Sunday, May 18, 2008

Ellen Goodman shows MSM blindness

Ellen Goodman proves that she writes first, and asks questions later, perhaps never. This is what those of us who stand by the FLDS in their fight against tyranny have to put up with. From the Boston Globe by way of the Houston Chronicle.

"In the world of the FLDS, 'spiritual marriage' between older men and underage girls — what the law defines as rape — is given the stamp of religious approval. Of 53 girls believed to be between 14 and 17, more than 30 have children or are pregnant, including one who gave birth to her second child in custody. Among the boys, too, there is suspicion of widespread physical abuse."

The abuse of boys? Texas seems to have dropped that altogether, we will see. Ellen concludes;

"But in the end, what we have on that ranch in Eldorado is not a lifestyle. It's a pedophile ring. If we cannot rescue children from that, we've already destroyed their village."

While something may come out in the individual custody hearings starting tomorrow, Texas has done what we in the sales business call "ranging." If you say you have twenty nine 17 year old girls and one 14 year old and you at other times say you have thirty 14-17 year old girls, you have said the same thing in both cases. In the latter case though, you have neglected to mention you have no 16 year old girls and only one 14 year old. You have not discovered a pedophile ring when you have discovered one 14 year old girl that had been pregnant if in fact she has been. We only know now that the state of Texas says they have 14 year old girls that have been pregnant but the have lied before, or at best dissembled. Frankly if one 14 year old turns out to have been pregnant out of the whole population of FLDS children, that would be unremarkable. Wrong? Probably. Hypocritical in view of their values? Probably. Preventable? No. No group or society I know of is successful in preventing such things from happening.

In addition Ellen just has her facts wrong and I think she dissembles. Over 30 out of 53. The number is 31 Ellen, and you're guilty of inflating it making it appear as if it could be as high as 39. In addition, at the time this column was printed, the number was UNDER 30, namely it was 29 since two of the girls had been ceded by this time as being "of age." One girl that gave birth was 18, the other in her twenties. Those Ellen, are women.

The state of Texas has still not told us how many 14 year olds they have, or even if it's really that they have girls that they think were 14 when they gave birth but are 17 now. If there are any 14 year olds that HAVE been pregnant, that is significant, but still not a crime even if that pregnancy occured in Texas. Read through the blog, you will find Texas even MARRIES women legally that are 14. It would be a crime if her partner had her in Texas, was not married to her and was more than 3 years her senior. If as I now suspect, that Texas may be padding their "14" year old numbers with "women that they think were 14 when they had their first child" that's even more irrelevant. For good or bad that places the pregnancy maybe three or more years ago and the law was different then. The bottom line is that Texas needs to tell us they have X number of 14 year olds (now) that had been pregnant in the past. Y number of 15 year olds, same conditions, Z number of 16 year olds and however many 17 year olds. They have not done that yet.

If the past is any indication (the state of Texas has been shown to not pay attention to it's OWN acknowledgment of age) a good percentage of the remaining twenty nine "14-17" year olds may prove to be of age and we may have some 17 year olds that have been pregnant. Three years ago if she had sex and got pregnant in Utah and then moved to YFZ, there is no crime. For there to be one she would have to allege rape, something no one has come forward to do.

The fact is it seems the FLDS has been "cleaning up it's act," not in response to a wrong done, but in response to a law changed to make what was legal into a felony. Let's be frank about this. A 14 year old could have given herself willingly to a man 3 years ago and they started what the law would regard as a consensual relationship. Harvey's law comes along mid relationship and says it's illegal, a crime in fact punishable by life in prison. Unless though Texas proves that intercourse between the two occurred IN TEXAS, AFTER the law was passed that WASN'T a marriage as far as Texas was concerned, they have nothing.

I could go on and on. This though is what we are up against. A good percentage of the country is being misinformed in specific ways by the willing accomplices of the MSM. A lie indeed, travels around the world before the truth can tie it's shoes.

Sphere: Related Content

No comments: