Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    May 2008
    S M T W T F S
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    25262728293031
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Archive for May 22nd, 2008

Appeals court rules against child seizures

Posted by Richard on May 22, 2008

This decision strikes me as a victory for parental rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law:

SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) — A Texas appeals court said Thursday that the state had no right to take more than 400 children from a polygamist sect's ranch, a ruling that could unravel one of the biggest child-custody cases in U.S. history.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the state offered "legally and factually insufficient" grounds for the "extreme" measure of removing all children from the ranch, from babies to teenagers.

The state never provided evidence that the children were in any immediate danger, the only grounds in Texas law for taking children from their parents without court approval, the appeals court said. The state never provided evidence that teenage girls were being sexually abused, and never alleged any sexual or physical abuse against the other children, the court said.

"The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger," the court said in its ruling, overturning the order to keep the children by state District Judge Barbara Walther, a former family law attorney.

The appeals court also said the state was wrong to consider the entire ranch as an individual household and that any abuse claims could apply only to individual households.

This story doesn't mention the anonymous phone calls cited at the time as grounds for the warrant. Considering what we've learned since, the state probably didn't rely on that "evidence" during the appeal.

 The caller claimed she was a 16-year-old girl at the compound who was being abused by her uncle-husband. Authorities had no idea who (or where) the caller was and no corroboration of the story, but a judge signed off on the warrant anyway.

Weeks later, investigators determined that the caller was actually a 33-year-old Colorado woman, Rozita Swinton, who's made similar hoax calls on other occasions (and is apparently very convincing).

Many of the other claims made by Child Protective Services to justify taking the 400+ kids have also fallen apart:

Roughly a third of the children taken from the west Texas ranch were babies, and only a few dozen were teenage girls.   Of the 31 originally believed to be underage mothers, 15 have been reclassified as adults — one was 27 years old — and the state conceded a 14-year-old girl had no children and was not pregnant, as officials previously asserted.

About the time that Swinton was identified, an old friend wrote me about this case, and I recall thinking I should read up on it and post something. But it was during one of my distracted periods, and I never did. I never replied to that email, either; sorry, John! I'll make amends by quoting your message, which says it as well as I could:

I am perplexed that there is no real uproar over the raid on the LDS compound in Texas. Putting aside any judgments about the issues of plural marriage and young marriages (btw, just why do we ban plural marriage?), the raid was based on a single call [several, but the point's still valid -ed.] to a non-governmental center and was anonymous at that. There was no evidence presented. There was no smoking gun. And now it seems that the call was a hoax. Where are the civil libertarians when it comes to this raid? What happened to the ACLU?

I certainly am not arguing that the call should not have been investigated, nor am I defending the compound. I do think more time and effort should have been invested in finding out if the story even made sense. The state had time to organize the raid, which involved hundreds of law enforcement and human services employees, but not enough time to find out if the call was even real. Using anonymous sources to get warrants as was done here violates our constitutional rights to face our accusers. When justice and our rights under the constitution become situational we are indeed in trouble.

And yet I see no one asking the essential question of the state of Texas, "Do you have this right?" I know this will play out in court and be settled after long years and much expense but the lives of the 400+ children are being sacrificed in the process, along with those of their parents.

Thanks to this appeals court ruling, this case may play out much sooner than John anticipated. But that doesn't change the fact that the local and state authorities acted outrageously.

I suppose it could have been worse. If Rosita Swinton had claimed that her uncle-husband-abuser had an illegal automatic weapon, the whole "compound" and everyone in it might have gone up in flames, like that other weird religious group in Texas.

UPDATE: Walter in Denver was pleasantly surprised by this ruling, too. That reminds me — I really should have congratulated Walter for winning that Vodkapundit caption contest. Outstanding! 

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Congress overrides veto of bloated farm bill

Posted by Richard on May 22, 2008

Yesterday, President Bush vetoed this year's 673-page, $300 billion* farm bill, which is even more of an abomination than most farm bills:

While it continues and, in some cases, expands traditional farm subsidies, the 673-page measure is stuffed with billions of dollars of new money for anti-hunger programs, conservation programs, fruit and vegetable growers and the biofuels industry.

