headermask image

header image

BARBIE LIGHTS UP THE OVENS FOR HER NEXT VICTIM

Determined not to see another wrist slap like Raymond Jessop received, barbie made sure that every single objection made by the Defense was over-ruled and every single objection made by the persecution was sustained against Allan Keate.

Then that clown Abbott wheels into her “Court” in his wheelchair for the sympathy vote and demands that the Jury knows that Allan should be sentenced for life so that all of the San Angelo High Schools 135 pregnant “Children” are made safe from him and preserved for the locals.

During her “Trial”, barbie decides that a bimbet who couldn’t keep her panties on as a “Child” is now somehow an “Expert” in the field of the FLDS and “Testify’s” about things she could not have a clue of knowing, except of course for how to get knocked up in the desert. I guess from the locals standpoint, it only made sense putting Becky on the stand, after all who else fits in so well with the local little girls that the good old boys could relate to? Personally, I think it was a bit of over-kill on barbie’s part; let’s not forget, when it comes to screwing little girls, Texas rates numoro uno!

Now comes her next Juden to exterminate, Michael Emack. Michael stands accused of violating the same FLDS tailored Texas “Law” that wants to send Allan away for life for. Unlike his good old boy neighbors who are immune from the FLDS Law, Michael will have to spend a few month’s, maybe a year or two, until the Fed’s bitch slap barbie and harvey for ignoring the Constitution and set him free.

I do not see things as being all bad. There are already 33 children who now know the kind of despot “Judge” barbie is, and when she adds Michaels 10 minor children to that total, there will be another 43 dedicated FLDS ready to carry on in their parents religion.

This piece came out on the Captive site. You can look forward to an in-depth look into the real lives of the men who have been persecuted by barbie in the coming weeks.

Allan Keate Sentence Makes a Mockery of Justice

2010-01-02 13:39:24
By Donald Richter

The recent sentence of thirty-three years imprisonment for Allan Keate is one of the most glaring injustices perpetrated in our country in modern times.

Allan Keate is one of my cherished personal friends. I have worked beside him, visited with him, heard him speak in religious services, and heard him pray. This is a man who is kind, gentle, honest, and deeply religious. In no way does he fit the mold of a sexual abuser. His actions are criminal only because the State of Texas has chosen to define them as such, not because they are inherently wrong in and of themselves. A state investigator admitted at the trial that Allan has no prior criminal record and is not a threat to anyone, yet he has been given a harsher sentence than is meted out to many murderers. During the trial Allan never complained or criticized those who were bringing the persecution upon him but only said, “This is in the Lord’s hands, and they can only do what He allows them to do.” When the verdict was announced, he gave his attorney a hug, and as he was taken from the courtroom in handcuffs smiled at his family and friends and said quietly, “I love you.”

At this season of the year when Christian nations are commemorating the birth of the Savior, let us put things into perspective by considering the case of His mother Mary. Biblical scholars generally believe that she was between the ages of twelve and fourteen when she conceived the Christ child and that her betrothed husband Joseph was a much older man. Marriages of this sort were more the norm than the exception at this period of time; and since plural marriage had been practiced among the Jews for centuries, it is highly unlikely that Mary was Joseph’s first wife either. God obviously did not condemn Joseph for marrying this young lady. When Joseph learned that his betrothed wife was due to give birth to a child and was “minded to put her away privily,” the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and counseled him to take unto himself his wife “for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” Joseph was further favored of the Lord when the angel appeared to him in dreams, warning him to take the child into Egypt for protection and advising him when it was safe to return. Had Joseph and his family lived in modern-day Texas, however, he would have been imprisoned as a pedophile, Mary placed in a battered women’s shelter, and Jesus made a ward of the state.

Texas authorities today have chosen to selectively prosecute FLDS men in a vain attempt to justify the horrendous abuses they heaped upon the families of the YFZ community during the raid that commenced April 3, 2008. Since the Texas Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court both ruled that the state was not justified in removing children from their parents, state authorities are now attempting to accomplish the same destruction of FLDS families by removing and imprisoning the husbands and fathers.

The so-called “victim” in the Allan Keate case is today an adult, who stoutly denies that she has been abused by Allan in any way. Can the State of Texas really claim that they care about this young lady and have improved her life by labeling her husband a criminal, giving him what amounts to a life sentence in prison, and leaving his family without the financial and emotional support of the husband and father that they love and depend on?

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

60 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

  1. “As the world turns.”

    I don’t particularly care how Harry is defeated, so long as he is out of there. He did the 12 apostates bidding,
    and now he gets his reward just as Perry will get his when he loses the election.

    1. Bill on January 11th, 2010 at 10:10 am
  2. Reid made his comments well over a year ago.dureing the campaign and the context was about the candidates appeal to the voters.

    Obama blew it off then but the issue is resurfaceing now because the man is starting his reelection campaign.

    The Republicans need an issue…and have as usual chosen old news about something that the subject of the remarks has closed well over a year ago.
    Old news about old comments were dredged up to open old non-wounds. Gotta love the desperation of the opposition……….

    2. ZXC on January 11th, 2010 at 9:31 am
  3. Conducting a Senate Judiciary Hearing about the FLDS but refusing to allow FLDS members to defend themselves is rather like conducting a trial in which only the prosecutor is allowed to speak.

    3. Cupcake on January 10th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
  4. Now Dianne Feinstein is rushing to Harry Reid’s defense. She says Reid’s racially insensitive remark is a closed matter.

    Dianne was involved the one-sided Senate Judiary Committee hearing about the FLDS in which the senators involved refused to allow FLDS members speak to defend themselves. Conducting one-sided hearings is not the American way. So, of course, Dianne wants to help cover up Senator Reid’s bigotry.

    Dianne, dear, wake up and smell the coffee. Senators, congressmen, state representatives, etc. should not be making insensitive remarks about ANY minority group, including (but not limited to) the FLDS.

    4. Cupcake on January 10th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
  5. The GOP’s token has his own problems. Seems he’s been writing a book behind the bigots backs and they don’t like it.

    If he was white, he would be canned in a New York minute, but they have to tolerate him unless of course he says something bad about Ronny or Nancy.

    Even when he was bad mouthed by the fat drug addict, noone came to his rescue, they all turned around and laughed so that he couldn’t see them.

    As for Harry, he’s too bigoted to be a Senator, but he has said nothing regarding Obuma that every other jerk in Washington hasn’t said all along.

    The fact of the matter is; if Obuma wasn’t black, he would not be President. I thought it didn’t matter what a man’s skin color was? More BS for the lemmings.

    5. Bill on January 10th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
  6. Now the GOP chief is calling for Harry Reid’s resignation. This is wonderful. Remember when Harry Reid put on that one-sided Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about the FLDS and refused to let the FLDS members speak to defend themselves?

    Hopefully, the controversy surrounding Harry Reid will be a wake-up call to Harvey Hildrebran. A state representative should NOT make derogatory remarks about ANY minority group.

    Remember that if a person thinks it is acceptable to hate one minority group, he probably hates other minority groups as well.

    Bill, I hope you will write an article about the Harry Reid controversy and plaster his face all over your blog.

    6. Cupcake on January 10th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
  7. About Muslims:

    If the KS spoke about Muhammad the same way that they speak about Joseph Smith, they would end up going into hiding like Salman Rushdie did. Or possibly dead, like Van Gogh’s grandson.

    Even if we disagree with a religious leader’s beliefs and teachings, we should not insult or degrade him. We should be sensitive and considerate toward those who believe and practice his religion.

    7. Cupcake on January 10th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
  8. You’re missing the point, Bill. Harry Reid made the racially insensitive remark for the same reason why he calls all the FLDS “pedophiles.” He doesn’t like people who are different from him.

    8. Cupcake on January 10th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
  9. It’s kind of funny that Harry can call people pedophiles and worse, and when he call’s Obuma “Light-skinned”, he gets his gonads twisted off.

    It’s like the Muslims who are outraged over a cartoon, but have no problem with blowing little children to bits.

    Don’t worry about it Harry, you just need to know your big mouth got you thousand’s of Mormon’s who will actively work to get rid of you.

    Maybe you can ask the Quorum of the 12 Apostates for a job.

    9. Bill on January 9th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
  10. Actually, when I wrote that paragraph, I had the hypocrites in Salt Lake in mind.

    10. Bill on January 9th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
  11. Here is an interesting quote from CNN news:

    “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid apologized Saturday following reports he had privately described then-candidate Barack Obama during the presidential campaign as a black candidate who could be successful thanks in part to his “light-skinned” appearance and speaking patterns “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

    The article went on to say that Obama accepted Reid’s apology, but Republicans are hoping that Reid will be voted out of office.

