uh oh...!!! looks like rozita e swinton may be a Pledged Obama delegate!!!! http://www.peakdems.org/obama_state_del.asp Swinton, Rozita E 269
It's very important to understand that this was another raid that has been handled very poorly, again. Short Creek raid happened 55 years ago with a very bad outcome for children that everyone pretends to care so much about. 200 children abducted by the government, many children never reunited or not returned to their parents for years. ( found out most were not being abused after all, hmm) Texas polygamist raid revives memories of Short Creek by Sandra Haros/KTAR http://news.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=811673&r=1 ``It's been used by parents to intimidate and discipline their children -- `If you're not good, the state's going to come and get you just like they did your grandfather.''' ``I believe it's led to a reluctance even for victims to come forward and talk to the state authorities if they've been abused. They feel the state may treat them unfairly and they're very suspicious. That is the legacy of Short Creek." :eek: Imagine that! Wait, few are capable of understanding future potential consequences of their actions.
I was worried about what kind of Obama supporters there were until now. Rozita is just trying to be useful to society and trying to get the attention of the supreme commander.
unreal.. just unreal.. they knew this was a hoax early on: http://www.denverpost.com/healthcare/ci_8971925
Yes, that would only be the <b>natural reaction</b> of people who are completely unfamiliar with this strange Mormon church community, but very familiar with the U.S. gov't; The entity responsible for the Waco massacre, and the abductor of 400,000 innocent political prisoners who are currently imprisoned on drug prohibition violations. Now that I know more about this whole mess, it seems that the U.S. gov't appears to be the less guilty party of the two after all. They still should have gone through proper due process, however.
What would be your "natural reaction" if a religious sect controlled by women had male teen boys mate with and marry women who were 35 years or older but still of child bearing ability? And those teenage boys were not permitted to choose who they wanted to be with, and were not allowed other partners BUT, those older women who they were forced to marry were permitted to have multiple teenage males as their husbands? And those teenage boys had to except that the older wife that was chosen for them by someone else, also is having sex with other young boys? And those teenage boys were told to accept it and they will be more loved in the eyes of god? Would you still say that anyone who objected to this is probably a person who does not understand the culture and faith of this women dominated church community?
I'm just saying that at first (<i>before</i> the sick dealings of the church leaders were revealed in this thread), the knee-jerk reaction of many here (myself included) was to assume the gov't was pulling some unconstitutional bullshit again, as they often do. Now that more details have come to light, it appears that some degree of gov't interference was warranted after all. I'll admit to being too hasty in jumping on the 'civil rights violations' bandwagon before all the relevant facts were known.