Polygamist Pedophiles and Papal Pontifications
POSTED BY: deadlockvictim
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 01:32
VIEWED: 23329
PAGE 7 of 28
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
What you and Jongs say is all well and good Signy. You know what I think about believing everything the corporate run media says. The truth is, you and I will never in our lives know what really happened there. We will hear testimony that damns them, but I'm sure there was a lot of good that happened there too and it probably wasn't a "cult", but there was nothing stopping some people in a world separated from the mainstream from taking advantage of that situation.
Frem is right, and there should have been a way to do that descreetly and weed out the bad guys. This would have served two very important purposes.. 1) Keeping this travesty of an embarrasment and media circus from being something that people turned around and bashed the "cult" out of existance, and MUCH more importantly 2) try to solve this in a way where it wasn't the behemoth of a tragic uprooting of those children's lives. I for one, don't buy that the entire operation was an infringement of personal liberties and I believe that in all likely hood, the REAL bad guys have been made the poster children for the church. I'm not saying that the horror stories you regurgitate aren't possible, but I'm saying that they're not probable. Regardless of that though, even if they were all monsters, I think there would be a better way of handling this. There were too many of them to flee. Nobody was going anywhere. This could have been handled through them and the people that you two have so much trust in, in our Government.
Instead, they chose to go Waco on them. True... there aren't any burning skulls of children this time, but if I was a gambling man, I would bet my savings on the fact that half of those girls are going to grow up to be strippers and call girls now. But I'll tell you what... if I'm wrong in 12 or 15 years or so, I'll let you tell me I was wrong all night and I'll even buy the booze.
Regards,
~6SJ
The thing is, these kids are being brought up in a culture of pedophilia. It's not just accepted, it's the NORM. I'm sure if you asked any of those kids, they would say, "Yes, we're very happy!" (At least the boys are.) And it might be true or it might be because it's all they've ever known so it's all perfectly normal to them. Ask a kid who's been abused (physically, mentally, or even sexually) if they still love their parents. I'm willing to bet 9 out of 10 would say "yes."
"Can you, for a moment, imagine how depressing it is to teach one thousand years of masculine ineptitude? Why do you think there are so few women historians? I'll tell you why. Because history is not such a frolic for women as it is for men... History is a commentary on the various and continuing incapabilities of men. History is women following behind with a bucket and a mop." - Alan Bennett, "The History Boys"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And the shitstorm shall begin.
They sent em STRAIGHT to the feeder system.
" Dan Adams, president of Cal Farley's Boys Ranch, which is 35 miles northwest of Amarillo, confirmed Tuesday that 27 of the FLDS adolescent boys are now in temporary foster care at the ranch."
While CFBR has a habit of keeping their own hands relatively clean, they are linked with one of the feeder systems, and were it not for BACA* speaking up for them, they'd be on our current watch list.
One thing is for absolute sure - we're not gettin the whole story here, not from anyone.
The State and media have made it into a three ring circus, counting on press hysteria to garner popular support - and the FDLS members have wisely clammed up from behind a wall of laywers and I don't blame them.
The State can not only not produce the supposed 16yr old caller in the first place, apparently they cannot even produce a record of the call itself, which is suspicious on the face of it.
None too pleased with the whole mess, there's a lotta stuff I can't really share but basically ain't nobody in this whole mess any kind of honest or innocent except the kids, who are gettin the really short end of a stick that was pretty short to begin with.
Sorry for bein short with the details, but there's a lot going on here that is best settled without making a circus of it, and also legal and privacy issues to take into account.
It's only holy hell of a mess, and the only thing I can say right up front and public is that the State did indeed overstep their boundries both moral and legal, and are counting on refuge in audacity and the media circus to smokescreen that little problem for them.
-Frem
*BACA = Bikers Against Child Abuse.
http://bacausa.com/
Not sure I've mentioned them here before, but they're allies, and good people.
If they say CFBR is in compliance, that's solid - but we're gonna watch anyway cause they are linked with folks who are not.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by EmpireX:
Of course not every Catholic or priest assisted in the coverup. That would be a ridiculous thing to even suggest. But when a church official - granted power by a church- a CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVE of the church - assists in the coverup of a CRIME, then I feel that church is partly liable for putting such people in positions of power.
ok, but doesn't this go right to the top... the Vatican, the Pope..?
You can take me to task for my limited knowledge of Catholicism, but I have always thought that very little that goes on in the Catholic church gets past the chain of command.. so, in a sense, isn't every priest, archbishop, bishop and indeed, the Pope complicit to some degree ?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Gotta be nice to know that if you have the money to pay good lawyers that you can shield yourself from the liability to take care of the people that you would otherwise be obligated to worry about their well being. Kudos to Congress for passing whatever laws that wreaked that travesty on mankind....
The govt started this idea back in the mid-1800s. Large scale industry was vital to the national interest. Railroad were a business, so was steel, and so on and all of which was needed to make this country great.
Large scale industry was expensive, more expensive then the existing entrepreneurs could afford. There were several ways to address that. One was govt control, but as the Railroads learned, that was inefficient. Another was govt subsidies, which created corruption. Finally there came about the idea of the corporation, a legal enitity with the characteristics of the individual. This allowed numerous investors to combine their individual resources creating large scale capitalization required for things like factories.
But why, you the fella with the extra cash laying around, should I risk everything I have on your risky Iron Horse venture way out across the praire in some other state (and subject to that state's laws and courts)? Well, we'll make it easy, says economists and Congress, we'll afford you protection from liability, tax benefits, and make a corporation a legal entity (essentially a legal fiction). That way your risk is reduced to the point that you'll give your extra money to some fella named Morgan or Rockefeller and they'll hand you a piece of paper making you legal owner of one or more shares in the Company.
Naturally there was and is abuse of the system, but we have laws addressing that as well. However, should any of you be lucky enough to be reading this on an IBM, Dell, Apple, etc, then you'll understand why it was necessary.
I note for the record that the fellas who invented the Airplane were important, but it was the fellas like Howard Hughes, William Boeing, Allan and Malcom Lougheed (Lockheed), Robert Gross, and Glenn L. Martin that invented aviation. It was that same "travesty of mankind" that allowed them to do it.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And the shitstorm shall begin.
I can say right up front and public is that the State did indeed overstep their boundries both moral and legal
Right....'cause in your demented vision of an anarchist society 13 year-old girls would all be knock-up fodder.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting history but it dodges the central question. There has never been an argument that a corporation should be LEGALLY considered a person --- how could it own property or make contracts if it wasn't -- it's weither these legal entities have the same rights, obligations and protections as real people?
I would argue that in the US corporations have found a sweet spot, they are treated as people for all rights and protections but not as people for their obligations.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And the shitstorm shall begin.
I can say right up front and public is that the State did indeed overstep their boundries both moral and legal
Right....'cause in your demented vision of an anarchist society 13 year-old girls would all be knock-up fodder.
I think we brought this up before. It's one of those issues that sits in the space between ideology and practical implementation that we can never get an answer to.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
All of this could have been handled with a few interviews and a quiet conversation with the sects leadership in an attempt to secure their cooperation with cleaning house - followed by discreetly arresting the perps, rather than a stonewalling from the FBI and local officials, followed by an overblown show of force by the USDOJ.
Aren't you making a huge assumption that the sect's leadership are not included amongst "perps" in this case?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
>>Aren't you making a huge assumption that the sect's leadership are not included amongst "perps" in this case?
Not necessarily, estead, I most certainly didn't mean to convey the idea that the leadership wasn't suspect - just that they could have gone in and handled it discreetly, shown the warrant around, explained that they needed to take this person, or these folk, into custody, and they needed to take testimony from these other folk, and done so firmly but respectfully.
I mean, you can ALWAYS resort to force if that doesn't work, but at least have the cursed decency to try discretion and respect first.
The way this has been handled has been not only disrespectful to the suspects (remember, innocent till proven guilty) and witnesses, but also has been so to the victims - and that is unacceptable.
There is also that by doing it in this fashion and disrupting day-to-day operations by simply rounding up everyone, it provided the handy excuse to just take ALL the kids and steal them, regardless of any particular parents guilt or innocence.
*I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT*
Just to make sure my fundamental issue here is abundantly clear, that's what it is.
Oh, and Jongstraw ?
Again, innocent till proven guilty.
First, they did not have sufficient PC to obtain a warrant without a record of that call, so where is that record ?
Is there an official statement from that witness ?
If so, where is it ?
Till they can show this stuff, the State has no proof they didn't just shovel a load to get a warrant, which means they got no effective case.
Second, do you REALLY think it was necessary to send in a tactical strike team with a goddamn M113 armored personnel carrier to serve the warrant ?
They overstepped themselves completely, and it stinks to me that they were LOOKING for an incident or excuse, and that's just bullshit.
Now, that being said...
We're aware of two *OTHER* cases WITH proper witness testimony and credible charges, that the State *declined to prosecute*, so I am well aware that some of the accused are likely guilty of the crime, but being that this is still, for the moment, America - they get their day in court same as anyone else, cause the State not only has to prove their guilt, but that the State did not themselves violate procedure and break the law in the process of the case... which, they did.
That fact, combined with the two previous failures to prosecute, AND the fact that neither of those two previous cases was referred in the warrant process, nor being addressed now, gives me a suspicion that other motivations are at work here - one of which seems an attempt by the USDOJ to clean up the local police depts that were a little too sympathetic to FLDS to actually do their job, without actually, you know.. ADMITTING the corruption.
If you have such a problem with folks committing such acts, why don't you go help PROTECT.ORG close the incest loophole, yes ?
http://www.protect.org/articles/illinois.shtml
And maybe if you're feeling curious, how bout going back and lookin up which folks slid those loopholes there in the first place and perhaps reconsider your opinion of them in respect to that information.
Knee-jerk reactionary bullshit is the LAST thing we need relative to this issue, Jong - and you need to stop chomping on the bait held out in front of you by the media and think about WHY they want you to leap without looking too close.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
>>Aren't you making a huge assumption that the sect's leadership are not included amongst "perps" in this case?
Not necessarily, estead, I most certainly didn't mean to convey the idea that the leadership wasn't suspect - just that they could have gone in and handled it discreetly, shown the warrant around, explained that they needed to take this person, or these folk, into custody, and they needed to take testimony from these other folk, and done so firmly but respectfully.
I mean, you can ALWAYS resort to force if that doesn't work, but at least have the cursed decency to try discretion and respect first.
Which translates to "gee guys we've had a complaint from a witness that you have control over claiming wrong doing by one of your bigwigs. We can't actually prove she's here and you know if anything happened to her or someone were to force her to change her story then we'd have no case..."
I think that's the crutical issue here. First part of the game plan has to be to secure the complainant to minimise risks to her safety or chances of coersion. I'm not sure how you could take the softly softly approach and just serve a warrant naming the suspect and the complaint unless you were 100% convinced of the goodwill of the Church leadership.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME