15 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

1. Is it interesting how the church is? I know this off a few notes! But to what impression do you get from this comment from some dude in slc!

   Utah truly is a conservative state Some people say that Utah is the most conservative state in the Union. I find this to be true for two main reasons.People only believe what they are told and will not do any research on their own to find out if they are being blown smoke. Take, for example, a recent letter where a writer said to throw out all Democrats because they don’t believe in the Constitution. If the writer would have checked Article 10, she would have found out all powers go to the federal government except those which are given to the states.How do you think “No Child Left Behind” became law? The right to enact laws is part of the Constitution.Second, the state of Utah is a theocracy. Take for example, state Sen. Chris Buttars, who until now has been a strong anti-gay rights person. Now he will introduce a bill to give those people an anti-discrimination protection in housing and employment. What caused the shift? The LDS Church, of which he is a member, supported these rights in an ordnance in Salt Lake City, so now it OK to allow these rights.Please check your facts and draw your own conclusion. The Internet is a great source to find the facts for yourself.

   What else has the LDS church allowed???

   1. pins on November 25th, 2009 at 9:26 am

2. Cupcake

   The ACLU picks and chooses who they’ll represent. For the ACLU to represent any kind of Christian/Mormon sect is a one in a million shot. The FLDS should consider creating it’s own civil rights organization and hiring it’s own attorneys to tackle unjust treatment of the FLDS.

   Dan Fischer created an organization called “smilesfordiversity” which is a copy of SPLC type organization. If the FLDS looks to win against these type of racist they must play their games. The FLDS is a small culture who has to face the bullying powers of those who seek to defame and destroy it.

   As for the SPLC. The organization we call the SPLC is in fact a money racket and hate organization. This organization labels any group of whites racist and defames them. That is why I say if the FLDS wants their rights protected they must protect it themselves. There’s not many who will protect your rights in America if your white or Christian.

   2. plainly seen on November 25th, 2009 at 9:03 am

3. I lost a lot of respect for the ACLU because they failed to take an active role in helping the FLDS mothers and children.

   Years ago, I heard that the ACLU’s Afro-American attorneys defended the rights of KKK members, which suggested to me that the ACLU put their personal feelings aside to defend constitutional rights.

   Since the ACLU refused to take a more active role in rescuing the FLDS women and children from CPS, I won’t donate any money to their organization.

   I refuse to donate money to the SPLC too.

   3. Cupcake on November 25th, 2009 at 2:06 am

4. That “gun shy” covers the first brief and the second was jumping halfway on the wagon just for the ride, late.

   4. kent on November 24th, 2009 at 11:31 pm

5. The ACLU filed at least one amicus brief in the case. Might have been 2–one at the appeals court level & one at the State Supreme Court level.

   5. Riki on November 24th, 2009 at 9:42 pm

6. No, Bill, the CASAs who lived in the areas where the children were taken. I had enough interaction with them to be completely shocked at the unprofessional (and dare I say immature) behavior of the harpies in San Angelo (not all of them, but the ones who consider themselves to be the Queen Bees). Anyway, they didn’t like the fact that the “courtesy CASAs” were actually doing what they were supposed to be doing & actually liked the parents, so the San Angelo crowd got an order barring them from communicating with the children and/or their parents.

   6. Riki on November 24th, 2009 at 9:38 pm

7. I have to agree with Alinusara about the ACLU. I wrote several letters to the ACLU’s Texas division during the raid, begging them to help the FLDS mothers and children. I received no reply.

   As I recall, the ACLU’s Texas acknowleged receiving many letters from people asking them to help the FLDS in a news article. The ACLU said that the ACLU detested child abuse. But the ACLU also acknowledged having one of their attorneys present during the hearings.

   7. Cupcake on November 24th, 2009 at 5:52 pm

8. ACLU gets gun shy when they hear the word child abuse. I can’t really blame them; they depend upon the public for support and the public gets outraged just from hearing the words child abuse either substantiated and unsubstantiated.

   Probably the most annoying thing about the YFZ fiasco is those who profess to care the most about children turn a blind eye on the rights of those children during the investigation.

