Yet another Libertarian loony

[Suddenly]

Are you having trouble reading??? "...investigation as to the legitimacy of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Internal Revenue Code." AS TO THE LEGITIMACY OF. As in, THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS TO FIND OUT.

This is basic English, people.

That is claim A. As to that claim I asked, and you dodged, the simple question that if he doesn't really believe this how does he justify launching a criminal investigation? Seems clear either than he really must have some good faith belief that this is true or else he is promising that he will abuse the crimnal justice system by using it official investigations based on little more than a whim.



Most of what we are talking about is claim B, the part of Badnarik's promise that I bolded the first time I posted it in this thread to indicate what I was talking about:

High ranking officials from that department would be closely monitored as flight risks, pending indictments for fraud in the event that evidence proves that they knew that no statute exists that requires Americans to fill out a 1040 form and relinquish a significant percentage of their hard earned money to an unconstitutional government that refuses to operate within a budget.

This is what Jacko referred to in his first entry that I agreed with, and your cries about the 16th and "unconstitutional" or whatever are completely irrelevant as to this claim has nothing to do with the legitmacy of the 16th amendment.

 

[Jocko]

This is what Jacko referred to in his first entry that I agreed with, and your cries about the 16th and "unconstitutional" or whatever are completely irrelevant as to this claim has nothing to do with the legitmacy of the 16th amendment.

Agreed. But please, it's "Jocko." Jacko is the one facing molestation charges in California. I merely have a glove box full of parking tickets.

That'll teach me to not think through my screen name properly before casting it in stone.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by RPG Advocate [/i]

>>I'm curious, The Central Scrutinizer, what is the basis for your opinions on both issues?

"Central" never has any basis for his/her opinions. These people are just different. That's enough for "Central".

Of course, Rouser2 is retarded. My basis to claim that? Read his posts.

 

[Suddenly]

Agreed. But please, it's "Jocko." Jacko is the one facing molestation charges in California. I merely have a glove box full of parking tickets.

That'll teach me to not think through my screen name properly before casting it in stone.

Weirdly enough I've been referring to you that way for a while, and by accident at that. No malice intended, at least so far...

Sorry....

 

[Jocko]

Weirdly enough I've been referring to you that way for a while, and by accident at that. No malice intended, at least so far...

Sorry....

I get that a lot. But if I start referring to you as "Precipitately," you'll know why.

 

[shanek]

Let me make sure I understand. You are saying they were in poor health?

Then this makes a little bit more sense. If the parents were failing to provide the basics of medical care, then they aren't fulfilling their obligations as parents. And that is loony, and more than a little bit loony.

The only medical issue I'm aware of is the vaccination issue. One of the children does have diabetes, but I've never heard of that being cited as a reason for taking them.

As for what's been going on in court, we don't really know, because they were closed at the insistence of DSS (and in violation of Article I Section 18 of the North Carolina Constitution) and Stratton was hit with a gag order. We do know that nothing was done to take the kids from the Strattons for SIX WEEKS after the initial visit, during which time Jack moved his family to a larger home in Gaston County where there would be plenty of room for all of them. THEN they came to remove the children. We also know that the second-oldest child has accused his foster parents of sexual abuse. North Carolina law requires that a child abuse case be investigated within 24 hours of it first being reported; DSS waited EIGHT DAYS and refuses to release the results of the medical report. We also know that the court has sided with the Strattons on the vaccination issue and that Kathy has produced her homeschooling license. We also know that the oldest child was always open and playful, playing kickball with his siblings and having conversations with whomever was around. When he was finally released back to the Strattons, he had lost over 10 pounds and had become nonverbal.

So, you tell me: who's doing the child abuse here?

Following reports of squallid conditions, possible abuse, and possible ill-health, DSS investigates. They find that the lousy conditions and ill-health are well founded.

Except that they didn't. We know that, too.

They offer to help by putting the Strattons in touch with appropriate services provided by the government. The Strattons refuse and spout a bunch of Biblical nonsense.

I'd REALLY love to know what you're basing this on. For over a year the Strattons complied with every order trying to get their kids back. This included going through a series of psychological examinations. When DSS kept routinely cancelling the very last appointment, causing them to have to start all over again, they got the feeling they were being jerked around and started fighting back.

Meanwhile, their kids, in poor health, continue to suffer.

Aside from the one that has diabetes, how were his kids in poor health?

I have heard of occaisional cases where kids were removed from parental custody because the parents refused to provide needed medical care. The case that comes to mind involved Christian Scientists. In my opinion, the state acted ok. Is this such a case?

No. Jack is NOT a Christian Scientist. He has taken his children in for medical care before, particularly the diabetic one, and he himself spent time in a hospital earlier this year when he had a heart attack. His religious beliefs involve the issue of going to the doctor when one is healthy. Try again.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'd REALLY love to know what you're basing this on.

Shane, you really need to do something about that compulsive knee jerk.

My original message said very clearly what I was basing this on.

It said, quite plainly, "pure speculation".



