The case has sparked questions about whether the state has the right to protect children from their parents' beliefs.

University of Winnipeg professor Helmut-Harry Loewen, an expert on hate groups, said while he disagrees with the ideology, he fears taking custody based on beliefs is draconian.

"If children are apprehended based on parents' political or religious beliefs, then one is opening a kind of slippery slope," he said.

But University of Manitoba professor Harvy Frankel, dean of the faculty of social work, said officials did the right thing.

"We should be reassured that this is child welfare practice as it should be."

Does the government have the right to take away children whose parents teach them unpopular, incorrect, or even hateful traditions?  Who decides what's unpopular, incorrect, or hateful?  Canada isn't the US but as the FLDS case shows, the trend is the same all over... the government, the Nancy Grace media, or whoever has the most money sets the social agenda ,decides morality, and increasingly, defines parental rights.  Holding one's family for ransom until one conforms is social engineering at it's best and Western governments are increasingly using this vicious form of sociological terrorism.

 Note to John Leo, we are no longer one step ahead.  The thought police have overtaken us.

That's right, mom and dad, if little Tommy holds his nose and turns his face away from an offering of Thai food or a sippy cup of rice milk, he's a budding KKK member.  Apparently, tolerance of diversity means that individual tastes and cultural preferences are a "no-no" and the rejection of an unappealing side dish by a toddler is an act of racism that must be nipped in the diaper donned bud.

FYI:  The word "racism" loses its sting when you spell it N-O-N-S-E-N-S-E.

My sister thinks that the state of Texas acted as it should have in removing the all of the children from their homes.  I kind of disagree.  I am of the mind that evidence should preceed such a traumatic course of action.  When the state CPS entered the community and found underage pregnant girls, they should have conducted an investigation.  Since the FLDS people were uncooperative in the Q&A they had no alternative but to remove the pregnant girls to verify that they were victims of statutory rape.  Unless there were allegations or visible evidence of abuse against the prepubescent children, I don't know why they should have been removed from their mothers and relocated.  Yes, yes, I know that more than half of the girls between 14 and 17 have either had or are expecting children.  I'm not suggesting that this is acceptable.  What I am saying is that you don't traumatize the younger children based on what might happen or what happened to another.  You don't remove children from a community because the community at large is rampant with illicit activity.  There wouldn't be a child left in the inner city if we held to that standard. 

I actually heard one Div. of Family Services representative on CNN say that the absence of toys in the compound was a form of emotional abuse. He announced, as if we'd all find this completely appropriate, that the toylessness constituted a lack of stimulation.  I don't know about ya'll but if CPS busts down my door to see if I have enough playstation games or the right kind of books, some poor social worker is going to come to a full understanding of the 2nd amendment. 

I've also heard the idea tossed about on Nancy Grace that since this closed FLDS society may be complicit in the whole child-bride/statutory rape business, all of the parents should lose their children and be charged as accomplices to this gross and heinous crime.  I'm wondering where this kind of logic will end?  I don't want to be responsible or punished for the crimes of my neighbors, do you?  My best friend in high school got pregnant our junior year and her boyfriend was 21.  No one filed charges.  Her doctor didn't ask questions.  Since a large percentage of the girls in the school were mothers or were pregnant, I doubt if the counselors or teachers even noticed.  Division of Family Services never knocked on her door.  No one asked if her mom knew Darnell - of course, she did.  She knew they were dating and yet no one removed my friend's younger sister from the home or filed charges against my friend's mom. 

Of course, I understand that the presumption in this Texas case is that there is systematic and institutional abuse - but I also remember that others have claimed people like you and I are systematically abusing our children every Sunday morning and most Wednesday nights.  And I'm just not sure I trust the government to establish appropriate parameters of parenting.  If a lack of toys is considered abuse, it's absolutely foreseeable that a parent smoking in a car with children present could be charged with child endangerment.  How about those awful parents who feed their children fast food - first we tax them, then we outlaw the marketing on t.v., and the next thing you know... your kid's in foster care.  It's an oversimplification but it's what has happened and continues to happen with cigarettes, isn't it? 

