Profitable Industry

Not long ago, in a land far away, there was a quiet little town of several hundred families.  The townsfolk mostly knew each other and seemed to get along quite well.  They had a town council which oversaw general municipal needs and provided essential services to all the residents.

Every day, the elementary school children would cross the narrow bridge which led to the school entrance.  This was a safe, quiet, industrious town with little crime and lots of good will.

One day, one enterprising young housewife hit upon a clever new idea for making money (after all, it never hurts to stimulate growth and new business opportunities).  She got up early that day and went and stood by the bridge near the elementary school.  It was a little windy, and she saw that some of the children's hair was not neatly combed.  She approached the children warmly and asked them if they minded if she combed their hair.  Most of them were content to let her do it.  They felt flattered by the attention, and she felt fulfilled by the opportunity to provide a beneficial service.  A few of the school's teachers noticed that some of the children appeared a little better groomed that day.

Spurred on by this favorable experience, the housewife returned to the bridge the following day, and thus began a regular practice of improving the appearance of many of the elementary school children every morning.  After a while, she calculated that this help which she was providing (with or without the parents' blessing) was truly valuable, and that she deserved to be remunerated.  She resolved to attend the next town council meeting and to seek support.

A week later, the town council met and addressed the hair-combing housewife's funding request.  Some of the elementary school teachers were in attendance and were enthusiastic.  Even a parent or two expressed satisfaction with the housewife's hair-combing abilities.  By a narrow majority, the town council voted to grant a generous salary to the housewife so that she could continue to provide this help.  Besides, it never hurts to allocate public money to socially worthy enterprises that help children.

As the days and weeks passed, some parents observed the woman by the bridge and wondered how necessary her services were.  Some felt that they had already combed their children's hair adequately, and at least one child complained that the woman's comb scratched and hurt, and even had hair from the other children on it.

At the next town council meeting, several parents voiced their frustrations.  One parent who had just lost her job complained that she had not been given the chance to apply for this municipal hair-combing position, and would like to compete for it at some point.  Other parents asked if they could opt out and designate that their children not have their hair combed.

The mayor listened attentively to the citizens' concerns, yet eventually cast the swing vote to allow the housewife to keep her role as the town's hair-comber.  After all, her paycheck represented a source of cash-flow for the local economy.  Also, not everyone in attendance knew that the housewife was his niece.

As the meeting was about to close, one angry parent stood up and protested that he did not want his tax money going to this superfluous activity, and that he had every right to have his child's hair left alone.  After all, he fed, clothed and housed his child, and knew what was best for him.  The mayor snapped back, saying that the child's interests and appearance were paramount, and, if it came down to a question of who could best assess the best interests of the child, well - that would of course be the town council (made up of seven distinguished citizens).

As the housewife drove home from the meeting, she felt reassured and gratified that she had been able to create a new and profitable industry out of nothing, and that she was doing things for the community's children for which they should be very grateful.

I Have A Problem

I have a problem.  As you might know by now, I am not a fan of agencies or liberal do-gooders who like the whole idea of removing children from the homes of people whose culture they don't like.  I have known a number of CPS case-workers here in Arizona, and it is not unusual for them to be single women (some with alternative lifestyles of their own). I think that in some CPS circles it is a basic given that the average parent is not good enough, and is probably breaking one or more of CPS's gray-area, vague administrative laws.  That is why, in a CPS case battle between a family and the agency, the agency representatives will fight tooth and nail to prevail over you and to prove that you are abusive, negligent and unfit, even if all you did was teach your kids that polygamy is godly and biblical.  They don't have the resources to confiscate EVERY kid in the nation, so they have to be selective.

There is good reason to believe that there is an extra inducement to remove cute Caucasian kids, and that there is federal money to be won when parental rights are terminated.  The watchword of the CPS community is - "the best interests of the children".  This is a particularly clever slogan because it evinces the assertion that the agency desires nothing more than the happiness, welfare, security and peace of mind of the child.  Even this aspiration seems to dismiss any concern for the rights, wishes and welfare of the parents, but that is not the worst part.  The problem is that this pompous jargon suggests that, in a war between what the parents think is in the 'best interests of the child" and what CPS/DCFS thinks, CPS is always wiser and will ALWAYS make the final decision.  To parents under attack it must feel much like having a policeman sit in your house and tell you when it is okay to make love.

My focus today is, however, a different offender - and perhaps a more insidious one.  I took the liberty of watching the online video of the last Utah Attorney General's Safety Net meeting on USTREAM.  From what I saw and from what I heard from other observers, there were individuals (civilians) in attendance who want to create an underground railroad to squirrel away other people's teenagers.  The idea is like this - (and it's already been done a few times) - the lay crusaders learn about a teen who is getting sideways with his or her parents (or who is no longer living with them).  Then the crusader wants to provide food and shelter (and a new religion) to the disaffected teen.  The law holds the parents responsible for the child's care.  If a child runs away, law enforcement is required to return the child to the parents.  The crusaders have a different agenda.

The crusaders' plan goes like this - find collaborators who are willing to hide the teens in their homes (the LDS Church recently donated houses to these lay crusaders).  The goal is to keep the teens in secret hideouts for as long as possible, and for as long as necessary to re-indoctrinate them and sour them against their families and culture (e.g. the "two Fawns").  The parents must be kept in the dark (after all, they are just plygs).  The crusaders have no interest in becoming state-certified as providers of shelter or therapy or anything.  Remember, the mission is ideological - NOT humanitarian. These interfering busy-bodies are bent on massaging their own rescuer egos.

There is a word for these activities - KIDNAPPING !!!  It is a crime.  In this Safety Net meeting, the other (non-lay) attendees seem at least partly oblivious of their complicity in criminal conspiracy.  They seem unaware of their collective exposure to criminal and civil charges. 

You see, polygamists bear an automatic, aggravated disability.  Their religion relegates them to a lower citizenship class, and renders them open to special persecution.  If you are a polygamist or are in a polygamous community, look out.  There are people who want your children as badly as do the CPS agents.  All of those people who associate with the Safety Net and who think that it is okay to entice and conceal and influence other families' children should have an opportunity to experience the dread and anguish associated with government agencies or other perpetrators poaching their own children.

I'm not sure about you but, when it comes to people confiscating my children, I have a problem.

Out Of The Best Books

I have a lot of opinions. A lot of my opinions are religious in nature.  I believe in God. I believe in the resurrection.  I believe in guaranteed salvation through Jesus Christ.  I believe in exaltation through emulating our Father, Michael.  I believe in teaching my (37) children to study good principles out of the best books.

Sometimes my children don't want to hear what I have to say. Sometimes they cannot be coaxed into sitting and reading the books I want them to read.  They exercise their own free agency and read other materials I did not choose for them.  They occasionally politely decline the materials I offer them.  Sometimes I have caught them giving my very important materials to others.  This makes me very, very irate.  It makes me want to scream from the rooftops about how awful my children are, for not studying and preserving the materials I choose for them and provide for them at great personal sacrifice (along with others who think the same way I do).

So here is my plan.  This week I will chain my children to the desks in our schoolroom.  I will put their heads in clamps so that they cannot turn away from the lesson material on the desk, and I will clip eye specula to their eyelids so that they cannot look away.

I'm sure that after doing this for a while, I will be able to correct any waywardness or improper thinking they may have developed.  If that doesn't work, I will entertain more forceful measures to ensure compliance.

Lab Rats

Aren't these little darlings cute?  Don't they just make you want to grab a stick and poke them to see if they snarl or bite.  Or maybe you are the type who desperately wants to save them from their confused and beleaguered condition - to take them home and assimilate them into your own sweet family - to set them on the path to safety, salvation and happiness.

I have finally figured it out.  In the Romer v. Evans decision, Justice Antonin Scalia alluded to the fact that Fundamentalist Mormons were being singled out for "disfavorable treatment".  Why is that?

Fundamentalist Mormons are second-class citizens because they are automatically assumed to be felons, even though they are not really prosecuted.  It's as if they have an ugly "P" stitched to their chests, so that normal, regular, ordinary folk can know that the polyg's are outcasts or unclean.

In the recent news frenzy over ecclesiastical leadership changes in the FLDS church, the private and public social service entities are rushing out of the woodwork to step in and rescue.  Rescue whom?  They are forming strategic collaborations, even with entities that have victimized Fundamentalist Mormons in the past.

There are reports that, in Nazi (Socialist) Germany and concentration camps, experiments were conducted on helpless minorities.  There were acts of cruelty that would make Abu Ghraib look like a luxury spa.  I don't doubt that the perpetrators were utterly convinced of the goodness and wisdom of their activities.  They knew best.  They were smarter than the camp detainees.  They had lofty, long-term goals to which the subject victims were arguably oblivious and subordinate.  The ends clearly justified the means (and the secret meetings and deliberations).  Sometimes the goal is just to justify the controlling entity's continued existence (individual needs be damned).

That is the very quintessence of socialism.  The goal of making everyone "equal" (of assuring social "justice" for all) is a lie - a "bait and switch".  Think about it - in socialism, the government is utterly in charge of the distribution of resources.  The guys in power dictate to the folks who are not in power.  They decide what's best for you, and you had better not complain or you will disappear or be imprisoned or shot. I always wonder why so many people are enticed by that kind of tyranny.  I guess the liberals privately believe they will get to be the ones in the driver's seat - telling you where to work and what to eat.

Some local universities face considerable controversy for their medical experiments conducted with laboratory animals.  Some of the animals can experience frustration and resentment when their comfort and privacy are compromised.  New efforts are underway to interfere and intervene in the lives of Fundamentalist Mormons.  After all, the Mother Church and law enforcement entities all across the land have over-arching, imperative needs to investigate us, examine us, probe us, and intervene when the ulterior motives get strong enough.  Then throw "equality" out the window.

I think that, once you can look upon peculiar, different people with a supercilious, condescending attitude; and you decide that, by virtue of their class disability they are like lab rats, you can really do whatever you want to them with impunity and a clear conscience.

No Fence

A discussion is brewing in Utah not unlike the Canadian discussion. Polygamy (though not mentioned in Utah statutes) is perceived (like in Canada) to be a crime. Of course, the Emperor was "perceived" to be clothed.

The discussion is about whether it is appropriate to continue to criminalize polygamy. Let me make a silly analogy. Light on, light off. When my wives are trying to sleep, and I am trying to read, there is often a tussle. I want the light on - she wants it off. No middle ground, no compromise. I can either see to read or I can't. She can either fall asleep or she cannot. The light is not "partially" on. ON or OFF - there's just no middle ground.

In Utah, there are words crafted into the "bigamy" statute that are designed to ensnare polygs. Do you cohabit with extra people? Do you think of yourself as a polygamist? Clever stuff! Good old Hugh and Reuben knew how to write that stuff so as to catch even the most wily polyg.

Everybody agrees that, until the stupid "cohabit" and "purport" prongs of the bigamy statute are repealed, polygamy is still sort-of technically a "crime" in Utah (although it goes blatantly unenforced). So, it boils down to this - some people want it DE-criminalized, while others DON'T want it DE-criminalized. If California's polarizing Prop' 8 was any indication, the vast majority of right-thinking Utahns want to keep it criminal (even if they aren't sure why).

There's no neutral ground, no compromise - like light or dark - there's no middle of the road - no "fence" to sit on (like being pregnant or not-pregnant). So in today's combative political climate, if you are not FOR the DE-criminalization of polygamy, you must AUTOMATICALLY be FOR the CRIMINALIZATION of polygamy and polygamists -

You must be FOR treating them as criminals
You must be FOR denying them full citizenship
You must be FOR creating patronizing programs for them
You must be FOR depriving them of social benefits
You must be FOR removing their children
You must be FOR trivializing their religion and its founder
You must be FOR evil judges who trample on their rights
You must be FOR prosecuting them
You must be FOR confiscating their property
You must be FOR mocking them in the media and in educational settings
You must be FOR putting them in prison and throwing away the key
You must be FOR running political campaigns based on your success oppressing them
You must be FOR tapping their phones and emails to build criminal cases against them

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. (Revelation 3:16)

Sorry, there's no fence in sight for you to sit on.

A Bigger Truck

In the not too distant past, there was an Idaho family whose longtime family business involved growing and selling potatoes. The Shumway brothers harvested the potatoes every summer and packaged the potatoes in 20-pound sacks. The potatoes would sell better in Utah so, on many a weekend, they would drive the three-hour trip to Salt Lake City and sell the potatoes at the farmers' market.

On one trip, the Shumway brothers did some quick calculations and figured that it cost them six dollars per sack to produce the potatoes. They had made some poor buying decisions over the years, so their costs were high. When they got their produce displayed on the tables at the market, they found that they were able to sell the potatoes for five dollars per sack.

On the drive back to Idaho late one night, they grappled with the challenge facing them. They couldn't demand more from their customers. Fuel costs were not likely to drop. They had mortgaged the family farm as far as it could be mortgaged. They had long since flouted the land-sabbath and farmed every field every year.

No matter which way they looked at it, the business was losing money - at $1.00 per sack. Suddenly, the younger of the two brothers hit upon a solution. His older brother was almost jealous that he had not come up with so brilliant an idea.

On the next Monday morning they excitedly raced into town to carry out their plan. This would finally resolve the problem that had dogged them for years.

They bought a bigger truck.