    I’m with the Republicans. Reid should be voted out of office because of the poor way he treats minority groups, including (but not limited to) the FLDS.

    11. Kristi on January 9th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
  12. Bill: “It’s my opinion that when the FLDS do get the green light to practice their religion, they are going to see a virtual stampede of good old boys ready to convert to Mormonism and enjoy the fruits of their new religion.”


    There’s certainly going to be a stampede of LDS members wanting to practice polygamy, and that’s what the LDS leadership is afraid of. That’s why they’re so against gay marriage–it’s a slippery slope.

    12. Julie on January 9th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
  13. Scalia is an originalist when it comes to the Constitution, and that attitude works only for the FLDS regarding the 1st, 8th and 14th Amendments.

    Everybody assumed he would vote with the Texas good old boys when it came to their problem with flag burning.

    When it comes to language, few Articles are as clear and concise as the language in the 14th Amendment.

    I would love to be a fly on the wall when he read’s Hilderbrans Legislative notes and the way his Mormon bashing Law was written.

    For that, I WANT Scalia to make the Decision.

    As for Polygamy, Texas, Utah, or Arizona are not stupid enough to send a stand alone case of polygamy to the Federal Court’s, they already KNOW it will be overturned.

    They won’t even bring a charge of Bigamy forward because they know it will topple the polygamy ban as well.

    If the Indians can smoke dope as part of their religion, if the Indians can kill Florida Panther’s as part of their religion, if the Sangria can sacrifice chickens as part of their religion and let’s not forget the Eskimo’s and the seals, salmon and whales, then the Mormon’s can freely practice their religion.

    It’s my opinion that when the FLDS do get the green light to practice their religion, they are going to see a virtual stampede of good old boys ready to convert to Mormonism and enjoy the fruits of their new religion.

    I pray the FLDS continue to refuse to accept converts.

    13. Bill on January 9th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
  14. Scalia made the suggestion that several western states rethink their bigamy laws before someone challenged them in court. It seems tha “Lawrence” and the new consensual sex laws have skewed the concept of bigamy………… The literal interpretation group always balk at the religious freedom guarantees and even the 19th century court was out to get the LDS………….just twisted a few words.

    The reference to practices of an African or Arabic tradition rather than the Eurocentric model was am EXCUSE to outlaw polygamy.

    Eurocentric arguments don’t fly in this day and age………….even adultery laws can’t fly given the consensual sex ruleings.

    I agree with you that political ruleings that have kept our constitution from being fully in effect but darn it …………everyone is staying well clear of bringing a modern polygamy test case before the court.

    Freedom of religion is pretty simple…………the social embarrasment of many Christians is keeping the issue out of the courts.

    Such a simple issue……..and the bible pretty much defines and condones polygamy…………age of marraige………….and for that matter the entire FLDS case.

    Smith opened a can of worms with the LDS and in my opinion his right to practice his religion is above the right of the State to restrict him………….because the State says so..and the state acknowledges certain inalienable rights…..the state has defered to God ………..and even the State refers to religious rights as self evident.

    Get this mess before the SC………

    14. ZXC on January 9th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
  15. ZXC, you mentioned Scalia. As far as interpreting the constitution, he calls himself an originalist, which puts him squarely with the Reynold’s court. His objection to Lawrence was in part because it might lead to the legalization of polygamy. He’ll be no friend to the Mormons.

    15. Julie on January 9th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
  16. I tend to agree with Julie that our freedom of religion has been severely curtailed.

    Just before I graduated from radiology school in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prayers could not be part of graduation ceremonies at public schools. Our professor told us we couldn’t have a prayer in our graduation ceremony.

    My class included people from a variety of faiths. We voted to include a prayer anyway because it was OUR graduation ceremony. We felt that the government did not have the right to restrict our religious freedom at OUR ceremony. So we included a prayer. No one got arrested. No one had to go to jail. But all of us were willing to get arrested or go to jail for praying.

    16. Cupcake on January 9th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
  17. ZXC, the phrase PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF is not the same as the one you used before, FREEDOM TO PRACTICE ONES RELIGION. But no matter, the exact words are unimportant because the SC redefines them whenever it wants. As a result, our Constitution is about as good as the old Soviet one.

