Fundamentalist Mormons and individual rights

[Wolf DeVoon]

How we as Objectivists start to affect the culture around us, how we interrelate with the irrationality that exists around every other corner in the world is paramount.

Correct.

For the moment, put aside the rights of well-fed women and children. Forget about nonexistent U.S. coal mines, and ignore ubiquitous kid porno like Grand Theft Auto. At the base of all policy questions is practical power.

What can Objectivists do about world hunger?

The answer is: withdraw the sanction of the victim, stop supporting your destroyers. Egypt is facing a general strike and widespread violence because the price of food doubled. The U.S. government sends shiploads of wheat every year, no charge, and Congress is going to increase food aid to Egypt. It's your patriotic duty to feed Egypt, to arm Mubarak, ignore whatever he does to his people, so long as the Suez remains open to American warships and supply vessels, and his army keeps the Palestinians bottled up in Gaza -- to starve them into surrender.

We need Ragnar to sink those U.S. relief ships full of free food. Mubarak sez Egyptian government employees and soldiers will get extra money to cover inflation. We need an Objectivist hacker to blast those Egyptian government bank accounts, ledgers, and backups to zero.

Bad idea? You're a lover, not a fighter?

Yessiree, that's the bottom line on Objectivism. All talk, no action.

W.

Edited May 4, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Ellen Stuttle]

William, responding in scrambled order to your #224...

I understand your backdrop of concern, William, but my present belief is that in the YFZ case you're almost seeing the situation as reverse to the reality. In the current circumstance, the religious setting is where the children are growing up. It's their home, where their familes live, whatever the bad features. The state authorities, on the other hand, are comparable to the "residential schools, orphanges or shelters" to which children were delivered in your Canadian examples. The actions of the authorities here look to me more like those of the religious powers in the Christian Brothers cases, even though it's a religious group against which the authorities are acting.

What my examples have in common are systematic abuse ignored by authorities. I take your point that it was state social policy that directed inmates to both the schools and the orphanages. I can't forget that the state washed its hands of responsibility to these kids.

No, that wasn't my point ("that it was state social policy that directed inmates to both the schools and the orphanages"). Instead, my point was that in the Texas foster-care system, abuse is perpetrated by authorities, though I wouldn't call it "systematic" abuse. I was analogizing the Texas foster-care system to the Christian Brothers cases; details differ, but the analogy I was making is that in both situations, the supposed protective custodial agencies are themselves abusers.

Here are excerpts from a statement on the Texas foster-care system by Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Texas Comptroller, dated Friday, June 23, 2006:

http://www.window.state.tx.us/news/60623statement.html

[my emphases]

"In November 2004, I launched an investigation into possible Medicaid prescription drug fraud and abuse in our state's foster care system.

"I am here today to release disturbing information found during my investigation about the deaths, poisonings, rapes and pregnancies of children in our state's foster care system.

"I found, from information provided by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, in Fiscal 2003, 30 foster children died in our state's care; in Fiscal 2004, 38 foster children died; and in Fiscal 2005, 48 foster children died.

"Data shows that while the number of foster children in our state's care increased 24 percent from 26,133 in Fiscal 2003 to 32,474 in Fiscal 2005, the number of deaths increased 60 percent.

"If you compare the number of deaths of children in our state's population to the number of deaths in our state's foster care system, a child is four times more likely to die in our state's foster care system.

"Based on Fiscal 2004 data provided by the Health and Human Services Commission, about 100 children received treatment for poisoning from medications; 63 foster children received medical treatment for rape that occurred while in the foster care system; and 142 children gave birth while in the state foster care system.

[....]

"In Fiscal 2004, four-year old twin boys living in the same foster home received medical treatment in the hospital for rape.

"A five-year old boy in the same foster home received medical treatment in the hospital for rape two days later.

"A 15-year old girl who was not pregnant when she entered our state's foster care system in May 2002 gave birth in February 2004.

"The state is supposed to be protecting our forgotten children, but in all too many cases these children are taken from one abusive situation and placed in another abusive situation. Many children are in more abusive situations now than they were before the state intervened. Children are being neglected and abused and are dying."

