abused so they are justified to remove all of the children, their best interests be damned.

Steph. You keep avoiding the fact that there was enough evidence to convince a judge to issue a warrant. Once issued, enough evidence was collected to cause child services to act.

The state would be breaking the law to put children back into that situation until a court has ruled upon it.

My likes and dislikes are irrelevant. Whether they were good people or not (they aren't - did you read the Wiki I linked to?), the law is clear.

There is evidence that some bad things were going on in that compound. Parents and "prophets" were using their authority to put young, young girls into the beds of adults, some (as Ziggy shows above) were very likely closely related.

Time will tell. The state is doing, by law, the only thing that can do. If they are right, some people will be, rightfully, going to jail. If they are wrong, they will likely, and rightfully, get their asses sued off.

I do, however, have to admit to another error.

Back when the compound was first searched ("raided", whatever), I thought Jeffs was there. It turns out that he was already in custody following his trial.

My mistake and the FLDSers weren't harboring a fugitive.

Fumarase deficiency is extremely rare. Until roughly 18 years ago scientists knew of only thirteen cases worldwide . However, recently twenty additional cases have been documented in the Arizona/Utah border towns of Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah[9] These two towns constitute a closed and controlled community, and were settled in the 1930s by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is a breakaway sect now unaffiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As such, many of the surrounding communities refer to this disease as "Polygamist's Down's"[10]

Ziggy, what do they call it in West Virginia?

"Six Finger" Freddy .... or .... "Seven Toed" Freda ........... maybe?

.

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:They are not interested in the best interests of those children. How does that make them any better than the people they took them from?

I don't know that it does. But again, what about the law?

You have a problem with a government that snatches children from their parents. I have a problem with a government that makes so many laws that priorities get so turned up-side-down that no one makes good judgments about what is right and wrong. For example, if the resources of government weren't squandered away trying to find every pot plant and jail every pot user, we could put more resources into child protection services. That is just one example of up-side-down priorities.

But anyway, your average local friendly child molester usually cannot get by with hiding his perversions behind the facade of religion- although a few do. But the LDS child molester freaks can and do. And I have a problem with that, too.

What about the law? You show me the Texas law requiring officials to take custody of every child in a community, or household, or family, based upon suspect child abuse of one or some of the children.

We all know this nation is chuck full of ridiculous laws and power hungry "officials". Most of us agree our legal system is broken, due in large part to laws punishing victimless crimes.

My desire is to see less government intrusion, regulation, and intervention. While I share your desire to decriminalize drugs I believe any savings should be funneled directly into treatment programs for drug addicts (treating addicts definitely benefits the "greater good") and allowing taxpayers to keep more of their money. Providing more money to "child protective services" would just be feeding another government beast.

While I share your concern for children who are abused and neglected by their parents, I am equally concerned about the children who are abused and neglected by the government and by their government paid caregivers. Children who are wards of the state are much more likely to be abused, even murdered, than those in the custody of their parents. That is a fact being ignored by nearly everyone. A child in foster care is also at much greater risk of becoming a missing child. These facts cannot be ignored.