Seems like I've strayed from statutory rape, huh?  In the FLDS case, all the overaged fathers should face charges.  And mothers and children should have routine home inspections until it is clear that this child-bride business is a thing of the past.  As far as the polygamy goes, well, unless there are actual bigamists among them, the FLDS can call their version of swinging or shacking up whatever they want to and it's not going to bother me.  So long as we don't stoop to legitimizing the behavior, they can do whatever in their own homes. If you are going to hold everyone to the standard of no extramarital sex, there are going to be a lot more people in jail that the couple of hundred at ElDorado.  And if, as seems to be a major concern with some of the on air analysts, the issue of abusing the welfare system bothers you - think about how many Jerry Springer guests have several "babies' daddies" and are swiping their EBT cards all over town. 

Again, I'm not defending these people, I'm just wondering how the law is going to be applied equally when others are committing the same acts but don't live in communes.

I heard of another case very close to me that illustrates an even graver concern.  The 3rd grade daughter in from a loving family with no history, or even allegation, of abuse was found dead in the home.  No immediate cause of death was determined. DFS removed all the siblings from the home and placed them in foster care.  Eventually, with the help of determined lawyers and some wiser-than-the-coroner M.D.s, the couple regained custody of their children after it was shown that the child had a seizure and the death was caused naturally.  Apparently, grieving the loss of their child wasn't enough, the state decided that since they had no explanation for her death - it must be the parent's fault.  Sound crazy?  Consider the case of a West Virginia woman who was forced to share custody with her daughter's babysitter.  Or the case of a new mother struggling with a sick baby who was falsely accused of Munchausen by proxy and lost her baby to DSS.  How about the parents (guessing they are Jehovah's Witnesses?) who refused a blood draw on their 6 week old and then the sheriff showed up on the door step and took baby Joel away.  

When I think about what is happening in Texas, I wonder where the line is for government intervention.  Were two year olds really in danger in the compound?  Nursing babies?  There weren't allegation of abuse for those children, were there?  Were they removed for lack of toys or the probabilty of being raised in a kooky environment?  Were they removed to prevent future abuse by men who ought to be in jail before they even come of "spiritual marriage" age?  Isn't that kind of Minority Report?  What do you guys think?

We all recognize that a candidate's personal life gives just as much insight, if not more, into his character as his official actions and statements.  Remember the frenzy over Hillary Clinton's channeling the spirits of past first ladies or the front page fear-mongering when newsmen found out that President Buch read Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series?  The fascination with stories like these reveal a truth most of us unconsciously know but that democratic operatives spent most of the 90s trying to deny:  a man's private character and morality are inseparably connected to the execution of his professional duties.  Patriotism, integrity, and decency aren't like a suit coat you can put on when you walk out the door in the morning.

Nevertheless, John McCain has called for the NC GOP to abandon the as-yet unreleased ad and has denounced the state party as 'out of touch'.  Judging from other recent statements, McCain believes he is trying to take the "high road" by avoiding personal attacks on his opponents.  Unfortunately, McCain's denunciation reveals as much about himself as the ad does about the democrats vying for the NC governorship.

It is completely reasonable to find the judgement of a candidate suspect based on his associations.  it is also perfectly reasonable to find the judgement of a candidate suspect if he or she endorses a presidential hopeful whose associates are unpatriotic, conspiracy theory spewing pastors and unrepentant domestic terrorists.

Further, it is completely reasonable to find the judgement of a candidate suspect if he denouces state party leaders for political correctness and expediency.  John McCain cares about winning the Presidency - the NC GOP wants to win the governor's seat.  It would seem that Linda Daves knows what I know.  No matter whose inaugaration we see in January, we've already lost the White House.

Clearly, this suggests that successful people with money and upward mobility don't need guns, God, or closed borders. 

His exact words: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them, and they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Couldn't be the steady attack on their beliefs and their rights that's got 'em down, could it Barack?  Couldn't possibly be the daily redistribution of their wealth through an overgrown tax system that doles out free cash to Jerry Springer guests while leaving the working poor, well, POOR.  It would be silly to think they are upset about the erosion of their culture through the reeducation of their children, the rewriting of their history, and the invasion of undocumented job-seekers and even legal immigrants whose refusal to assimilate burdens an already behemoth government bureaucracy and requires even more funds from our pockets to pay for bilingual services.  Press uno para Espanol, Barack.