"Members are going to have to think about how they will explain these votes back in their districts at a time when prices are on the rise," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "People are not going to want to see their taxes increase."

She added, "Congress is asking families to pay more in subsidies to wealthy farmers at a time of record farm profits."

Not only that, but Congress is also paying farmers to keep land idle and to devote more of their acreage to corn for ethanol at a time of record commodity prices, rising grocery bills, and international warnings about hunger and famine. 

Nothing better exemplifies the hypocrisy and corruption in Congress than comparing their treatment of Big Oil — they grill energy company CEOs and self-righteously chide them for their record profits and tax breaks — versus their treatment of Big Agriculture — they lavish tens of billions in direct subsidies on ADM and its fellow feeders at the public trough (who are also making record profits).

The House overrode the veto within hours, and the Senate followed suit today. Both did so by lopsided margins — there's no shortage of Republicans eager to join the Democrats in keeping the pork projects and special interest subsidies flowing. 

But hold your horses! The current Congressional leadership is not only extremely liberal, it's also inept. The version of the bill that they sent to the President is different from the one they actually passed:

Due to a printing glitch, the version that Bush vetoed was missing 34 pages on international food aid and trade _ a mistake that may require Congress to send the White House yet another bill.

The printing error turned a triumphant political victory into a vexing embarrassment for Democrats.

The party's leaders in the House decided to pass the bill again, including the missing section in the version that Bush got. That vote was 306-110, again enough to override another veto from Bush should the need arise.

Democratic leadership aides said the Senate will deal with the problem when Congress returns in June from a one-week vacation.

House Republicans used the error to plead Democratic incompetence. They complained that Bush vetoed a different bill from the one Congress passed, raising questions that the eventual law would be unconstitutional.

Well, at least there were some Republicans who actually objected to both the bill and the travesty of a process. Most of them seem to have embraced bipartisanship. You remember what bipartisanship means, don't you? It's when the members of the stupid party and the evil party get together and do something that's both stupid and evil. 

* I've seen price tags ranging from $289 billion to $330 billion, apparently because of some sleight-of-hand and gimmickry in the bill that makes the actual cost hard to determine.

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“Objective” journalist comes out of closet

Posted by Richard on May 22, 2008

Bob Bidinotto:

In today's campaign news, Linda Douglass, contributing editor to The National Journal, has just joined the Obama campaign as a senior strategist and a senior campaign spokesperson. Drudge headlined this today as "POLITICAL JOURNALIST LINDA DOUGLASS GOES TO WORK FOR OBAMA…"

I think that's completely unfair: It fails to give credit to the many thousands of other political journalists who are working just as hard for Obama, but who aren't even drawing a fat paycheck for their services.

Not only that, it overlooks the fact that Douglass went to work for Obama quite some time ago. 

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Congress says don’t drill, sue

Posted by Richard on May 22, 2008

Just a week ago (for the umpteenth time in the last 25 years), Democrats thwarted efforts to increase domestic oil and gas production by blocking access to vast supplies in ANWR and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We can't "drill our way to lower prices," Sen. Durbin said.

This week, Democrats passed (with the support of countless craven Republicans) an alternative solution cleverly entitled the "Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act." It says that instead of producing more oil, we should just sue OPEC and force them to produce more for us. (Robert Bryce suggested we also sue the Dutch to make them produce more Heineken.)

And today (also for the umpteenth time), Democrats are lambasting oil company executives. Besides the usual demagoguery against "obscene" profits, senators criticized the oil firms for not investing enough in exploration and refineries.

But wait! I thought burning more oil was evil — that we had to give up our "addiction to oil" in order to save the polar bears and prevent the seas from boiling. I thought we all had to accept the fact that, as Sen. Obama chided us, "[w]e can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times …"

So why do our brilliant Congressional leaders want to force the OPEC countries and oil companies to produce more oil?

Maybe it's so that they and their Hollywood friends can continue to jet off to "save the planet" events around the globe in their private Gulfstreams. (And then condemn wealth and profits, of course.)

Or maybe it's all just posturing and pandering and jockeying for more power. 

Subscribe To Site:

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »