Sunday, April 06, 2008

The next Waco?

This is low-hanging fruit for the proponents of the police state. You have morally repugnant behavior coupled with a guy who wears thick glasses. What's not to hate about these people? Isn't it about time somebody does something? Send in SWAT and kill 'em all, right?

Well, let's back up a step. I'm just going to note everything that I think is wrong with this picture:

1. The government has defined morality. Believe me, I have a problem with polygamy, but is it the .gov's job to tell you 'no'?
2. Here we have yet another example of a person or group of people's lives being turned upside-down based on hearsay. No hard evidence (at least not cited by the article), just a "she-said." You know, like an anonymous tip line. Want to get back at your neighbor? Just "take a bite out of crime" and call in (anonymously of course) that they're cooking meth and you know they have lots of guns. Be sure you're up at 3AM to enjoy the dynamic entry tactics employed by the death squad that will visit them.
3. The guy who did the supposed abusing is reportedly in Arizona, and the raid is taking place in...Texas. Makes sense, don't you think?
4. Eighteen girls taken into state custody - and yet no mention of charges against their parents. Here we have a state agency with the god-like power to kidnap your children when they deem it's necessary.
5. The secret police descending on these folks summarily deny access to the press. Don't get me wrong - the mainstream media does a piss-poor job of providing any sort of watchdog oversight to the government's activities anyway, but doesn't this strike anyone as Stalinist? I mean, shouldn't the activities of the government be so far above reproach that it would be a no-brainer to allow everyone to see what's going on? After all, they constantly assert that invasions of your privacy shouldn't bother you. It's always the same police state logic when they want to search us - "Well, if you don't have anything to hide, you won't mind." Apparently they have something to hide.
6. The media coverage of this event is just atrocious. The CNN story uses the word "sect" and calls the group a "rogue" branch of the Mormon Church. So I guess that's objective journalism for you - making judgment calls about the legitimacy of a religious group. You have to read and re-read to figure out what the heck is really going on. They just throw enough negative and condemning peripheral information into the mix that the reader will surely form the opinion that these sleaze balls need to be taken out. They rape kids for heaven's sake. Never mind that the accused is apparently not even present. Again, I should clarify - I think this is a sick bunch. But the clear objective of the story is to get the reader to that conclusion, so that they won't mind the eventual outcome, as foreshadowed by #7...
7. I saved this for last. It's so Orwellian that it almost gave me chills. The story opens by stating that ambulances were rolling onto the property in anticipation of "a negative reaction." Good grief, why don't they just give the public what they want and dispense with the Newspeak? Just say up front, "We're going to waste these ******s. It'll be a freaking bloodbath, and we really should be bringing in hearses instead of ambulances."

For the love of liberty, no one cares anymore. We've known for 15 years now that the government can massacre - wait, let me bold that - THE GOVERNMENT CAN MASSACRE MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND GET AWAY WITH IT. The victims just have to be creepy enough, and preferably be willing to defend their own lives with firearms.

Next up: homeschoolers. I know, I know. Take off the tinfoil, Adam. I say take off the blinders. Whatever department "took custody" of those kids can decide - at will - that your kids are in danger and kidnap them. If you don't think removing your kids from the government run propaganda camps that we call schools and teaching them as you see fit is a big enough offense...

Well, just wait. It will be. It's just a matter of time. One of the last powers of the people to wrest power from The Beast is to raise God-fearing kids that can handle a rifle. I very much plan to do that.


Blogger ajw308 said...

I thought pretty much the same thing when I saw the news.

Huge SWAT raid over an unsubstantiated claim made my a 15 year old girl of physical abuse.

Physical abuse. I spank my son. Rarely. Usually the threat of spankings work wonders. We can go weeks or months without a spanking. But you know, technically, I qualify for a SWAT raid. So does half of Africa and lots of Southeast Asia.

7/4/08 11:50 AM  
Blogger Curtis Lowe said...

"raise God-fearing kids that can handle a rifle. I very much plan to do that."

Doin' that here Boss!

10/4/08 1:49 PM  
Blogger MartiniMartini said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11/4/08 1:22 PM  
Blogger MartiniMartini said...

They are trafficking GIRLS. That is absolutely unacceptable in this society. And if our government ignored the pleas of a child requesting help, I'd be more than happy to intercede on the kids' behalf (although if I were headed in to help those kids, I promise there would be a much greater risk that a lot of sick *&%^# would be exterminated in the process) My dear old dad and I were watching this news clip at the same time, and both of us having a lot of knowledge concerning polygamy and the (usually violent) fundamentalist sects who practice it, we both had the same reaction: rescue those kids and execute the sick $#@%$#@&.

11/4/08 1:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Forget the tinfoil, new tech cameras 'see' in wavelengths that penetrate darn near everything, 'cept maybe kryptonite, where to get kryptonite...

11/4/08 4:05 PM  
Blogger M1Thumb said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11/4/08 7:51 PM  
Blogger M1Thumb said...

So, Martinimartini, you wouldn't mind that the police would show up (armed, and break your door down) if I called them and said that you're trafficking in kids?

I wasn't defending their activities, and I made a point of saying so several times. The point is that the Fourth Amendment is effectively dead, and that we have given God-like authority to jackbooted "child protection" agencies who can steal your kids at will - for reasons they decide, with no hard evidence.

I agree that if these folks were trafficking in children, they needed to be brought down - my point was that even people like that deserve the protections of the Constitution. That we have acquiesced as the government has stripped those protections away, we will one day pay the price when DCFS decides that homeschooling is brainwashing, and they come for us.

11/4/08 7:54 PM  
Blogger MartiniMartini said...

If YOU called the police and accused me of those things, I imagine 2 cops would show up for a welfare check. If my DAUGHTER called the police and said I was doing this to her, yeah, I'd expect a heavier and more urgent response. In any case, you can't compare an individual home to an entire compound. You can't expect only a couple cops or social workers to show up alone when they have no idea what they're up against or how many weapons these people have. Also, if the accusation was made by say, you, I would expect a quieter response (still a good number of cops, but not a SWAT team) but the accusation was made by one of the child victims, which of course necessitates a more urgent response from authorities.

15/4/08 12:30 PM  
Anonymous nick said...

Oh, so the accusation was made by "one of the child victims"? Really? Who? Where is she? Are you aware that a middle aged woman from another state is suspected of making the call? Obviously they didn't have ANY verifiable evidence to go on their little "raid".

You don't get to sick the feds on people because their ideas are different than yours. There is a course of action to address ILLEGAL activity, and it's called DUE PROCESS. There was none here.

18/4/08 2:38 PM  
Blogger MartiniMartini said...

So by your logic, the feds couldn't break up a NAMBLA ring after a young boy calls asking for help because the call would be unverified. By your terms, you must not believe in 911 either, after all, when someone calls 911, the authorities would be charging in due to unverified information. When a person is believed to be in immediate danger, it is the responsibility not only of the authorities, but of HUMAN BEINGS to intercede.

19/4/08 6:23 PM  
Blogger M1Thumb said...

Define "break up." If you mean 'kick their doors in at 3AM and take all their kids without charging them with a crime' then, yes, I've got a problem with that. I don't care how sick the crime is, we can't deny citizens due process on anonymous tips because kids "might be in danger." You're willing to mitigate an important right because of the severity and depravity of the alleged crime! Remember the story about the lady writing down your Dad's license plate in the parking lot when he spanked you? If she'd turned him in claiming that there was an immediate threat, by your logic the DCFS pukes would be well within their duties and supposed authority to take you and your sisters away before charging him with a crime.

If an investigation takes place and a warrant is issued based on hard evidence, it's another matter entirely. It seems to me that they shouldn't have had much trouble gathering that body of evidence. However, they decided to piss all over the Constitution (and the rights of those parents), and play the heavy-handed Gestapo card.

Stop for a moment and think about all the ways that someone who doesn't hold your beliefs could define "might be in danger."

What has happened here has direct implications for "us and those like us" (Christians, homeschoolers, Constitutionalists) because we're no different to the FedGov! Someday they'll decide that you're abusing your kids because you spanked them or denied them something or taught them that homosexuality is a sin.

And because of police state apologetics (like you're espousing now) they'll come take your kids. When they want, how they want, and you'll never get them back. Because we've flushed due process right along with every other right.

And if you don't believe in slippery slopes...well then I guess you haven't been living in this country.

19/4/08 9:33 PM  
Anonymous Nick said...

No, you're completely misrepresenting my position. "By my logic," you would go INVESGTIGATE and SUBSTIANTE a claim before forcing hundreds of children into foster care without charging their parents with any crime. Can't you see the difference?

And intercede... between whom? Nobody in the community was complaining about anything! Just because their way of life doesn't jive with your sensibilities doesn't give you the right to send in the feds with machine guns to tear apart their families.

Seriously, do you think that 416 Mormon kids are going to be better off in a foster care system that does't know a thing about them or their beliefs than they would be with their own families (where they'd rather be, by the way)?

And even if you DO think they'd be better off, who are you (and who is the government) to decide for them?

19/4/08 9:35 PM  
Blogger MartiniMartini said...

Sorry, dude, but a child being raped is a little different than one being spanked. And there is more than one alleged victim--more, including young boys have have told the authorities that they were raped/molested by men in this sect. Yeah, it is necessary that they went in heavy and removed the kids from their parents, who according to the others victims, are parties to the abuse. Aside from emergency nature to the crime, it's also important to keep (alledged) victims away from their abusers to get to the truth.

20/4/08 12:57 AM  
Blogger MartiniMartini said...

"Stop for a moment and think about all the ways that someone who doesn't hold your beliefs could define 'might be in danger.'"

Dude, you're right, they don't hold to my beliefs because they rape children. Murderers also don't hold to my beliefs.

20/4/08 12:59 AM  
Anonymous nick said...

All your "dude's" notwithstanding, you haven't addressed the substance of my argument. Where is the evidence of "child rape"? They've had them separated quite long enough, and yet none of them have told what you have already decided to be "the truth."

God clearly defines murder and labels it as sin. I am NOT aware of anywhere in the Bible where He condemns middle-aged men from having relations with post-pubescent young women. I AM aware of a certain "man after God's own heart" who undoubtedly had relations with women as young as the ones in question here.

Four hundred and sixteen minors were forced from the care of their mothers at the barrel of a gun, based on a hoax of a phone call. No charges have been filed. None of them have claimed to be victims of anything except kidnapping. There is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Yet their lives will be forever changed, and none of them think it's for the better. And before you spout off about how they're better, they just don't know it yet... Who made you the arbiter of happiness for others?

21/4/08 9:03 PM  
Anonymous nick said...

Now the "authorities" are saying that it "doesn't matter if the original call was a hoax." And they're revising the number of children in "protective custody" from 416 to 437.

So they don't need a reason to kidnap kids from their homes, and they can't count the ones they steal. But I'm sure the rest of their case is rock solid.

23/4/08 7:36 AM  
Anonymous nick said...

Not mine, but said better than I could:

"Judge Barbara Walther, who is overseeing the YFZ Ranch case, yesterday declared: "The court has ruled the conditions those children were in were not safe for the children. I did not make the facts that got this case into the courts."
Excuse me, Judge? You issued a sweeping, house-to-house search warrant based on a highly questionable anonymous call that turned out to be phony. You refused to allow individual hearings for children, grouping them together like cattle. You accepted the testimony of an expert on "cults" who only learned about FLDS from media accounts, rather than an academic who'd studied them professionally for 18 years.
You've ruled the existence of five girls between 16 and 19 who were pregnant or had children was evidence of systematic abuse, even though in Texas 16-year-olds can marry with parental consent. You've ruled young toddlers are in "immediate" danger because of their parents' beliefs or what might happen 15 years from now, not because anyone abuses them.
From the evidence presented publicly, I do not believe that the children have been sexually abused or physically harmed. Allegations of forcible rape turned out to be bogus, and only five girls 16 to 19 years old were found pregnant or with children – probably about the same ratio you'd find if you rounded up all the kids in my neighborhood.
In Eldorado, no one alleges YFZ parents are themselves abusing children. Instead the allegation (in court, at least) is that they're teaching their kids that a woman's highest calling is giving birth and raising children and that it's acceptable to get married at an early age. Even if it were true, and the allegation was disputed, can this really be enough to seize children from their homes?"

23/4/08 8:05 AM  
Anonymous nick said...

And on que:

"A mobile phone number used to make calls that triggered a mass raid on a Texas polygamist compound has been traced to a woman in Colorado with a history of making allegedly false claims of abuse."

24/4/08 1:29 PM  
Anonymous liberals will burn said...

Read this:

It's appalling how biased our media is. You read this article and you can't help but conclude that there is a vast left-wing conspiracy to take away our precious guns (which are, as we all know, essential to our existence as human beings)and make us all slaves to their evil will. Then they'll break into our house and try to gun us all down because of an anonymous tip but not to worry, I'll pull out my bazooka from under my bed (because the ATF never looked there) and start blasting them and then I'll use my super long range bazooka and blast all the satellites out of the sky and then the world will go into chaos and we'll be forced to build a fort in norther Wisconsin and live off the land and we'll send out guerrilla warriors into the open country to fight the military of the newly established one world government who exist only to take away our guns and make us use Euros (and maybe wear berets and speak with French accents) but we will resist because what the ATF doesn't know is that we have 47 barrels of dried beans and 96 barrels of rice in our fort (which we turned into an underground fort so they can't see us, unless they use their evil spy technology which won't last long cause of our super bazooka which took out the pentagon) and we'll put on our camo and stalk through the woods with 4.3 million other disgruntled Americans (who were just waiting for there chance) and our code name for our headquarters would be 'Fairfax' and and code names for our brothers in arms would be 'Chuck' (RIP) and we would take over the world and reinstate the most holy of all documents (US Constitution) into its place of honor and have nightly devotional readings from the federalist papers and sing our 'holy Jeffersons' and go to bed each night knowing that we have served the purposes of our Father in heaven and we will all like happily ever after, the end.

25/4/08 2:10 PM  
Blogger M1Thumb said...

Jacob, you're the only guy around I'd give a free pass on that.

25/4/08 10:23 PM  
Blogger big jake said...

I'm honored

29/4/08 9:21 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home