February 29, 2008 Families might be viewed as leaves on the tree of liberty. As such, tyrants will always try to strip them away as men and women who owe their first allegiance to each other and their children are poor puppets of the State in whatever guise it may wear, whether neo-con, oligarch, communist, fascist, monarchy, etc.
It is also in the nature of bureaucracies, essential tools of despots, to always be tyrannical. So subjecting families to bureaucracy is a sure way to destroy them, as governments throughout the world have been doing for decades. Obviously such actions are undertaken under a moral banner such as "In The Best Interest Of The Child." Of course the best interest of a child is to be raised in an intact family by his or her biological father and mother, who are left alone to do their best by their children. But that hardly suits the desires of radical ideologues and tyrants, who always think they know what is best for everyone else.
Unless you or someone close to you has been through one of these nightmares for family and children you may find the following difficult to accept. However, the cumulative effect is an epic disaster that has been extensively documented by the Equal Justice Foundation, Dr. Stephen Baskerville, by hundreds of other groups in the United States, and from around the world, so there is little doubt about the dire situation that exists in early 2008. Those many of you who have been through these nightmares, or who are rotting in jail today because of these insane policies, will probably think I am too gentle in my criticism. And it is certain that the problems are more widespread than those outlined in these brief essays.
One need not invoke some vast conspiracy to explain these actions. Misplaced chivalry, uninformed legislators who know little or nothing about the constraints of the Constitution, the ease with which they spend taxpayer's money, the natural tendency of bureaucrats to expand their empires, and other events can account for most of these problems. Naturally, some groups have done what they could to push events along. N.O.W. and NCADV come to mind but this is, or at least was a democracy, and every citizen group is entitled to compete for public funding.
In America one might ascribe the earliest efforts to destroy families and children to Senator Walter Mondale's well intentioned Child Abuse and Prevention Act of 1974 that began pouring federal money into state coffers to set up child protection services (CPS).
Child abuse is a rare crime, particularly if the biological father is present in the home. No doubt the earlier actions of Lyndon Johnson to establish a Great Society and set up a welfare state that discouraged fathers from staying with their children were critical. However, it appears the most draconian actions to destroy families began after 1974 with anonymous reports of child abuse being blindly accepted by CPS agencies across the nation, which encouraged an epidemic of false allegations.
Certainly other government policies have had a deleterious impact on our society as well and the methods bureaucracies use to expand their reach are as old as tyranny. As an example, take a known problem, "child abuse," and expand the definition so broadly that every action, e.g., spanking, is now included. Since over 90% of all parents spank their toddlers, by the new definition we now have an epidemic of "child abuse." Of course the real problem is now buried and untended in a blizzard of trivial or false claims. So there are always horrific examples to justify the bureaucratic tyranny being imposed. Thus, exceptions are used to prove the "problem" exists.
In effect, the Mondale Act, despite its good intentions, created and continues to fund a virtual child abuse industry, populated by poorly-educated social workers whose livelihoods depend on bringing more and more allegations into the system.
As best I can tell, it was CPS that began the elimination of due process and to assume that a man was guilty until he could prove his innocence. Now every petticoated CPS social worker holds what amounts to the power of life and death over a family based only on anonymous hearsay, or bureaucratic vengeance.
In many counties today CPS has become little better than legalized kidnapping and an adoption racket funded by federal dollars. CPS has had a particularly negative impact on parents with disabilities, who frequently lose their children for no other reason.
It is to the advantage of ideologues who wish to destroy the family to drive the father away. In 1969, then California Governor Ronald Reagan signed "no fault" divorce into law. By 1985 "no fault" divorce was passed into law in every state in the United States despite the historical, and disastrous failure of this policy in Russia after the Bolsheviks took power in 1918. Divorce thus became a runaway industry and today approximately half of all marriages end in divorce, with wives filing roughly 80% of divorce petitions.
However, if the family has children the issue of custody of them is a major concern. But women and their attorneys quickly learned that an anonymous call to a CPS hotline claiming the father was abusing the children effectively eliminated him immediately from the children's lives. This technique was, and is particularly effective if the caller claims the father is sexually abusing his daughter(s). As he is guilty until, and unless he can prove his innocence, he is torn bodily from his family with virtually no due process and is likely imprisoned if he attempts to see or contact his kids.
No problem, in the name of chivalry just legislate child support and alimony (maintenance) to "protect" women and children from "Deadbeat Dads." The fact that the number of deadbeat dads is very small, and 1.5 million men paying child support are not the biological father of the child(ren) they are supporting, is no reason not to reinstate slavery and debtor's prison. After all, it is in the "best interest of the child" if dad is in jail, or commits suicide when his income is imputed to be twice what he earns.
Within this same time frame, in 1971 Erin Pizzey opened a refuge for battered women in Chiswick, London, England, and in 1974 published Scream Quietly Or The Neighbors Will Hear that brought the issue of domestic violence to global attention. However, and not for the first time in history, Marxist feminist groups quickly hijacked Pizzey's humanitarian issue and turned it to their own nefarious ends and financial gain.
The efforts of neo-Marxist radical feminist (redfem) groups in the United States were brought to a culmination in 1994 with passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) under a chivalrous banner aimed at stopping domestic violence. Yet again the legislation was ideologically based and claimed that all domestic violence is men battering women in order to maintain the patriarchy, despite clear evidence at the time that men and women were equally violent in intimate relationships and patriarchy was unrelated to the problem.
However, the legislation added at least another $1 billion a year devoted to the destruction of children, families, and marriage in close alliance with the divorce and child abuse industries. VAWA provided the means to destroy some 2 million men a year without meaningful protection under the rule of law and due process, and could easily be the coup de grâce for marriage in the United States. Together with the flurry of state domestic violence acts, under current laws a man has to be functionally insane to marry and a drooling idiot to sire a child.
Presciently, Erin Pizzey noted that: "Any country that has tried to create a political solution to human problems has ended up with concentration camps and gulags." Today the 2.3 million men and women in American prisons, by any measure, overshadows Soviet gulags, Chinese prisons, or any other countries detention of its citizens. And together with the other horrors summarized here, torture has now become commonplace in American jails. Hypothermia is the preferred method with many jails equipped with a "cold room," ostensibly for control of mentally-disturbed prisoners, but often used for recalcitrants who refuse to plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit. The use of Tasers is also on the increase, with many reports of their application to men's genitals.
When children die or are abused in foster care they never should have been in, when men commit suicide after their families are destroyed, and all the other horrors of this social engineering occur, as they do daily, the utterly predictable and universal reaction of the bureaucracies involved in these disasters is to claim a lack of funding and staff.
Instead, the cure is to root out these cancerous growths on our society, which could easily be done by cutting out the federal funding that feeds them, but that takes a rare kind of political courage.
It is no secret to readers of this epistle that there is little or no basis in the Constitution of the United States to engage in, or finance any of the above activities. Where actions are criminal, the proper and traditional place for their prosecution is within state and local laws. And within state and local laws the civil liberties and due process of law for individuals must be protected. Clearly that is not true as of early 2008, but only one politician on the national stage has dared speak out against the injustice and destruction of children and families, and defend the Constitution, Congressman Ron Paul. This patriot has stood alone against unprovoked attacks on foreign nations and undeclared war, against imperial economic policies that are driving the country into bankruptcy, and for traditional family values.
It does not take a village to raise a child as Senator Hillary Clinton has so infamously claimed, it takes two committed parents. There is no clearer evidence of this simple truth than the academic success exhibited by so many home-schooled children. But Senator Clinton and her husband have done virtually everything within their power to destroy families and children.
The success of families and the future of their children depends critically on a stable economy and well-paying jobs. Senator John McCain, together with his Democratic opponents, have constantly promoted outsourcing American jobs and importing illegal aliens to drive down wages for the oligarchs who support them. And should our children grow up, these warmongers have promised to send them to die in undeclared wars for generations to come, even as those wars drive imperial America into bankruptcy.
In addition, in the face of a failing economy, Senator McCain admits he is an economic ignoramus, and votes for VAWA and child support enforcement that strips families and children from the tree of liberty. And once it becomes evident that Americans are sick and tired of neo-con warmongering, one might predict a pre-2008 election "terrorist" attack in an attempt to rally Republican (In Name Only) voter support. A bit more convincing "terrorist" act than the controlled demolition of WTC Building 7 might be needed, however. And this is not to imply that Democratic candidates are any more sane.
He holds a doctorate in geophysics with a specialty in tectonophysics from Texas A&M, has an M.S. in geophysics from the Univ. of Utah, and a B.S. in geology from Utah State, with minors in electrical engineering and computer science. He has published on subjects as diverse as geology, solid state physics, poetry, domestic violence, and civilization.
Between the Marines and oceanography he spent over two years at sea on troop and oceanographic ships on expeditions that covered virtually the entire North Pacific, and has been shipwrecked and marooned on an unexplored desert island.
He has ridden over a thousand miles horseback through Utah, Arizona, and Colorado. Between that and field work as an earth scientist he's lived in a tent or under the stars for over two years in some of the more remote corners of North America, climbed a few high mountains along the way, and fought forest fires in three states.
Dr. Corry is a Fellow of the Geological Society of America and for ten consecutive years has been listed in Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in America, Who's Who in Science and Engineering, and similar biographical summaries. On the Internet he is ranked among 180 famous earth scientists in a survey of 500 years of the science.
Originally published on PoliticsWest
February 7, 2008 Donating to Ron Paul's presidential bid is like paying homage to that part of you that will never forget what it was like to be the last one picked in third grade kickball. In a country of self-loathing former underdogs, it's no wonder that Paul's long shot campaign for the White House managed to rake in nearly $20 million from eager contributors in the last quarter alone.
At a Friday campaign stop in Denver, the Texas Republican Congressman spoke to a standing room only crowd of 2,000 supporters nearly double the number that came out earlier in the day to cheer on ordained front-runner Mitt Romney (who has since dropped out of the race).
Paul's speech was greeted with the eagerness of a religious revival. One supporter broke down in tears at the microphone as she described Paul as her "hero." Sitting next to me in the front row was a 61-year-old lifelong Republican. She said she had never missed an opportunity to vote in her four decades of eligibility. Without Dr. Paul (this is how the obstetrician's supporters affectionately refer to him) she said she would have sat this election out. She says she is most motivated by his anti-war stance. When greeted by a 20-something activist, they both nod in unison about their frustration with the drug war.
Dred-locked hippies stand united with Christian homeschoolers. Democrats and independents also pepper the crowd, proclaiming our need for renewable energy initiated within the private sector. There are no staged applause lines. On multiple occasions, an impromptu chant begins, "Ron Paul Revolution! Give us back our Constitution!" On stage, Paul is greeted by a drum line dressed as Revolutionary War soldiers.
Outside such venues, it's tempting to write Paul off. Despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of voters supported him in this week's "Super Tuesday" caucuses and primaries, he still failed to register on the national radar. His exceptional support in Western states, including Montana, where he came in second only to Romney, and Arizona, where he garnered nearly 20,000 votes, pales in comparison to the millions of votes the GOP's other candidates, including Romney, John McCain and Mike Huckabee, received.
The people are listening. In the fourth quarter, he topped all other GOP candidates in fundraising. His $19.9 million was trailed by Rudy Giuliani's $14.4 million, Romney's $9.1 million, Fred Thompson's $8.9 million, McCain's $6.8 million, and Huckabee's $6.6 million.
People are writing checks as a way to tell the establishment to stick it. They are also sending in their dollar bills because Paul has managed to communicate a message that his party has long failed to articulate. While once the GOP proudly touted its mantra of individual rights and responsibility, it has succumbed to the sucker punches of liberals of late who preach that conservatives don't care about the poor, the disenfranchised or at times even our nation's children.
Liberals are, of course, wrong. But in this election, Dr. Paul is the only one willing to take them on. In the aftermath of George W. Bush's failed presidency, he is, ironically, the shot in the arm many Republicans need to help build back up their confidence.
He believes as all Republicans should that government is an impediment to growth, liberty, and progress not the provider of it. Also important in an era when Republicans are torn about social issues, including gay marriage and abortion, Paul believes we can have morality without government forcing it upon us.
While the message is appealing, the messenger is not always as polished as he should be. At times, Paul comes off like an angry grandfather at Thanksgiving dinner. The other candidates try to nod and smile politely at his conspiracy theories on U.S. foreign policy. Someone then passes the gravy. Both literally and figuratively, as Paul's fellow candidates eagerly outline their agendas for an ever-larger federal government.
Republican insiders will tell you that Paul can't win. At this point, they're right. But his actual support is largely downplayed due to the fact that many Republicans who say they identify with his values are scared to support his candidacy. They hold back because they believe he's too radical to win a general election.
This is a sad indictment of the era we live in. A push for smaller government is considered radical. Indeed, a closer look reveals that Paul is a revolutionary not because the content of his libertarian ideas are extreme. It's because the time in which he is espousing them in is plagued with bi-partisan apathy toward our ever-growing federal debt and deficit.
While a growing number of Americans are identifying consistently with Paul's message, it would be naïve to suggest that his candidacy could lead to the emergence of a viable third party. Just ask Green Party candidate Ralph Nader and Reform Party candidate Ross Perot about that. Third party candidates are, plain and simple, spoilers.
Paul's chances for victory may be non-existent, but his impact could still be immense. Libertarianism will no longer be relegated to the side stage. It is front and center as Americans become increasingly frustrated with the nanny-statism propagated by both the Left and the Right.
On an optimistic day, perhaps we can hope Paul's candidacy will remind his fellow Republicans of the values they proclaim on their party platform. Regardless, in the aftermath of his great adventure, each of us well, at least the third-grade versions of ourselves can say a little cheer for the kid who made it past the first cut.
Jessica Peck Corry is a public policy analyst with the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado.
Her weekly blogs are part of a feature on PoliticsWest called Diary of a Mad Voter. The group blog, published in partnership with NewWest.Net/Politics , is intended to give a glimpse into the hearts and minds of several independent-minded voters and thinkers in the Rocky Mountain West in the 2008 election year.