PAUL C. writes:

Democrats, Republicans, and the Supreme Court are tearing a six-year-old away from her family of five years.  Indians (Native Americans), as part of the establishment axis, have turned most Americans into a kind of cuckhold, an American culture that would watch an Indian culture tear Lexi from her American culture. Lexi, you see, is 1.5% Indian, and by legislative action and Court approval, she must be returned to her distant Indian in-laws. According to the minds of many Indians, her white family can be punished for the supposed sins of their ancestors, unlike Indian ancestors.  And they ignore that they punish Lexi also.  Many Indians, apparently, don’t care that Lexi has cultural attachments far more influential than her non-existent Indian cultural attachment.  They pretend minority discrimination as their reason.

The pretense for this irony and disparate treatment is to preserve Indian culture.  The pretense is nonsense because the axis is not taking similar drastic action to preserve all cultures, which all have been “victimized” by other cultures.  The irony is the axis’ efforts are designed to help a minority but disparage minorities; the white family no doubt is at least 1.5% something.  (The family should run genetic and ancestral tests on themselves.  I would not be surprised if everyone were happy with the results.)

It is difficult to comprehend the mind of someone who would do this.  Liberal propaganda is the probable cause of this mindset.  Most minds can comprehend the terror of being torn from Mommy, Daddy, home, and close relatives while in the second grade.  Lexi’s mind will not forget this.  It will forever affect her negatively.  The subconscious mind is often insidious.  It is irrational and like a sponge at Lexi’s age.  God only knows how she will compensate.  We can pray for her and contact our establishment louses, who do often listen to angered voters.

— Comments —

Dan T. writes:

For what it’s worth: In the interest of accuracy, Paul is understating the extent of Lexi’s Native American heritage – she is actually 1.5625% Indian. This means that exactly one of her 64 great great great great grandparents was Choctaw – ONE out of SIXTY-FOUR – or possibly it’s two out of her 128 great x 5 grandparents, and so on. Anyhow, given 25 years per generation this goes back about 150 years, well into the 19th century – a very tenuous attachment.

My wife has many generations-diluted Native American blood in her and her family has been firmly established here in Pennsylvania Amish country forever, so who knows who may have such ties. If the Pages were able to find one distant ancestor with a drop of Indian blood, I wonder if they would have a case for keeping Lexi.

Laura writes:

I’m a little confused by this story.

It seems to me, the biological family should be preferred, regardless of whether they are native American or not.

Mark Jaws writes:

I find this story confusing as well, but I am writing just to give my two cents about one of the beefs I have over Indians, who are not “Native Americans.” There was no America before the white man came. For those who choose not to use the traditional “Indians,” they should use the term “indigenous” or the “native inhabitants.” But before the European came, there were no Americans, so there can be no “Native Americans.” They did not make America – my wife’s ancestors did.

Paul writes:

I agree that our institutions should place foster children with cultural relatives, biology playing the most important factor. Lexi is related biologically to 1.5% of her relatives. [Laura writes: She has 1.5 percent Indian blood but that does not mean she is only 1.5 percent related to her living relatives.] This is insignificant biology. The great majority of Americans have at least 1.5% of some biological minority. Moreover, her relatives are in-laws. [I don’t know what this means. Who are they? What is their relation to her?] The proposed ideology does not consider reality, the facts of this child’s case.

This precious baby child should not be used, as our supposed anti-discrimination laws would like to do, to bulldoze charity in a desperate attempt to avoid some theoretical slippery slope. Laws always have and always will have exceptions, the function of a justice system to sort out. The fact is she has become her foster family’s child. It is done, and it can’t be reversed without major damage to the child and her anguished family revealed in the photo.

Laura writes:

She has 1.5 percent Indian blood but that does not mean she is only 1.5 percent related to her living relatives. I don’t know what it means when you speak of in-laws. Who are they? What is their relation to her?

It is done, and it can’t be reversed without major damage to the child and her anguished family revealed in the photo. 

Yes, the whole thing was handled poorly.

Please follow and like us: