What do you think? Does the government have the right to invade these peoples lives, remove their children, plant spies...or have we gone to far? Is this an action to impose traditional American ideals under the auspices of 'Save The Children?'
I am shocked that Warren Jeffreys would have placed at the top of the FBI's most wanted list. To TheInquiringEye, The Polygamy Ranch Invasion sounds like another example of overly intrusive government. What do you think?
JackieRodzinski
TheInquiringEye



Posted: Apr 18, 08 8:38am
I am shocked it happened in Texas - We execute people for heaven's sake.
I think Warren Jeffreys is a evil criminal and a leader of a cult not a religious group.
No one has the right to rape children or make them marry at such a young age.
In my opinion, these women are as crazy as he is for allowing all of it to go on.
I hope they are all prosecuted. I watched a documentary with interviews from some of the women/children who left this same group. The horror is unimaginable and should not be tolerated. Someone has to help these children, I hate they are separated from the only life they have ever known - but they are unaware of their rights as Americans.
That is just my opinion. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest!
Posted: Apr 30, 08 3:00am
We have gone to far.
Posted: Apr 18, 08 8:56am
Jackie on this one I disagree with your opinion.
The government should have taken away the men not the children. It is horrible for the kids to be taken from the mothers. Both the children and mothers need help.
I'm shocked that the media is perpetuating the myth from these men that the young girls are "spiritual brides" and their "wife".
They are 13-16 year girls, sexual abuse victims. These are girls being raped by 50 year old men, forced into marriage.
Their mothers have been the same victims of this abuse.
Posted: Apr 18, 08 7:40pm
Thanks for your comment. Disagree with me anytime! I like that! (It's one of my properties). :)
Jackie
Posted: Apr 18, 08 9:21am
At great risk I'll point out a different perspective. [Because I do that]
In most cultures throughout the world women are married by the time they reach 14. Up through the 18th Century in Europe it was still common for girls to marry at 12-13.
This was the practice for most of recorded human existence, and still is everywhere but progressive western cultures. How then does it suddenly become "evil" or "child abuse"?
It's as though the world began in the Victorian era and ethics and morality don't exist beyond our borders.
If the people have broken our laws then they must be held accountable. I do not accept "Burn the witch!" mentality, where it seems the the guilty and innocent trade places.
This reminds me of something else that happened in Waco, Texas where the FBI murdered over 100 women and children "to save them from a cult!".
That is as sick as anything I've ever heard. TBD has a few cults going on here, I wonder if they involve the members children. Quick, call the FBI!
I haven't heard anything about this story. I don't watch sensationalist news stories, especially where sexuality and fear is used as the hook.
I suspect that the truth is quite different from what's being alleged by the US Government (Waco, Ruby Ridge) It'll be interesting to see how the story plays out, and hear the other sides.
This story smells like another chapter in the great new witch hunt of the 20th and early 21st Century (Sex Crimes)
Posted: Apr 18, 08 7:43pm
SP:
Once again, (at great risk), I agree with you. You make some excellent points.
That, however, folks, does not mean that I dont agree with you too. I think that this is a complex thorny issues with many (valid) aspects of opinion.
TIE
Posted: Apr 30, 08 5:23am
SP., I was in agreement right up till "The FBI murdered blah blah."
Posted: Apr 30, 08 1:35pm
heheheh
I put it that way for a reason.
Throughout all of the hubub of the Waco debacle, I never heard one person state what to me seems obvious.
Even a small handheld CS gas grenade spews flame and sparks from the top of the can. Anyone who's ever deployed one knows this. They can and do start brush fires on military bases during training all the time.
A large CS pot, the size of a gallon paint can will spew flame and sparks for a *long time*. Only a complete idiot would thrust one into a stick frame dwelling on the barrel of a tank and not realize that the CS can is going to burn the building down. Even a Private First Class infantryman would know that.
The Feds acted like it was a freak accident. There wasn't anything "freak" or unusual about the consequences of that act. The person who decided dropping a large incindiary device into that wooden building is either the worlds biggest idiot, or a murderer.
Considering the number of officers present, including federal agents, it is hard for me to believe not one person spoke up when the plan was hatched. This wasn't the act of some idiot while nobody responsible was watching.
ATF agents, in what has to be a textbook case of how fat arsed, ill-trained, incompetent boobs conduct a raid, got their butts handed to them when tried to enter the building. They got off lucky. If the people defending that building knew what they were doing not one ATF agent would have survived that assault. But I digress . . .
What is relevant, is that they wanted revenge for their fellow officers who were shot during the botched raid. Since they'd already blown the surprise element and were in a stand-off situation, they solved it by crashing a tank through the wall and setting the building on fire. Cleverly, they used a CS cannister instead of a thermite grenade, which cave them "plausible deniablilty."
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe every single person there was an idiot. It isn't really that far-fetched I suppose. The FBI agents that attended the [blanked for personal reasons] school when I did cheated their way through the entire course. Grading was done by the buddy/honor system, and they lied through their teeth on every excercise giving each other perfect scores when neither one of them could hit the broad side of a barn. Their elite "tactical response" team is a joke and the ATF is even worse.
The video's made during Waco are a *huge* embarrassment. That the fed's brag about their agents training with the US military's spec ops community is like a slap in the face. A 2-man buddy team of PFC's with Ranger tabs would eat them alive. Their skilless and cowardly response to the predicament they created is in my opinion, tantamount to murder.
Whew . . .I feel better now.
Posted: Apr 18, 08 9:40am
This story is slimy on so many levels, it's scary. A classic case of Irritainment.
As I understand it, they have yet to find the woman who allegedly called in the complaint. Since people have a right to face their accuser, any legal case may face a challenge because of this. It is also disputable that there was any physical abuse. Part of the problem is that when the State attempted to enter the medical records into evidence, a thousand attorneys filed an objection, so these are under investigation.
Reports I have read indicate that there were no obvious signs of abuse (which doesn't mean there wasn't any). Meanwhile, of course, with no obvious accurser and no obvious signs of abuse, the children are being separated from their mothers.
The fact that young girls being allowed to marry in other cultures is not, I think, germane. While it may be acceptable in other cultures, it generally is not acceptable in this one. On the other hand, State intrusion is also generally unacceptable in this culture.
As mentioned, this is a very slimy story. I think the State jumped the gun a bit. They've got a shaky accusation, at best, and they appear to be on somewhat shakier ground if they can't show physical abuse.
Be very careful what you see in the Media. If you think they don't have an Agenda, you're crazy. They're out to sell papers and garner ratings. think the alleged Duke Rape Case if you doubt this.I generally suspect you could pick anygroup and you would find some way to portray that group as a "cult."
As I said, this is irritainment, pure and simple. it's pure sleaze, from both sides, but you just can't turn away.
Posted: Apr 18, 08 9:56am
Good points
I wonder if the "rape" and "abuse" accusations are statutory in nature. Since the girl was under 18 (or whatever the age is in Tx), then she cannot legally give consent.
The marriage practices of other cultures isn't germane, but I mentioned them to add a little background to the big picture.
Words like "evil" grab my attention.
There is also the "polygamy" angle to this, and that adds fuel to the moral fires. Moving to Tx seems like a crazy thing for him to do. Tx is one of the worst states in the nation in which to be accused of a crime, couldn't he see this coming? They're going to have a good ol' fashioned burning there you can bet on it.
I looked it up and have heard of this guy before. The media has been stockpiling the firewood for this for quite awhile. They've drug this guys body through the streets of public opinion for months.
Posted: Apr 18, 08 7:45pm
Correct-o-Mundo, Ricky.
My only contention here is that OUR culture is supposed to embrace and tolerate MANY cultures.
Oh well.
TIE
Posted: Apr 18, 08 7:57pm
While it may seem intrusive for the United States government to intervene if I was one of those young girls at a point in my life where, if i was to have sex at that young age I would want to have it with a young male, I would drop to the ground and kiss the feet of the Texas authorities for saving me from having to have my body invaded by the old guy! yuk! Course I am thinking that from the perspective of a free woman who did have the freedom to choose who she would have sex with and guaran-goll-darn-teed it was not someone outside of my generation; the very notion would have made my skin crawl. Thank you once again United States of America that I am not in human bondage emotionally, mentally, physically, sexually, or any other ...ally!
Posted: Apr 18, 08 8:09pm
Jacquin: Totally cool. You didnt come off that way, in my opinion, at all!
Jackie
TIE
Posted: Apr 18, 08 8:34pm
Thank you TIE! I thought it may be a touchy point to make that girls and young women from my perspective prefer to select their own mate and that the vast majority of the time that mate selection is within their own generation. On the other hand, each time my Dad divorced his next wife dropped about 15 years on the previous one. His third one is my oldest brother's age. It is wierd. It does not make him seem her age but rather makes her seem his age and she is showing signs that she finds his age tedious! But then I have read recently, as our society continues to evolve (as they all do) where older women have younger male partners (I mean younger). But I regress. This was about a pubescent (is that spelled correctly) girl having to (gag)
Posted: Apr 19, 08 9:17am
I totally agree with you on what your wrote. For one I have a 14 year old daughter and the thought of a 45+ year old disgust's me. What shinigpath has written I wonder what rock he lives under. I have been around the world from Europe to Asia. I just completed my tour in the desert back in February and to the best of my knowledge no country that I went to accepts this mindset. The men are sickos and I feel a tall tree and a short piece of rope would take care of this problem. Yes I have a little redneck in me.
Posted: Apr 29, 08 10:53pm
Rock? Which rock in asia did you visit? (ok im being a smartass) If you;d like me to name a dozen asian countries where its accepted/expected I will:
Thailand
Vietnam
Laos
Cambodia
India
Indonesia
New Guinea
Bangladesh
Pakistan
Afhghanistan
Move north and east from all of the above and include every "istan"
In some cultures its common to multilate a woman surgically so that she can take no pleasure in sex. (India)
Maybe thats a rock you didn't turn over while you were there, sipping drinks with an umbrella in a hotel bar. (smartass takes a cheap shot, but you put a really big target on your back!) *grin*
Moving to Africa:
Vitually every nation in Africa except the ones where a lot of white christian people live
South America:
Everywhere except metropolitian centers and those with strong european catholic influences (again, a western influence on values)
Want some links?
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
Kep in mind that in may of these countries. laws have been recently changed in order to obtain financial assistance from the WHO, UN, U.S., and other Western nations. Many of them are not enforced except on paper. They can point ot the law and say "See? We're with you on this!"
http://www.aplecambodia.org/downloads/Documents%20for%20library%20page/Legaltools.pdf
Pay close attention to the fine print and the loopholes. The above statutes were enacted for no other reason than to obtain UN assistance.
http://archive.japantoday.com/jp/news/271668
Mohammad, the most important of the prophets:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm
Polygamy:
From judaism:
"Polygamists -Abraham, Jacob, Esau, and David, The Torah, Judaism's central text, includes a few specific regulations on the practice of polygamy, such as Exodus 21:10, which states that multiple marriages are not to diminish the status of the first wife; Deuteronomy 21:15-17, which states that a man must award the inheritance due to a first-born son to the son who was actually born first, even if he hates that son's mother and likes another wife more[20]; and Deuteronomy 17:17, which states that the king shall not have too many wives.[21] One source of polygamy was the practice of levirate marriage, wherein a man was required to marry and support his deceased brother's widow, as mandated by Deuteronomy 25:5-10. All of those instances of polygamy, however, are very narrow cases rather than general rules. Exodus 21:10 speaks of Jewish concubines. Deuteronomy 21:15-17 speaks of the children of "hated wife" implying she is divorced. The king's behavior is condemned by Prophet Samuel in 1Samuel 8. Israeli lexicographer Vadim Cherny argues that the Torah carefully distinguishes concubines and "sub-standard" wives with prefix "to", lit. "took to wives."
from the World Cultures Atlas Codebook (Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI. 53201)
http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/worldcul/Codebook4EthnoAtlas.pdf
** edited **
OOPS I forgot Japan - age of consent there is 13! They sell little girls soiled panties in vending machines over there!
Posted: Apr 18, 08 8:08pm
Dear guys: no offense I hope! Not trying to make older men seem gross but to me at a young age it sure would have been! yikes! I love the freedom to travel, move, and pick partners at will but maybe these 16 year old girls are thrilled to be designated as some older guy's 4th partner and become his baby making machine..... gag...
p.s. however at my age now an older guy is all the rage!!!
Posted: Apr 18, 08 8:29pm
There are a lot of unanswered questions for this entire incident.
On tonight's news they said they now believe that the phone calls that brought the entire thing to attention were possibly phony. Could that wipe out the grounds for having invaded the compound in the first place and make the warrants the authorities had illegal?
While it is true that children marry in other countries, under the laws of our country, it is illegal and basically immoral when 13, 14, 15 year old girls are forced to "marry" much older men--men old enough to actually be their grandfathers. Most of these child brides do not know this is against the law because to them, the laws of the land do not apply--only the laws of their culture and this "culture" is all that they know.
But why, after knowing for decades about the polygamist communities that are in Southern Utah, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada, are they making such a big deal about it NOW? Nothing is going on in any of those compounds or communities now that has not been occurring for the entire duration of their existence. Child brides, multiple wives--none of that is new. Nothing new is being taught to the children, nothing has changed in the practices of the members.
These kids deserve normal lives but who decides what "normal" is? I don't agree with the lifestyle of these people and do not condone it in any way but does the state have the right to take all of their children away on heresay evidence? what is to stop the state from coming into our homes and taking our children away if someone else doesn't agree with something we teach our children?
I don't agree with what goes on there or the lifestyle but I really don't understand why it is such news all of a sudden when it is not anything new. Why have law enforcement officials simply turned a blind eye to the sects all this time? And why the sudden jump to right the wrongs--to protect the children of women who were themselves married at those same young ages? These child brides were born to women who themselves were child brides--the cycle continues.
Taking the children away from their mothers--what is that going to solve? The state is "saving" approximately 400 children--ripping them away from their mothers, taking them away from everything they have ever known and placing them in foster care in a society they have been taught to fear. They want to place these children in permanent situations--long term foster care or adoptive homes. How many of these kids are going to adapt and ad]ust and be "normal" and how many are going to be scarred psychologically from the way this has all come about and from being taken away from their families?
And what about the future children these women will surely continue to bear? Will the state wait at the gates to take these babies as well?
I believe that when the state took this action, it was without thinking it through completely. I feel sorry for everyone involved. These people believe that they are living a "higher order". These children know nothing other than this lifestyle. The government has looked the other way for decades but now changes their mind.
Who is right when it has all been wrong for so long?
Posted: Apr 19, 08 7:56am
If, in fact, the phone call was phony, then I suspect the entire case becomes legally suspect since there was no (legal) reason for the authorities to enter the compound. If so, all the "evidence,' such as it is, would become excluded and the case would have to be tossed. (note, my legal training extends no further than watching Law & Order.
The fact that government moved in on questionable grounds is fairly scary. I'm not condoning the behavior of the folks in the compound but having the government move in like this should scare the hell out of everyone.
"The worst government is the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression. "
Posted: Apr 29, 08 11:02pm
No shit. This is the sort of crap that makes me wonder whether I'm the only sane person left on earth! It comes to mind everytime I hear of some new gun control law that makes exceptions for "law enforcement personnel". Gee, it takes an IQ of about 85 to be a cop. Why in the hell would anyone want all of the guns to be in the hands of people who barely graduated H.S. The second amendment was meant to protect us from "them" and the people they elect. not to duck hunt with Hillary and Dick Cheney. Grrrrrrrrrrr
But thats another subject, sorry TIE.
Posted: May 8, 08 6:15am
No apology necessary, SP. Ever. TIE
Posted: Apr 19, 08 6:17am
http://www.outofpolygamy.com/ This is an interesting site to look at. Also, I heard on the news last night a form of "punishment" that one of the fathers allegedly carries out on his young babies that sounds like waterboarding combined with spanking. The description was that the method was used to instill fear in the baby, the other children, and the mother. The father allegedly would spank the child and then place the child's upright face under a running faucet until gagging occurred, and continue these two things in a rotating cycle until the baby was too exhausted to cry anymore. I can only hope and pray this is a fabrication. I simply cannot imagine a human being mistreating a baby or child.
Posted: Apr 19, 08 7:58am
Yeah, like the news is trustworthy. Weren't these the same folks who loudly proclaimed the guilt of those kids at Duke?
Posted: Apr 29, 08 11:17pm
When I was 15 I skipped school once and went to the beach. To make a long story short, some 30ish woman (who looked hot to me at 16) wanted me to teach her to surf. I did, she was married, and the next weekend we dropped ***** and went to see Santana in concert. (her husband was out of town) Later that night, we got caught parking out back of a baptist church. (Right in the middle of it)
When I think back on it, it had to be one of the funniest things that ever happened to me. There I was, brain screaming "OMFG GET THIS COP AWAY FROM ME" while he (totally clueless) in a stern fatherly voice, explained to me that her drivers license indicated she was 38! Like I was supposed to be shocked, scared, freaking out and all of that. LOL. I just wanted him out of there so we could go somewhere else and finish what the a-hole interrupted.
I can't imagine what girls think cuz I've never been one. I had more neighborhood women wanting me to mow their yards than I had time for, and loved every minute of it.
Now I give the same lectures and stern fatherly advice to my kid. But when he walks out of the room, I smile inwardly and remember my 69 Mach I, and the adventures I had in it.
**oops again** was supposed to be posted under jacquis "ewwww an old guy" post
Posted: Apr 19, 08 7:29am
Anytime people's lives are completely controlled by someone else it is abuse no matter what the situation. Maybe the raid was over done and too broad but something did need to be done. Common sense and moderation in all things is a good way to run almost anything.
Posted: Apr 19, 08 7:35am
A complicated case of epic proportions. First, any suspicion of child abuse must be investigated. Second, was the original warrant valid? Third, now that there is apparently evidence of crimes what to do about it? Fourth, how to deal with the children that are probably incest victims as well as victims in other ways. Fifth, who cares what adults do if they are off on their "ranch?"
These are just a few of the questions brought on by this case. Also, what connection will there be with the "ranches" in Colorado? In Utah? So forth and what does that bode? Reality is that no society can stand by and see children abused like has been shown time and again with these kinds of cults but then again, how much power do we want government to have in our lives? I do not envy anyone involved in this case.
Posted: Apr 19, 08 8:19am
Course we know child abuse is not exclusive to these seemingly cult type societies. Anyone see the charges brought against the father whose five week old twins were found while in his care with multiple blunt force trauma injuries (dead). As I walk in the shoes of these children who are beaten, sexually abused, and murdered by adults my heart rips out.....
Posted: Apr 20, 08 7:28pm
I did see that and it made me absolutely sick. The poor babies never had a chance at life. Then there was the little girl whose mother's boyfriend beat to death because she knocked his Nintendo off the shelf. Authorities had been to the home three times prior to the incident and not seen anything out of line. There has to be so much evidence or proof before they remove a child from an abusive situation that it made me wonder how they could just go in and take over 400 kids from their parents on a heresay phone call accusation from a girl they can't locate.
Posted: Apr 20, 08 8:03pm
From some of the reports that I have seen, law enforcement had a mole inside the compound for quite some time due to some other reports but it is going to take months to find out the facts. There is something creepy about the whole thing. The women when they talk they sound like robots. Boy if someone took my children away from me, I can guarantee I would not be the good little soldier robot on tv with my proper hair and dress.
Posted: Apr 20, 08 8:13pm
if any of these multiple wives are on public assistance then the government can intervene,
if a man wants 8 wives (of legal age) or a woman wants 8 husbands.. thats fine with me.. as long as they are not on the welfare role.
Posted: Apr 20, 08 8:17pm
I agree and the news clips that I have seen documented that welfare is the standard source of income. Their lives seem pretty frugal but the additional wives are called "spiritual wives" to allow claims for assistance. I know that we all are programmed by our childhoods to a certain degree but I am glad that I was not subjected as a child to the type of lifestyle programming that these children are subjected to.
Posted: May 8, 08 6:24am
Is the issue here Public Assistance or multiple wives? Is it ok for 'unwed mothers' to be on public assistance? If so, then why not 'multiple wives'.
I really see no problems with polygamy between consenting adults. Why shouldn't it be legal? It doesn't affect me.
Child abuse however is child abuse, regardless of what you try to disguise it as. In the case of polygamists, it sounds like sexual trafficking.
Posted: Apr 30, 08 1:54pm
SP,
Glad you feel better after your rant but there's a small problem. Perhaps two.
First, evidence indicates the Davidians set the fire themselves, preferring death to prison. That comes from, for example, bugs in the building.
Second, even if the FBI did set the fire thru stupidity - see #1 - it wasn't murder. It was suicide by cop. Cops came with a legitimate warrant, got fired on. At that point anything that happens is the fault of Koresh and followers.
Posted: Apr 30, 08 9:12pm
Evidence? I'm a staunch anti-conspiracy theorist if there ever was one. I'll respectfully defer to your judgement, because I have no contrary evidence other than the video tapes shown on the network news.
I suspect that any such evidence was the product of desperate US Attorneys, trying to shift the blame.
Suicide by cop? You may have something there. Hmmm . . . I'll engage in more speculation to counter it. (Because I do that)
If I wanted the cops to kill me and all of the women and children hidden in the basement, what would would I do? Would I hide out and let them burn me out, without so much as a single shot fired to provoke it?
Maybe if I was a Branch Davidian I would. Most of the "suicide by cop" scenarios I've seen the perp precipitated the shooting by some motion/event that implied aggression or a threat. Where was that at Waco? There was no exchange of gunfire after the initial assault by the feds. If suicide by cop was their intent, why wern't they firing/menacing/threatening the police? The cops got tired of the standoff and said "f*** this, the President wants this resolved. They shot ATF agents! Lets force the issue."
I don't think there was an evil cabal of feds conspiring to kill women and children. Where I live, our District Attorney prosecutes any death by DUI offenders as murder, irregardless of circumstance. If the DA can do it, I can assert it. :)
Posted: Apr 30, 08 10:38pm
What makes this case so disturbing is the conflicts it embodies. On the one hand, the state has a real interest in protecting children from abuse. On the other hand, personal liberty is central to American values, including the liberty to live an alternative lifestyle. I personally see nothing wrong with polygamy among consenting adults. But the teen girls who are married off to men three times their age are not adults. There's a real issue here of age of consent, and even rape. But the authorities have yet to produce the girl who supposedly blew the whistle. And the authorities tolerated this group for years with nary a whimper, then all of a sudden they went in there like gangbusters. I don't have much sympathy for this group and what looks to me like child abuse. But I don't have a whole lot of sympathies for the Texas cops and the way they've handled this either.
Posted: May 1, 08 5:37am
Well, after reading the replies to this question, all I can say is that Pologamy is against the law and in the U.S. having sex with a young girl is a crime, no matter what you call it.
This was in a web-site discussing Pologamy:
"An additional charge of bigamy should be added when polygamists are charged with other crimes. These other crimes are varied and include such charges as tax evasion, welfare fraud, medical neglect, incest, etc. This charge of bigamy would also carry a punishment of up to five years in prison. We feel that it may act as a deterrent, urging a man to think twice about marrying his 13 year old niece."
Something to consider.
Posted: May 1, 08 6:20am
Yes it is. But so is the principal of unreasonable search and seizure. The State can't just barge into your house and turn it upside down just because they think you may be doing something wrong.. They have to have reasonable grounds for doing so and have to show it before a judge, who will then issue a warrant. If it turns out that the grounds were obtained illegally, fraudulently, or improperly, the evidence beconmes inadmissable; i.e. it never happened.
You also have both the State and the Media trying to sensationalize this into something it may not be. For instance, yesterday's headlines stated something like "Children show evidence of borken bones" read the article and it turns out that somethink like 40 some-odd, out of 400 or so children once had broken bones. You know what? Go into any school, anywhere in the US. Pick 400 kids at random and I'll bet you'd find that the same percentage of kids once had broken bones.
The Media is all ready to do nwhatever it takes to get a headline, even if it turns out to be false. (Think the Duke Rape Story). Has the Media published anything about the fact that you have 400 kids forcibly separated from their mothers? I look at it this way, if they're having to work this hard to find any child abuse, there probably wasn't much, if any and, under those circumstances, it is more of an abuse to keep the child away from its parent than what the State is alleging.
Again, I'm not condoning polygamy or sleeping with minors (speaking of which, how come Roger Clemens's scuzzy ass isn't in jail?) but it looks to me like there's as least much wronf with one side as the other.
Posted: May 8, 08 6:14pm
If these people are free to reproduce in unlimited numbers why am I not FREE to refuse to provide tax dollars to support their hobby?
Posted: May 9, 08 9:28am
Because you, too, are free to reproduce in unlimited numbers.
TIE
Posted: May 9, 08 3:36pm
Because I can reproduce in whatever number I choose THAT is why I have to pay the taxes for these people's children. I don't think so. Study the history of the advent of taxes in this country and the arguments against taxation. If you are going to give me an answer give me something that makes sense.
Posted: May 9, 08 3:41pm
No need to get testy.
TIE