   Second most annoying thing to me is I’m one of those who thinks the needs of the victim comes before prosecutions and we have those who profess to care about victims think differently.

   8. Alinusara10 on November 24th, 2009 at 4:33 pm

9. We were talking about CASA, not the AAL’s. There were a few AAL’s that sided with CPS (Natalie for one), but for the most part, they were instrumental in getting the children back home.

   TRLA worked like dogs to get them back to the Ranch, and you can bet the farm they will pay for it the next time their funding from the State comes up for review.

   What the story doesn’t tell you (Upfront), is that the baby suffocated to death. It could breath on its own, but when the trac tube dislodged, she received no air. People do not suffocate quietly, which means that the baby was alone when she was killed which is what CPS would have said if it were the mother taking care of her.

   As for a case of a “Massive human rights” case, sadly, you are correct. The suffering of 465 Ranch children was never considered a “Massive human rights” case, but none of them were black, therefore…

   What I want to know is; why is it only the civil and human rights of blacks is recognized? What is it about the Ranch children that makes them ineligible to get the support of the ACLU or the Civil Rights advocates who marched on Selma and Jena?

   9. Bill on November 24th, 2009 at 4:14 pm

10. The MHMR investigation into the abuse and neglect of the children at Ft. Concho and the collusium is complete and ready for publication.

    CPS and CASA intend to make it public right after Marliegh Meisner wins the Miss Universe contest.

    10. Bill on November 24th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

11. In all fairness I’ve heard some rumblings of discontent from the attorney ad litems assigned to those children.

    Back to topic.

    I have no idea why CPS took full custody of that child when all they really needed was medical custody.

    I also have no idea why they didn’t send the child home with some nurses to keep an eye on her. From what it sounds like, it appears to be a huge massive human rights issue.

    11. Alinusara10 on November 24th, 2009 at 3:16 pm

12. Speaking of the MHMR people Bill………. Is the investigation the accusations made by the MHMR persons at the fort complete? Seems like the State promised an investigation.

    12. zxc on November 24th, 2009 at 1:51 pm

13. I’m not aware of this. Are you talking about the MHMR people?

    If there are CASA out there who thought that this was all a bunch of crap, I want to talk to them. A gag order extends for the duration of the “Investigation” and ends when a child is non-suited.

    13. Bill on November 24th, 2009 at 1:32 pm

14. Actually, Bill, the “courtesy CASAs” did, which is why the San Angelo gang somehow got a “gag” order placed on them, prohibiting further contact with the children or their parents.

    14. Riki on November 24th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

15. This comes from the Pam Roach (Washington State Senator) blogspot.

    It helps to explain my disgust for CASA.

    CASA Volunteer Reports Bias In The System
    This testimony comes from a signed contributor. I have decided to publish here rather than the comment page. My former 31st District Chair had the same experience. She argued for placement with family and was drummed out. In King Co. they don’t call you back again.

    “I was a CASA several years ago. I only worked on one case, but that was enough for me to see very clearly that the CASA’s job has nothing to do with protecting the child’s best interests. When I disagreed with the actions being taken by CPS which were jeopardizing the children’s safety I was viciously attacked. Even though I had cleared a background check and attended and passed all the training, I was talked down to and raked over the coals when I gave my testimony in court. My case involved two young children who were taken from their parents at the ER when the mother tested positive for amphetamines. It very likely was a false positive, because a couple weeks later, she was in the ER again and when she was told she tested positive she insisted she had done no drugs and asked for a second test, which came back negative. She was accused of being a “frequent flyer” at the ER obviously hooked an pain meds, but when an ER doc finally took her complaints seriously and ran some tests, she was found to have undiagnosed MS. her complaints had been very real. Nevertheless, the state took her children away and they were never returned, the state now saying she was incapable of caring for them because she had MS! It’s a long and shocking story! Once I realized what my “real” function was - to support CPS’s decisions, regardless of the facts, - I quit the program entirely.”
    {signed and email given}

    Without one single exception in both the Tony Alamo case and the kidnapping of the Ranch children, NOT ONE CASA worker opted to oppose Barbie (Or dared to).

    15. Bill on November 24th, 2009 at 11:36 am