My over-all view is that whatever the harms of the situation the YFZ ranch people were in before, the harms are now multiplied manifold, that instead of being "rescued," those people have been sent into even worse circumstances.

I grasp this position: if there was abuse at YFZ, foster placements for the 460+ kids is a greater abuse. You have estimated the harm at YFZ, and estimated the harm that will be visited on the kids in "temporary state custody," and find the balance of harm to be far greater in "care."

I would like to know what harms are likely to befall the children while waiting on the outcome of custody hearings by June 5th.

For one thing, we don't yet know if it's going to be "temporary state custody." At first it looked as if it wouldn't be temporary, but the way things are shaping up -- with all the attention being paid to the proceedings -- I'm expecting that most of the children will be sent back, under some sort of "supervisory" circumstances.

Meanwhile the minimal harm is that their lives have been thrown into an uproar which I'd expect to have plenty of long-term consequences. Possibly -- and precisely because of the attention being paid by outside observers -- there won't be some of the other sorts of harm -- see above -- which might otherwise befall them in that system. If the case weren't so public, a few months of custody would be ample time for a rape or more to occur, and even despite the public scrutiny drugs might be used to help with discipline.

--

I wondered how Flora Jessop might be reacting to the Texas story. You reply:

For those not familiar, Flora Jessop is an 'escapee' sister-wife and author who also runs a rescue organization for FLDS members, Help the Child Brides. She has apparently been keeping her eye on Eldorado for a while, according to this story. ** Of the events at the ranch she says:

I am so thrilled with the current rescue effort [ . . . ] The publicity is focusing so much public attention on the horrific conditions that are inflicted on minors within these polygamist sects. The truth is, young women contact me continually in their almost insurmountable efforts to escape underage, coerced marriages, incest, child endangerment, statutory rape, assaults, battery, ongoing child abuse, often by their own fathers, and child labor abuses.[from "Push lawmakers on child bigamy bill"]

I think Flora Jessop is being short-sighted in being "so thrilled with the current rescue effort" -- and possibly unaware of the extent of cultural and governmental differences between Texas and the states -- Utah primarily; also Arizona -- where she's encountered mostly a blind eye turned to her attempts at helping FLDS members. Possibly needless to add, I think a "child bigamy bill" is the wrong way of approach, though I can understand why Flora Jessop would be in favor of such a bill, given the difficult history of her own rescue efforts.

Ellen

___

Edited May 5, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[william.scherk]

I'm expecting that most of the children will be sent back, under some sort of "supervisory" circumstances.

Meanwhile the minimal harm is that their lives have been thrown into an uproar which I'd expect to have plenty of long-term consequences. Possibly -- and precisely because of the attention being paid by outside observers -- there won't be some of the other sorts of harm -- see above -- which might otherwise befall them in that system. If the case weren't so public, a few months of custody would be ample time for a rape or more to occur, and even despite the public scrutiny drugs might be used to help with discipline.

Thanks for the link and excerpt from Comptroller Strayhorn's report. I had seen the page earlier in my gleanings and was struck by the burgeoning foster care population in Texas. Why was there a two year 24% increase, to 32,000 kids in care? How did the foster care crisis happen, and how is it being addressed? More highlights from the report here, with the full text here. Among the problems Strayhorn lists with the Texas system:

• it has a history of inadequate licensing standards, weak contract monitoring and ineffective licensing investigations that allow the same problems to continue festering at the same facilities for years, exploiting children as well as the state's finances;
  
• it holds some residential facilities to a lower standard than other residential facilities;
  
• it provides little accountability for disturbing amounts of psychotropic medications prescribed to foster children;
  
• its heavy caseloads and high caseworker turnover often prevent the agency from performing required visits with foster children;
  
• it mixes potentially dangerous children, such as sexual offenders and those with violent criminal records, with others
  

No surprise that Texas has undertaken a protracted reform of its system since the report -- including privatization. Details on the state website, including a progress report.

