See these photos at Matt Drudge's site ...

I never thought I'd get sucked into this thing. I've been a shameless Elian Agnostic from the beginning (ie, I couldn't get worked up either way).

But this siezure bothers me ... and the release of an apparently-bogus photograph of the kid bothers me even more. What's going on here?

-- Me (me@thisplace.net), April 23, 2000

Answers

Ever been in Miami in late April? It's hot! And Elian was probably sweating from that which would cause his hair to seperate and stick against his head. The picture with his Father is "face on" which makes his hair look thicker as well as the fact that the hair was probably dry and combed for that picture.

Talk about manipulation, drudge doesn't take into consideration that Elian is showing his top teeth in the smile with his father and you see a tooth missing from his bottom teeth in the pictures taken in Miami. Don't get sucked in by pictures, they can be manipulated.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), April 23, 2000.

Yes, Pictures can be manipulated, and have been.

The government is evil.

-- x (x@x.com), April 23, 2000.

My brother lived in Miami for years. It's not THAT hot at 5AM in the morning in April. The hair doesn't look matted, it looks THIN.

I don't understand the part about the tooth. You lost me (not hard to do). :)

-- Me (me@thisplace.net), April 23, 2000.

X,

I certainly don't think our government is as evil as many others around the globe. In fact, it's about the best. That's just more "sheeple-militia-evil gubbmint" nonsense; I have no use for that whatsoever (regardless of what I think of Clinton personally -- which isn't very much[g]).

I also don't want to be misunderstood: I'm not getting into the issue of whether Elian Gonzalez should go back to Cuba with his father; that's for a court to decide.

(And Factfinder? If we're going to be objective here, the argument could be made that the mother exposed her kid to danger on the high seas. For a comparable case which occurred with US citizens inside US territory, I can almost guarantee that this issue would come up in a US court.)

My complain is with the siezure itself and the way it was handled. I have also raised questions about the photos (using -- admittedly -- my interpretation of them). I'm firmly straddling the middle here. Custody cases are almost always emotional by definition, and people have strong opinions about them.

But just for the record: while a quick search didn't turn up anything specifically relating to immigration law and custody, it is a well-established fact that the COURT SYSTEM -- and the COURT SYSTEM ALONE -- gets to establish custody of a minor.

For example, from 28 United States Code 1738A, we see this definition in a section about each state recognizing the custody decisions of courts of other states:

(1) "child" means a person under the age of eighteen ... [and]

(3) "custody determination" means judgment, decree or other order of a court [emphasis mine] providing for the custody or visitation of a child, and includes a court providing for the custody or visitation of a child, and includes permanent and temporary orders, and initial orders and modifications;

[The INS does NOT have the right to establish custody. That's one error that I've seen repeated here (even by people whom I happen to respect and would normally agree with). The INS must work with the court system, same as everyone else.]

[But now for an interesting twizzle, while I'm stirring the mud here. Look at this paragraph and wonder: hmmm, was the child siezed because the federal government knew that his custody with the relatives in Florida was approaching the 6 months' point?]

(4) "home State" means the State in which, immediately preceding the time involved, the child lived with his parents, a parent, or a person acting as a parent, for at least six consecutive months ...

[And this one:]

(6) "person acting as a parent" means a person, other than a parent, who has physical custody of a child and who has either been awarded custody by a court or claims a right to custody;

[... and which "claim," of course, would probably be the issue in a court dispute! But historically, possession is nine-tenths of the law, and custody is nine-tenths of parenting!]

Again: I think it's up to a court to decide who ultimately gets custody. But I also think it's pretty clear that the Clinton administration wants the boy to go back to his father.

My complaint is with the way this thing has been handled. Reno scares me sometimes with her "OK, I tried negotiating, now we have no choice but to send in the gas/tanks/armed troops" attitude.

And I'm anything BUT a anti-government militia type.

-- Me (me@thisplace.net), April 23, 2000.

Cherri,

As Diane used to say at the old TB2000, "*sigh*."

After looking at the photos more closely, I agree that it's debatable. What appeared to be well-trimmed sides at first now looks like lighting and angles.

(Daggone it, I *said* I was an Elian Agnostic? Why am I even getting involved in this?[g])

(Answer: I'm done with it. Back to more important things.)

-- Me (me@thisplace.net), April 23, 2000.

I am not in a militia. But it is interesting that, from what I understand, the 'militia types' originally bought and paid for whatever residual freedom remains today.

The 'militia types' were once called "minutemen".

-- x (x@x.com), April 23, 2000.

Is Elian nothing more than a made-up story to divert the sheeples attention from the mounting y2k failures that are culminating up to the ultimate meltdown on Jan 1, 2001? Tick-Tock- Boom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Y2K Tommy (y@2.k), April 23, 2000.

That's a good question for debate, X. Were the minutemen rabble and vice versa?

As for Elian. Anybody read the Texas newspaper that put the whole illegal immigrant picture into proper perspective? Elian shouldn't be treated any differently than ANY other immigrant. And a six year old boy should be with his father, not an uncle twice-removed. It was a good thing and it was according to law. And if we don't like the law, then for god's sake, let's go to the polls and change the congress. This one's torn up the country for long enough.

-- Y (-@z.com), April 23, 2000.

This is utter bullshit. Drudge would sodomize his mother if it would generate negative publicity for Clinton.

You idiots that side with the lawbreaking Gonzalez cochroaches need to hop on the first boat out of here.

Go fuck yourselves.

-- Support our form of government or get the hell out (eat@shit.marisleysis), April 23, 2000.

Me,

I agree with you.

I think the US is wonderful. I know I am lucky to live here. I think the US Government does a pretty good job overall. I think President Clinton is one sorry soul.

I think Reno had absolutely no choice. It was clear that the Miami relatives would never release Elian to his father.

The INS and the Federal Marshals did a superb job. Three minutes, in and out, no injuries.

Elian looks happier with his father than he ever did during the five months of exploitation.

-- (retard@but.happy), April 23, 2000.

The poor quality of the images from the Graig office makes any judgement about manipulation suspect. Direct flash photography renders a shadow right behind the subject, often giving the appearance of fuller hair.

Having said that, and in summing up this unfortunate press manipulated event, we'll look just to the Washington Post, which wrote this morning in their lead editorial that the Clinton administration did the "right thing" by Elian. Two headlines on sidebar stories says it all: "Miami angered by raid" and "Havana Celebrates Reunion."

Add to this the convenient timing of the raid to coincide with Castro's 30th celebration of "The Bay of Pigs" victory and draw your own conclusions as to which side is right in the "Snatching of Elian."

-- Buster (BustrCollins@aol.com), April 23, 2000.

If people would go live in a Third World Country for a little while, they would come back and appreciate how good we have it here!!!!!!

I support our gov. We are very lucky to have running water, electricity, plenty of food, etc. If people don't like it here, then get the hell out.

If those swat guys didn't have weapons, they would could not protect the child in case some wacko got out of control. It was a "hostage rescue" situtation--clear and simple. Those relatives were breaking the law and kidnapping somebody's kid. Geez...WAKE UP PEOPLE!

-- Happy (Happyhere@usa.usa), April 23, 2000.

I'm with Happy and the others that see we have it good compared to other countries. If you don't like it here, or if you hate Clinton so bad, go to Cuba, or Mexico, or South America. I'm sure they would love to have you. This country is far from perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the Mideast or Kosovo.

Drudge is a scumbag spewing out sludge waste. His reporting is about as objective as WND.

Live in a border town for awhile and then tell me about it. All you gubmint haters, get your paint guns and go play in the mountains, and don't forget to pick up your welfare checks first.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 23, 2000.

gilda -

Are you saying our government is above reproach?

-- Debra (??@??.com), April 23, 2000.

But it is interesting that, from what I understand, the 'militia types' originally bought and paid for whatever residual freedom remains today. The 'militia types' were once called "minutemen."

... who were endorsed, organized and commanded by duly appointed and/or elected leaders of the general assemblies of the several States. In other words, the armies of the Revolution were created by an act of recognized government. The purpose of the war was to determine that government's legitimacy.

The same could be said of the Civil War. This is an even better example, because, from the North's point of view, the South had rebelled and withdrawn illegally from the Union. Its armies were essentially "militia," too -- basically a bunch of volunteer farmers. But they were treated as legitimate soldiers by the victorious North because they, too, were created by an act of organized government.

Comparing either case to, say, the Michigan Militia, is ludicrous. These modern "militia" groups enjoy (at best) the support of only a tiny fraction of the population. They were not created by any democratic act of the majority in the States in which they reside, but by small groups of dissidents.

-- Me (me@thisplace.net), April 23, 2000.

(And Factfinder? If we're going to be objective here, the argument could be made that the mother exposed her kid to danger on the high seas. For a comparable case which occurred with US citizens inside US territory, I can almost guarantee that this issue would come up in a US court.)

Me, I had no strong opinion in this case UNTIL I did a bit of research (including the Court document I linked to) and the occurance of the INS raid. As to whether the boy belongs with his father or the family - my thoughts on this is that he belongs with his father if the father is judged suitable by a court, with his Miami family if the court deems that best. A JUDGE, not the INS or machine guns should decide where the boy belongs based on the best interests of the child.

One good thing that I see from my posts and links to the Court document is a more "informed" discussion of this event, rather than the "shoot from the hip" opinions (with no knowledge of the facts of the Elian case) many have offered here.

Your statetment that "For a comparable case which occurred with US citizens inside US territory, almost guarnetee that this issue would come up in a US court" bears repeating of one of my makor points in this case, the Elian seizure was without a court order, without the due process of a court period. There simply was no real justice involved, just the Justice Departement and the INS acting under Reno's and Clinton's direction. That is not justice.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 23, 2000.

For the record, I do not believe that the photo's were "faked", that's a bit far fetched, but I can see how the family and others could question it based on the deceptions by Reno and the INS they have experienced thus far - being led to believe that they were reaching an agreement during the negotiations immediately prior to the raid).

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 23, 2000.

FactLoser mumbled:

being led to believe that they were reaching an agreement during the negotiations immediately prior to the raid)

They were on the phone with Reno. They had until 3AM (another missed deadline) to agree to a "week long reuniting ceremony" with the Father in which they would share custody of the boy.

At 4AM, after FIVE MONTHS of dealing with these uncompromising uncooperative slugs, she gave the order.

What more do you sympathizers want?

-- (@ .), April 23, 2000.

I don't think the photos are faked. The contrast is totally different in the picture "with hair". If you add the same contrast to the picture of him clinging to the female agent, his hair darkens and fills in on the sides.

To compare contrast of a different picture from the morning operation, you can clearly see a darker, fuller head of hair here

You need javascript enabled -- click on the "large pictures" link and click on image #3.

slow news day for the slimer drudge?

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), April 23, 2000.

"This is utter bullshit. Drudge would sodomize his mother if it would generate negative publicity for Clinton.

You idiots that side with the lawbreaking Gonzalez cochroaches need to hop on the first boat out of here.

Go fuck yourselves.

-- Support our form of government or get the hell out (eat@shit.marisleysis), April 23, 2000."

Well said. VERY well said, by a person who is perceptive enough to see through the propaganda. I agree 1000%.

The low-life pond scum Drudge should change his name to Sludge, and Marisleysis is a whining welfare-sucking crack whore.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 23, 2000.

Hawk,

My, you're certainly in good form today! If you know so much about the NWO, why are you so quick to support their poster-boy and his (their) agenda?

-- HawkWatcher (hawkwatch@hawk.needswatching), April 23, 2000.

Hawk -

Should I take that personally?

-- Debra (??@??.com), April 23, 2000.

"My, you're certainly in good form today! If you know so much about the NWO, why are you so quick to support their poster-boy and his (their) agenda?"

I do not support the NWO agenda. I advocate putting them out of commission through legal means. By trying to overthrow the current administration, you are supporting the agenda of Shrubya and the right-wingers, who are going to be a LOT worse. If you think Clinton is a NWO poster boy, wait until you see Shrubya in action. You'll be begging for Clinton to come back.

Deb, I understand your views, and I don't see you as supporting the radicals in Little Havana, as much as being angry at the government. Can't blame you for that, it's just that you are advocating the wrong method of changing the system.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 23, 2000.

Hawk,

I agree with you about Shrubya. However, I also believe that the Klinton administration has done more to destroy the moral and legal foundations of this country than the last five administrations put together. Of course, elements of the Reagan and Bush administrations set up the framework for Thug Klinton and his fascist co-president to do their damage.

What do you suggest we do about it (sincere question)?

-- HW (hw@hawk.watch), April 23, 2000.

Hawk is a nutcase, period.

-- x (x@x.x), April 23, 2000.

Factfinder,

Just for the record, people from the INS and DOJ are stating (emphatically) that they DID have a warrant.

-- Me (me@thisplace.net), April 23, 2000.

Me, You are correct, I was incorrect, there was a federal warrant it appears. I had read earlier claims that there were not. Do you have a link to the actual warrent or a description of what it said?

Thanks,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 23, 2000.

"What do you suggest we do about it (sincere question)?"

Get prepped up to survive for at least 3-6 months without employment. If you can afford, get extra for neighbors who may not be so fortunate. Then we organize a plan for everyone to withdraw all of their money from the banks simultaneously all on the same day. Every fricking cent. Sit back and watch the power shift from the government back into the hands of the people overnight. Then, we go back to the drawing board, and start over from square one.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 23, 2000.

Hawk, that is the first worth-while post you've ever written.

-- x (x@x.x), April 23, 2000.

FF:

I can't find a link to the warrant information on-line but, since it's now public information, the actual text of the warrant should be available at the Miami federal court tomorrow. I assume it won't be long until the details are examined by both sides.

Assuming it was a normal search warrant, the probable contents will be an order allowing federal agents to search the Miami home, locate Elian, and remove him.

There's no way that any police agency would ever enter a private home without a warrant unless they were in hot pursuit of a suspect. I asked this question of others who were posting this issue and the answer I got was they "heard it on television". Apparently, we haven't learned much about how much we can believe from the media, particularly directly after an event.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 23, 2000.

Hawk,

Interesting idea. I suggest that preparations include at least *some* silver coins, and perhaps small denomination gold coins as well. Even the new Sacagawea coins would be preferable to paper currency. FR notes might not be worth a lot in times of real crisis.

Money in banks would need to be in demand deposit form, i.e. non-interest bearing accounts so that the banks couldn't require pre-notification for withdrawls under current law.

Of course Klintoon would quickly issue an Executive Order or one of his Presidential Decision Directives freezing everyone's money and limiting it to small withdrawls.

What would we do then?

-- Flash (flash@flash.hq), April 23, 2000.

debra, I find it strange that several people made a post similar to mine, and yet mine was the one you pounced on. What is this? Is it your week to give gilda a jab, or what. I said, " This country is far from perfect..." I thought that clarified my position, even though I was, and I still am, defending Reno and the government for reuniting the boy with his father.

Are you saying the Cuban-Americans, (disclaimer: of Little Havana) are above reproach? Have they not broken every agreement they made? If you want to blame the government, fine, go for it. But I personally thing the Miami family brought this on themselves. In fact I was very critical of Janet Reno for bending over backwards to pacify those idiots. She should have acted sooner and quit wasting taxpayers money trying to negotiate with fools and publicity seeking show-offs.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 23, 2000.

gilda -

I asked you that question because I usually respect your thoughts. Period. I'm not looking to intentionally jab you. I'm sorry if that's the way it seems.

-- Debra (peace@peace.com), April 23, 2000.

Excellent response Gilda, firmly grounded in reality. Interesting, I find myself taking what I would have thought would be the "conservative" view on this issue, but now the conservatives are taking a more liberal view! Just goes to show you that they aren't really interested in what is right or wrong, but only in creating hell for the current administration.

Flash, I'll get back to you on "the plan", still thinking. :-)

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 23, 2000.

end several discussions.....ship[ Elian off to Tibet)

-- robert gridlock (plutusx2@yahoo.com), April 23, 2000.

Yes, something that is even more bothersome, is after listening to CSPAN. 1) The family thought they had made an agreement, the Justice Dept calls them at 4am with new conditions and says "you have five minutes to let us know if you agree". Well, of course they couldn't even begin to wake everyone up to discuss it and then Janet's boys stormed the place.

2) There seems to be additional evidence and a legal case that the Miami relatives want the opportunity to present (including witnesses)- -that is why they are asking for a hearing. However, Justice doesn't want it to be heard so they are obstructing justice.

3) INS gave the boy to the family five months ago to care for him. The family wants to know why the father wouldn't come to see the boy even thought they gave him many opportunities over this time.

I vote for a public hearing. Cuban or not cuban--God help any of us that get on the wrong side of a political issue with this GESTAPO POLICE STATE ADMINISTRATION. THEY ARE DESTROYING THIS NATION. PROBABLY EXACTLY WHAT CLINTON AND HIS GLOBAL BUDDIES WANT.

-- (toomanylies@secret.gov), April 23, 2000.

Deb, thanks for explaining, I appreciate that. Perhaps I got huffy to quickly. I'm sorry I snapped so soon.

Hawk, I think you're right on this. They have taken a more liberal view. But hell, we know their favorite sport is gouging the Clinton Administration. There's only one thing I'm sure about in the coming administration, and that is: no matter which party gets elected, they are in for hell on earth.

R gridlock, maybe shipping Elian off to Tibet isn't such a bad idea. At least there he might have a little peace and quiet.

Everybody, be sure and go to vote.com and vote on the issues. It's a slow, clunky site, sponsored by Dick Morris--you remember him, the guy who sucked chocolate off his mistresses toes.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 23, 2000.

April 12,

Lazaro Gonzalez...

"They will have to take this child from me by force."

The bastard got exactly what he asked for. Isn't that why he came to America, the land of opportunity, where you can make your wishes come true?

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 23, 2000.

He should consider himself awful damn fricking lucky that he isn't in the slammer right now. If I were in Reno's shoes, he would be.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), April 23, 2000.

There was a sociologist and his wife, on Fox with Paula Zahn, and they both agreed the boy should be with his father. But, the interesting part is that they disagreed on the method of taking him from the relatives. It was really getting interesting, when all of a sudden, right in the middle of the wife contradicting her husband, they were cut off. No warning--we have to take a break now or anything. Did anyone else see this. When they came back on, it was someone else in their place.

She (the wife) who worked for some organization, said the family had had 27 opportunities to get with the father, or to return the child, or do the right thing and they had refused. So what else was Reno to do. Her biggest fault was not doing it sooner.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 23, 2000.

gilda,

That's not true. The family in Florida had even agreed to grant Juan Gonzalez temporary custody while the court case was pending appeal.

They wanted to live with Juan Gonzalez in a common house (or perhaps group of apartments) to keep an eye on things, because -- taste the irony -- they didn't trust the government not to snatch the child or send him back to Cuba without warning.

Again, see one of the negotiators comments on this.

This case is anything but cut and dried. That's the real reason why it would probably NEED to be settled in court.

-- Me (me@thisplace.net), April 23, 2000.

Pleeze. Pleeze. Pleeze, stop talking about me. I hear all of you in my head and I cannot sleep. Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. I want to be with my daddy-I am so happy with him. Now all of you go to bed for christ's sake. I am with my father, I belong with him. Now-all of you, get out-out of my head. I am just a kid-find something else to talk about. GOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGOGO.

-- LeaveMeAlone (Elian@washingtonDC.home), April 23, 2000.

