Look what welfare and food stamps can buy

[underpants]

There are signs that the systematic refusal of the fundamentalists to co-operate with the authorities is creating considerable confusion. The police may well have a problem if they can't locate that 16-year-old girl, and they have plainly been confused by the huge numbers of people with the same name – multiple Barlows, Jessops and Jeffses. The man they arrested was Dale Barlow, but he claims never to have set foot in Texas. They might have been muddling him with Dan Barlow, who was mayor of Hildale and Colorado City, or with Sam Barlow, a one-time close confidant of Warren Jeffs, or any number of people with the same name.

Long-time observers of the FLDS say the confusion is part of a long-standing strategy of trying to wrongfoot the authorities. In fact, the FLDS has long had an overt policy of trying to sting the government for everything it can – in the form of food stamps, tax breaks and subsidies. An FLDS member will generally declare his first marriage and take the tax benefit, then let his subsequent wives claim welfare as unemployed single mothers. Down the years, the church has earned hundreds of millions of dollars in public funds this way, a process it describes derisively as "bleeding the beast".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/zion-raid-the-ranch-has-not-yet-revealed-all-its-secrets-808370.html

Hildale -- Welfare is often how polygamist communities like Hildale in Utah and Colorado City in Arizona substantially support themselves. Polygamists often use food stamps to feed their families. Former polygamist Benjamin Bisline said, "If it wasn't for government subsidies, these people couldn't survive. There are people here with 15 wives on welfare.'' Bisline still lives in a polygamist town.

The twin polygamist communities of Hildale and Colorado City on the Utah-Arizona border totaled 5,274 in 1998. And everything within these towns is overshadowed by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS), the largest polygamist group in North America.

Colorado City and Hildale were on a list of the top ten towns with a population over 2,000 in the Intermountain West for reliance upon Medicaid (health care for the poor) in 1998. And in that same year the same towns draw from the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program (food for low-income mothers) could only be equaled by Western Indian reservations and impoverished inner cities. 33% of Hildale and Colorado City residents were using food stamps in 1998. To put this into perspective, respectively Arizona's average was 6.7% and Utah's 4.7% during that same period.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy5.html

[Kitty Herder]

1. It's not just welfare and food stamps. They have some profitable businesses.

The welfare and food stamps are just supplemental income.

[underpants]

7. Western Precision

http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/2006/04/taking-stock-of-western-precision.htm

http://www.westernprecision.com/quality.html


http://factnet.org/?p=313
Federal Funds used by FLDS Cult…
TEXAS:Polygamist sect received taxpayer cash. Businesses tied to the polygamist sect at the center of a child abuse probe received federal government loans.
BY JACK DOUGLAS JR., McClatchy News Service

FT. WORTH, Tex. — American taxpayers have unwittingly helped finance a polygamist sect that is now the focus of a massive child abuse investigation in West Texas, with a business tied to the group receiving a nearly $1 million loan from the federal government and $1.2 million in military contracts.

The ability of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or FLDS, to operate and grow is largely dependent on huge contributions from its members and revenue from the businesses they control, according to a former accountant for the church, and government officials in Utah and Arizona, where the sect is primarily based.

One of those businesses, NewEra Manufacturing in Las Vegas, has been awarded more than $1.2 million in federal government contracts, with most of the money coming in recent years from the Defense Department for wheel and brake components for military aircraft.

A large portion of the awards were preferential no-bid or ‘’sole source'’ contracts because of the company’s classification as a small business, according to online databases that track federal government appropriations.

NewEra, previously known as Western Precision Inc. and located in Hildale, Utah, also received a $900,000 loan in 2005 from the federal Small Business Administration, the data show.

[varelse]

85. These million-dollar contracts are not food stamp or welfare payments

Your thread title is misleading and inflammatory. It would have been more accurate, and more fair, to say "this is what congressional oversight committees are for" or "this is what our military budget is funding". Please PLEASE don't hand the neocons any more weapons to use in their war on the poor.

Thank you.

[Marrah_G]

12. They have huge home building companies

They use the boys to work and do not pay their employees. The boy goes home to be cared for using state and federal funds, after working a long day and the "church" keeps all the profits from the company.

Quite a scam they have going.

[fed_up_mother]

120. And those boys should be going to school

I'm shocked at the attitude of some of the people here.

[AzDar]

2. Like Al Capone, a little forensic accounting could be the solution to

unraveling this mess.

The female members of this cult haven't a chance as things stand.

Utterly nauseating.

[Debau2005]

3. I was a welfare social worked in the 90's

I was in Alabama, so the laws may be different. But we required women on public assistance to apply for and comply with child support regulations. They had to submit men to be tested as the father, and when they were confirmed, we went after them for child support. If they refused they lost their licenses, auto, boat, business, etc.

I wonder how they got around this. Of course the women could lie, but you would think being strict religious fundamentalist, they'd have an issue with breaking that commandment.

To bad, I am completed my Masters already, this would have been an interesting case study.

I am sure we have not seen all of the dealings this group has with local govt's and state agencies.

[fed_up_mother]

51. The state of Texas

is making these parents step forward and claim their children. Heretofore, they've been lying about whose children belong to whom. Because of all the previous lies, I think the state will be within it's right to demand dna tests. Once that is done, even if the children go back to the cult, these men could all be faced with lawsuits from the state of Texas demanding that they backpay child support to the state for the welfare, foodstamps, etc. that has been give to the mothers. This cult business is NOT poor. They've amassed quite a bit of assets and money, apparently.

This is one way to begin to unravel this cult.

The problem is that in other states, law enforcement officials have been sympathetic to these "men," but here in Texas, age of consent laws were re-written when this sect showed up, so the laws are now in place to get these men. The laws were written so that parents can not consent to the marriage of their sixteen year old daughter if their is an impediment - like a previous marriage! And if she is indeed a subsequent wife, then it's not a real marriage. And if what I've been reading is correct, parents cannot consent to the statutory rape of their sixteen year old daughter! duh
And none of this even includes the very real possibility that many of these young women were younger than sixteen!

ETA - They have no problems lying to "bleed the beast." It's ingrained in them.

[kestrel91316]

77. Lying to the authorities is a sacrament for these people.

[KG]

4. not a black baby or cadillac in sight!

:eyes:

[underpants]

5. Well now where on earth would you get an idea to mention THAT

:eyes: indeed

Oh but rest assured everyone is just falling all over themselves to make damn sure no civil rights were violated in THIS case. No wouldn't want that now would we. Civil rights are just so important.

:sarcasm:

[KG]

22. i was thinking more in terms of debunking welfare stereotypes.

[underpants]

25. I know

I got it

:hi:

[KG]

86. oops. knew it was sarcasm, not sure where it lay....

[mntleo2]

134. More whites than blacks are on Welfare, it is a fact n/t

[kestrel91316]

80. ALERTING. Racist flamebait.

[Cleita]

88. Why? It's what Ronald Reagan said when he started to

dismantle our system of social safety nets by blaming them on welfare queens in Cadillacs. He was talking about black women and their babies and everyone who heard those code words knew it. Yet, statistics at that time showed that the majority of welfare recipients were white women with children and the elderly.

[kestrel91316]

102. It needed a sarcasm smilie, then.

[KG]

105. whew!

[kestrel91316]

108. Forgive me. I am too het up over all the polygamist abuse thing.

Fuse is getting short.

[fed_up_mother]

97. Not so fast

I think some of the rapists are driving escalades.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. Have you seen this? FLDS owned company was awarded $1.2 million in federal government contracts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3162544

[underpants]

9. Just posted that above and kicked that thread

see KG's post above

[JDPriestly]

8. Question.

You seem to know a lot about this. What is meant by the word "polygamy" in the news reports about the FLDS. Is it used to describe a relationship established by obtaining a marriage license? If not, these people are just living together. They may be married in their church, but that marriage is not legally recognized. In other words, they are not married at all, and are not technically polygamists. If the word "polygamy" is used correctly and these people are marrying with licenses, then who is issuing the licenses?

If the people are married in church but did not obtain marriage licenses, then they are not really polygamists. It is misleading to use that term if they are just living together. The problem then is not polygamy but child abuse -- sexual abuse of minor females and possibly also physical and emotional abuse of children through other conduct such as excessive discipline.

I haven't followed this story. Please explain.

[underpants]

13. JD that is a great point

I can't say that I know all that much about it I just went looking to try to figure out how they afforded all this (they have worked together at this for a long time--see posts above about Western Precision and your tax dollars).


I guess the polygamy just refers to the practice of being multiple married. I don't know.

[zanne]

17. "An FLDS member will generally declare his first marriage and take the tax benefit".

If you declare a tax benefit after getting married, it seems to me you'd need a marriage license. I wondered about the illegality of polygamy, too. I thought that, if it's just spiritual marriage and doesn't involved licenses or the government, it isn't illegal. But the fact that they're taking a tax benefit tells me that they are supposedly "legal" marriages, which would make them "illegal".

[Marrah_G]

18. They only claim the first ( and only legal) marriage.

[zanne]

24. So if they become only "spritually" married to other wives...

It isn't illegal. That makes sense. I wish the MSM would explain how it all works, though. They make it seem like polygamy is legal by not broaching the subject. It just goes to show how religious groups have the government and media under their control.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

23. Texas is a common law marriage state

If two people co-habitate say 'thats my spouse' and do so in the public then you are for all legal purposes married..

[RB TexLa]

30. in an exclusive relationship, Texas common law marriage only reconigezes it for

one man and one woman. It's been tried both by law enforcement and different groups to obtain various legal rights or a way around laws and always failed.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

32. Of course they dont recognise more than one common law marriage

Because any more than that is bigamy! But you only need to satisfy the three conditions of a common law marriage to be guilty of bigamy.. You're saying that because multiple common law marriages are not legal than they must be ok?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/polygamy

"Most states base their polygamy laws on the Model Penal Code section 230.1, which provides that a person is guilty of the third-degree felony of polygamy if he or she marries or cohabits with more than one spouse at a time in purported exercise of the right of plural marriage."

The existence of a valid marriage entered into by the defendant prior to the second valid marriage is an essential element of the offense in every jurisdiction. No particular type of ceremony is required for the first or subsequent marriage before someone can be prosecuted for polygamy. Even persons who satisfy the requirement for a Common-Law Marriage can be prosecuted for entering a subsequent marriage that itself is either another common-law marriage or a traditional marriage."

[RB TexLa]

41. The prosecutions that arise from what you are quoting are usually

from a complaint of fraud by a spouse unaware of a previous marriage. I'm not saying what I am ok with, just that a prosecution based on this would be very shaky in court. I am also willing to bet that this cult is very knowledgeable of and uses the marriage and family laws to it's advantage.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

43. Its the law and it can be prosecuted for *any* reason because they are breaking it

Multiple undeclared common law marriages are *not* a loophole around bigamy laws. And there was fraud going on, specifically welfare fraud the fact that its not one of the perp blowing the wistle is besides the point.

[RB TexLa]

46. A requirement of common law marriage is the declaration of it

That would be the problem with a prosecution based on this. It could and I'm sure it has been tried. The really big problem would be cooperative witnesses.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

55. Not really they have these folks all over TV talking about their husbands

[RB TexLa]

69. They have not said they are in an exclusive, ongoing committed relationship as husband and wife

Or do you think the 2ed, 3ed, or 4th, or however many wives there are were tricked into thinking their "marital" relationships with their shared husbands were exclusive? If you are not making the claim of exclusiveness then you are not declaring a common law marriage in the state of Texas.


The exclusive requirement comes from living together as husband and wife, which by the definition of marriage in Texas these people can not do because one of them is married and it is known to the other.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.001.00.000002.00.htm#2.401.00
(2) the man and woman agreed to be married and after
the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife
and there represented to others that they were married.



Under the law, I think these are ongoing adulterous affairs. If the men are providing for the children by subsequent wives they do risk the fraud in them receiving government aid. Although we don't know what the men report as income to the government, all their children might qualify for government aid.

[JDPriestly]

49. Violations of welfare and child abuse laws sound like the most likely

grounds for prosecution.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

56. Umm

If they were not acting in a commonlaw marriage what welfare laws where the violating?

[Marrah_G]

68. Refusal to identify the father even though they live together

They are getting benefits they would not get if they were honest about their living situation. That is fraud.

If daddy had a good job and makes decent money, yet instructs his 9 "Baby Momma's" to say the don't know him or live with him so they can collect all those benefits, that is welfare fraud.

[mntleo2]

135. They are using these women for slaves

...usually these men are lazy and just a penis with legs, with little other use. I heard the same thing from African women friends from many African countries who tell me the men in their cultures are lazy and pompous. I have also heard the same from my Middle Eastern women, Asian wives, and East Indian women friends as well. They all laugh behind their hands and tell me the men act decent here, but when they return home to their natal countries, it is back to the same ol' same ol.'

Polygamous societies only make sense for war making, male dominated cultures which creates a shortage of men due to their stupidity, violence and haughtiness.

Thank God that not all cultures are that silly ... :sarcasm:

Cat In Seattle

[LanternWaste]

36. Almost... the couple still has to have a signed affidavit

Almost... the couple still has to have a signed affidavit from the City Clerk of Records (or County Clerk if within unincorporated land) for the marriage to be recognized.

I know this through personal experience-- without the affidavit, the couple may live together for sixty years and would still not be legally recognized marriage.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

38. But it would be recognised as

meeting the criteria of common law marriage which is enough to prosecute bigamy..

[LanternWaste]

54. Are you referring to any specific TX statutes? If so, which one(s)?

My understanding is that if there is no state record of a signed affidavit (the minimum requirement for the status of Common Law Marriage), there is no legal basis for prosecuting (i.e, no signed affidavit precludes civil divorce and hence, divorce proceedings, partitions of estates, etc.)

Are you referring to a (some) specific TX law enforcement statutes? If so, which one(s)?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

60. Your own post

Family Code § 2.401. PROOF OF INFORMAL MARRIAGE. (a) In a
judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the marriage of a
man and woman may be proved by evidence that:
(1) a declaration of their marriage has been signed as
provided by this subchapter; or(2) the man and woman agreed to be married and after
the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife
and there represented to others that they were married.

Ergo getting a church service marriage and presenting yourself to the community (part2) is sufficient in place of part (1)

[LanternWaste]

62. You appear to be leaving out a relevant portion...

You appear to be leaving out a relevant portion...

"(a) A declaration of informal marriage must be signed on a form prescribed by the bureau of vital statistics and provided by the county clerk.... "§ 2.402.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

63. Not at all

There are two ways one involves doing it that way but part to of Family Code § 2.401 clearly says you can accomplish the same thing by informal non state ceremony and a community declaration of marriage..

[LanternWaste]

103. is this simply your own interpretation of the state statutes?

For my part, when I was peripherally involved (family member) in a common law marriage case, it never went beyond the initial hearing stages due solely to the fact that an affidavit was never signed.

The judge pretty much said that if there was no signed affidavit, then there had been in fact, no common law marriage.

Granted, this was in civil court so that's the reason I asked you to cite a relevant statute that for a possible criminal case (the upcoming LDS hearing) which would nullify the ruling of the judge I encountered.

Or is this simply your own interpretation of the state statutes, or do you know through a particular case, jurist or bar member that your position is indeed, fact and law?

[crispini]

118. MMmm, I live in Texas and all I know (anecdotal evidence)

that one of my friends never got formally married, never got any kind of affidavit or anything, but when they split up, she had to get a for-real divorce, because she was considered common-law married. Kind of sucked for her.

[kestrel91316]

83. Well then, THAT'S a big "oops" for FLDS. They should have checked out

the laws a little closer before they moved to Texas.......

Why on earth they thought what worked in the Mormon elclaves of rural Utah and Arizona would also work in Texas (with its well-known BAPTIST, anti-Mormon tendencies) is beyond me.

Note to FLDS: Next time, do your homework. I know this is difficult because you inbred freaks are all frickin' ILLITERATE, but please read up on the law before settling in someplace thinkin' you are gonna get a pass like you did in Colorado City/Hilldale. Sheesh.

I smell numerous bigamy convictions for the men if nothing else........

[SoCalDem]

37. Tax benefit for ONE wife, but "dependent" benefit for ALL the kids

kids don't HAVE to be "legal"..as long as they are YOURS..

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

19. Sorry but youre really stretching it

If the people are married in church but did not obtain marriage licenses, then they are not really polygamists.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/polygamy

"Most states base their polygamy laws on the Model Penal Code section 230.1, which provides that a person is guilty of the third-degree felony of polygamy if he or she marries or cohabits with more than one spouse at a time in purported exercise of the right of plural marriage."

The existence of a valid marriage entered into by the defendant prior to the second valid marriage is an essential element of the offense in every jurisdiction. No particular type of ceremony is required for the first or subsequent marriage before someone can be prosecuted for polygamy. Even persons who satisfy the requirement for a Common-Law Marriage can be prosecuted for entering a subsequent marriage that itself is either another common-law marriage or a traditional marriage."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Common-Law+Marriage

"A union of two people not formalized in the customary manner as prescribed by law but created by an agreement to marry followed by Cohabitation."

A common-law marriage has three basic features. When a common-law marriage is challenged, proof of the following elements is critical in most jurisdictions.

1. A present agreement to be married. The parties must announce to each other that they are married from that moment forward. Specific words are not mandated, but there must be evidence of an agreement to be married. Proof may consist of Circumstantial Evidence, including evidence that the partners have cohabitated and held themselves out to the public as being married. However, neither cohabitation nor a public holding out constitutes sufficient proof to establish the formation of a common-law marriage, either by themselves or taken together. An agreement to marry must be proved by the party asserting marriage.

2. Cohabitation. The parties must actually live together in order to support a claim of common-law marriage. Whether maintenance of a separate home by one of the parties will nullify a common-law marriage is a Question of Fact and depends on the circumstances of the particular case.

3. Public representations of marriage. The couple must consistently hold themselves out to the public as married. A married couple is expected to tell people that they are married. They should also file joint tax returns and declare their marriage on other documents, such as applications, leases, and birth certificates."

BTW, Texas is a state that recognises common law marriage..

[JDPriestly]

45. If Texas recognizes common law marriage, that may be the law.

It is not the law in California. California is a code state.

Here is the Texas law on informal marriage:

Family Code § 2.401. PROOF OF INFORMAL MARRIAGE. (a) In a
judicial, administrative, or other proceeding, the marriage of a
man and woman may be proved by evidence that:
(1) a declaration of their marriage has been signed as
provided by this subchapter; or
(2) the man and woman agreed to be married and after
the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife
and there represented to others that they were married.
(b) If a proceeding in which a marriage is to be proved as
provided by Subsection (a)(2) is not commenced before the second
anniversary of the date on which the parties separated and ceased
living together, it is rebuttably presumed that the parties did not
enter into an agreement to be married.
(c) A person under 18 years of age may not:
(1) be a party to an informal marriage; or
(2) execute a declaration of informal marriage under
Section 2.402.
(d) A person may not be a party to an informal marriage or
execute a declaration of an informal marriage if the person is
presently married to a person who is not the other party to the
informal marriage or declaration of an informal marriage, as
applicable.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, § 1, eff. April 17, 1997.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1362, § 1, eff. Sept. 1,
1997.

Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 268, § 4.12, eff. September 1,
2005.


§ 2.402. DECLARATION AND REGISTRATION OF INFORMAL
MARRIAGE. (a) A declaration of informal marriage must be signed
on a form prescribed by the bureau of vital statistics and provided
by the county clerk. Each party to the declaration shall provide
the information required in the form.
(b) The declaration form must contain:
(1) a heading entitled "Declaration and Registration
of Informal Marriage, ___________ County, Texas";
(2) spaces for each party's full name, including the
woman's maiden surname, address, date of birth, place of birth,
including city, county, and state, and social security number, if
any;
(3) a space for indicating the type of document
tendered by each party as proof of age and identity;
(4) printed boxes for each party to check "true" or
"false" in response to the following statement: "The other party
is not related to me as:
(A) an ancestor or descendant, by blood or
adoption;
(B) a brother or sister, of the whole or half
blood or by adoption;
(C) a parent's brother or sister, of the whole or
half blood or by adoption;
(D) a son or daughter of a brother or sister, of
the whole or half blood or by adoption;
(E) a current or former stepchild or stepparent;
or
(F) a son or daughter of a parent's brother or
sister, of the whole or half blood or by adoption.";
(5) a printed declaration and oath reading: "I
SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, ARE MARRIED TO
EACH OTHER BY VIRTUE OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS: ON OR ABOUT (DATE) WE
AGREED TO BE MARRIED, AND AFTER THAT DATE WE LIVED TOGETHER AS
HUSBAND AND WIFE AND IN THIS STATE WE REPRESENTED TO OTHERS THAT WE
WERE MARRIED. SINCE THE DATE OF MARRIAGE TO THE OTHER PARTY I HAVE
NOT BEEN MARRIED TO ANY OTHER PERSON. THIS DECLARATION IS TRUE AND
THE INFORMATION IN IT WHICH I HAVE GIVEN IS CORRECT.";
(6) spaces immediately below the printed declaration
and oath for the parties' signatures; and
(7) a certificate of the county clerk that the parties
made the declaration and oath and the place and date it was made.
(c) Repealed by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1362, § 4, eff.
Sept. 1, 1997.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, § 1, eff. April 17, 1997.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1362, § 4, eff. Sept. 1,
1997.

Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 268, § 4.13, eff. September 1,
2005.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/fa.toc.htm

Please note: 2.401(d) (d) A person may not be a party to an informal marriage or
execute a declaration of an informal marriage if the person is
presently married to a person who is not the other party to the
informal marriage or declaration of an informal marriage, as
applicable.

They were not legally married. They were eligible to have an informal marriage legally registered. If the girls were under 18, an informal marriage could not be recognized. These people were simply living together, but were not legally married.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

47. But in the case of prosecuting bigamy you dont need a signed

document, you only need them to meet all the other requirements

[Manifestor_of_Light]

70. Only one common law marriage at a time.

Any other wives constitutes bigamy.

Common law marriages do not have to be registered with the county clerk. A common law marriage can be established by testimony in court as to the elements: a)No prior impediments (one or both parties presently married to someone else); cohabitation;c)holding yourself out as husband and wife to the community.

Yes I am a lawyer but I don't play one on TV.

[Kitty Herder]

20. They're not legally married, but to them, civil marriage doesn't matter. It's the

"spiritual marriage" that matters. My opinion is that as long as they recognize themselves as married, that's what makes them married, not a piece of paper.

But that lack of a piece of paper also enables the welfare fraud.

[JoDog]

27. And If they recognize themselves as married

and present themselves as married to other members of the community......

SNAP!

That mousetrap you just heard is called "common law marriage". That makes it bigamy. Which is illegal.

Now if they can just get someone in the compound to testify about it.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

44. They dont need that they have the women on camera

talking about 'their husbands'

[JDPriestly]

50. I found the Texas Code. Please look at my post.

As I read it, just living together is not sufficient under Texas law to establish an informal or common law marriage.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

52. No but living together

and saying 'thats my wife' *is* enough

[LanternWaste]

57. declaration of informal marriage must be signed on a form prescribed...

In addition to, (a) A declaration of informal marriage must be signed on a form prescribed by the bureau of vital statistics and provided by the county clerk.... "§ 2.402.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

61. Nope read the law you posted more closely

There is an *or* part to that..

[LanternWaste]

64. I'm afraid I'm missing the relevant "or" in subsection 2.402.

I'm afraid I'm missing the relevant "or" in subsection 2.402. You could direct me to it, yes...?

[JDPriestly]

34. Whether they could even be considered married depends

on whether the state in which they live recognizes common law marriage. In California, you have to comply with certain laws in order to be recognized as marriage.

[kestrel91316]

82. FLDS is a cult that practices systematic child sexual abuse,

torture of infants, abandonment of adolescent boys, and brainwashing and reproductive enslavement of women.

They label it polygamy to try to legitimize it.

[Cleita]

10. Makes me wonder why the authorities don't crack down on these

sects. It's obvious they are breaking laws relating to bigamy, statuatory rape, regular rape, child endangerment and incest. The welfare rolls should present a pretty strong case to the Utah and Arizona authorities to bring these sects into compliance with the law and if they can't, then the feds should step in. The fact is that the state authorities of both states have looked the other way and tolerated the situation so it seems the feds should step in.

[underpants]

15. I think you are all around the reason

taxes or tax funds but in the other direction
















they are probably paying lots and lots and lots of property tax

DING!!!

Okay that is a guess since I am not sure how Texas Utah and Arizona use/collect/have property tax but I would not be surprised if that is part of the reason.

[Cleita]

90. So you are saying that authorities are willing to overlook

law breaking for the taxes they bring? I mean I think they would get property taxes no matter who owned the property. It could be that they claim tax free status as a religion as well and don't get any taxes at all.

[zanne]

107. Claim tax free status as a religion...

From the OP...

Long-time observers of the FLDS say the confusion is part of a long-standing strategy of trying to wrongfoot the authorities. In fact, the FLDS has long had an overt policy of trying to sting the government for everything it can – in the form of food stamps, tax breaks and subsidies.

I think we can assume that they get tax-free status as a religion.

[Kitty Herder]

11. I keep thinking, "That is one butt-ugly temple."

[NNN0LHI]

14. Its kind of the same shape as a four poster bed

[Kitty Herder]

16. Yeah, kinda freudian. Creepy. nt

[Angela Shelley]

39. Hi NNNOLHI, that was a really funny comment

about the shape of the bed. :-)

How do you imagine the interior decorating to be?

[KoKo]

31. There's very little of shrubs and trees in that compound. I know it's a desert area...but why

wouldn't they have a garden to grow some food...or plant a few trees for shade. Do the sparse surroundings somehow contribute to the oppression going on in that cult?

[PVnRT]

21. So...they're welfare queens, then

I expect all the hardcore conservatives to start using this as an example. :sarcasm:

[underpants]

26. Eeee

xactly


OOh and government contracts too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3162544

[Fireweed247]

28. There is no possible way the government didn't know what was going on there

And I am afraid for these children. They let this continue so they could eventually take all these children and put them into one of their MKUKLTRA programs. They will probably brainwash them and turn them into Republican political bloggers, or newscasters or the new crop of politicians. Who better than these children who have no experience out in the world? They will do whatever they are told.

[woo me with science]

29. This story is horrific

but it doesn't make your recovered memories true.

[Fireweed247]

35. eh?

:shrug:

[InsultComicDog]

33. Couldn't the two states involved

change their welfare laws so these claims would be denied?

[LeftinOH]

40. The outbuildings look a bit like giant chicken coops.. which is essentially what they are;

keep the females and their young separated, then the males make their 'rounds'. I doubt there's any normal nuclear-family relationships there.

[SoCalDem]

42. C'mon TEXAS... Crack down on welfare cheats

They should investigate and CUT off welfare payments to ALL of those groups..

If they want to keep having babies & cannot afford them, then the state just needs to take those kids away and adopt them out..

These people are NOT like the Amish who do NOT abuse their children..

This is ABUSE..and it's state sponsored, if they give them welfare

[bobbolink]

59. that's exactly what I figured--"progressives" will now demand an end to food stamps

and welfare.

Let the rest of us eat cake.

"If they want to keep having babies & cannot afford them, then the state just needs to take those kids away and adopt them out.. "

HOW is this any different from what racists have said for decades about black folk on welfare?????????

[SoCalDem]

65. VERY different... read the articles n.t

[bobbolink]

72. How is it different? Racists have always thought they were right...

It's the same process, slightly different content.

[underpants]

66. (If I may) I think that the above poster was saying that they should have to adhere to the rules

and the rules can be changed/adapted as part of a involved citizenry voicing their concerns and elected representatives ...and so forth

This isn't an all or nothing deal. One mistake does not mean you throw the bath water out.

[bobbolink]

74. "One mistake does not mean you throw the bath water out."

Um, actually, that's the baby... the bath water Needs to be thrown out.

:) :) :) :) :) :)

But what you are saying, is EXACTLY the process that keeps happening.. because some idiot group misuses the badly needed gov't programs, ALL get cut. Or dismantled completely.

You must forgive me... it was the DEMS who cut welfare, and I don't trust them to be on my side anymore.

They have shown themselves to be out for political gain, and to hell with hurting people. THIS is a perfect example of how that very thing is set up.

Yet, I don't expect DEms to be DEMANDING that welfare and food stamps be preserved!!

And I see it right here, once again.

How many people must suffer and die because of these emotional reactions?

[Greyhound]

131. The inevitable result of our predisposition to legislate and regulate based on the most extreme,

and rare, of circumstances.

Three madmen http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6624098383615052103">hold up a bank in NoHo with automatic weapons, the first such incident since the 1930s, and LA spends 10s of millions of dollars putting military assault weapons in every squad car, and complete the transition of a civil police force into a domestic military force. Another madman kidnaps a child from her bedroom and kills her, a horrible tragedy to be sure, but also thankfully rare, we get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan's_Law">Megan's Law, a travesty of justice and a major curtailing of the constitutional rights we all claim to hold dear. A small group of maniacs hijack 5 planes and use them as missiles to attack US capitalism and we happily surrender the last vestiges of our civil liberty out of irrational fear.

Just like prohibition, this will never work and the price we will pay is beyond comprehension, and all because we simply react like dumb prey animals instead of the thinking people we like to think we are.

[bobbolink]

133. very good examples. Thank you!

It's time for us to start thinking things through, instead of reacting in the heat of the moment.

[KillCapitalism]

73. Food stamps should NOT be ended.

However, there needs to be more oversight to prevent the abuse of these services by groups like these sick-ass pedophiles.

[bobbolink]

76. Unfortunately, it's that "OVERSIGHT" that always ends up hurting those most in need!

Just talk with a lot of people who apply, and you'll find out what this has done in the past.

[KillCapitalism]

81. What CAN be done to prevent this?

It really pisses me off that these pedophiles were taking in millions in private donations/slave labor, etc. and then taking welfare benefits. These people probably screwed hundreds of deserving families out of welfare benefits. I'm really surprised no one caught on to this earlier.

[bobbolink]

84. There may be nothing. We can live with that. This is EXACTLY the same argument

that the RW makes, and ends up with cuts.

We MUST learn from the past on this!

We MUST learn not to keep making the same arguments!

If we CAN think of something truly "different", then discuss it. But this thread is a highly emotional backlash, and it will ALWAYS end up hurting those of us who can least absorb more HARM!!

[underpants]

78. 1 in 11 will soon be on Food Stamps

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/us/31foodstamps.html?_r=1

[bobbolink]

94. Not if "Dems" join the RW and protest the use of food stamps!

What is your point with the article?

How does that address what I'm trying to get across to you?

Your thread title alone is inflammatory and baiting the people who already think there should be cuts, if not outright elimination of food stamps.

Why are you emotionally setting up such an outcome?

[underpants]

99. No it is not at all

You have been jumping allover this thread try to coax an argument where there is none

No one is saying we should end food stamps. My last post alone illustrates how much they are clearly needed.

[bobbolink]

116. ohmy..... you have been jumping all over defending the right to punish these women and children.

Your defense of your stand is the same that RW groups have used over and over in the past.

It's time we start looking inward at our own selves, and understanding how we've bought into the same conservative mind-meld.

[LanternWaste]

104. I don't think anyone on this thread is calling for the absolute repeal

I don't think anyone on this thread is calling for the absolute repeal of any type of welfare assistance. As for the header in the OP, I immediately took that to be a statement of irony.

On the other hand, I think I can infer from some posts that many would like to see and end to individuals and groups abusing and gaming an already strained system...

[bobbolink]

117. the very same argument that has been used time after time, and always

ends up hurting those most in need.

Funny that other countries can work around this, but we keep doing the same old punishing things, eh?

The "system is strained" because we keep attacking it in this way!

[Raksha]

128. I can't think of anyone who is MORE entitled to welfare and food stamps

than these abused women and children. Their benefits should continue. What I don't understand is why the benefits were going to "the church"? How did that work anyway? I'm sure the individual women didn't control a dime of that money, or have any say in how it was spent. THAT is what needs to change.

[fed_up_mother]

136. Some of these men are actually wealthy

Why should our tax money support their children? There are too many women who actually need the help.

Now, if they leave the bastards, and their rights are terminated, then I think we should offer them all the help available, and maybe make some extra help available. I'm sure most of them don't even know how to write a check. They will need some intensive training to get along in the world.

[bushmeister0]

48. "Bleeding the beast." isn't that Grover Norquist's mantra?

These folks are in line for a presidential medal, as soon as W. finds out about this.

[underpants]

67. Close

I think they tend to call it "starve the beast" or at least Krugman had a great article with that phrase in it a few years ago.

[bushmeister0]

93. Starving the beast, drowning the baby

"'Starving the beast' is a fiscal-political strategy of some American conservatives to use budget deficits via tax cuts to force future reductions in the size of government. The term 'beast' refers to government and the programs it funds, particularly social programs such as welfare, Social Security, and Medicare."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

Uh huh.

[bobbolink]

75. Yes, this is the "perfect storm" for ending food stamps for ALL.

This is EXACTLY what the right wing wants, and from what I see, we'll all play along with it in the heat of the moment.

:cry:

[proud2BlibKansan]

53. Is that a Cadillac in the parking lot?

:)

[bobbolink]

58. Now there will be a BIG backlash against welfare and food stamps. Are "progressives" ready to fight

for the rest of us??????

Or, are progressives gonna just shrug and let it all be cut.. once again?

[Beaverhausen]

71. Bobbie - this is a different situation

The members of the FLDS have numerous children for the purpose of collecting welfare. They are cheating the system and making it look bad for those who truly need it.

No one here wants all welfare or food stamps taken away for those who truly need them.

[bobbolink]

79. It's always "different". It was "different" when Clinton took away Wefare.

"The members of the FLDS have numerous children for the purpose of collecting welfare. They are cheating the system and making it look bad for those who truly need it."

As I said, exactly the same thing that has been said about blacks for decades, and was used to rationalize cutting welfare.

It's time we learned from the past.

[fed_up_mother]

96. The reason you don't see the men

is because they don't want to be identified as any specific child's father and actually have to support his children.

You don't have a problem with that? Personally, I think that men (and women) who "can" support their children, should support their children! Meanwhile, some of these fellows are driving monster SUVs, including escalades. They also have very profitable contracts with the government. (barf)

[bobbolink]

98. You don't see a problem with cutting off children and women who are helpless??

You are a Dem?

A "progressive"?

[fed_up_mother]

109. No, I don't. Not if they continue to live with these abusive men.

Now, if they leave, I think we should do all we can to support them - same as any mother.

At some point, these women go from being victims of abuse to enablers of abuse. The cycle needs to STOP!

I consider my point of view quite progressive.

[bobbolink]

112. "Let 'em eat cake". Quite the liberated and "progressive" view point you've

raised there.

Enjoy your stay. While it lasts.

[Marrah_G]

137. I think what you are missing is that the the men do have money

And those men are living rather well with not only their own money, but our money also. And they laugh about it.

Think about what would happen if Joe schmo- father of 3- decides not to marry his "wife"- they live as man and wife- he has a good job- they have a nice home- plenty of food etc. But she goes and collects FS and AFDC checks for her and the kids.

Would that be legal? No, it would be fraud.

If they are cut off none will starve, they have money, they just prefered using ours. They think we are evil so stealing doesnt count when it is from us.

[Javaman]

87. So who is going to buy that place?

no doubt it comes with it's own dungeon and wet bar.

[underpants]

89. I can think of someone to IMMEDIATE occupy it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3170378&mesg_id=3170378

[Cleita]

91. He can use it for his library, the one no one wants to help him build. n/t

[caseycoon]

92. WAIT A MINUTE!

This is a strong PATRIARCHY. The women have no say in anything. They have no choices. Most of them don't know any other way to live. It's what they've been taught all their lives. You cannot arbitrarily take welfare & food stamps from the women & children. The other problem I see with taking everything away from a particular group is which group shall we pick next? After we starve out the polygamists all over the country that is? To be progressive you need to look at the whole picture. You also need to work on compassion. I don't have the answers for this mess, but don't let the anger & disgust over what these people have done goad you into changing laws that protect others, & think about the children involved here. Please.

[bobbolink]

95. "which group shall we pick next?" EXACTLY!!!

This is the same, exact method the RW uses.

You have it delineated right down the line!

:applause:

It's so sad to see "progressives" with such a knee-jerk reaction!

[underpants]

100. Nobody is saying that at all

My original title was a sarcastic take on the conventional wisdom about WHO gets welfare, food stamps, and other "entitlements". As noted by several people above it is NOT "welfare mothers in cadillacs" (are you familiar with that saying and what it means?)

[caseycoon]

101. Yes, I am familiar with it.

And indeed there actually have been many such abuses. There were several of the replies in your thread that did seem to be advocating changing the laws, depriving the polygamists etc. I didn't want to reply to each so I just replied to the whole thread. I think the men involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, don't get me wrong, I sure don't approve of any part of what they have done, but some of the folks here scare me when they start attacking programs for the poor people. One of my many hot buttons, I'm afraid...
:hi:

[bobbolink]

113. Actually, if you really read through 'em all, that is EXACTLY what they are saying.

Some talk about targeting certain "groups".

That's been done so much in the past, I would think we would automatically question the HINT of it now.

:cry:

[fed_up_mother]

110. We MUST take away the government aid!

These women are enablers of abuse. As long as they continue to live with the abusers, more abuse will continue.

If they leave, they should get as much help as possible from private sources AND our government.

[bobbolink]

114. You have all the RW talking points done quite well.

You've been studying at the Heritage Foundation again, right?

[fed_up_mother]

119. Are you joking?

Have you done any reading on this cult?

Do you think a twenty-five year old woman with five kids and a fourth grade education really has any choice in leaving? She has no friends on the outside world. We're "evil" remember? She stays because she has no other options. These people aren't like the Amish, who give their teens a choice, and whose women are not forced into marriages at young ages.

Good grief! Don't you listen to these women talk? They all sound like they're taking too much prozac. (A claim that former cult members say is common to keep the women in line.)

First, the men need to be supporting the children they father. Second, if it can be proved that he's been abusive or had sex with underage girls or participated in anything like that, his rights need to be terminated. If the women want to stay with these men, their kids should be taken away to break the cycle of abuse.

I can't believe any progressive is siding with these people. Everything needs to be done to end it - including drying up the funds that they get.

[bobbolink]

121. There's nothing more to be said to the conservative talking points.

Dig a trench and keep all compassion at bay.

[caseycoon]

122. So why did you call the women enablers?

They are victims just as much as the children are. I think the men should be prosecuted for any and all crimes they have committed, but the women, no matter what their age, are all little more than children themselves as pertains to the ways of the "evil" world. With the men in jail (if such is ever the case) they will need help every bit as much as the children.

[fed_up_mother]

123. And I fully support giving the women every bit of government help

available if they take these kids and leave these abusers. However, if they stay with them, the abusers need to pony up and support these children. Maybe if we stop supplementing the rapes, they might at least slow down.

My compassion is with the kids, first and foremost. And if you read anything I've written, I know these women are victims. They have no way to support these kids, and no way out. HOWEVER, at some point they become victim and enabler when they turn over their thirteen year old daughters to have sex with a forty year old man. It's sick, vile, and disgusting, and I understand why they do it, but it's still wrong, and it needs to stop.

I'd like nothing better than to see the men in jail, and the women free of these perps, but as long as the women protect them, that's a hard thing to do.

SO...make the bastards support their own children. I don't see what's so freaking "conservative" about that.

[caseycoon]

124. The women have no choice.

They do as they are told. If one of the men takes their daughter they cannot stop him. I cannot see them as enablers in any way, shape, or form. As for protecting the men, what else can they do? All they know is this life the MEN have 'provided' for them. Without the men what will they do? It's as if you were a child & the cops wanted to take your parents to jail. You would protect them. Lie for them.
The rest of what you say, I agree with. I hope the bastards DO wind up in jail!

[fed_up_mother]

125. They have a way out RIGHT NOW

If they protect these men NOW, they are definitely victims and enablers, very unfortunately. I understand they've been brainwashed to do so, but at some point, they will lose their children if they continue to enable this behavior. It breaks my heart for them, but my heart is first and foremost with the children. The cycle of abuse needs to stop NOW.

[bobbolink]

130. um, I think because the poster is using "cool" words the poster doesn't understand.

:)

:hi:

:hug:

[G_j]

106. Shut down the military industrial complex, then talk to me,

the amount of $$ that goes into the war machine completely eclipses all else. Then of course there is corporate welfare, you know, as in Oil or pharmaceutical companies?

[bobbolink]

115. You're talking waaaaay too much sense! We must PUNISH these evildoers!

Never mind that they are women and children who are VICTIMS.

Wassamadda you, eh? :hi:

:applause:

[G_j]

111. comments? do you see any relationship to this story?

do you see any relationship to this story?
http://www.voltairenet.org/article30056.html


The Tactics of Using Food as a Weapon.
by Michel Sitbon*

An estimate of three to five million people starved to death in North Korea from 1993 to 1998. After that, the World Food Programme (WFP) started to provide people with minimum food aid to prevent a catastrophe from happening again. However, based on arguments used by Washington, several humanitarian organizations, including Médecins Sans Frontières, protested against that aid which, according to them, helped the dictatorship to survive. The WFP announced then that it was forced to interrupt this vital aid, due to a lack of financing. Once again, the United States was able to use the issue of hunger to attack one of the last bastions of Stalinism without caring about the fate of civilians in that country.


The World Food Programme -one of the UN humanitarian agencies- announced over a year ago, exactly on January 19, 2004, through its representative in Beijing, Gerald Bourke, that it was forced to interrupt North Korea’s food aid programme at that time <1>.

Two million seven hundred thousand North Korean women and children -the neediest people that were benefited by the programme- had no food aid during the 2003-2004 Winter (December, January and February) as a result of the lack of international donations. The United States and Japan -main donors within the WFP- didn’t contribute the necessary financing.

Médecins Sans Frontières stands against the World Food Programme

A few days after that, the media echoed the criticism of several organizations that denounced the aid. According to them, the aid did not benefit the people but the dictator’s regime in that country. On December 30, 2003, the French newspaper, Libération, published an article entitled: “North Korea: a dictatorship that receives international transfusions” that echoed the criticism of the NGO, Médecins Sans Frontières, against the World Food Programme. «We know the food situation is serious and that it even tends to worsen», Sophie Delaunay, of MSF, explained, and she added: «But we also know that 25% of its population is considered hostile to the Government, and has never received an aid ration. We have asked the refugees within the vulnerable groups, whether they are Chinese or North Korean, and they have never received anything from the international community».

Christiane Berthiaume, spokesman of the WFP, headquartered in the UN premises in Geneva, Switzerland, was then asking without disguising his displeasure: «What do we have to do? Do we have to watch on television programmes children starve to death and remain seated because the distribution system is not perfect?»
..more,,

[elizfeelinggreat]

126. perhaps this has been said already but the MEN

who run these things need to be prosecuted. PROSECUTED. Period.

The women and children are suffering. They need help and aid and they need us to take those men far away from them.

[fed_up_mother]

127. I agree.

[Raksha]

129. I agree that they need to get the men out of there immediately.

Every male over the age of eighteen--I'm sure most of them could be prosecuted for statutory rape, incest, child abuse, welfare fraud and other crimes. Get a restraining order on every male evicted from the compound and ENFORCE it, and also send in an army of social workers and deprogrammers.

I'm sure the women could run that compound and take care of their kids just fine without the men. They just don't know they can, and how would they after a lifetime of brainwashing and learned helplessness? It would require massive long-term therapy to make them realize they are capable of making their own decisions and running their own lives, but eventually they'd realize just how much better off they are without the slavedrivers.

[mntleo2]

132. IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE ...

The Mormon church has their own form of welfare for members ~ they own Alberson's stores and all or part of other mega-chains as well as Deseret Industries, which pays for their member's needs who ask for them. This is WHY they are so rich. I am not sure if these Nuts errrr, Fundamentalists are allowed these funds from the Church, but I would say they probably are cared for, or the women are as they have kids.

Besides that, thanks to Welfare DEformed, the Feds have mandated that any woman on welfare HAS to go to work when her baby is three months old.

*She is required to begin her work search and even if she does not have childcare, too bad. Her grant will be cut off and she is sanctioned (her grant is cut off) if she does not do what is required.

*She could work a low paying job, such as in Deseret which also "trains" people, much like Goodwill Industries and the Salvation Army, all of which are Federally funded at least partially.

*They do not care that her wage is below the poverty level and if she is, she and her kids will receive food stamps then, according to her wage amount, but it all depends on how many children she has.

*If she has more than two children she will not receive any more Welfare grant money than if she had two kids. So therefore she could have 10 kids and still only recive a grant for two children.

*Furthermore, she is only allowed to receive welfare for 2-5 years in her entire life, depending on what her state mandates, but the Feds say no more than 5 years tops for her lifetime.

In other words these MEN are using these women for slave labor some way, thanks to the Feds and with the blessings of their Church. If states do not cooperate with the Federal guidelines their block grants could and will be cut off and then it is up to the state to provide the money and support for these women. Thanks to Welfare DEformed it is Big Business now for industries such as Deseret, Salvation Army, Goodwill and others to use these women and the donations they get in exchange for corporate welfare, to "train" them while raking in seriously big bucks and then call themselves "non-profit."

Listen to me as I repeat: I am not sure what the Mormans mandate, but I am sure if they recieve federal money they have to abide in some way with these mandates. A woman is not allowed to be on welfare without abiding by these mandates or she is cut off, and this is federally mandated. Period.

As usual not only is it true that when greedy, manipulative, PERPS run the world, they not only force their women to dress in creepy clothes such as burkas and prairie dresses, rape them and force them to have children in puberty, they also make bucco bucks off the backs of the females who are (in their mind) only alive to give pleasure and be work horses. Slavery is profitable for men, it is that simple.

When women are empowered and their roles respected, the population goes down, and the culture is much more humane and more people benefit. It does not appear to be true just to have a female leader in a predominantly male olriented society either, the entire culture needs to have this respect/empowerment. From the Hopis to the Europeans this seems to be the case. There was in Iraq (Mesopotamia) a time when it was a matriarchal society and thus much more human and it was not until the worship of Ba'al, a male war god, that their society became more brutal.

Why oh why do we never learn from history?????

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[underpants]

138. Excellent informed post

Also-this is off the top of my head so take that as it is

Fromthis year's almanac "Welfare" (TANF really) is about 1% of Federal SPENDING -not budget but spending and 25% of recipient work (I think that is right)

LAstly in order to qualify for TANF ( I think it is TANF not WIC) the household networth can not be more than $2,000. That is the entire household and yes that does include cars. IF what I posted is true then these people know how to game the system in that they have several addresses to move women around and not have net worth issues. Clearly they do this by design.

Thanks cat great post.

[fed_up_mother]

139. thanks for posting this