The dismembering of the patriarchal Constitituion.

[madmusic]

The photo of Jeffs supposedly marrying a 12-year-old is more than disturbing. What is equally disturbing is the necessity of filling in the blanks. Was it marriage? Was it consummated if so? Those disgusting projections come from our own minds, not the evidence because we don't know yet.

But its introduction into evidence is designed to make us emotional enough to dismember the patriarchal Constitution. If the issue was the protection of children, there would be the same outrage over removing children from their homes and placing them in the state's care, where the risk of death is twice as high as the general population. No, it isn't "for the children."

The real goal is dismembering the patriarchal Constitution.



A young FLDS girl waves as she is taken away from the
San Angelo Coliseum in one of the final
buses to leave the arena in late April.
(Scott Sommerdorf/The Salt Lake Tribune)

Texas standoff: Battle over FLDS kids gets rough
Officials say Jeffs photos show abuse; critics decry state's 'sleazy' tactics

http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9374637

No doubt the marriage to 12-year-olds has to stop, if that is what happened. But the dismembering of the Constitution is more dangerous than the FLDS could ever be.

[cornermouse]

1. Statistical proof of how wrong you are.

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/summary.htm

Who is responsible for the abuse and neglect?

In FFY 2005, more than three-quarters of perpetrators of child maltreatment (79.4%) were parents, and another 6.8 percent were other relatives of the victim. Unrelated caregivers (foster parents, residential facility staff, child daycare providers, and legal guardians) accounted for less than 10.1 percent of perpetrators. Women comprised a larger percentage of all perpetrators than men, 57.8 percent compared to 42.2 percent. More than three-fourths of all perpetrators were younger than age 40.

* Of the perpetrators who maltreated children, less than 8 percent (7.7%) committed sexual abuse, while 61.0 percent committed neglect.
* Of the perpetrators who were parents, more than 90 percent (90.6%) were the biological parents, 4.3 percent were the stepparents, and 0.7 percent were the adoptive parents of the victim. The parental relationship was unknown for 4.5 percent of the victims.

[madmusic]

2. I've posted those stats before

Hardly any of these children were abused and hardly any of their parents were abusive. Therefore, the state's care is more dangerous than their parents' was. Twice the death rate at least.

http://www.nccpr.org/reports/evidence.doc">The Evidence is in: Foster Care vs. Keeping Families Together: The Definitive Study.

NCCPR’s analysis of a study comparing outcomes for more than 15,000 children, with a link to the full study. Children left in their own homes typically fared far better than comparably maltreated children placed in foster care.

http://www.nccpr.org/

[madmusic]

3. Imagine

Imagine for a moment that, when he was Attorney General, John Ashcroft had proposed anti-terrorism legislation with the following provisions:

Special anti-terrorism police can enter any home and search it without a warrant; in fact, they can do it based on no more than an anonymous tip. (Or they can simply threaten to detain anyone in the household if they are not given permission to enter.) Not only can they search the home, they can stripsearch the occupants or arrange for a doctor to do so.

They can detain any member of the household for anywhere from 24 hours to a week or more before they even see the inside of a courtroom. In fact, detention will probably last for the duration of the proceeding because no judge wants to look "soft on terrorism."

Those arrested under this statute get a lawyer only moments before the first hearing begins – or perhaps only after that hearing already is over, and that lawyer often is too overwhelmed to mount a real defense. Or maybe they get no lawyer at all. To prolong detention the standard of proof is merely “preponderance of the evidence.” And all of the trials and hearings and most of the records are secret. (In Texas the hearings are open, but that's unusual).

Had Ashcroft proposed such a law, it is likely that my fellow liberals would be in an uproar. The ACLU would declare a state of emergency. But what I have just described *is* the current law on child welfare in most states. And it’s largely the left that wants to keep it that way.

Richard Wexler (the author of the above study)
Executive Director
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
www.nccpr.org

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8597101&postID=2556502966582746166

[cornermouse]

4. I'll take government statistics over what you've got any and every day.

I cannot imagine the mindset (apparently Wexler) that would think it more acceptable for a child to continue to be physically and sexually abused than taken and placed somewhere else. The notion that a parent is going to give up abusive behavior just because they were found out is false. They don't. I know that for a fact.

Another fallacy is that the child is usually given to strangers. If you take some time to look at state rules you'll see that most if not all states allow and even prefer foster placement with other family members. That said, sometimes not even family members can meet the mental and/or physical needs these kids have and the state has no choice but to place them in foster homes. They're still better off than with their parents. Wexler is flat out wrong and/or dishonest.