I think Flora Jessop is being short-sighted in being "so thrilled with the current rescue effort" -- and possibly unaware of the extent of cultural and governmental differences between Texas and the states -- Utah primarily; also Arizona -- where she's encountered mostly a blind eye turned to her attempts at helping FLDS members.

Oddly enough, the Utah Attorney-General Mark Shurtleff claims it was a crackdown in his state that led to the establishment of the ranch near Eldorado:

The FLDS didn't suddenly relocate three years ago on a whim — it was driven out by law-enforcement crackdowns in Utah and Arizona targeting corruption and sex abuse in polygamist communities.

"We can document that they wouldn't be in Texas if we hadn't cracked down on them," said Mr. Shurtleff, a Republican. "Their move to Texas was a direct response to us telling them we wouldn't tolerate incest, crimes against children or domestic violence.

"As soon as they saw we were serious," he said, "they started buying land in Texas."

[from "Utah, Arizona say polygamist sect fled crackdowns" in the Washington Times"]

You have likely noticed, Ellen, the details of the crackdown in the West, including the decertification of police officers, seizure of the United Effort holding company from the Jeffs faction, seizure of the school district, removal of FLDS judges, and an insertion of social service outreach in the communities at issue. Not to mention the trial of Jeffs and several other FLDS honchos.

Moreover, there seems to have been a deal cut with the western polygamy sects, with an explicit agreement to refrain from underage assigned marriages (as is the practice in Bountiful). Another excerpt from the Times story:

In 2003, the two attorneys general launched Operation Safety Net, aimed at reaching out to the region's numerous polygamist enclaves. They asked the clans to put aside their distrust of law enforcement and report crimes within their communities, notably incest, child abuse and domestic violence.

In return, authorities said they wouldn't prosecute bigamy or polygamy between consenting adults. There was one caveat: The communities had to promise to stop arranging marriages involving anyone under the age of 18.

Most of the region's large polygamist clans and independent families agreed to disavow underage marriages, with one large exception: the FLDS community, led by self-styled prophet Warren Jeffs.

In line with my earlier notes about 'Family Service Plans' and the 're-education' of the sect, I find another indication that the FLDS in Texas is likely to agree an end to certain practices, from a story in the Deseret News:

The petition alternatively asks the 3rd Court of Appeals to order the men to leave the YFZ Ranch and allow the children to return, or order mothers and their children to live elsewhere.

"The trial court could order the men — the alleged perpetrators of abuse — to vacate the ranch, or it could order the women to live elsewhere with the children during the pendency of the investigation," says the petition filed by attorneys for Texas RioGrande Legal Aid.

Some other interesting links on the story: copies of the "Father's Family Information Sheets"/family manifests seized during the raid (169 Jessops, 82 Jeffs out of 38 families!), courtesy of the Eldorado Success, and a breakdown of the ages and sexes of the children in care.

Like you, Ellen, I expect that most of the children will be returned under supervision. I hope the whole community gets its smarts, and signs on to an agreement to end underage marriage. In the meantime, their god on earth is on suicide watch. I now wonder what chance Warren Jeffs will have to alter the behaviour of his followers, or if there might possibly be a split in the YFZ group.

I'm still left with several questions. For those OL members who utterly reject the actions of the state at YFZ, what should have happened upon the original complaint?

[John Dailey]

~ WSS asks:

"For those OL members who utterly reject the actions of the state at YFZ, what should have happened upon the original complaint?"

~ *I* ask:

------ 'complaint'? A "J'Accuse"?...from precisely, and specifically WHOM? Who can the accused confront...besides 'The State' which operated on an 'anonymous report' (with the anonymous one still not 'officially' identified)? -- In this Texas situation, the (very many) accused clearly have no Legal 'right' to confront their original accusers. This is 'Justice'?

~ An 'anonymous' complaint to a legal enforcer-of-laws SHOULD be 'checked out' by the enforcers; not acted upon as if the 'report/complaint' was done by a legal official. --- Checked-Out; not Time-To-Invade-And-Take-Over.