Me, the way I understand it, the family no longer had custody. Who are they to make the decision to grant the father custody?? Besides, after the way they have treat the father, I would no more live in a house with them than I would live in a house full of cobras.

Keep an eye on things?? You mean parade him around in the spotlight continually to further their cause. That child hasn't had a

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 24, 2000.

I accidentally hit the submit button. As I was saying, that child hasn't had a quiet, waking moment since he's been with them. I have never seen anyone take another person's child, then use him for their own personal agenda like this family has. They have constantly made the rules and had everyone in the government danced to their tune? Can you think of another group, here in the U. S., that could get by with that?

The only thing I blame the government for is constantly giving in to their demands, when that family no more right to this child, than I and my husband have to his great nephew.

The family should have given the little boy safe haven until he could be reunited with his father and that was all. IMHO, they should have allowed him to recover in a quiet, loving atmostphere, and reassured him that as soon as possible, he would be reunited with his father. They should have contacted the father in the first half hour after they found out he had been rescued and reassured him that the boy would be safe and well cared for until he could be reunited with him. They should have reassured him and his father both that they could contact each other whenever they wanted, or needed to.

Instead, they exploited the situation. They just the same as kidnapped the child, then used him for their on political purposes, smeared the father, defied the government, kept reneging on their agreements, make a mockery of the law, and tried their best to come between a father and his child.

This morning the grandmothers were on TV and Elian's mother said their was nothing to the charges of abuse to her dead daughter. She said this was just lies by the family.

But what burns me the most of all, is their disparaging remarks and hateful slurs about the U. S. that took them in, and allowed them to blow off their big, hateful mouths and hold press conferences to get the whole U. S. in a turnmoil. And what about the dozens of people that have spent hours trying to make a deal to please them. It seemed to me, the officials were worrying so much about this family, that the father was constantly having to agree to something new, or else be put on the back burner one more time.

I hate it that some in the U. S. don't feel we need to support a father's right to his child, and our government's right to help him get back his child back.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 24, 2000.

The family 'agreed' to give dad temp custody? According to the reports, Gov/JD, Janet Reno, cant remember has had custody of the boy for 9 days.

I had physical custody of my niece who was placed w/me from Social SErvices in California taken from her mom, placed in foster care, then I agreed to take physical custody to get niece out of foster home.

I'll damn sure tell you what, IF I said I and NOT giving her back, they'd of damn sure incarirated my rear-end., I promise you that.!!

Even though I had physical custody, Dept of HUMAN SERVICES basically owned my niece....Emotional? YOUR DAMN STRAIT.....I HAD to agree with whatever went on, OR......(and they told me this) they would come and PHYSICALLY REMOVE my niece from my home.

You bet I did whatever I was told to do. I said it before I'll say it again, THE FAMILY brought this on the lil boy. I am sick of the 'fake whiner' news media winch who hasnt shed ONE tear, just simply 'fakes'. Then gonna DEMAND....

Front page of our morning newspaper, Family tried to give gift to lil Elian and were AGAIN denied access to the base.

My hubby said it best..."why didnt they leave the gifts at the base?"

MEDIA HOUNDS.......according to Fox they ALREADY are working with CBS to make a movie....PUKES.

AGAIN I ASK, I THOUGHT BURNING THE AMERICAN FLAG WAS ILLEGAL?????

ALL over t.v. they were throwing OUR FLAG in fires THEY built...WUZ up with that? Couldnt arrest them because?

Hawk, a rarity dude, but with you I agree.

-- consumer (Shh@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

consumer, since you've had personal experience with a situation of caring for a neice, don't you find it extraordinary that they would leave this child in that home, for as long as they did, when all the Social Services, the INS, and others could see that he was being exploited?

I've wondered for quite awhile, why they allowed the family to continue to brainwash him this way. Why didn't they place him in a neutral home? Just curious.

Hawk, I agree with you too. But I think the cousin is the big instigator in this fiasco.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 24, 2000.

