Replies

I guess we'll see in the days to come but I'm guessing that this report is pretty one-sided. Simply reading it makes me question its credibility.

I'm perfectly aware the CPS and other government organizations can act like modern-day Nazis but that is not usually the case. CPS needs to get children out-of-harm's way anytime there is possible merit to the accusation until it can be determined that the situation is safe. The default position is to be on the safe side and take action. This family's lifestyle is unusual enough that it raises red-flags. Hopefully, the investigation is completed quickly and the children can be returned to their family because it can be determined that there is no danger to the children.

Unlike some others, I wouldn't put too much stock in the photograph. The family certainly cleans up well but that doesn't necessarily mean that they look like that all the time.

Earlier this week, I had a conversation with another church elder about the CPS. We had become aware of a potential abuse situation. The authorities had acted and put the victim out of danger. Given the circumstances, we agreed that it would have been a really tough call on the authorities' part but they made the right call. The conversation surprised me because in the past, this man had been highly, highly critical of these authorities.

I have a long memory regarding the state and its treatment of adults when children are involved. I’ve seen too many stories like this one:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=wenatchee+child+abuse+scandal

Time told that it was every bit as corrupt as it appeared.

And it is but one such story.

CPS needs to get children out-of-harm’s way anytime there is possible merit to the accusation until it can be determined that the situation is safe.

Your use of the word “safe” is one of my challenges here. The word has no meaning without a qualifier. Driving around without a seat belt is considered by many to be unsafe. Yet we did it for decades. And riding around on a motorcycle without a helmet is considered unsafe, but you are “safe” if you wear a DOT approved helmet. Yet only a fool would consider it safe compared to riding in a car without a seat belt.

Subjective words need qualifiers. And that is the rub. This whole story is “subjective”. My neighbors live in a single wide that has a very well manicured lawn. But if you go inside, it LITERALLY looks like a garbage dump. I’m talking garbage stacked against the walls, etc. They also have a large hole in the living room floor covered by a 4x4 steel plate.

None of my business. The kids are fine, and are not beaten bloody. With freedom comes some tough decisions and consequences.

I prefer freedom over living in a clean zoo. Does that mean I have neighbors with a dumpy lifestyle? Yep. And they have that right as long as they don’t live in Singapore. And I have the right to place my home in a spot on my acreage where I don’t see that stuff.

I guess we’ll see in the days to come but I’m guessing that this report is pretty one-sided. Simply reading it makes me question its credibility.

I should chime in on that: I agree with you. In most of these cases it turns out the folks are not people you would want as your neighbors. But for me it is really not about them. It’s about the state and what it uses as justification to get involved, via the power of the gun, in the life of an autonomous family.

Notice the kids don’t have SSN’s? That is “proof” they are nutjobs to many. It proves to me that they are willing to, as John Adams said, risk their “comfort” for freedom.