LLAP

J:D

Edited May 8, 2008 by John Dailey

[Ellen Stuttle]

I agree with JD. The first thing which should have been done was to check out the bona fides of the anonymous call. Looks to me like there were already hopes of raiding the ranch, and the first available excuse was seized.

A more general comment, re what shouldn't have been done. Texas authorities should NOT have charged in there like (traditional, stereoptypical) Texans. Hoop-de-do; Texas Rangers to the rescue; round up the residents and haul them off to the overseeing of CPS custodians. Not the way to proceed. Instead the situation called for caution, circumspection, and finesse. That genuine rights violations were going on -- have been going on for a long while with the FLDS -- I don't doubt. But the specific way of procedure was like the proverbial bull in a china shop, with ensured disrupting of the supposed rescuees lives. At least there wasn't a gunfight battle. And the compound wasn't burned. So that's better than might have been. But the whole method was one of tossing people's lives about instead of one of trying to do the best for the innocent.

I'm interested, William, by your report that a motivating factor for Jeffs' setting up the Texas conclave was because of increasing trouble with the state authorities in Utah. That partly answers a question I've had from my first hearing of the raid: WHY did Jeffs take some of his people to Texas of all places? Couldn't he have anticipated he'd end up with serious trouble there?

I haven't yet had time to read the links you, WSS, provided in your most recent post. Very busy week. But thanks for the further material.

Ellen

___

[Wolf DeVoon]

BBC World Service interview Thurs May 8 Carolyn Jessup corrected link

Nice, thoughtful, courageous lady. Absolutely clear as day that the FLDS should be smashed, every one of those bastards jailed and prevented from visiting or contacting any of their children ever again. And honestly, folks, this case proves my point about exempting women from criminal law and the urgency of giving women the entire House of Representatives. As Mark Twain said, "There is one good sex. The female one."

For the record:

The goal of expanding liberty presupposes new ideas. Without new ideas, we stay stuck in the past, because today's political establishment is yesterday's solution. The last time America did anything strenuous in defense of Liberty was 1776. The War of Independence was a giant step forward. But the Declaration's premise of equality took a Civil War and two centuries of struggle to deliver something like one person, one vote, regardless of race, religion, gender, brainpower, etc. In hindsight, voting and its attendant political vanity is not a very good idea. However, if it required 200 years to explore a simple idea like democracy, it behooves us to start asking what's next. What's next will take a long time to discuss and understand. New ideas, by definition, are unconventional and risky. You have to surrender the familiar, to go forward. Standby to jetison Old Glory. Let's noodle on New Glory.

In twenty years, I've authored a quarter million words. Here, shorn of filibuster, are my Top Seven political ideas -- innovative proposals that Francis Fukuyama, Ralph Reed, and many others hope to suppress by denying the existence of valid political innovation. Ready? (1) Women should be granted by constitutional amendment a separate, co-equal branch of legislature, the entire House of Representatives, for instance. Men can keep the Senate. New laws shall require passage by both sexes. (2) Women should be exempted from the criminal law and responsible for law enforcement. This will end male "input" on abortion and domestic violence. I trust that women will do justice...

The End of Fukuyama

I'm in favor of two party platform planks that I hope the Democrats (who else?) will consider as speedily as possible: (1) We should exempt women from the criminal law. The vast majority of criminals are men, and when women kill, they usually have a good reason for taking life. This may include an abortion. Anything less means slavery... (2) Amend the U.S. Constitution to bring it into line with reality, and give women one of the two houses of Congress. It doesn't matter which one. Men can keep the Senate, if they think it's a sacrosanct club with special magic powers. Women will feel right at home in the House of Representatives, anyway, since a lot of them can only serve a couple years between bouts of infant care. They will also feel at home with the purse-strings, since all spending bills have to originate in the House, and women are known to be de facto financial managers of most American households. Recent research indicates that female Wall Street traders and money managers earn a slightly higher return on portfolio, mainly because they take fewer risks with the client's money and don't panic in an emergency. Male traders churn shares, act on impulse, and lose.

Bad Cop No Donut

Edited May 9, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[John Dailey]

~ "Smash 'em"? (Sounds like: "Wipe them out; wipe them A-L-L out!")

~ Who needs 'authorities' when we have a lynch-mob operating on rumor/gossip ('democracy-in-action'!) in this thread already?

~ Akin to the gay-pedophilia association so fervently argued against a decade or so ago, here we have a 'polygamist-pedophilia' association being cemented into our consciousness thanks to MSM and...many here; nowadays, say 'polygamist' (or at least, polyamorist), and one now thinks 'pedophilia.'

~ Too many are falling for MSM 'propaganda' and failing to separate wheat from chaff (not to mention failing to: Think Twice).

A. Donovan: I hope others have read your list of questions...before they continue to knee-jerkedly respond further.

LLAP

J:D

Edited May 9, 2008 by John Dailey

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Wolf,

What is the name of the interview? The link is dynamic and has moved on. I can't find Carolyn Jessup in the search results on that site.

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

Wolf,

What is the name of the interview? The link is dynamic and has moved on. I can't find Carolyn Jessup in the search results on that site.

Michael

Here's another link, Thursday May 8 Outlook

[william.scherk]

~ WSS asks:

"For those OL members who utterly reject the actions of the state at YFZ, what should have happened upon the original complaint?"

~ *I* ask:

------ 'complaint'? A "J'Accuse"?...from precisely, and specifically WHOM? Who can the accused confront...besides 'The State' which operated on an 'anonymous report' (with the anonymous one still not 'officially' identified)? -- In this Texas situation, the (very many) accused clearly have no Legal 'right' to confront their original accusers. This is 'Justice'?

The report was not anonymous, John. It may have been a hoax, with the caller pretending to be an inmate at the ranch, but the caller definitely identified herself and her situation. See the documents that let to the initial warrant to enter, and the to the subsequent warrants, at the Go San Angelo site (also listed below).

Bear in mind also that the Schleicher County Sheriff had an informant in the sect, according to this report. And bear in mind that no charges have been filed against anyone at the ranch.

~ An 'anonymous' complaint to a legal enforcer-of-laws SHOULD be 'checked out' by the enforcers; not acted upon as if the 'report/complaint' was done by a legal official. --- Checked-Out; not Time-To-Invade-And-Take-Over.

A complaint should be checked out indeed.

Thanks for answering my question, John. I'm wondering if you support an investigation into claimed underage marriages at the ranch.

[ . . . ]here we have a 'polygamist-pedophilia' association being cemented into our consciousness thanks to MSM and...many here; nowadays, say 'polygamist' (or at least, polyamorist), and one now thinks 'pedophilia.'

Bosh. I don't know what kind of relationship you have with so-called mainstream media, but you'll have to do better than an anonymous charge of 'lynch mob' in referring to your OL listmates. If you think polygamy means pedophilia, think again.

____________________

Court Documents

• Affidavit in Support of Original Petition for Protection of a Child
  
• Affidavit for Search and Arrest Warrant
  
• Order for Investigation of Child Abuse
  
• Order Authorizing Appointment of a Court Appointed Special Advocate
  
• State's Motion to Transfer Seized Property (1)
  
• State's Motion to Transfer Seized Property (2)
  
• Court Order Removing Cell Phones
  
• Order for DNA Parentage Testing
  
• Order on Placement of Children
  
• Petition for Protection of Children in an Emergency
  
• Bishop's Record listing families of the YFZ Ranch
  
• Order Appointing Special Prosecutor
  

[Ellen Stuttle]

Here's a link someone forwarded to me concerning complaints about how the YFZ Ranch children are being treated.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9238520

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Texas justice, continued: First we incarcerate you, then we require you to pay the expenses...

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/655071.html

State may try to seize sect's assets

By JOHN MORITZ

jmoritz@star-telegram.com

AUSTIN — With the price care for the more than 400 children seized last month from the polygamist ranch in West Texas expected to reach into the tens of million of dollars, a legislative panel on Tuesday suggested that the state explore the possibility of garnishing the religious organization's assets to recoup the costs.

"That compound didn't grow out of fairy dust," state Sen. Robert Deuell, R-Greenville, said after a Senate Finance Committee hearing where he urged state health officials to determine whether members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), or even the sect as a whole, be held responsible for the cost of care. "Why should we be footing the bill when they've got assets?"

[....]

___

[Rich Engle]

Mormons (see, I use that term freely ) at the very highest levels are part of a cult that is much deeper, much higher. They are power elite types, they are globalists. If you go to the core of most major religions, that's what you get, and it's all pointed at the Vatican. The white pope, in fact, answers to another (he's a real creepy bastard, that black pope...check it out).

My guess is that this was triggered internally from that high level of Mormons, who have direct ties to government leaders. And it's no surprise this all went down in Texas, either.

"Mormonism is a cult and the founder, Joseph Smith, was a Freemason. Mormons believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, and believe that they can become Gods, just like Satan said in the Garden of Eden." ( lots of places, but this from over at www.theresistancemanifesto.com)

At the highest level, mind you. As to these women and children, more fodder, business as usual, glum.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Rich Engle

[bmacwilliam]

Texas justice, continued: First we incarcerate you, then we require you to pay the expenses...

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/655071.html

State may try to seize sect's assets

By JOHN MORITZ

jmoritz@star-telegram.com

AUSTIN — With the price care for the more than 400 children seized last month from the polygamist ranch in West Texas expected to reach into the tens of million of dollars, a legislative panel on Tuesday suggested that the state explore the possibility of garnishing the religious organization's assets to recoup the costs.

"That compound didn't grow out of fairy dust," state Sen. Robert Deuell, R-Greenville, said after a Senate Finance Committee hearing where he urged state health officials to determine whether members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), or even the sect as a whole, be held responsible for the cost of care. "Why should we be footing the bill when they've got assets?"

[....]

___

However, the other side of this argument is that so many of these organizations and their leaders siphon enormous amounts of money from people and amass great fortunes. I guess it's arguable whether the money (tax free) legitimately belong to the leaders or not. I tend to say no because everything the leader says is basically a lie, and the money is procured entirely through deception and in my book, is therefore just proceeds of crime. Shut the bastards down, seize everything and give it back to the victims I say.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

Texas justice, continued: First we incarcerate you, then we require you to pay the expenses...

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/655071.html

State may try to seize sect's assets

By JOHN MORITZ

jmoritz@star-telegram.com

AUSTIN — With the price care for the more than 400 children seized last month from the polygamist ranch in West Texas expected to reach into the tens of million of dollars, a legislative panel on Tuesday suggested that the state explore the possibility of garnishing the religious organization's assets to recoup the costs.

"That compound didn't grow out of fairy dust," state Sen. Robert Deuell, R-Greenville, said after a Senate Finance Committee hearing where he urged state health officials to determine whether members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), or even the sect as a whole, be held responsible for the cost of care. "Why should we be footing the bill when they've got assets?"

[....]

___

However, the other side of this argument is that so many of these organizations and their leaders siphon enormous amounts of money from people and amass great fortunes. I guess it's arguable whether the money (tax free) legitimately belong to the leaders or not. I tend to say no because everything the leader says is basically a lie, and the money is procured entirely through deception and in my book, is therefore just proceeds of crime. Shut the bastards down, seize everything and give it back to the victims I say.

Bob

This cart before the horse justice means you're guilty until proven innocent and you likely still won't get your money back.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

Texas justice, continued: First we incarcerate you, then we require you to pay the expenses...

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/655071.html

State may try to seize sect's assets

By JOHN MORITZ

jmoritz@star-telegram.com

AUSTIN — With the price care for the more than 400 children seized last month from the polygamist ranch in West Texas expected to reach into the tens of million of dollars, a legislative panel on Tuesday suggested that the state explore the possibility of garnishing the religious organization's assets to recoup the costs.

"That compound didn't grow out of fairy dust," state Sen. Robert Deuell, R-Greenville, said after a Senate Finance Committee hearing where he urged state health officials to determine whether members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), or even the sect as a whole, be held responsible for the cost of care. "Why should we be footing the bill when they've got assets?"

[....]

___

However, the other side of this argument is that so many of these organizations and their leaders siphon enormous amounts of money from people and amass great fortunes. I guess it's arguable whether the money (tax free) legitimately belong to the leaders or not. I tend to say no because everything the leader says is basically a lie, and the money is procured entirely through deception and in my book, is therefore just proceeds of crime. Shut the bastards down, seize everything and give it back to the victims I say.

Bob

This cart before the horse justice means you're guilty until proven innocent and you likely still won't get your money back.

--Brant

Well, I wasn't advocating seizure without guilt being established. I just think many of these cults and their leaders are criminals that deserve to be disbanded and destroyed, but not without due process.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

Bob,

You need to specify the crime first, and why it should be a crime. If I start a cult and require that cult members give me all their money and they do and I get to drive around in a fleet of 44 Rolls Royces and have 200 beautiful maidens at my beck and call--well, good for me!

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

You need to specify the crime first, and why it should be a crime. If I start a cult and require that cult members give me all their money and they do and I get to drive around in a fleet of 44 Rolls Royces and have 200 beautiful maidens at my beck and call--well, good for me!

--Brant

No, not good for you. If you lie, cheat, and scam them out of their money then not "good for you" - JAIL for you.

Bob

[Ellen Stuttle]

Shut the bastards down, seize everything and give it back to the victims I say.

Bob

The victims are the children, who are in custody, in worse straits than any they were in before they were "rescued," and the women -- and you think the children and women would get the money if the money to pay for their currently being punished for no crime whatsoever were seized from the leadership's assets? Get real. The victims would see not a cent of it; the Texas coffers would get the funds.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

I just received a link to a story posted on a blog called "The Freedom Liberty Defenders Society":

Here.

I don't know of course if the report is correct. I hope it isn't.

Here's a comment from the person whose site I gather this is:

3 Bill { 05.21.08 at 8:19 pm }

As previously stated, I am in contact with the Ranch.

I am not FLDS, I am not a polygamist, I am not Mormon, I am

merely a Grandfather who is dedicated to seeing these children get back home where they belong.

I wouldn’t put my dog, let alone a child, in foster care.

This entire episode is pure religious persecution, unconstitutional and trampled the due process rights of every person on that Ranch in the name of child molestation. hogwash!

If those kids were ever in danger of being molested, it is right now in the care of the State.

That pretty much sums up my own opinion -- though I do think that there were genuine rights violations with the enforced marriages and the not letting girls who wanted to leave leave. But the way the whole thing has been handled I think is awful, resulting in damage worse than that it was suppsedly geared to fix.

Ellen

___

[Selene]

Ellen:

Precisely right.

Ronald Reagan, "The most horrifying words any American citizen can ever hear, are 'Hello. I am from the government and I am here to help you.'"

By the way, I shot two 30's on the miniature golf game that you linked to a while ago.

Adam

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen:

Precisely right.

Ronald Reagan, "The most horrifying words any American citizen can ever hear, are 'Hello. I am from the government and I am here to help you.'"

Yeah.

By the way, I shot two 30's on the miniature golf game that you linked to a while ago.

Adam

I don't understand that: Did the link to the story not work? I checked it; works on my browser. Maybe you're talking about an advertisement link that appeared on the site.

Ellen

___

[Selene]

Sorry Ellen, I confused you with Laurie, I guess I still get intelligent women confused. Lol

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sorry Ellen, I confused you with Laurie, I guess I still get intelligent women confused. Lol

Selene,

Don't feel bad. Some dude on another forum just confused me with Ellen.

Whadya think that does to a guy's self-esteem? Or hers?

Michael

[Selene]

Sorry Ellen, I confused you with Laurie, I guess I still get intelligent women confused. Lol

Selene,

Don't feel bad. Some dude on another forum just confused me with Ellen.

Whadya think that does to a guy's self-esteem? Or hers?

Michael

Michael, that is a real confusion lol.

Adam