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.

Socializer!

del.icio.us

Furl It

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!

1. NtotheC says:
   30 Apr 2008  at  10:40 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.

2. Freedom Fighters says:
   30 Apr 2008  at  12:08 pm | #

   ~

   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.

   ~

3. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
   30 Apr 2008  at  04:56 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.

4. NtotheC says:
   01 May 2008  at  12:56 pm | #

   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.

5. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
   01 May 2008  at  06:31 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.”

6. anon says:
   01 May 2008  at  08:00 pm | #

   I am willing to die for a filthy polygamist child predator

   Offer accepted.

7. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
   01 May 2008  at  11:40 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.

8. cincysuz says:
   02 May 2008  at  07:30 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.

9. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
   02 May 2008  at  08:11 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.

10. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    02 May 2008  at  08:35 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

11. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    02 May 2008  at  08:36 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

12. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    02 May 2008  at  09:25 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.

13. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    02 May 2008  at  09:57 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.

14. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    02 May 2008  at  10:12 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.

15. anon says:
    02 May 2008  at  06:53 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.

16. cincysuz says:
    02 May 2008  at  07:32 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.

17. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    02 May 2008  at  09:02 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.

18. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    02 May 2008  at  10:19 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.

19. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    02 May 2008  at  10:26 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.

20. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    02 May 2008  at  11:40 pm | #

    not so recent update:

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

21. cincysuz says:
    03 May 2008  at  03:15 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.

22. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    03 May 2008  at  08:13 pm | #

    Cincysuz:

    My offer still stands.

23. cincysuz says:
    04 May 2008  at  06:49 pm | #

    Then get on the bus.

24. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    05 May 2008  at  03:05 pm | #

    Washington Times editorial:

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

25. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    05 May 2008  at  05:05 pm | #

    update:

    Bishop’s records

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

26. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    05 May 2008  at  05:10 pm | #

    Can’t remember if I posted this, but here is a blog that provides info about the case that you won’t get from MSM.

    http://blogs.sltrib.com/plurallife/

27. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    11 May 2008  at  01:38 pm | #

    Update:

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5770183.html

28. cincysuz says:
    11 May 2008  at  03:59 pm | #

    Watching for your obituary. Nothing yet.

29. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    13 May 2008  at  08:25 am | #

    Update:

    http://origin.sltrib.com/ci_9238520

30. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    13 May 2008  at  08:27 am | #

    Update:

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5774339.html

31. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    13 May 2008  at  08:30 am | #

    Update:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24576081/

32. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    13 May 2008  at  06:36 pm | #

    Another update:

    
    http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=8316956

    Is anybody starting to get as outraged as I have been all along?

    If so let me know, we need to do something.

    email me:  .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

33. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    16 May 2008  at  08:34 am | #

    Editorial today 5/16.

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64356

34. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    16 May 2008  at  06:06 pm | #

    udate:

    http://www.flds.ws/

35. Scott Ryan Supports Child Abuse says:
    17 May 2008  at  12:52 am | #

    Mr. Scott Ryan; defender of systematic sexual abuse and enslavement of little girls.

    You’re doing a heck of a job, Scottie!

36. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    17 May 2008  at  08:29 am | #

    Another update:

    http://www.statesman.com/news/content/gen/ap/Polygamist_Retreat.html

37. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    17 May 2008  at  09:38 pm | #

    Update:

    http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9295315

38. jdayh says:
    20 May 2008  at  07:53 am | #

    spread the news Breakthrough radio interview on tonight on FLDS

    spread the news Breakthrough radio interview on tonight on FLDS
    On May 20th, 2008 Jdayh says:

    children…. you must listen to this radio interview….and get your friends to as well!!!
    Tuesday May 20th….
    for more information on these events please tune it to
    http://www.theedgeam.com/ It will be broadcast at 8pm EST on Tuesday May20th !!

    I KNOW THE RADIO HOST FOR HIS INTEGRITY AND HONESTY…HE GOES TO THE CORE OF THE ISSUES AND SEEKS OUT THE TRUTH….. SOME OF HIS PRIOR GUESTS INCLUDE….

    —- Japan Parliament Counselor

    —G. Edward Griffin

    —Jodie Evans
    Founder, CODEPINK

    —and many others…..

39. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    20 May 2008  at  08:39 am | #

    Update:

    http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9310669

40. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    20 May 2008  at  08:49 pm | #

    Update:

    By JOHN .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
    AUSTIN — With the price care for the more than 400
    children seized last month from the polygamist ranch
    in West Texas expected to reach into the tens of
    million of dollars, a legislative panel on Tuesday
    suggested that the state explore the possibility of
    garnishing the religious organization’s assets to
    recoup the costs.

    “That compound didn’t grow out of fairy dust,” state
    Sen. Robert Deuell, R-Greenville, said after a Senate
    Finance Committee hearing where he urged state health
    officials to determine whether members of the
    Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
    Saints (FLDS), or even the sect as a whole, be held
    responsible for the cost of care. “Why should we be
    footing the bill when they’ve got assets?”

    The remarks came after the panel heard testimony that
    providing foster care, Medicaid coverage and casework
    for the children from the YFZ (Yearning For Zion)
    Ranch will likely cost taxpayers more than $1.7
    million a month for as long as they are in state
    custody. The figure does not include the $5.3 million
    for the first six weeks of the operation or the cost
    of providing the required legal representation for
    each child, which is likely to total at least $2.2
    million.

    The committee, which plays a lead role in drafting and
    overseeing the state’s budget, is exploring ways to
    cover the near-term costs even though no money was
    appropriated last year for such an event. Legislative
    leaders and Gov. Rick Perry’s office are expecting
    that an emergency appropriation will be necessary when
    lawmakers return to Austin in January, to ensure that
    the state’s bill for the operation are paid.

    “We basically need to pay what it’s going to cost to
    do the job right, and we need to know, to the best of
    your ability, what that cost is so we can factor that
    in when we’re making decisions about other worthwhile
    costs and needs in this state,” said Sen. Steve Ogden,
    the Bryan Republican who chairs the finance panel.

    Law enforcement officers and officials from Child
    Protective Services rounded up the children from the
    ranch in Eldorado after an anonymous caller claimed to
    be a pregnant, abused 16-year-old forced into a
    marriage with a 50-year-old. Officials now believe
    that the call may have been a hoax.

    But CPS workers have said that the children were in
    imminent danger of abuse, and court hearings began
    Monday in San Angelo in which many parents are seeking
    to regain custody of the children.

    Deuell said efforts should be made to determine
    whether any of the children in foster care are covered
    by the parents’ private insurance. If so, he said, the
    state would not have to enroll them in the
    taxpayer-supported Medicaid program.

    Albert Hawkins, the state’s executive commissioner for
    health and human services, said it was unclear whether
    members of the sect have private insurance. He also
    said that officials have found no evidence that anyone
    from the sect is receiving any sort of public
    assistance.

    But even if the adults do have private insurance, the
    children would still likely require Medicaid coverage,
    Hawkins said, because DNA testing to determine
    parentage is expected to take up to two months to
    complete.

    Rod Parker, a spokesman for the FLDS, said any effort
    to seize assets belonging to the sect or to individual
    members would be an overreach on the part of the
    state.

    “I think my response is to ask the state on what legal
    grounds it believes it would be entitled to take FLDS
    assets,” Parker said in an e-mail to the
    Star-Telegram. “This is a country of laws; they cannot
    simply go after assets without legal basis.”

    John Moritz reports from the Star-Telegram’s Austin
    bureau, 512-476-4294.

41. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    21 May 2008  at  02:40 pm | #

    update:

    FLDS hearings: Texas’ case weakens as moms turn out adults

    http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9330822

42. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    22 May 2008  at  03:00 pm | #

    BREAKING NEWS UPDATE!!!

    SAN ANGELO, Texas—A state appellate court has ruled that child welfare officials had no right to seize more than 400 children living at a polygamist sect’s ranch.
      The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the grounds for removing the children were “legally and factually insufficient” under Texas law.
      Child welfare officials removed the children on the grounds that the sect pushed underage girls into marriage and sex and trained boys to be grown-up predators.
      The appellate court ruled the chaotic hearing held last month did not demonstrate the children were in any immediate danger, the only measure of taking children Court of appeals ruling from their homes without court proceedings.
      The ruling came as judges were signing off on individual custody plans in San Angelo.
      Shari Pulliam, a spokeswoman for CPS, said the agency had just learned of the ruling and was trying to assess its impact on the children’s cases.
      “Any decision on an appeal will be made later,” she said.

    
    http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9347022

43. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    23 May 2008  at  09:55 am | #

    Here is the actual appeals court ruling:

    http://www.myeldorado.net/graphics/Appeals Court Ruling.pdf

    Thank God some judges still have enough reasoning skills to see through the charade.

    There is still an option of Appeal by CPS, but not likely.  Let’s hope the kids are reunited with their parents sooner rather than later.

44. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
    28 May 2008  at  08:20 pm | #

    Update:

    Sepreme Court procedings.

    http://origin.sltrib.com/ci_9404134