Nope - sad, mindless proles, they just need boots, a nine-to-five, and a controlling party to keep 'em occupied with state sponsored lotteries and sour smelling beer. 

Backthink life preAmersoc, preunGod... (Remember life before American socialism, before God died...) 

yeah... me, too.

Not in the least surprising, teachers unions in California are excited about the latest attack on home schooling.  Such judicial nonsense will be used to lend credence to the false notion that only certified teachers are capable of educating.  The proof that such is not the case abounds within the ranks of public educators, a significant number of which begin their teaching careers through lateral entry style programs.  These programs allow college graduates with absolutely no teaching experience or college coursework to enter the classroom unsupervised as full fledged educators.  With several years to add coursework and pass the PRAXIS exams, these novice teachers with nary an hour's worth of "classroom management" or "learning styles" undergrad work are paid at the same rate as any first year teacher.

So, which is it?  Can you or can't you teach without credentials? 

Any teacher worth their salt will admit that educating is an often complex combination of inspiration, dedication, perspiration and even desperation and frustration.  It's not something you learn in those ridiculous college courses designed to elevate "teaching" from the blue collar hard work that it is to a "white collar" profession with all the perks and pretentious respectability that implies.  Not to mention the power of unionized people living from paycheck to paycheck trying fervently to create false scarcity in order to up their social value.

In the words of an old proverb - Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

Better yet - Those who can teach, do it for free.  Those who can't, unionize and pretend they are the only ones who can.

1- A few months ago I set the ring tone on my very infrequently used cell phone to the Ben 10 theme song.  This is my 9 year old's favorite cartoon and he had taken my phone with him to the park.

2- I don't wear a watch so I brought my cell phone into church to monitor the time and keep the children's nursery, where I volunteer, on schedule.

3- My children are just getting over a cold and all have drippy noses.

It was an unusually quiet church service.  Even the infants and toddlers were virtually silent as the young boys in their crisp white shirts and colorful ties brought communion to the congregants.  Deep in prayer, I was suddenly disturbed by the sound of an oddly familiar driving rock song.  Nope.  It wasn't in my head.  My cell phone had just gone off during the most conspicuous moment of the service and was playing Ben 10 at the highest volume possible.  Kids in neighboring pews giggled.  Adult worshippers tried to appear disinterested or unaware.  I got it turned off just as a freshly scrubbed 12 year old appeared beside our pew with a tray of small plastic sacrament cups.  Red faced and flushed, I returned my phone to my purse and looked up just in time to see my 6 year old son tipping back the little cup of water.  He put the cup inside his lips, being silly as boys are apt to do.  Suddenly he inhaled and the cup lodged in his throat.  He went silent and in a split second I had one hand bracing the back of his neck while the other retrieved the cup.  My 9 year old son, sitting between Sir Sucky and I burst into uncontrollable laughter so as soon as I got a hand free, I clamped it over his mouth and whispered a dire warning to which he laughed even harder. "Mom," he sputtered, "you've got my boogers all over your hand!"  Sure enough, in my attempt to quiet him quickly, I didn't even notice that I'd wiped his nose with my hand.  All three boys were laughing now and my husband was shaking from the exertion of trying to contain his guffaws.

After a quick trip to the ladies' room to wash my hands, I returned to enjoy the sermon.  As various speakers addressed the metaphysical, I tried to find some meaning - conjure some morality tale - from the embarrassing and eventful previous few minutes.  Clearly, I'm no Aesop because the only thing that came to mind as I sat there in the Lord's house was a profane two word bumper sticker.  Yep. STUFF HAPPENS.  And perhaps the best recourse is simply to laugh out loud.

So, Hill repairs foreign relations by insulting Vladimir Putin and he responds with a witty (albeit off-color) comeback.  Yes. I laughed.  But for even more fun, read the comment section.  I had to stop because my sides ached! 

I'm just waiting for Ms. Blonde Ambition to demand an apology.

In an effort to help maintain social cohesion... where have I heard something similar?  Oh yeah, here.  And here. And here.  Sacrifice principle for cohesion - okay.  Catch you later I'm running out to vote for John McCain and to buy a prayer rug.

MCCAIN ATTACKS GUN OWNERS! -

McCain "sponsored the McCain/Lieberman gun show bill, which would have given the federal government the administrative power to prohibit all gun shows, and to register everyone who attends a gun show."

-- Dave Kopel: 2d Amt Project

ALSO:

Supported anti-gun Schumer amendment: Sen McCain voted for an amendment offered by the anti-gun Sen. Charles Schumer of New York that would have restricted the legitimate transfer of firearms over the internet. (Source: Congressional Record 5/14/99, p. S5327.)

Voted to expand The Brady Law: McCain voted to extend the restrictions of the Brady bill to pawn shops and gun repair shops.(Source: Congressional Record 5/20/99, p.S5642.)

Supported Clinton Gun Control: John McCain voted AGAINST efforts to kill the Clinton gun control package, which contained al kinds of new gun restrictions, including a ban on many kinds of private gun sales. (Source: Congressional Record 7/28/99, P. S9451.)

-- Gunowners of America

I think this issue was a draw for the GOP candidates - and like most Americans, I think gun control is responsible.  We may differ on the particulars of the regulation but very few would argue against any gun control.  Further, if you think owning an AK47 offers protection from the government, you are deluding yourself.  One man "defending" himself against the government is not a "militia", he is an outlaw.  And he doesn't need an AK47, he needs a lawyer.  Militias, since you introduced that term, were organized by the state governments.  Either the 2nd amt. is about state militias or individuals, you can't have it both ways.

Futher, the Branch Davidians amassed a large volume of automatic weapons and it didn't help them.  If you're planning on taking on the fed with a few assault rifles, you might as well just get a bottle of cyanide and go gently.  (I wish that were funny instead of just sad... but it is what it is.)

Wrong.  In her column today, Mona Charen over at townhall.com, explains why so many conservatives cannot be reconciled to McCain, myself among them.  Read it and weep.  I did.

For an even more pointed assessment - read Ann's latest.

I will be voting in November.  At this point, I will likely write in a presidential candidate.  BUT I will be voting a straight GOP ticket otherwise and here's why:  With either a Democrat or a non-conservative in the White House, we need to provide opposition in Congress to provide some barrier to liberal lawmaking.  Rush Limbaugh was making this point today on his show and I had to laugh because I swear he's got me wiretapped.  I was explaining this very position to my husband on Tuesday night and it is the only way to limit the damage done in the next four years.  If we can't control the policy - we must impede the other guys from doing it.  It is that simple.

Yep - we've become the movement of "Obstruct. Obstruct. Obstruct"  Sad, isn't it?

I responded to the article and this is the essence of what I wrote:

The inevitability argument is what Planned Parenthood uses when they say kids are going to have sex so we may as well give them condoms.  The idea that since McCain is going to be the nominee, I might as well support him is ludicrous. If my child has premarital sex, then they had better be able to afford either their own condoms or a lot of diapers and burp cloths.  I certainly won't be handing them a bottle of bubbly and a hotel key for their after prom activities. 

In the same respect, I won't aid and abet John McCain in hijacking the GOP by handing him an ballet box prophylactic.  Every vote in favor of McCain, is an endorsement of his non-conservative policies and frankly, I don't see the difference between a Republican who doesn't represent me and a Democrat who doesn't represent me.  Do you really think that a McCain in the White House is going to be thinking, "How do I reach out to conservatives?"

What I find the most interesting is that McCain touts endorsements of other politicians, most of whom for which conservatives hold no special love.  Romney gets the biggest names in the conservative movement behind him and voters are still confused.  Ingraham, Hannity, Coulter, Rush (for all practical purposes), Levin, the National Review - all endorsing Romney and yet the many of the same voters who decry the MSM and the GOP party failures in DC are letting the media and the nearly-dem governator guide the course of the election.  I hope conservatives are coming around to Romney and realizing that he is the better choice.  Tuesday will tell if the conservative spokespeople have effectively put McCain on the ticket by endorsing Romney too far into the contest. 

Cross you fingers.

Those who cast the votes decide nothing.  Those who count the votes decide everything.  - Joseph Stalin