Just Another Brick in the Wall

Today, polar bears were added to the Endangered Species list.. No, their number's aren't dwindling. Quite the opposite - populations are up several hundred percent in the last two decades. The reason they have been added is that "Climate Change is melting the polar ice caps". So what does that mean to you?

In the short term, nothing much. To see the long term effects, we have to look at the reason they were added to the list and the history of actions against industries that impact these species. Initial news reports are focusing on how it will affect drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (i.e. ANWAR). Since the Porcupine Caribu and the Bowhead Whale have been effectively employed to prevent drilling (as well and tricky political wrangling in congress), one has to realize that this is about more than the estimated 5.5 - 16 billion barrels of oil off the north shore. (See: Arctic Refuge Drilling Controversy and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for details).

Historically, the government has taken legal actions to prevent activities that endanger a species. For example, banning or limiting whale hunting, banning the import of Ivory (in an effort to stop wholesale slaughter of elephants for their tusks), etc. In some cases, individuals have been prosecuted and their livelihoods taken from them to protect a species. I can't find any web links to the story, but about ten years ago a California farmer was out plowing his field when ran over a mouse that was listed as an endangered species. He was arrested. Although I don't recall the details or the eventual outcome of the story, the point remains that his farm was at least temporarily taken away from him in order to protect a mouse. These are just the facts. They don't constitute an endorsement or a condemnation of the actions taken.

Now we have to question why there has been such a push to put Polar Bears on this list. Although it bolsters the case to prevent drilling in ANWAR, it also provides a major stepping stone to stop all use of fossile fuels. Follow the argument:

1. The habitat of the Polar Bear is endangered by Global Warming.
2. Global Warming is caused (in part) by Greenhouse Gas emmissions.
3. Burning fossile fuels (gasoline, natural gas, etc. in cars and power plants) creates Greenhouse Gas.


Based on this line of logic, you could be arrested for killing endangered animals for using a natural gas water heater in your home. Is it reasonable? No. But mark my words, this is just the thing some environmentalists have been looking to do.

I had to laugh when I saw this, but somehow the reporter missed the obvious.

Background: This happened 5/13/08. A car ran through the front of the Marshalls store in Stoneham, MA. The reporter joked that the sales were so good, the driver just kept on going. What she failed to notice is the sign that covers the left third of the screen. Clearly, the driver misunderstood what the sign was suggesting.

I took some time tonight to scan through some of my favorite blogs - many of which were clearly anti-war (at least against the war in Iraq). Many touted the cost of the war, complained that we still haven't received the benefits we were supposed to reap from it, and the 'quagmire' in which we find ourselves. I think it's time I finally responded. Bear with me, I have a lot of thoughts and a lot of things that many of you will find utterly distasteful. This is my perspective, I could be right. You'll never know unless you read to the end.

Let me begin by telling you a story. I was married once. It wasn't one of those three-week courting periods. We dated for nearly three and a half years before we married. The marriage itself lasted eleven and a half years. For those weak in math, that's about fifteen years. I was 31 when I divorced. I had spent nearly half my life with one woman. I'll spare you all the details of the disaster - we both had our issues and I will confess that ultimately the divorce came at my insistence..

The point is, I went into this relationship with the absolute best of intentions. This was the woman I wanted to be with my whole life. I was in love - or so I thought. I knew that we could make it and that nothing could ever tear us apart. We had good jobs, good educations, a great church, awesome friends. What could every go wrong? Well, I'll tell you...Life. To be perfectly honest, within two years of being married, I realized that the things she wanted in life were not the things I wanted. In our defense, how could we know who we would grow up to be? We never fought much. We just let our anger and bitterness steep and simmer until the only clear option was divorce.

It wasn't easy. In many ways, we were both miserable, but both of us were ultimately thrilled at the decision I had made. What nobody could predict is that her new husband would decide it was his right to start beating my kids. Not spanking - I mean hitting, choking and throwing them around a room when he got angry. That's when the marriage mistake became an unmitigated disaster. Please don't offer your sympathies on this. The issue has been resolved and my kids are now big enough to kick his a$$, should he get out of line again. Let's focus on the relevance of this to the wars in Iraq.

Without re-hashing all the reasons for the initial invasion - whether they be legitimate or not, whether they be just or not. - the fact remains that when this invasion occurred the numbers in support of the President and this action were staggeringly overwhelming. For the record, I don't think anything President Bush said while making his case for the war were lies. Some things may have turned out to be inaccurate - even wrong - but a lie is, by definition, a willing misrepresentation of the truth. I believe that the President was absolutely convinced that the information he presented was accurate. But that's a different Blog...

This brings me to my argument that we have (or more accurately - have had) two wars in Iraq. I'm not referring to Desert Storm. When we invaded In 2003 we had a mission - to take out Sadaam Hussein. We accomplished that mission with incredible efficiency. When President Bush stood on the aircraft carrier under the banner that stated "Mission Accomplished", the fact is we had accomplished the primary mission of the war. I see this as somewhat akin to my dating period with my ex...when I said 'I do', my mission was accomplished.

Many love to post quotes made by U.S. Officials about how the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators. These posters also like to say that never happened. I hate to burst their bubbles, but it DID happen. I spent weeks glued to the television watching hour after endless hour of the war and the aftermath. I watched live as our soldiers worked together with the citizens of Baghdad to tear down the statue of Sadaam and step on it's face or smack it in the face with their shoes. I watched hundreds of Iraqis hug and kiss our soldiers. When the Americans moved through town, the Iraqi citizens lined the streets like some sort of parade and waved the American Flag. We were hailed at liberators and welcomed by the vast majority of citizens. Then the honeymoon ended.

Nobody can deny that mistakes were made. Borders weren't secured. The first vestiges of an insurgency were not quelled. The Baath party and the Iraqi military were disbanded. Like with my marriage - life happened. What could have - and SHOULD have been a swift resolution to the war, simply fell apart. This is what I consider to be analogous to my divorce, and the start of the second war in Iraq.

You see, the second war has nothing to do with Sadaam. It has everything to do with al-Qaeda, Iran and those Iraqis that are, in essence, the equivalent of the Taliban in Afghanistan. These three groups believe that all people - not just Iraqis - should live under Sharia Law and view democracy as the enemy of God. Based on their common goals, these groups initially saw our troops as the core enemy. Their problem was thatno matter how many casualties we took, the resolution of our President quickly became evident. We had learned our lesson from Desert Storm (i.e. we told the Iraqi people to rise up and fight Sadaam, then pulled out and left them to be slaughtered). I, for one, am glad that SOMEONE in this country still believes that if you don't know your history, you are doomed to repeat it.

Our mistakes in the war soon came back to haunt us. In the same way neither myself nor my ex could have anticipated the actions of her new husband, we could not have anticipated the insurgency and the way it caught hold. But the Iraqi people had become our children - a fledgling democracy. As such, we can no more abandon them in their infancy than any (sane) parent could toss their child in a dumpster and walk away. We created them and we have the responsibility to teach them, coddle them, and watch them grow until they are able to sustain themselves.

The fact is, as much as I would like to go back and correct the mistakes I made in my marriage (like saying 'I Do'), the reality is that I am stuck where I am. I am a better man for it. When I first learned what the step-dad was doing, I had to make a choice. Protecting my kids was obvious and came without saying. However, I had to choose between what I wanted to do (you can only imagine), and the right thing to do. I chose to leave my fighting to the attorneys. How much it cost was irrelevant - and believe me, it was far more than substantial.

What I'm saying is, we went into this war with the best of intentions. If it had all gone according to plan, our troops would all be back home and George Bush would be the greatest President in modern history. But life happens and we are where we are. I, as much as anybody else, would love nothing more than to pull our troops out and celebrate their bravery, honor and service. The reality is, we still have a lot of work to do - however personally distasteful as that may be.

The one outstanding issue I feel I need to address is this misconception that Bush, Cheney and McCain want to keep our troops there for a hundred years. Anyone that believes that is intellectually bankrupt. Never have any of them stated such a desire. All three have, however, stated the commitment to do so - should that be necessary. After all, if your child were born with DOWNS, how long would you, as a parent, be willing to care for that child? There is some fact behind the notion that we will have troops there for decades - after all, how long have we had troops in Germany? Lets see....2008 - 1945 = 63 years and counting...but only the first few of those were actually war years. Today we enjoy a healthy and (generally) safe presence in the country of a former enemy.

Remember, when you get all knotted up about this stuff, try looking at it from the big picture. Think of it as taking the Ferari you have the opportunity to steel today - at the cost of your family, home and job tomorrow. Then ask yourself, Obama or McCain - which plan protects your children and grandchildren. Our soldiers are willing to pay the price with blood, body parts and their lives, so who are you to quibble about the dollars and cents?

That's right folks, taking a page right from the Clinton play book he captured the pulse of America (ok, so it was a poll) and decided that the best way to win over those undecided, hard working, middle class, semi-educated, angry, gun-toting, religion-clinging white voters was to cave to the pressure and put on that dreaded symbol of freedom and pride - the U.S. Flag Lapel pin.

New video today (err...yesterday) went (mostly) without fanfare over the amazing turn of events. With will power like this, I can't wait to see the man sit down with a group of terrorists to talk about their issues. If that happens, I assure you I will make myself scarce at open air markets and night clubs.

Maybe I'm being too harsh here...maybe he really had a change of heart and it isn't about politics... If he next takes a page from Ditech and starts his speeches with "People are smart...", tighten those butt-cheeks bacause it's only smoke up the collective anal orifice of America.

Extortion:
1. An exorbitant charge*
2. Unjust exaction (as by the misuse of authority)*
3. The felonious act of extorting money (as by threats of violence)*
4. Law. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.**

* WordWeb A One-click English dictionary, thesaurus and reference. (it's free!)
**Dictionary.com (not a site I recommend as it is very slow and laden with advertisements)

Today we witness my number one pet peeve: Police Extortion. No, this act is legal because they do it in the name of justice and protecting the people.

Case in point: San Diego State University. I just finished watching the bulk of the news conference where they discussed the methods by which they caught 'the bad guys'. First, they arrested many people (the bulk of the total 96 arrests) for things like possession and those involved in overdose situations. The information gleaned from these students went into the planning of "Operation Sudden Fall" which resulted in more arrests today as well as at least two arrests last week.

Here's the part that pizzes me off...These people arrested for possession, I am absolutely confident, did not run into the police station saying "I have drugs and I want to turn in the person that sold them to me!" Quite the contrary - the police arrested them, slapped them with every charge they could think of, let them sweat it out a while, then offered a deal (i.e. they don't go to jail) for their 'cooperation'. Please refer to the definition of Extortion above - in particular, definition #4.

In this case, the item of value is a persons reputation and/or a prison sentence. What was extorted was not money, but information. The abuse comes when a government representative (be that a D.A., DEA Agent, FBI Agent, Police Officer, etc.) treats one person differently than they do another. To be more specific, the normal course of action when catching a person in possession of pot is to issue a citation - just like a speeding ticket. (If you don't believe me, look at the last traffic citation you or someone you know received - there is a check box for possession). However, in this case, there was more to be gained by police - the names of the dealers. So, the individual was arrested, terrorized and extorted. According to the President of San Diego State University, all of these students were immediately expelled from school. Regardless of the deals given by police, these people have little to no future because they did exactly what is expected of every good college student - they experimented with drugs. But then again, I guess they still have a chance to become president...

So what have we gained from allowing the government to terrorize its citizens? An investigation that lasted a year, involved dozens of agents, cost taxpayers millions of dollars (so far - the trials and incarcerations will probably triple that) and in the end managed to seize far fewer drugs than they could have gotten by raiding any celebrities weekend stash.

Before anyone starts accusing me of promoting Anarchy or endorsing the legalization of drugs, don't. This isn't about any such thing. It is entirely about how we allow our government to abuse the rights of ordinary citizens because we feel that it is 'for the greater good'. If you don't think it will ever happen to you, then you are naive. Not only can it, but odds are it has or will happen to you or someone you love.

I can cite examples with at least eight friends of mine that, in the last ten years, have been subject to such situations. The most dramatic of which, landed a friend in a windowless room, facing a Secret Service Agent. When he demanded an attorney, the agent told him (and I quote) "We can make you disappear. [pause for effect] Now, you're going to tell me everything I want to know...". Needless to say, he cooperated.

I'm not anti-government or anything, but we have to remember, the only power the government has is the authority we grant it - this is our guarantee by the constitution. The converse is also true - we have the right, and it is our responsibility, to take away any power we have granted the government that has been abused. In the end, if we let them violate our rights, we're responsible. Know your rights, and don't let anyone give them - or take them - away.

Finally, the federal government is going to step in and make the credit companies play fair - or are they? The Federal Reserve has proposed new regulations on credit providers to make it easier for people on tight budgets to actually pay off their credit cards. However, every expert in the field agrees that by the time the legislation is done with the assault by lobbyist, it won't likely be worth the time they put into making the laws. As a matter of fact, the pork they will attach to the bill will surely be more than the money they will save those for whom the bill was intended to protect.

There are three problems facing this legislation:

First, the whole notion of curbing 'unfair practices' by the credit companies. What is unfair for the consumer is not unfair to the credit companies. This is clearly denoted in the following quote from the Fox News article:

Ken Clayton, senior vice president of card policy for the American Bankers Association, said the industry will fight the new proposals, describing them as "aggressive regulatory intervention in the marketplace that will result in higher prices and less consumer credit."

He said the change "basically says that we can't price for risk" and that if higher risk borrowers don't bear the costs, those costs will be passed along to other consumers."

To which I say to Ken and his cronies: Lower consumer debt is EXACTLY what we need! And if you find a person is at such a high risk of not paying back the money they borrow, why would you offer to extend them credit in the first place?

Before he can baffle you with BS, I'll tell you - because the way the laws are set, they can legally rape you for the rest of your life. Enough is enough America! Wake up, cut up (your cards) and stand up for your right to be treated as an equal to the Bill Gates, Paris Hiltons and Warren Buffets of the world. If the credit companies aren't going to treat you fairly, stop giving them the means by which they keep you down.

Second, although I'm certain that the Fed intends well, politicians make the laws and their campaigns are funded by big business. As much as they may want to help the less fortunate, they can't. If they did, they couldn't get re-elected because the source of campaign funds would dry up overnight. Until we demand that campaign financing be reformed in a way that prevents special interests from buying politicians, We The People will never, honestly, be represented by our elected officials.

Lastly, this is an election year. We do face some significant economic problems, which I believe are principally caused by high oil prices and the banking industry (there are other factors, but these are primary) that are legitimate and necessary to discuss in the election process. However, what we will get is political posturing and finger pointing. "The Republicans want blah, blah, blah...The Democrats want blah, blah, blah..." In the end it's going to be more about getting their candidate elected (or themselves re-elected) than what is truly in the interest of the people electing them.

 I understand a person being passionate about their cause. Clearly I'm passionate because I'm writing this now. Rev. Wright, however, has taken two steps beyond. He skipped obsessed altogether, going straight to fanatical.

Before anyone blows off calling me a racist, I say HA! You don't know me or my family. We are that great melting pot they call America. I would challenge anyone to demonstrate a family that represents more diversity than mine. Our heritage spans virtually every corner of the world, dozens of countries and virtually every race - all within a three generation span. Yes, this includes Black, White and Indian (Cherokee), just to name a few. As far as religions, we run the gambit - Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Agnostic. We may even have an Atheist or two in the bunch.

That said, lets get on to Rev. Ridiculous.

1. This whole thing has NOTHING to do with the Black Church. It has everything to do with believing in your country and the values for which it stands. Unfortunately, I admit, for some people it is about politics. Then again, Character Matters, and who you choose to call friend is a good reflection of your judgment and character. One or two mistakes is understandable. Three, four, or more mistakes denotes a pattern for which we should show legitimate concern.

2. Where are the terrorist training camps in the U.S. that send out suicide bombers to murder innocent civilians? Don't tell me it's the military bases. I know better. I served my time, and nowhere in any of my training or years of service was I ever encouraged to strap on a bomb and blow up an Arab market. If you want to accuse the U.S. of exporting terrorism, bring proof - not 'policies'. Policies aren't terrorism, blowing up my kids in school because you don't like my choice of religion is.

3. In what asylum did he get the idea that the U.S. created A.I.D.S. to kill black people? The last I checked, a virus doesn't distinguish between races. Many viruses don't even care about species. This government has been passing out condoms for decades. Try using them. Better yet, try using a little common sense. If a man or woman is willing to sleep with you after knowing you for a couple hours at your local bar, chances are you are just one in a long line of sexual indiscretions. Be smarter than him/her. The vast majority of HIV/AIDS cases are caused by one of two things: Ignorance and stupidity. For the terminally stupid, I hope you have a lot of luck on your side. For the blissfully ignorant, take a minute to educate yourself and avoid becoming a victim.

4. The government nor it's people owe anyone an apology for Slavery. President Lincoln (R-IL) ended that nearly 150 years ago. The only cause to continue pushing for an apology would be to pin the government into a potentially disastrous legal position. I recommend reading the Wikipedia entry on Slavery, particularly the segments titled Apologies and Reparations. I would also suggest reading the related article Slavery In the United States, which clearly states that both blacks and whites were subject to a form of slavery called Indentured Servitude. It also points our that some Native Americans and Free Blacks held slaves - although this was not a common practice. Personally, I have never had a slave. To the best of my knowledge, nobody in my family over the last six generation (at least) has had a slave. I have never taken any action to repress anyone - black or otherwise. So, to anyone that finds this to be a sore spot, I offer the same advice I got as a child: "Grow up. Life isn't fair. Get over it. The only one you can blame for your predicament is you. So stop your whining and do something about it."

5. The only one I see, at this point, that is 'Stuck on Stupid", is the Rev. himself. Listen, you aren't doing yourself, your candidate, your church, or your race any favors. Shut the hell up until you can say something that brings us all closer together. Everybody: Stop pointing fingers at others and start looking in the mirror. Set your worthless ego aside and take responsibility for your own ignorance, mistakes and behavior. Only then will this divisive trend end.

When asked my opinion of politicians, I like to say: The only difference between a Republican and a Democrat is which of your rights they'd like to take away. Here's just one more example.

Rockford, Illinois now (as of Aug 2007) has an ordinance on their books that makes it illegal for your car to be heard more than 75 feet away. Albeit the intent of the ordinance is to prevent people from playing loud music, but on it's face, this could also include a bad muffler, squeaky brakes or a loose fan belt.

Penalties begin at $150 for the first offense and can climb as high as $750 for a third offense. But wait, there's more. As an added bonus the officer does not have to witness the offense in action. Simply accusing someone of playing their music too loud, if the officer thinks the accusation is legitimate, is sufficient evidence to issue a citation.

But that's not all folks. No, sir. Not in Rockford, IL. As an added bonus, the offending vehicle is, by default, declared a public nuisance and - without evidence or a conviction - seized (i.e. Impounded) . Now they tack on $75 for towing and $15 - $20 per day for storage. Adding insult to injury, if the officer has to wait more than an hour for a tow truck, you can be billed $60/hour for the officer's time. Note: The vehicle is the nuisance, not the driver - as if the car had any say in the matter.

There is an appeals process that looks to take as much as 75 days. No, you may not get your car out of hock during this time and yes, the fees continue to accumulate up to $1100. Best of all, if you don't pay the fees (or appeal) within 30 days, the cops get to keep your car permanently.

Those are the facts...now for my opinion:
This is one more example of self-righteous, upper-income, do-gooders run amok. Yes, I understand we all want peace and quiet in our lives, but how much does a car playing loud music really hurt us? This time of year the weather is beautiful and I love to catch a little news or a movie in the evenings with the doors and windows flung wide. Every once in a while, a car goes by with the music blaring. I shake my head in amazement that their ears aren't bleeding and hit PAUSE on the DVR until they pass and I can hear the television again. But was I really wronged? Not in the slightest.

The idea that the government can seize your property EVER, but especially without proving that you actually committed a crime, is WRONG. Period. End of discussion. Now that they can take your car for loud music, how long until they can seize your house for hosting a loud party? Don't tell me it would never happen to you. I guarantee that if you let this happen to someone else, at some point it will come back and bite you in the a$$!

Sources:
theNewspaper.com
The Rockford Register Star
The actual ordinance (256K PDF file).

I've been reading and hearing many stories about alligator attacks over the last few days. One report here on Fox 13 claimed that alligators had not attacked humans in more than 70 years. To be fair about this claim, the story had specifically mentioned the American Alligator.

However, other stories claim that there have been 17 fatal attacks by alligators since 1948 - three of which had occurred in the last couple of weeks. Yet another store reported that a woman in New Port Richie could not leave her home because of an alligator. When police arrived, the gator attacked and had to be shot and killed.

To our reporter friends - get the stories straight. If you can't get simple situations like this correct, how can we take your word on complex situations like politics?

Before I begin, I want to say that I was unable to locate any reference to this news story on Fox (it was probably displaced by the story about the M&M lover that tried to steal the Peanut M&M Statue). Therefore, I will break with tradition (at least my tradition) and post the link to the AP story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080422/ap_on_go_pr_wh/whi
te_house_secrecy).

A quick summary: A liberal organization is suing the Bush Administration and the White House (how do you sue a building?) to force the Secret Service to release logs of people that have visited the White House. Although they claim that there is no way they could tell why they were at the White House from these logs, they insist the logs be released so 'We the People" can tell if religious conservatives are being offered too much access to the President. One of their arguments is that these records were used to investigate the Lewinski affair (I thought they said they couldn't tell from the logs why a person was at the White House?)

Anyhow, the case has already been through the lower courts that ruled the records must be released. It is now in the appeals court. What I find amazing is that when the judges pressed the plaintiff for some compromise solution that would ensure that the President would be able to seek council from whomever he chose while ensuring the public the transparency of government we must maintain, the lawyers were clueless. Not really, I'm sure. For them it's all or nothing.

Constitutional background (You can skip this paragraph if you understand the three branches of government and separation of powers):
We have three branches of government: Judicial (the courts), Legislative (Congress) and Executive (The White House - this also includes most everything else...DHS, FBI, CIA, etc.). According to the intent of the constitution, we have three branches to act as "Checks and Balances" - in other words, each branch is tasked with running their branch and making sure the other two branches don't run amok. In many ways, this has worked very well. In many ways, it has failed miserably. (A perfect example woild be to contrast the demands of this case with last years FBI raid on the Congressional offices of William Jefferson (D-LA) - if you need details, drop me a note.).


So, now it appears to be up to me to offer a compromise that we can all live with. I have two proposals:

Proposal #1: Release the documents, modified in such a way as to ensure that the White House can be absolutely certain that nobody can discern anything more than WHO visited. For example, At the end of each quarter (every three months), release a list of unique names of all persons that visited the White House. This should include all visitors - tourists, caterers, Official White House Dog Walkers, etc. No dates, times, titles, occurrences, purpose, duration, etc. If the only thing the lawyers want is a list of who visited, this should be enough. I'm sure they will be completely dissatisfied with this proposal, so let's visit Proposal #2.


Proposal #2: Apply this ruling equally to all branches and all levels of government. If you mandate the release of all visitors to the White House, then all visitors to Congressional and Judicial Offices should be released as well. This should also be applied to State Representatives, State Senators, Governors, County Council Members, Mayors, City Council Members, Dog Catchers, etc.

I'm so confident that this proposal would be so universally rejected that the law suit would be withdrawn within minutes of serious consideration by the Appeals Court.

While they're at it, why do they release the rest of the documents relating to the Assassination of J.F.K.?

Late last week, the judge in Texas handling the case of the 'polygamists' ordered that all of the children, now in the care of the government, be required to submit a DNA swab to determine which children belong to which parents. However, this judicial order applies only to minor children. The adults from the compound have no such requirements - at least, not yet.

To justify the order, police are saying that a family relationship in this sect is more arbitrary than the traditional "This is my mom and dad", to which we are all familiar. For example, all women in the sect are referred to as 'mother' - regardless of biological relationship. Next, if a male member of the cult falls out of favor with the church leadership, his 'family' can be taken away and 'reassigned' to another male member. Also, police argue, almost no legal documents (marriage or birth certificates) exist to support or refute any legal or biological relationships. To the best of my knowledge, no mention has been made of death certificates or obituaries that would aid in this research. Finally, it is being reported that in many cases the members (adult and child alike) will offer inaccurate or constantly changing information (often called lies) to the authorities. It is unclear to me at this point whether this is through deliberate act or because of the individuals ignorance to traditional interpretation of these matters.

Each male member has one legal wife, the remaining 'wives' are by spiritual designation with no legal credence. The argument against this practice is that the cultists only follow this method to avoid being charged with polygamy. Some would argue similar ceremonies are used by the homosexual community to avoid legal challenges to their unions.

The last point I would like to present, is that this entire case was initiated because of a phone call by an individual that claims she was sixteen years old and was raped and abused by her fifty-year-old husband. Repugnant as that appears on the surface, to date, it does not appear that the woman in question was among the children collected by the state. Not only that, but some reports have been made that she may have called from Colorado, which begs the question: Why call the Texas authorities?

Here's what I would like to hear from you, the readers:
Do you think the police had the authority to raid this 'compound' in the first place?

Is the word Compound a fair characterization of the property or just a biased word being used by the press to foment their viewers? (I ask this because any less controversial property with similar attributes would probably be referred to as a Ranch)

Should the order to provide DNA also apply to the adult members of this sect?

If so, what would be your reaction if the police raided your church, school or neighborhood and made similar demands of you? (Please don't say this couldn't or wouldn't happen to you because you aren't part of a cult. If they get the right to do it here, they can make any claim they want to justify the collection of DNA samples from anyone).

One further note here: Did you know that the police could not conduct this raid without a warrant, but that Child Protective Services has every legal right to enter any home in America under the guise of 'protecting children' - and no warrant is necessary? You cannot refuse their entry because they are not a Law Enforcement Agency. I suppose you could refuse, but this would probably suffice as probable cause for Law Enforcement to obtain a warrant - at least in many jurisdictions.