* * FLDS - STOP MSM LIES & CPS ABUSE - PLEASE - NEW BLOG --Pass it On* *

any phone #'s yet?

If anything could be done it makes sense to go after Perry. Below is crosspost from other thread I had running. I had email back few days ago from the impeachperry website that said their blog was down and anyone could post there. My thought was to fish around seeing if there was any sign of hope that the people of TX are not yet too far gone as they all seem to support what their state is doing from what I've observed in comments on other related news articles. I'm ashamed that Texas is part of my country and would vote to give them back to Mexico.
**********

Tx Gov. Rick Perry announced
On May 4th, 2008 BeaReady says:
Tx Gov. Rick Perry announced he'll run for re-election 2010. He took over for GW in late 2000. Maybe some of you could help with ideas to convince him that he's overstayed his time as Gov. by 3 terms, 14 yrs! At the end of this term he'll hold the record for longest serving in TX, they have no term limits. He was last elected in 2006 with only 39% of the vote in a 4 way field. Do you think there's some real apathy in TX??

I think Perry should be our main focus, where pressure is needed to do what's right or find a new job.

Crowning achievements are: early 07, executive order for HPV vaccine mandatory for 5-6 grade girls. Later stopped by state legislature.

Perry vetoed legislation that grew from a huge grassroots movement of citizens, outside the two parties for something which 97% of Texans want: to end Perry’s massive (nearly trillion dollar!) highway robbery schemes otherwise known as the Trans-Texas Corridor

Sex scandal early 07, TX Youth Commission

and of course this recent stamp of approval on the FDLS abductions and continued refusal to answer to anyone.

I'm sure there's plenty more.

There is a website for impeachment. Maybe we could rally behind them and support $? Ideas anyone?

http://impeachperry.indyt...

good updates and commentary here too

From http://heartkeepercommonr... :

(Get the official roster from http://web.gosanangelo.co... )

CPS Agent Angie Voss, whom a friend of ours says has progressed from 'Professor Umbridge' to 'She Who Must Not Be Named' testified at the hearing that there were under-aged brides in every single household. I have yet to see any evidence that this is true:

Individual custody hearings are set to be completed by June 5.According to bishop's records filled out in March 2007 by heads of household at the ranch, there were eight wives under the age of 18 listed in 35 households, the Associated Press reported. Several entries omitted ages of wives, however.

They seem to have cherry-picked what they wanted from the Bishop's records and ignored anything that didn't support their assertions:
The bishop's records released Thursday were used by CPS to demonstrate a pattern of abuse justifying the removal of all FLDS children in a hearing two weeks ago. The records indicate that about two-thirds of the ranch's households were polygamous while the others were young couples or traditional nuclear families.

So, we have 35 households, yet only 8 'wives' under the age of 18, and 1/3 of the families are young monogamous couples or traditional nuclear families. This is from the Bishop's records that were used, as far as I can tell, at the original hearing, where CPS supervisor Angie Voss testified under oath:
"Up to this point in the investigation, there are over 20 girls in the investigation who have conceived or given birth at the age of 16 or 17," Voss says. "What I'm telling you is that there is a culture of young girls being pregnant by old men."

So there was a girl like that in all 19 residences on the ranch?

"Yes, sir, there was," Voss says.

To get to more than 8 'wives' under 18, she may be including women who are no longer 18, but were once, such as the one we know of who conceived of her first child when she was 13 in the 1990s (I've seen three different years given, but all were in the 90's, when the group wasn't even in the state of Texas, and this woman is now at least 30 years old)- but it does not appear to be the truth that each of the 35, not 19, households had a teenager who conceived with an adult man. This also brings up another question- if the court didn't even seem to realize that there were, in fact, 35 households, were the missing 16 households actually represented fairly at the hearing? Can the judge truly be said to have fairly determined that the 16 households she didn't even know about were shown to be so troublesome that CPS could not return the children yet?

needs a bump.

don't miss these important DIGGS!
http://www.dailypaul.com/...

spread the word and see also:
http://www.dailypaul.com/...

DIGG BOMB!

please watch for new thread of DIGGS!

signs of organizing! THANKS!

See my thread at http://www.dailypaul.com/...

This is a "reading list" I compiled a day or so ago, including the site you mention, all of which have excellent posts about the matter. Also, the site you mentioned, www.flds.ws, has a blogroll on the right hand side of their main page with a bunch more excellent sources.

FLOOD the net with comments on these abuses.

this is great site! Thanks!

and site!