The Cincinnati Beacon - I am willing to die for a filthy polygamist child predator

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

I am willing to die for a filthy polygamist child predator

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Guest article by Scott Ryan

I say we round up all black children and put them in white foster homes.

I say we round up all the kids in single parent homes and put them in a foster home with a mother and a father.

I think we should all call the authorities and “tell on” those nasty Jehovah Witness cooks.

Those nasty alcoholic Irish sects should have their children taken away.

Read this.

O.K., it was me. I molested those girls at the FLDS ranch. Now arrest me, put a bullet in my head, and let those kids be reunited with their parents.

I expect such complacency from the right, but where is the outrage from the so-called progressive child advocates?

Men have sacrificed their lives for less, and make no mistake, lives will be sacrificed in this case. Real life death will occur.

Evil filthy men are evil filthy men and fascism is fascism.

For a related thread at the Beacon please see this.

• Share This Article!

Listen to this article

Help The Cincinnati Beacon Grow! Participate in Social Networking!

Socializer!

Members

Tell us what you think!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here!

NtotheC says:
30 Apr 2008 at 08:40 am | #

What’s the point of this article? it seems to be an unrelated series of statements that have no thesis, no support and no conclusion.

Freedom Fighters says:
30 Apr 2008 at 10:08 am | #

Waco 101.

The theory: protect the kids, sort it out latter. Rendition ?

Like the Japanese-Americans.

The legal liability for not acting on a complaint is enormous.

If the left started activism, they would be labeled fagot, child molesters.

Personally, we have to give credence to the minor who had the courage to reach out.

Something isn’t right here, though.

says:
30 Apr 2008 at 02:56 pm | #

The meaning of the post:

I, Scott Ryan, a husband and father of three children under the age of 5,
A practicing catholic,
A man that considers the practice of polygamy dispicable,
A man that would be willing to pull the trigger my self to condemn of proven child predator to death,
is also a man that is willing to lie and sacrifice his soul as well as his life for the liberty of those children, even at the risk that there may, possibly, exist, this evil filthy predator that lives amongst them.

What would this accomplish?

The children would return to their families.
The possible hope that the FLDS would be so moved by the gesture that they would purge themselves of this evil.
My children would learn to stand up and be willing to die for freedom and justice. The greatest gift a father could give to his children.

NtotheC says:
01 May 2008 at 10:56 am | #

Mr. Ryan,

I now understand your meaning; however, i feel obligated to point out a logical fallacy. you suggest that you are a practicing Catholic and yet you suggest that you favor the death penalty.

These two things do not match.

says:
01 May 2008 at 04:31 pm | #

The Catechism of the Catholic Church Second Edition, page 546.

“Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.”

anon says:
01 May 2008 at 06:00 pm | #

I am willing to die for a filthy polygamist child predator

Offer accepted.

says:
01 May 2008 at 09:40 pm | #

There is no hyperbole here anon. I absolutely would sacrifice my life for the release of those children.

A public execution by the state so that they can claim victory. I will confess to crimes I did not do. In return they agree that the evil has been eradicated from the FLDS community so the kids can return.

cincysuz says:
02 May 2008 at 05:30 am | #

#5 - I think “unable to render harm” would be accomplished by incarceration. Otherwise, anyone could be put to death for the common good. And death for child molesters seems extreme. Keep in mind that most molesters were also molested as children, so appropriate mental and emotional care would be the best route. Nope. Don’t try to be pure of purpose, filled with outrage and “holier than thou” if you will, and then suggest that the death penalty is ever appropriate.

says:
02 May 2008 at 06:11 am | #

This is completely off topic cincysuz, but I will comment one last time about it.

There would be no hate in me. He would have to be counseled. He would have to admit guilt, and would have to accept his fate. My point is that the catholic church is not opposed to capital punishment, it has stood up in opposition to our law concerning the death penalty, but is not philosophically opposed to the death penalty.

Two other points. Don’t make assumptions. Do not assume victim hood on the perpetrator. Do not assume that the man would not be willing to die as punishment. There are other assumptions that you have made as well. And I must respectfully disagree with your statement that the death penalty is never appropriate.

says:
02 May 2008 at 06:35 am | #

Scott, cite your sources.

Here are some that prove you wrong:

The Catholic bishops of the United States have provided careful guidance about this difficult issue, applying the teaching of the universal Church to our American culture. Along with the leadership assemblies of many Churches (for example. American Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians), the U.S. bishops have expressed their opposition to the death penalty. First articulated in 1974, the bishops’ position is explained in a 1980 statement, Capital Punishment. Individual bishops and state conferences of bishops have repeated in numerous teachings their opposition to the death penalty.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0195.asp

I believe this is from the pope in 1999:

“I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary,” he said. “Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform.”

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Apr1999/feature1.asp#F6

says:
02 May 2008 at 06:36 am | #

In his encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” (The Gospel of Life) issued March 25, 1995 after four years of consultations with the world’s Roman Catholic bishops, John Paul II wrote that execution is only appropriate “in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady immprovement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/popestate.html

says:
02 May 2008 at 07:25 am | #

Dean:

All correct. As I am opposed to the death penalty as well, as written by law in most all if not all countries including ours. Please see response #9, do some more research and then see if my position is in opposition to the church.

According to one of your citations:

In their 1980 statement, the bishops begin by noting that punishment, “since it involves the deliberate infliction of evil on another,” must be justifiable. They acknowledge that the Christian tradition has for a long time recognized a government’s right to protect its citizens by using the death penalty in some serious situations. The bishops ask, however, if capital punishment is still justifiable in the present circumstances in the United States.

In this context, the bishops enter the debate about deterrence and retribution. They acknowledge that capital punishment certainly prevents the criminal from committing more crimes, yet question whether it prevents others from doing so. Similarly, concerning retribution, the bishops support the arguments against death as an appropriate form of punishment. The bishops add that reform is a third reason given to justify punishment, but it clearly does not apply in the case of capital punishment. And so they affirm: “We believe that in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.”

The Bishops are addressing issues within our current society. What if capital punishment laws were written in such a way as to satisfy all justifications and can be proven to do so.

says:
02 May 2008 at 07:57 am | #

According to the citation in #11, again the church is addressing the current penal system. As you know, my vision is quite different.

I do stand by all my statements.

Let us use a hypothetical situation.

Assume the following:
1. There in no federal criminal code.
2. Accussed is civilly convicted of violating property rights by a local court and a jury of his peers.
3. The violation is severe enough that no compensation will make whole and that corporal punishment is justified.
4. The convicted assumes responsibility and realizes that death or life in prison are the only possible solutions.
5. The convicted chooses death and hopes that this deters future offenses by others.

In the FLDS case. We have a very religious man that is in denial of his sins and his crimes, hypothetically speaking. I would argue that this would be a perfect example of justification if the man were to repent and accept his fate rendered on to him by the state.

says:
02 May 2008 at 08:12 am | #

I do not agree that the death penalty is never appropriate and it probably will not be provable, but I have faith that the church agrees with my postion.

I do agree that the death penalty is never appropriate under our current system.

I should have stopped posting since this is off topic, but this subject is important to me as well.

Please try to stay on topic. I respectfully request that Mr. Dean follows his own rules and stick to the topic.

However, I would thouroughly enjoy discussing this on a different thread.

anon says:
02 May 2008 at 04:53 pm | #

There is no hyperbole here anon. I absolutely would sacrifice my life for the release of those children.

Piffle. During the American War in Vietnam, Buddhist monks immolated themselves on order to bring attention to US atrocities. If you were sincere, you’d fly to Texas and torch your sanctimonious ass.

If you choose to do so, put me down for a gallon of high test.

cincysuz says:
02 May 2008 at 05:32 pm | #

Mr. Scott Ryan, you’ve begun to sound silly now. We really have no disagreement about the appalling circumstances surrounding the kidnapping of these children. But, for you to continue to offer your life in exchange for the children’s freedom, is well, preposterous and assuredly an offer that everyone can refuse. I’m surpised you’re still alive because this certainly can’t be the first time you’ve encountered this kind of abuse. What’s kept you from acting on your fanatic instincts so far?

But since you’ve said you’re willing to lie as well as die, why not kill two birds with one stone? Turn yourself in as the phantom polygamous molester, concoct a clever story that will both get YOU executed and at the same time free the children. Win-win.

Does it occur to you that you sound like the people that claim they’re willing to die for their country but somehow never found it convenient to join the military and do just that.

Three children under 5? Jeez, poor Mrs. Ryan must be exhausted.

says:
02 May 2008 at 07:02 pm | #

Update:

AMARILLO, Texas—Texas authorities have canceled the arrest warrant for the Arizona man who had been suspected of physically and sexually abusing a teenage girl—allegations that launched last month’s raid on an FLDS ranch in Eldorado.
Law enforcement did not find the teenage girl or Barlow at the YFZ Ranch, owned by the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
The man named in the warrant, Dale E. Barlow, was never arrested and denied knowing the girl. Officials have not located or idenified her.
A spokesman for the Texas Department of Safety said he could not elaborate on why the warrant was canceled.
“The bottom line is the warrant is no longer active,” said Tom Vinger.
Vinger said he did not know when the cancellation occurred. He would not comment on whether the cancellation confirms the girl’s calls for help were a hoax.
“We’re still investigating that,” he said.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_...

It is only going to get worse for CPS. FLDS probably wont pursue legal action, but they should own the entire state.

says:
02 May 2008 at 08:19 pm | #

Annon:

I do not agree with what the monks did.

I have laid out a very specific course as to what I would be willing to do in exchange for state action as I described.

These quips seem to be from someone in denial or lacking intellect.

says:
02 May 2008 at 08:26 pm | #

Cincysuz:

No this is not the first time, but it is the first time while blogging on the beacon.

Sure, call the powers that be and orchestrate the conspiracy. I am here. They have their skapegoat.

I am not willing to die for my country. I am willing to die for the constitution and the rights of individuals. At one point in history that would have been one in the same.

says:
02 May 2008 at 09:40 pm | #

not so recent update:

http://www.johntfloyd.com/comments/april08/22a.htm

cincysuz says:
03 May 2008 at 01:15 pm | #

Well, conveniently Mr. Scott Ryan, none of us is ever called upon to die in defense of the constitution. But you could go down there and throw yourself in front of the vehicles transporting the children. Anti-war protesters have done just that on occasion in the U.S. and around the world, put their lives on the line for what they believed, standing on the tracks to block trains transporting troops, setting themselves ablaze in protest, etc. Would you do any of that? Of course not. If you had been willing to give your life in defense of the constitution then of course the Patriot Act would have put you 6 foot under a number of years ago? Stop being such an idiot. You’re not willing to die for anything. I’d be willing to bet you’re not even donating to the legal defense funds for the children, a far more practical sacrifice. Have you done even that? Are you active in the ACLU? All this prancing and preening is for show.

says:
03 May 2008 at 06:13 pm | #

Cincysuz:

My offer still stands.

cincysuz says:
04 May 2008 at 04:49 pm | #

Then get on the bus.

says:
05 May 2008 at 01:05 pm | #

Washington Times editorial:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080504/COMMENTARY/170337827

says:
05 May 2008 at 03:05 pm | #

update:

Bishop’s records

http://web.gosanangelo.com/pdf/BishopsList.pdf