    The words of the First Amendment are not open to interpretation, you say? Think again.

    In the nineteenth century, the court decided that they wouldn’t honor the plain meaning of “free exercise” because it would put religious law higher than secular law, and they justified this by pointing to an obscure letter by Thomas Jefferson by which they interpreted “exercise” to refer to beliefs and not to acts. After that it was accepted that you could restrict religious acts if the laws affected everyone. No one could practice polygamy, and that was fine with the members of the Supreme Court because they were Episcopalians, for the most part.

    The Lemon Test came into use in 1971. It says, for a law to pass muster with the First Amendment, “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.”

    Even that has been modified several times, so it’s hard to say exactly what religions freedoms we have, if any. We still tell schoolchildren that they have freedom of religion in this country, and they assume that means something, even if it doesn’t.

    17. Julie on January 9th, 2010 at 10:13 am
  18. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Pay close attention to OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF

    Santa did not write those words and those that have twisted them in the case of the LDS referenced non-european religious practices as a reason to deny the free exercise of LDS religious practices.

    Try a twenty first century reading of the same words…………a literal “interpretation” as has been mentioned by Scalia, and the political correctness of todays culture and laws that have restricted LDS/FLDS religious doctrine will fall like dominos.

    The words are clear.their meaning not open to interpretation, and the political ruleings by a 19th century court are as wrong today as they were then.

    18. ZXC on January 9th, 2010 at 12:23 am
  19. I’m sorry, Pins.

    19. Cupcake on January 8th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
  20. Bill:

    Please don’t let any of the K.S. post here. I don’t want your blog to become another hornet’s nest like the SLT or the other site.

    20. Cupcake on January 8th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
  21. “Let those that disagree bellow their garbage and show their true colors because they just can’t get over the Constitution of this country Tthe words are plain and clear. FREEDOM TO PRACTICE ONES RELIGION…………it’s the law.”–ZXC


    Those aren’t the words in the constitution, nor does the supreme court recognize the plain meaning of the actual words. In the US, freedom of religion is just a Santa story we tell schoolchildren, and propaganda we feed to other countries.

    21. Julie on January 8th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
  22. The problem with letting the C.S.s post is that they want to win their argument based upon the level of noise they make and not rational thought and discussion.

    They remind me of the tea party crowd; One bigmouth takes over a meeting, and all of a sudden, heshe becomes “The voice of the people”. Horseshit, it makes them a big mouth, but hardly the majority.

    Letting Jamitin to post encourages the rest of the cockroaches to follow. Before long, they pull another Brooke Adams takeover.

    What these people want you to believe is that they are “Law abiding citizens”. Again, Horseshit. They are lemmings hiding behind “The law” when someone else breaks it. Naturally, it does not apply to them, only everyone “Else”.

    He’s an example of “The Law” in Florida:

    It is ILLEGAL to allow your dog to ride in the back of a pick-up truck without a leash on.

    A child needs no restraint of any kind.

    “The Law” values dogs higher than human beings. Now you want me to respect it? I think NOT!

    22. Bill on January 8th, 2010 at 10:58 am
  23. Let anyone post! Most main stream media and evey old blog has banned anyone that supports the church. Freedom of the press seems to work in Texas as long as you agree with the bigots.

    let the truth get out without censorship…let freedom of religion apply to everyone without resorting to the censorship of the hypocrits.

    Let those that disagree bellow their garbage and show their true colors because they just can’t get over the Constitution of this country Tthe words are plain and clear. FREEDOM TO PRACTICE ONES RELIGION…………it’s the law.

    23. ZXC on January 8th, 2010 at 10:09 am
  24. Nice comment riki

    24. dazzle on January 8th, 2010 at 2:39 am
  25. CUPCAKE! Wrong Pins !

    25. pins on January 8th, 2010 at 2:23 am
  26. Bill,

    I suspect that Jam Inn is the KS member who uses multiple screen names (”Spotlight”, etc.) That group is always trying to infiltrate your blog.

    You say that no one is allowed to say anything negative about the FLDS here. This is the one blog that the KS cannot dominate. Please delete his posts and do not let him post here any more.

    26. Cupcake on January 8th, 2010 at 1:21 am
  27. Jam Inn,

    I believe that it is wrong for adults to have sex with children. Although the age of consent in Texas is 17, I do not believe that an adult should have sex with anyone under age 18. That is the best way for an adult to protect himself/herself from being accused of pedophilia. (Even if an adult adamently refuses to have sex with a minor, people could still make false accusations about him/her.)

    While the FLDS children were being held captive, the girls stated that there is no scripture about how old a girl must be to be married. As Pins has pointed out, the FLDS have stated several times that they will not perform underage marriages any more, but your group refuses to believe them. I have been hoping that Warren would renounce underage marriage from his prison cell. Even if Warren did, I doubt that your group would believe him.

    In prosecuting these cases, the state should take into consideration the cultural and religious beliefs of the group.

    There are about 10,000 people who belong to the FLDS sect. I do not believe that all of them are “child molesters” as your group seems to think. I do not believe in making broadswept generalizations about people. I believe that there are good and bad people in every race, religion and ethnic group.

    My sympathy is for the children, who will be losing their fathers. My sympathy is for the alleged “victims” who are now adults. I think it is wrong for the state to prosecute their spiritual husbands against their wishes because it implies that the women are too stupid to know whether or not they were “raped.”

    27. Cupcake on January 8th, 2010 at 1:04 am
  28. Yep J I. You are boring,

    28. MV on January 8th, 2010 at 12:39 am
  29. It is religion people not perversion. Read the bible.read the BOM. Sorry that the rest of the world diagrees with the religious views of the FLDS but freedom of religion is for a religious institution to decide.

    Read the law.the constitution ….and not the rantings of a State legislator whose agenda is to dismantle a religion………his words not mine.

    29. ZXC on January 7th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
  30. Texas uses the “Just say no” routine.

    Then they insist their little girls get shots to prevent STD’s.

    I wonder why they don’t suggest that the boys also get the shot’s too? They do know of course that two girls can’t make a baby Right? (Sorry Angie, but it’s true).

    30. Bill on January 7th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
  31. Your comment was posted, but then one of our people got bored with your BS and asked that it be taken down.

    I don’t get bored because I get a big kick out of sheeple that cannot think for themselves, and have to have other people do their thinking for them.

    The difference between the C.S. and us is that 20 years from now, we will be proud of what we stood for, while you of course will deny your involvement.

    If tomorrow, the Texas Legislature made it legal for you to take a 5 year old to bed, you would because “It’s legal”. We would not, and neither would the FLDS men because it’s wrong, and screw what the law says.

    When the SASD has 12 young girls pregnant, and the Ranch has 135, come back and preach to us. Until then, try to keep your pants on and leave the little girls alone.

    31. Bill on January 7th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
  32. You don’t listen too good, do you? Bill’s point is that you can’t give one guy 33 years and 10 others mulligans just cause you don’t like the first guy’s religion. Ya gettin it now?

    32. WC on January 7th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
  33. Jam is so funny! Wanting FLDS teens to get sex ed before getting married! As if, in Texas, where the only sex ed girls get is “Keep your knees together.”

    33. Riki on January 7th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
  34. Bill you didn’t post my comment and then refer to it in you post?
    Yes, prostitution, pornography and drug sales are all illegal acts in Texas and considered “victimless” by there deviant practitioners. Do you consider reassignments legal? Do you consider ‘aiding an abetting’ a federal fugitive to be legal? Do you consider driving a underage girl from Utah to Texas to be spiritually wed is sex trafficking? Do you think denying a underage girl any sex education prior to spiritual wedlock constitutes informed consent? Do you consider minimum age laws for minors to legal persecution?

    34. Jam Inn on January 7th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
  35. JI:
    “…There is a definite beach courtesy that is observed and approaching an unknown sunbather who is exposed is considered impolite and not done by informed beach fans.”

    Humor of the day!

    Being one that is quite aware of such beaches in France and Spain, I can only laugh at this post. As if any intimate body parts lacking coverage from swim suits are only exposed when laying down to sun bath or promptly covered if some rude participant thinks they can freely walk on that beach.

    It reads like the tale some young man told a rather immature and not too bright young girl to convince her that nobody would look at her after she took her clothes off.

    Say it 3+ times and it will be true (to you)!

    35. kent on January 7th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
  36. I have never wanted to go to a nudist camp or a nudist beach. Not even when I was young and beautiful. I don’t like that kind of stuff.

    I’ve been inside a strip joint once. One of the young military wives worked at one. She asked me to give her a ride to work one afternoon. Then she invited me in to meet her co-workers. Her co-workers were nice to me, but I left as quickly as possible. I just don’t like that kind of stuff.

    But I don’t think it is my place to tell another adult that he or she can’t go to a nudist camp or a strip joint if he or she wants to. I simply choose to stay away from those kind of places myself.

    36. Cupcake on January 7th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
  37. Prostitution is “Against the Law” in Texas.

    How come the Duly elected Mayors of Texas cities are now giving the law breaking prostitutes a choice; jail or “Rehab”.

    I happen to think that there are no “Victims” in some guy hiring a prostitute, or some girl selling her body if that’s what she wants to do, and the Mayor’s of Texas seem to agree with me and have told your goons and prosecuters to drop dead.

    If I were you Jamitin, I would start picketing in San Angelo to uphold the “Law” and stop coddling these “Criminals.”

    Next thing we know, barbie will be giving the FLDS men a choice; Prison or “Rehab”.

    By the way, just exactly what kind of “Rehab” does it take for a girl to keep her panties on if she is cold, hungry or tired?

    Maybe the San Angelo School District could use it to keep their little girls from learning how to fold diapers.

    I also notice you blame the girls for getting knocked up. How come San Angelo girls are to blame for their fat bellies and the little boys who did it are not mentioned?

    Finally, for your femi-nazi information, girls mature faster than boys. Despite all the bragging and pretending boys 10 to 13 do, MOST are still shooting blanks in AT LEAST age 13.

    You seem to think that the good old boys are not doing anything with their little girls that the rest of the Country does. Let us not forget you maggot that TEXAS screws it’s little girls at a more prolific rate than any other State in the Country, and MOST Countries in the WORLD.

    How many times has the Gimp with the Limp trotted her fat ass into a local school and suggested the girls stay off their backs and the girls keep their zippers up?

    If that Nazi thinks that 12 cases from the Ranch is some kind of tragedy, what does she think when there are 135 little kiddies sitting less than 5 miles away from her in school?

    One thing I DO know; Those little girls will NOT be loosing their children to Angie and Brownie anytime soon; they have NO COMMERCIAL VALUE to the baby buyers.

    I guess the only way the Ranch is going to be able to protect the children is to keep a barrel of shoe polish nearby and if the tank rolls again, give the children a dunk and Poof, ya can’t give them away.

    37. Bill on January 7th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
  38. Jam inn, We are informed and we are very much aware that the so-called victim is now an adult. The so-called victim doesnt consider herself to be a victim. Donald Richter has spoken the truth which Jaminn doesnt want to hear.

    38. THOMAS on January 7th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
  39. Jamm It,

    If I wanted to read about uninformed obsession’s with the FLDS, I would read the so-called kennelmaster blog. Are you guys running out of one-liners to mock the FLDS over there? We don’t want to hear about it over here.

    39. WC on January 7th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
  40. WC my comment to you about European nude sunbathing is accurate for the vast majority of beachgoers, believe it or not.

    40. Jam Inn on January 7th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
  41. I wouldn’t call two 70 +/- year old naked German tourists playing volleyball in southern Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain my idea of a fantasy.

    41. WC on January 7th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
  42. WC who pays for ‘Lost Boys’ and this week we have ‘Lost Family(s)’ left abandoned in Short Creek by Michael Emack and yes these two families were receiving welfare support while Michael was living at the YFZ anch with his new ‘Child Bride’ and how many other YFZ Ranch ‘Templebuilders’ were residing on the YFZ Ranch without their full family(s) because some were uninvited?

    Do you truly equate Civil disobedience with committing serial sexual assault felonies?

    42. Jam Inn on January 7th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
  43. Sorry to pop your uninformed fantasy WC but in Europe they don’t parade around. Yes they disrobe while usually lying prone on their towels and are more inclined to remove their tops than bottoms, although either is likely. men trolling the beach surf and gawking are going to see sunbathers cover themselves as they approach and see nothing for their efforts. When a sunbather arrives/leaves the beach they are covered and no nudist colony beach scene is to be witnessed. In fact if someone didn’t know that sunbathing was allowed you might not even notice without tourist binoculars or a telephoto lense. There is a definite beach courtesy that is observed and approaching an unknown sunbather who is exposed is considered impolite and not done by informed beach fans.

    43. Jam Inn on January 7th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
  44. Somewhat afield: Call it Karma or Divine retribution, but I wouldn’t be surprised if those who have been persecuting the FLDS find that what goes around comes around as natural (non-human) forces balance things.

    Certainly, if the FLDS have done “good,” and I believe most have, and if the persecutors have done “evil,” and I believe most have, and if God (or nature, if you prefer) favors the good, and if there is a Law of Karma, then I wouldn’t be surprised if this natural, but barely understood law, may be weighing the evidence of evil beneath the surface of our reality.

    Chances are its verdicts and sentences will come in unexpected ways: disease, accidents, heart attacks–who knows? I could give examples, but this post would be too long.

    However, I will say this; the workings of Karma (or whatever you want to call it) often look like odd, head scratching coincidences as the balancing is based on non-human logic.

    NB: As we learn more about the subatomic world, we begin to see, just barely so far, a tiny glimmer of a scientific but non-human logic in how such things as Karma, balancing, curses, prayers,etc. may actually work and how humans doing nothing more than praying can affect these forces by the power of their collective will.

    Note: I’m not FLDS, so the above thoughts are mine and have nothing to do with any FLDS beliefs as far as I know.

    44. Bob on January 7th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
  45. “provide aid/assistance to problemed pregnancy(s)”
    —————
    who pay’s for that? who pays for the FLDS children?

    “Both situations are wrong”
    ———————–
    according to you.

    “Taking the law into ones own hands is illegal and never a rational justification.”
    ———————
    Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandella, Mahatma Ghandi.

    45. WC on January 7th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
  46. In Europe, it’s pretty common for folks to walk around with no clothes on the beach. I’ve never been to one; but they tell me that the one’s who go without clothes, it’s not a pretty site and you wished they had brought their clothes.

    46. WC on January 7th, 2010 at 1:52 pm
  47. Cupcake the Gated Community is a creation of Warren Jeffs and his cohorts. They arrived in Schleicher County and cloistered themselves. Do pregnant teens outside of the ‘Lands of Refuge’ believe in the rightfulness of their unwed status, supported by their family for their immoral acts or encouraged to ignore statutes that prohibit their illicit behaviors? Do you think the identifications of pregnant teens is not readily available to verify for most pregnant teens, are these pregnant teens being shunned by their families or does Texas society condone such behavior or counsel against it, provide aid/assistance to problemed pregnancy(s) and teach sex classes to advise against the risks, harms and consequences of underage/unmarried sexual behaviors?

    You seem to wish to ignore that teen pregnancy is an epidemic problem that our Mid/High Schools have embattled for decades and have engaged fully to prevent and redress. The existence of this problem doesn’t give free license to exploit other teens into making similar risky and wrongful acts by adult assailants under some guise of religious teaching to impregnate underage children. Both situations are wrong and need to be legally prevented and not rationalized by you. Taking the law into ones own hands is illegal and never a rational justification.

    47. Jam Inn on January 7th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
  48. As a boy, I attended an all boys summer camp on Long Island.

    Every Wednesday, we had a mandatory “Sound swim” that was actually a bath.

    Every day, Thursday through Tuesday, there wasn’t a single small fishing boat out in the water. On Wednesday, there were at least 50 boats, all busy fishing right off-shore where we were bathing.

    I have often wondered how those fisherman knew that the only time “Fish” were available was on a Wednesday.

    On Sanibel Island, one of the beaches there is a known nudists beach. In order to get to that beach, you have to come by boat, or crawl through more than a mile of mangroves and chest high water.

    Now and then, the cops on Sanibel feel like getting “Outraged” by the nudist’s, and crawl through the mangroves to arrest them.

    The reason most cops don’t like nudist is because they know they could never pass the “Test” of seeing other folks naked. That’s why you have never heard of an “Undercover” nudist bust unless the cop was a shemale.

    48. Bill on January 7th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
  49. I think the accusers are perverts too.

    Many years ago, I was acquainted with a man who belonged to a nudist colony. Every weekend he and his son went to the nudist camp. His son really seemed to like it. (No, I never went. Nudism isn’t my thing.)

    Anyway, the man explained to me that nudists are not perverts. They are simply people do not like to wear clothes.

    He told me that the real perverts are the “lookyloos.” He said that “lookyloos” are not nudists. “Lookyloos” are the clothed people who like to hang out near a nudist colony and gawk at the nudists inside.

    Anyway, I think the accusers are a lot like “lookyloos.”

    49. Cupcake on January 7th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
  50. Try a fun experiment Cupcake. Make 135 individual phone calls to SA CPS and report the 135 teen pregnancies. Be sure to express concern over the possible illegality of the sex act.

    Sit back and see if the tank rolls thru a neighborhood or how many churches have their doors kicked in.

    Just for an added twist Cupcake tell the nazis that at least one childs name is Sarah.

    50. ZXC on January 7th, 2010 at 10:49 am
  51. Sure there are other cases of under age pregnancy in Texas but I would bet that none of those cases have a religious component.

    Look at east Texas for a concentration of early pregnancy and an “illegal” age disparity, but little if any religious dogma to support responsibility for the offspring.

    A culture of perversion is considerably different from religious dogma that supports a religious family liveing a life dictated by their God.

    The cultural threat to Texas by the FLDS has brought out the evil within the accuser rather than a threat by the accused.

    Look at the scores of pre raid accusations by the State that were proven false and the so called experts called by the State to testify against the accused. After years of shrinks telling the former members how they were abused they regurgitate the States tripe adnauseum.

    The fact remains that a religious body continues their religious practices in a country that chants freedom of religion as it saves the world from everything from communism to consumerism……..but persecutes those that don’t practice mainstream religion.

    Ooooooohhhhhhhh I forgot about the 12 million member cult in Utah that was forced by the government to renounce their beliefs ………..there is precedent for religious intolerance in more than Texas.

    The perversion alleged by the accusers lends more to the mindset of the accusers than the defendants……………such a shame that there are so many perverts in Texas. Scratch a Nazie and you find a pervert. Have you ever seen reports of the sex life of Hitler…….one sick puppy.

    51. ZXC on January 7th, 2010 at 5:59 am
  52. Everyone assumes that the 135 pregnant non-FLDS girls in San Angelo’s middle and high schools were impregnated by teenaged boys. But I’ll bet if Judge Barbie did to non-FLDS pregnant teens and teen mothers what she did to the FLDS, some of those girls got pregnant by males who were more than 3 years older than them.

    52. Cupcake on January 7th, 2010 at 1:28 am
  53. No, ZXC, there was a Christian polygamist living in Texas. I can’t remember his name now. But I read that Texas dropped the bigamy charges on him.

    53. Cupcake on January 7th, 2010 at 1:25 am
  54. The FLDS are the only religious body to practice polygamy. Kinda narrows the field for bigamy charges. Every other Texan hits and runs.

    54. ZXC on January 7th, 2010 at 12:59 am
  55. “The statistic I like the best is that the State of Texas has NEVER charged anyone with this new “Law” except for 11 FLDS men. The “Law” has been in effect for over 4 years, and they have not found one good old boy to prosecute?”


    Yes, it’s rather evident that the offender has to be a Mormon.

    55. Julie on January 7th, 2010 at 12:07 am
  56. Why do you think the state has only charged the 11 FLDS men but not the fathers of the 135 pregnant girls in San Angelo’s high school and middle school?

    1. Because no one rounded up all the non-FLDS pregnant girls and teen mothers in San Angelo and forced them into foster care.

    2. Because the fathers of the all the non-FLDS pregnant girls and teen mothers did not live in one gated community.

    3. Because no one forced the children born to San Angelo’s non-FLDS teen mothers to identity who their parents are.

    If you can think of any other reasons, please post them.

    56. Cupcake on January 6th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
  57. I feel sorry for the children who will be losing their father.

    57. Cupcake on January 6th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
  58. I guess Harvey is pacing himself when he says he plans to protect little girls in Texas with his legislation.

    58. WC on January 6th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
  59. The statistic I like the best is that the State of Texas has NEVER charged anyone with this new “Law” except for 11 FLDS men. The “Law” has been in effect for over 4 years, and they have not found one good old boy to prosecute? Hell, there are 135 little girls in barbie’s middle and high school in San Angelo ALONE!

    This in a State that knocks up it’s children at the highest rates in the entire Country.

    59. Bill on January 6th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
  60. They have a point. 33 years for a guy with no past criminal record and no victim. I wonder why the FLDS don’t trust outsiders?

    60. WC on January 6th, 2010 at 4:07 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*