When I hear about a case like this, I always wonder where the rest of the story is. I am quite confident that there is more to this story. I just don't know what it is.



But thanks for the information. Based on what I have learned here, and what I found on the web, it sure seems like this is a genuine horror story, and a case of government services that are way over the line. It's amazing that we put incredible power into the hands of social workers.

I suspect that if I met the Strattons, I would decide that they were oddballs who could be charitably described as "eccentric", but there is no crime in that. Meanwhile, the court and service system that took their kids strike me as dangerous.

It's not enough to make me vote Libertarian, but it's enough to emphasize that sometimes, the Libertarians have a good point. I might go so far as to vote Republican more often.

 

[Solitaire]

I agree, that would be insane, but I've never
heard anyone, Libertarian or otherwise, make it.

Maybe he's misreading my chart.

 

[shanek]

Maybe he's misreading my chart.

But all that chart says is that commodities trade at a certain value, something that would be insane to deny. So, I'm still left wondering WTF he was talking about.

 

[billydkid]

This is too much!!!



I know it's not polite to make fun of the mentally ill, but I can't help myself...

You really have it in for libertarians, don't you? I can't friggin figure out why. You don't like freedom? You don't think people should be free to own and control and take responsibility for their own lives? You don't see that personal freedom is inextricably linked to economic freedom? The Cato's are whackos? You just hate libertarians which I find just, plain nutty. Particularly in light of the fact that the libertarians want nothing from you, don't want to compell you to do anything and have no interest in dictating anything about the way you live your life. Is it that they want to leave you alone too much? Or is it that they insist that you not dictate how others live? And in what way is this guy you link to associated with the libertarians?

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Yet another Libertarian loony

And in what way is this guy you link to associated with the libertarians?

He's the Libertarian Candidate for Mecklenburg County (NC) Commissioner At Large.

 

[Meadmaker]

I did a bit more web searching on the Strattons and it's a very strange case. I haven't seen a single anti-Stratton commentary. I've seen lots of pro-Stratton commentary.

Of course, the government side would be respecting orders not to talk about the case publicly, so that would explain some of it.

But, for those interested, I'll give a brief synopsis of what I found. This is pieced together from accounts, including an interview with Kathy Stratton, the mother.

The Strattons were a family of 10 children and two adults who occupied a three bedroom two bath duplex. (That was how it was described in an interview with Kathy Stratton. I believe that the total duplex, both sides, had three bedrooms and two baths.) When it became obvious that repairs were needed, the father moved everyone to one side of the house to make the repairs.

Social Services got a call from a concerned neighbor, and went to investigate. They found 12 people living in what I assume would be a two bedroom one bath apartment. Jack Stratton was slightly cooperative, but not very. In particular, he refused to allow the social worker to interview his children privately. The social workers left, saying "We will take care of this later."

The Strattons' response was to vacate the house and move the entire family into a log cabin in the next county, leaving no forwarding address or phone.

So, at this point, social services has come to a home in response to a concerned neighbor, found an uncooperative subject, who clears out and heads for the next county as soon as they are out the door.

In my mind, that would make me suspicious.

DSS tracked them down after a few weeks and, while Jack was working, arrived in force and took the kids.

To be truthful, I don't think DSS's response was all that unreasonable. People who, literally, head for the hills when the law shows up at their door usually do so because they are up to no good.

That doesn't mean that I think DSS are the good guys in this fight. It still appears to me that the Strattons have been sorely wronged by a bunch of out of control do-gooders. The overwhelming amount of press, reports mostly from Christian but also from mainstream sources, are pro-Stratton. I can't believe that would be the case if there were credible evidence of child abuse or danger to health. However, there are some things to be skeptical of. But, more on that later.

I take interest in these sorts of cases because, much more so than the big great issues of the day, these things affect us directly. I'm not all that concerned if government taxes me too much. I would like to keep my money, but I know they will get some of it. It's just a question of how much. However, when government asserts that it has a rigth to decide that I am an unfit parent and my kids would be better off elsewhere, that really hits me where I live.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re: Re: Yet another Libertarian loony

You really have it in for libertarians, don't you?

No, just loony toons.

I can't friggin figure out why. You don't like freedom? You don't think people should be free to own and control and take responsibility for their own lives? You don't see that personal freedom is inextricably linked to economic freedom?

I love freedom. Yes to the 2nd question. And the third one.

The Cato's are whackos?

I don't know. Who are they?

You just hate libertarians which I find just, plain nutty.

No, just loony toons. Same answer as above.

Particularly in light of the fact that the libertarians want nothing from you, don't want to compell you to do anything and have no interest in dictating anything about the way you live your life. Is it that they want to leave you alone too much? Or is it that they insist that you not dictate how others live? And in what way is this guy you link to associated with the libertarians?

Good for them. It's hard to say what they want. You have to wade through the loony toon part to find out, and I just don't have time.

The answer to your final question - I think he's running for dog catcher or water commissioner somewhere.