Posted on 04/13/2008 8:57:18 PM PDT by claudiustg
More likely off his meds.
“Dang, but you are gullible.”
You may wish to know that you just joined a very large group of posters who declared similar things, and yet have turned out to be ‘the gullible ones’.
P.S. I have never known Government Shrinker to be ‘gullible’ in any post I have read.
“Should you post anything really stupid you may have to remind me of that.”
Well, that horse is already out of the starting gate.
And don’t think that because It already happened, It won’t happen again.
Here, all this time I thought Caucasian was the name of a Chinese Porn Film.
In that spirit, here is some advance on the stupidity thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS_tUaZaQ3g&feature=related
In what way? Many of the women have now left, with 6 of the 57 who were sent away first accepting the option to go to a women’s shelter instead of back to the ranch, but those 6 soon changed their minds and went back to the ranch as well. No evidence whatsoever that any women were or are being held against their will. Several of the ones who have left have been chattering away to the media (albeit in rehearsed statements as ordered by the male leaders, so it’s not actually “free”, but the state is not the perpetrator of the lack of freedom).
No one, in this or any other case where children have been removed from a home due to suspected abuse, is going to be allowed to use the children as props in media PR campaigns while staying in a shelter with them. These women did not accept offers to speak with journalists away from the children, while they were being allowed to stay in the shelter. However, they did send out cell phone photos to the media, clearing showing the faces of children who are suspected of being victims of sex crimes. Sorry, but that’s just not allowed, and it has nothing to do with their religious practices.
If the state was trying to prevent these women from speaking to the media, they would hardly have sent them back out of the shelter, under no restrictions against speaking to the media. I won’t be surprised, however, if the judge at tomorrow’s hearing issues some sort of gag order, at least to the extent of prohibiting public statements about specific, identifiable children. Adolescent rape victims have a right to privacy.
“but we are way off topic. “
Kind of a trend on this thread.
I found some other threads on FLDS. Some newer.
The insanity is prevalent on those threads too.
I’m just trying to stay calm, open-minded, and inject some humor when needed.
I think there is no doubt that the core of the FLDS sect continued the practice of underage brides, and I think the investigators have found proof. I just don’t think they have been able to link one of the underage ‘mothers’ to a father with DNA tests yet, because the men won’t come out of the compound nor allow DNA samples to be taken.
The ‘family’ records have not been of much help.
Take pictures.
See (read) ya when you return!
Inconvenienced? LEO's stopping you on the street to ask a few questions is "inconvenienced". Being locked-up and denied contact with your loved ones and family under threat of violence is quite a bit MORE than "inconvenienced". Sheesh! I suppose that Auschwitz was a "somewhat unpleasant little Jewish summer camp".
Try this scenario:
A phone call to the police in a small town accuses a teacher at the local elementary school of child abuse. The police immediately round up all of the children and lock them in the gymnasium along with their mothers. Cell phones are confiscated, and the mothers are not allowed to use public phones to speak to the fathers of the children nor any other family or loved ones. Charges are not filed against the mothers and they are kept under lock down for days on end. It is discovered that the accused teacher could not possibly have committed the abuse he/she is accused of, yet the children and mothers remain in custody and not allowed contact with their family members. Meanwhile, the tipster/accuser cannot be located, so there is no proof that any crime has been committed by or to anyone under lock down. Yet their rights are NOT restored to them.
That is pretty much what we have here once the religious component is stripped away. Now try to convince me that people have NOT been stripped of their rights by the Government in either case.
Your analogy doesn’t even come close to working. Try another one.
1. The “case” against Dale Barlow for sexual and physical abuse of a minor will probably not be pursued...but if it was based on a bogus phone call...well *shrug* no big loss.
2. The police and CPS went into the YFZ on a good faith report of child abuse. CPS did a good faith investigation, and they found evidence of widespread child abuse and other criminal acts. This evidence is probably still admissible because the CPS investigation and warrants were, as I understand it, issued properly.
3. SO, it looks as if TX can still prosecute the tar out of the child abusers and other criminals at the YFZ.
4. AND, even if criminal prosecutions weren’t possible, CPS is a different entity. CPS, by all accounts I’ve read on the news, has plenty of substantiated cases of child abuse/neglect that they can remain involved with YFZ for a good long while. AND make all kinds of requirements of the parents of these children that will have to be satisfied for the children to remain in their parents’ custody. This could include regular welfare checks for the children, therapy, parenting interventions, and social work services of various kinds. This would make it much harder for the YFZ folk to continue abusing children in secrecy in a locked up compound.
5. Additionally, there are children in that compound that were removed from their parents by Warren Jeffs (convicted on Acessory to Rape). Some of those children do not rightfully belong there by any stretch of one’s definition of legal custody.
6. Finally, those mothers do not DESERVE squat. If those mothers are allowing their children to be victimized, then those mothers are like any other mother who does the same in the state of TX...which means that regaining residential custody is something they will have to work for. Those mothers will have to satisfy TX CPS that they are capable of keeping their children safe and protected from abuse.
From what I’ve read about how compliant they were when Merrill ordered them to hand over their babies...well, that’s not gonna convince CPS that those mothers are capable of protecting children from FLDS male authority figures that abuse young children.
I think this is one of those situations that will be a nasty mess no matter how it resolves. BUT I also think that the single most important factor in this situation is that it is hard for the abuse to continue if compound life can no longer go on in secrecy.
One thing I do disagree with you on: we cannot allow rights to be exercised or stripped based on who we think "deserves" it. The rights belong to all equally. I cannot help but be reminded of the group politics that the Libs have brought on us with their "political correctness". They assign rights to people based upon their race, sexual, ethnic, etc. group membership. And I'm sure we can agree that is to the detriment of us all.
No, because in a public school the women do not live there with their children 24/7, they are not one big incestuous family, the teachers have not brainwashed the parents into instant obedience, they are not trading wives and children like trading cards, they are free to come and go as they please, the general public has access to the building,...
Nice try, but no cigar. CPS is dealing with this case as any case of alleged abuse. They went in, saw evidence of other abuse (pregnant teens), took the kids into protective custody until they could sort it out. This is SOP for them. All they ever need is an anonymous tip from a hotline provided for such a purpose. Nobody will ever know the ID of a caller in those situations. Someone could just go through the phone book and pick names out at random and no one’s the wiser.
Now the burden is on the mothers, once they figure out which child goes with whom, to show that they can and will protect their children from further abuse. God forbid that they send those kids back and some are killed as a result of punishment meted out. Then the authorities would again be castigated for doing that.
They’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t. The government just can’t do anything right for some people, who, BTW, have no better solution to this situation themselves. They’re just good at criticizing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.