[madmusic]

5. Hysterics

Where does he say, ANYWHERE, "it more acceptable for a child to continue to be physically and sexually abused than taken and placed somewhere else"?

You didn't even read the freaken study.

[cornermouse]

7. That's because I don't agree. Period.

I don't agree that the government statistics are lies. From what you said he apparently thinks children are taken from homes for frivolous reasons. That's wrong. Even with evidence and witnesses, it is hard to remove a child from its home. I know that for a fact.

Addition: And by the way, hysterics is a sexist word.

[madmusic]

8. Who said they are lies? Where the hell did you get that from?

It's not hard at all. A hoax call, some eyeball tests about age, and off the go, hundreds of them.

2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess <political hysteria>

No mention of sexist.

The government statistics you cited are right on. No one said they weren't. If you want to disagree with him, post at that blog where he is posting, and if reasonable he might reply.

Or read the site's FAQ. Better yet, read the study before getting hysterical about it!

[cornermouse]

9. Hysteria or hysterical

History

Main article: Female hysteria
The term originates with the Greek medical term, hysterikos. This referred to a medical condition, thought to be particular to women, caused by disturbances of the uterus, hystera in Greek. The term hysteria was coined by Hippocrates, who thought that the cause of hysteria was due to the uterus wandering around the body in search of children.

And by the way, I'm angry not hysterical. There is a difference.

[musette_sf]

11. to some of these male defenders of pedophilia

ALL women's righteous anger is "hysteria".

why do you think one of the FLDS's tenets is, as far as women go, the repression of any thought or emotion that differs from the brainwashing?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

14. Seriously. I can't believe they exist on this site. nt

[ismnotwasm]

25. Why don't you go browse The Smoking Gun

And look at actual documents, instead of making up bullshit?

"Eyeball tests" Who do you think has to view the thousands of child pornography pictures found all over the net? Who does the horrid work on child abuse cases? Just anybody?

Do your own research.


So by your standards, a menstruating 14 year old with with breasts "looks" old enough for---what? Marriage and childbirth? And that's NOT sexist?

[JackRiddler]

27. cornermouse don't need no stinking facts

An anonymous fake call from Denver should be reason enough to storm and detain a thousand people in Texas. It's for the children!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

6. How would you propose stopping the marriages of 12 year olds in the compound?

Not asking to be a smart alec, I'd honestly like to know if you have a better idea about dealing with this type of cult and protecting children.

[madmusic]

10. Most anything would have been better

Evidently there was 1 or 2 minors either pregnant or who recently gave birth.

They could have taken them.

Or not. Either way, they could monitor the compound for a year and look for other evidence, talk to people and build a case. Or it was possible they could actually convince them it was in everyone's best interests if they cut the marriage to minors out. Period. Then if enough evidence they could make some arrests to drive home the point. Jeffs being in prison already has to be weighing on them and this was the perfect time. If they had a chance to actually solve the problem (beliefs) they blew it. It would take time and patience and would require building enough trust for the FLDS to believe CPS really did have the best interests of the children, and everyone else, in mind. Instead they proved the opposite.

In short, had they obeyed the law they would have a stronger case with the opportunity to investigate for at least a year inside the ranch.

Instead, the broke the law, trashed the Constitution, and blew their case!

We don't have to sacrifice the Constitution and children would probably like keeping it anyway. They might need it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

12. I don't think your solutions would work

The cult is extremely secretive so they're not going to talk. Marrying young girls to old men is a fundamental tenet of their beliefs so they're not going to be convinced to stop doing. And taking only the minor girls who were impregnated out of the compound does not protect those who remain from the same fate.

[madmusic]

17. We threw the law and the Constitution under the bus.

We had no choice! They made us do it!

Like it or not, CPS still has to obey the law and uphold the Constitution.

Maybe you're right and maybe it wouldn't work. We'll never know.

[cornermouse]

22. We'll know.

We'll know when some of the girls who are a little braver than the others leave the cult and press charges.

[musette_sf]

21. exactly.

taking "the guy who did it" doesn't work. child molester and rapist Warren Jeffs is in jail and it did not stop the building of the abuser cult's compound in Texas. taking only the children who have been raped and impregnated doesn't work because the other children are not protected from the same fate. ONLY rescuing all the children will work with these people (the evil adults who enact and enable the abuse).

[Iris]

13. you lost me at the "patriarchal" Constitution.

It sounds like just what you said - protecting the men who want to do whatever they want in the name of religion.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

15. Sounds like a libertarian to me as well.

Libertarianism: A political ideology predicated on the notion that laws and government should exist only to protect the property rights of males. (Property is understood to include children and females, of course)

[Iris]

16. exactly. How dare the gov't interfere with how men treat their children

AND their womenfolk. It's a private matter of a man managing his chattel.

[madmusic]

18. Feminists waffle in FLDS case

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9374627

Waffle all they want. Until they destroy the Constitution we still have one.

[musette_sf]

19. yeah, like the regular polygamy blogger

at the Salt Lake Tribune really knows anything about feminism.

and what about the Constitutional right of the children to live free of brainwashing, coercion, rape, abuse and abandonment at the hands of their parents?

[Iris]

23. didn't you read the patriarchal constitution? Those children don't count.

[musette_sf]

24. yep, they're the property

of the child molesters and rapists. they're not even the property of their own parents. many FLDS children have been removed from their birth fathers, who have been cast out for no reason but the insane jealousy and whims of child molester and rapist Warren Jeffs. they are "reassigned" to "new fathers".

i was just reading about how when pedophile rapist Jeffs was caught (wearing SHORTS in a RED Escalade), there were a pile of envelopes in the car containing FLDS tithe money, along with letters with prayer requests. the envelopes were opened just enough to get the cash out, and the letters were never read by child abuser and rapist Jeffs. one of the letters was from a child, asking "Uncle Warren" if his father, who Jeffs had cast out, could return to the family, because they missed him so.

the FLDS sees women and children as property to be swapped for power and to be used for abuse. nothing more.

[madmusic]

26. No, a fetus is property.

At least these girls are old enough do say, Don't kill me mommy!

Jeffs wasn't arrested at this raid. Since he is in prison he is not an immediate danger to the children. No matter how bad the picture is, it's irrelevant.

CPS broke that law. Some OTHER judges already let some of the children go back with their mothers.

Spin it however you want. No different than what Bush wants to be able to do.

[defendandprotect]

32. Well . . . as we discuss right-wing extremist thinking . . .

you present your own actual example of it in suggesting that aborting a fetus is about
"Mommy killing me" ... !!

In truth, very often the fetus is killing the mother --- i.e., in late term abortions.

Meanwhile, organized patriarchal religions are, in fact, about exploiting women and children.
I think that's quite clear and leaving women and children in their care would clearly predict
an exploitive outcome for them.

Granted many of our government institutions --- especially involving children --- have been
corrupted by right-wing control of government.

In fact, in Texas, the Bush administration was notorious for putting children in care of perverts.

[madmusic]

40. Well, the reaction here convinced me much of this

could be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection">projection. Is is possibly projection to compensate. Why else would the condemnation of all, even those who were monogamous and had not abused their children in any way, why else would they and their children be sacrificed to the gods? I do not argue against abortion and a woman's right to choose, but merely speculate if there is some projection going on. You do not argue that always, or even the majority of the time, "the fetus is killing the mother." So that is a straw man in the big picture and is irrelevant anyway in terms of projection. A woman could have to abort to save her own life and still feel guilty enough about it to project and become irrationally obsessed with child protection. That she did what she had to do and should not feel guilty about it makes no difference.

[musette_sf]

35. this is NOT a reproductive rights issue.

you have NO argument and so, you try to change the subject.

and you will not find too many forced-birth advocates who would deny a person's Constitutional right to privacy in health care options here. so even if your analogy wasn't completely ridiculous, you're still barking up the wrong tree.

PS, this is NOT about Bu$h, either, so that analogy isn't any better than the first one.

[musette_sf]

20. exactly

every male defender of pedophilia on these threads spouts the libertarian worldview.

[madmusic]

28. dangerous

And all those afraid to speak up until the appeals court gave them permission to need to grow a pair.

All the gestapo raid lovers do not own the Constitution.

Period. They will not destroy it.

Being self righteous pigs doesn't allow CPS to break the law and snatch the children of parents WHO DID NOT BREAK ANY LAWS. Got that? CPS broke the law. Most of these parents and children DID NOT break any laws. CPS did! The appeals court said they did and smacked down the judge big time for not smacking down CPS.

As of now, that is the law on this entire case and that is where it stands.

Everyone who isn't a pig should hope you don't like it.

[musette_sf]

34. your defense of pedophilia and abuse

and refusal to accept that conditions that accept and nurture a pedophile culture ARE abuse, ergo unlawful, is incomprehensible. and disturbing.

[madmusic]

39. If a lot of DUers had not already denouced the raid...

it would be necessary to renounce the Democratic Party.

But raid apologists are not that many here, though they are very loud and repetitive.

A DU poll would be interesting but I can't start one.

If someone wants to the question would be simple:

Did Texas cross the legal or constitutional line in the FLDS raid?

Yes
No

Raid apologists would at best get about 50% of the vote. There is still hope for liberalism.

[musette_sf]

43. answer: no

and i don't think the ratio in DU is 50/50, unless you're counting volume of posts, and not opinions of individuals.

[madmusic]

46. You may be right.

Why not post the poll?

[musette_sf]

49. why not buy a membership

and post it yourself?

[madmusic]

48. You going to post the poll? Afraid to?

Did Texas cross the legal or constitutional line in the FLDS raid?

Yes
No

[defendandprotect]

29. Your label: "Patriarchal Constitution" seems intended to confuse . . .

We have a CONSTITUTION which proclaims "all are created equal" . . .

written by males for males ---

but the underlying concept of "all are created equal" can be interpreted as actually meaning ALL.

That's the basis of democracy --- of a "people's government" ---

"We the people" will, of course, include females ---

Patriarchy and organized patriarchal religions are about over ---

As well as "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" ---

Capitalism, as well --- an economic system which succeeded/overlapped feudalism ---

and intended to redistribute wealth/natural resources from the many to the few--!!!

[madmusic]

30. You're right, should read the "evil" patriachal Consitution

Because everything created in a patriarchy should be destroyed.

But as you say, the Founders left room for the evolution into an ALL. I think they recognized the limits of their culture and left room for expansion of rights, as with slavery. They could not, culturally and politically, deal with it then, but they knew some future generation could. And that's what happened. Same with the rights of women.

So my point is, what could we possibly replace it with once destroyed? And since it protects all, sacrificing it for one cause makes it deader for all causes. We all lose protection.

That is extremely dangerous for all of us. Bush is fair warning from the Right, and the FLDS raid is fair warning from the Left. We cannot complain about Bush trampling civil rights for his cause and then do the same for our own worthy cause.

Or can we?

[defendandprotect]

31. Agree and disagree ---

So my point is, what could we possibly replace it with once destroyed? And since it protects all, sacrificing it for one cause makes it deader for all causes. We all lose protection.

That is extremely dangerous for all of us. Bush is fair warning from the Right, and the FLDS raid is fair warning from the Left. We cannot complain about Bush trampling civil rights for his cause and then do the same for our own worthy cause.

Or can we?

The Constitution was a compromise with evil --- i.e., slavery, oppression of women, native Americans.

We don't have to replace it --- we can amend it --
As we note, Bush is "amending" it as he goes along to suit his peculiar interests!

As for the "right" -- neo-cons -- without doubt, they are entirely dangerous and have proved a
great threat to the peace and stability of any kind -- to the Bill of Rights, obviously.

I have not studied the situation with the polygamy arrests --- except to note that they came on
a phone call from someone who turned out to NOT be what she originally claimed -- and they came
at a time when there was a new scandal being uncovered in the Bush administration . . . was it
the fact that Bush/higher ups approved TORTURE? I believe so---

To suggest that events like this --- or like Waco, for example -- are something to do with the "left" is, IMO, wrong.

[madmusic]

33. Why not the "left"?

Is the "left" too good for tyranny? Our Founders would think it a distinction without a difference. They praised distrust of the government and a balance of powers precisely because absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Why the judge in the FLDS case was rebuked, and by proxy why CPS was rebuked, was the lack of due process. The case trampled due process rights of the vast majority of the FLDS.

CPS could have proceeded legally and within the Constitution and made a better case, but refused to do so. It got arrogant, which is what the balance of powers intends to rebuke.

If you want a summary of the case and of the law, within the comments too, here is a good start that is not that long.

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2008/05/beldar-on-volok.html

Had the CPS taken only confirmed minors who were pregnant, and waited to investigate the rest, it would have no problem now. Note particularly the reference to Texas Family Code section 161.001 which addresses the removal of children in non-emergency situations. It was still possible for them to do that and remove more children later after they took the time to lawfully investigate.

Instead, CPS chose to run roughshod over civil rights because the cause was so good (meaning so publicly repulsive). It backfired. If you don't think this is a Leftist cause, I invite you to read some of the other debates here. Due process rights are constitutional rights. Constitutional rights are everyone's rights. Denial for some, like lynchings in the South, is denial for all. Many could care less if CPS violated due process rights. The FLDS are evil and don't count. That's wrong and very dangerous.

The ACLU is apparently preparing a brief to file in favor of the FLDS (due process, actually) for the Texas Supreme Court. I'll try to link to it tomorrow if possible.

[musette_sf]

36. turn right at lewrockwell.com

i don't enjoy libertarian content on DU. many of us share this poster's views:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3326974&mesg_id=3326974

[defendandprotect]

38. Are you saying you share "OmahaBlueDog's" views . . . ???

[musette_sf]

42. in many respects,

i agree with OBD's responses to his libertarian friend's opinions.

[defendandprotect]

44. I don't think he gave an opinion . . .

simply reported that the "nanny state" would be r-w talking point --

I think it's kind of old --

and Libertarians --- the vicious right wing of Libertarians --- also get themselves in a muddle
when they have to recognize on occasion that we do share the planet with others --- i.e.,
"...assist me in the enforcement of contracts. Perhaps assist in coordinating the use of shared resources like roads and rivers. All the other things we've come to count on government for are probably more than it should be doing." They generally don't like to admit the need for government.

There are left wing Libertarians but we hear very little from them ---

C-span just ran one of their meetings --- didn't see but a few minutes of it --

Libertarians can be very difficult people to discuss anything with ---
kind of red-necks in suits --- ??? Any opportunity to take the low road and they're on it!

[defendandprotect]

37. Because a meat-eating Vegetarian isn't a vegetarian . . . no matter the label--!!

Again -- I have not read widely of the polygamy case . . .
I have only scattered knowledge of it ---

However, once you are dealing with an authoritarian religion, you are dealing with the "right" ---
To suggest that those who try to undo the harmful effects of this oppression of females are themselves oppressive is like suggesting that it is Africans in America who are oppressing "whites."
Aint' happening ---

The "left" isn't too good for tyranny -- however, tyranny is fascism . . .
it's oppression, it's authoritarianism ---
So once you have someone on the "left" using those tactics, then you have a situation where
those individuals have entered into fascist practices ---
For instance, J. Edgar Hoover always made it a point to refer to the USSR as "fascist Russia" ---
making clear that though they were allegedly involved in a leftist concept that indeed what was
happening was tyrannical rule --- oppression.

Again --- once you are dealing with a tyrannical organization --- and I would say that polygamy involves cult-like organization and thought --- and without doubt is involved in the suppression and exploitation of women and children . . . that you do not give them the benefit of the doubt . . .
rather you remove all the children.

And, I would certainly identify this as having been early on identified as an "emergency" situation since a RAPE was reported. Further, having identified that marriage with 12 year olds had occurred,
it would be clear that there is a PATTERN of abuse of YOUNG females. But that would also bring into
question the abuse of YOUTHS of any gender.

While I support the work of the ACLU and contribute to them, they have also been co-opted to a certain degree which led to the inane support at one time for the Supreme Court's upholding of
campaign contributions as "free speech." They've since changed their minds on that one!

Meanwhile . . .

Tyranny
A form of government other than a monarchy in which the formal written constitution is not adhered to and is broken by force of arms by a single person who then undertakes to rule as a monarch and primarily in his personal interests.
McLean and McMillan highlight that tyranny and dictatorship are similar in that an essential feature of tyranny is:

“... the abuse of the state’s coercive force in the absence of the rule of law....

"(G)overnment by the rule of the tyrant and the arbitrary treatment of citizens, if not the systematic use of terror.”

AND . .

tyrannical

adjective
1. marked by unjust severity or arbitrary behavior; "the oppressive government"; "oppressive laws"; "a tyrannical parent"; "tyrannous disregard of human rights"
2. characteristic of an absolute ruler or absolute rule; having absolute sovereignty; "an authoritarian regime"; "autocratic government"; "despotic rulers"; "a dictatorial rule that lasted for the duration of the war"; "a tyrannical government"

Anyone on the "left" using oppressive, violent methods -- authoritarian dictates ---
is simply a wolf in sheep's clothing! Not unusual with the amount of corruption we have these
days.

[madmusic]

41. I respect your opinion....

but suggest you might not be so sure once the facts are clearer.

Here are some links to the legal briefs and opinions:

http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-05-25T08%3A00%3A00-05%3A00

The blog itself is something like the foreign press when it come to the war on terror.

http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/

Myths crumble or at least are not as certain once a few more facts make their way into the light. Something I just learned is that Flora Jessop, the leading spokesperson for the media, is not trusted all that much by other anti-polygamy activists.

[defendandprotect]

45. I doubt that I'm going to get more involved with this issue than I have up to this point . . .

thanks, anyway --- !!!

[madmusic]

47. Understood

Nothing ruins a theory like a few facts. :)

Thanks for the talk. Seriously.