Gilda,

Social Services here in Ohio and California, (am pretty sure EVERYWHERE here in USA) have #1 goal, to REUNIFY with mom/dad. Parents must be PROVEN unfit to be removed from home. Then child goes to dad/mom (other parent). If other parent not available, usually it is next of blood kin.

I said usually. I BEGGED social services to release my niece to ME before EVER putting her into foster care. But, being out of state, it was a 'process'. Took almost a year, had INTENSE HOME STUDY, background check, etc....

To me it appears there was NO social service involvement here, I dont know.

Not to get to 'off topic' but BTW, social services is pretty much on their own...THEY MAKE THE RULES!!!! No big brother wathcing them...I was threatend each time I spoke out against them.

Actually they should have taken custody of child while he was in hospital and DONE A FULL BACKGROUND and IN HOME STUDY before EVER placing him with ANYONE.....I dont know IF this was done, and to my knowledge nobody is saying.

Parading my niece in front of media, or 'even threatening to do so' would have had her yanked from my home and IMMEDIATELY placed back into foster care. Period. Looks like somebody dropped the ball.

BIGTIME.

Gilda, this is why I keep on repeating REUNIFY #1 Priority.

Also I am VERY pissed off about the flag burning.....EACH who took part should have been sent 'back' PERIOD.

Hope this helps.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

Also I am VERY pissed off about the flag burning.....EACH who took part should have been sent 'back' PERIOD.

I see. Freedom of expression so long as YOU do not find it overly offensive. Cute.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 24, 2000.

Happy Monday Everyone

You know the very best thing about this forum is the wide spectrum of thoughts and opinions that are expressed here. This Elian story has certainly captivated the world and all of us as well. I find it interesting that yesterdays allies have become todays combatants, and visa-versa. For instance I have usually found myself aligned with Uncle DeeDah and 180 out from Hawk. On this subject there is a reversal of opinion so go figure. Too much has been said already so I will tell a story on myself that many of you may be able to relate to.

I was getting ready yesterday for our annual family Easter gathering, which I hosted this year. Some friends and family were out in the garage with me and there is a TV out there that was tuned into CNN. They had some sort of live press conference on that featured the Miami relatives, lawyers, media mooches, and one idiot fisherman named Donato. Ill avoid any discussions on right or wrong here but Ive had it with these self-serving Miami Cubans that just want to get at Castro and are using this kid for their own agendas. Halfway through watching that disgusting cousin wail away I lost it and threw a 12 crescent wrench into the TV. The damn thing like to exploded and suffice it to say the impact on the crowd was one of total shock.

The rest of the day was one of the best ever and all of us felt real good. If I never see or hear that sorry-ass bunch of Cubans again my life will be complete. Thats all.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), April 24, 2000.

Sifting:

Thanks for the laugh! Who says this stupid story is not having an impact at the local level!

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 24, 2000.

Sifting,

AGREE AGREE AGREE, wanted to 'toss' something at t.v. also, glad I didnt seeing your experience...lol

Unc., you know, I always do agree with you... I find up till now.

Again, CAN you answer my ? Is is legal or NOT to burn the flag?

And please clarify for me, are you agreeing it was ok to do so>?

If so, I am shocked. Again, ok to agree to disagree unc., but the burning of the flag did PISS me off.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

Laws prohibiting burning of the flag in protest are Un- Constitutional. Thanks to Ann A. Lyze for the related link on another thread.

U.S. "Flag Code"

And I do think that burning the flag is legitimate expression of free speach, precisely because it shocks so many people.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 24, 2000.

Thanks unc for the link...

MY APOLOGIES to ALL for starting a question re: same thing....dumb me, impatient me.

So if then it IS illegal, hows come they were not arrested?

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

*****************POSTED WARNING************************

ANYONE CAUGHT BURNING OUR AMERICAN FLAG ON MY PROPERTY WILL BE TERMINATED WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. NO FURTHER WARNINGS WILL BE ISSUED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*****************POSTED WARNING*************************

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), April 24, 2000.