"I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another, nor ask another to live for mine." -John Galt's pledge from Ayn Rand's masterwork, "Atlas Shrugged," slightly edited.
Publisher/Editor: Ray Thomas, P. O. Box 16247, Denver, CO 80216-0247 Phone: 720-351-3674
CONTENTS
Page 2
- Feature Article: "Gaining Power: A Lesson"
- Department: Ayn Rand's Message
- Random Shots #110
- Other Articles
- Department: Classified Ads
- Subscribe/Unsubscribe
- Reprint Rights
- Information Sources
- Archives
LETTER FROM THE EDITOR I was going to feature Salt Lake City talk show host Randy Ford here in this issue, but unfortunately, he abruptly quit his job, claiming that his business was taking so much of his time that he could no longer do the show. Oh, well.
So this issue I'm going to feature an article about the "child protectors" and how they use our children as "pawns in a power game" to control what is taught them in school, making them easier to control later. Since the article is rather long (it contains much information you need to know), this item will be short. -Ray Thomas, Publisher/Editor
A simple argument against "forced altruism":
Is it OK to steal from one person and give the stolen property to another person without the approval of the owner, just because of a real or imagined "need?" (Ray Thomas)
FEATURE ARTICLE: GAINING POWER: A LESSON"
Copyright © 1999 By Ray Thomas I keep telling people that the power seekers in the federal government are doing everything they can to take control over what is taught our children in school so they can teach them to be good collectivists. Many people practice "protective stupidity" when I tell them this.
"Protective stupidity" is, according to George Orwell in his classic book, "1984," defined this way: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc (English Socialism there, or simply what the government wants you to think) and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a 'heretical' direction. Crimestop means, in short, protective stupidity."
Their problem is that they do not wish to believe such a thing possible in this country, while knowing full well it was possible in Russia under communism (which is collectivism), Also in Germany under National Socialism (also collectivism), and in other countries as they moved ever closer to a Socialist (collectivist) government. As this country moves ever closer to a collectivist form of government, the power seekers realize that they must get to the children with their message before they develop the faculty of intelligence coupled with information that will allow them to reject this discredited, but still promoted political system. It is a system that allows a small number of people to have the power of life and death over the rest of us. That allows them to "Lord it over" us and enjoy the privileges of the very rich without the necessity of earning them.
Hitler and Stalin knew this, and used it skillfully to teach a generation of children that the ideas their parents cherished were wrong and to reject them, accepting all the tenets of Socialism and collectivism, and to do it as a "matter of faith," without proof of its efficacy and rightness. They succeeded, and a whole generation "bought the lie" of collectivism. That caused many years of death and destruction, as well as much suffering for the citizens of those countries, and of other countries that have similarly "bought" these lies.
Our own power seekers are using the child protective services in this country to destroy the right of parents to object when they teach their children values opposed to those they wish them to be taught. After many years of "tenuous" control over what is taught to children in school, the collectivist social engineers are finding more and more that parents are objecting, objecting strongly, and are prevailing. They have reversed many of the methods of the power seekers and social engineers, and they just can't have that.
So they have created a monster: "rampant" child abuse. By making the world think that child abuse and child sexual abuse is "rampant in the land," they gain support for their "storm-trooper tactics." Using an anonymous "report" of child abuse as an excuse, they force their way into people's homes without warrants, claim child abuse based on the thinnest "subjective" definitions of what child abuse is, and kidnap the child, to hold for ransom and to use as a lever to get the parents to "jump through all sorts of hoops" that do them no good in regaining their children. After they're finished tormenting the parents (and the children, I might add) they move for termination of parent's rights and put the children up for adoption. All this in cases where the parents have done no wrong, and under which they were "charged" using spurious subjective definitions. Some of those are shown below. They have come from Michigan's "Family Independence Agency" (a good "newspeak" name, that), which gives these definitions of what is child abuse. This is not a complete list, and most of the items on it are an "article of faith" for most child protection agencies all over the country.
- Parents cannot spank their child: Spanking, even with clothes covering the bottom, is "severe physical abuse." Parents are only to use time out, reasoning and loss of privileges.
[All of which are ineffective, and they know it. This makes the children uncontrollable, and they have laws to punish the parents when the child predictably gets into trouble. -RT]
- Parents cannot engage in physical self defense to protect themselves from a physically hostile teenager: An act of self defense by a parent is "severe physical and emotional abuse." Parents are to use reasoning, time out and loss of privileges only and must sacrifice their physical safety for their violent teenager's safety.
[Sure it is. Think about it. You're a five foot mother and a six foot son who outweighs you by fifty pounds starts beating on you. You're not allowed to defend yourself in any way. How are you going to "reason" with such a person, apply "time-outs," and/or "loss of privileges" on someone who is beating your brains out? This is stupid! -RT]
- Parents cannot argue or talk about adult subjects, such as family finances, in front of their children: These are subjects that the child has no control over and creates "extreme emotional distress" in the child. FIA has classified this area as "emotional or environmental abuse and/or neglect" of the child.
[And according to the social engineers, you should never do anything to "upset" your children or hurt their "self-esteem." This is a subjective definition that allows them to intervene when no abuse is present by simply "defining" this as abuse. -RT]
- Parents with low income are neglecting their children's basic needs: Low income parents cannot provide for the proper medical, physical or emotional needs of their children due to their limited income. The parents' failure to obtain middle income jobs means "environmental, medical and emotional neglect."
[Target those with low income. They don't have the money required to hire lawyers and mount a significant defense of the kind that can win against them. They're "easy targets." So they're sure to include many of the things that are "poverty-related" to their subjective list of what constitutes child abuse. -RT]
- Parents that fail to take their child to the family physician for colds, flu, sniffles and mild congestion, or parents who fail to obtain a family pediatrician are neglecting the medical needs of their children. FIA has classified this as "medical neglect."
[Again, this is a problem related to poverty. They have many more such definitions of child abuse that are unique to those who don't have a lot of money. -RT]
- Parents who own pornographic materials, such as magazines, books, video tapes, and conceal such materials from their children have created environmental and emotional neglect of their children. Parents who own and hide such material run the risk that children will find these material and view them causing emotional harm to their children. FIA has classified this as "environmental neglect."
[Does this mean that if my wife and I use condoms to avoid pregnancy and hide them from the children, that I am guilty of child abuse? Is it the "hiding" of it that makes it wrong? If I had pornographic material and put it into a big safe that no child is ever going to be able to break into, does that mean I'm not a child abuser? I guess we'll have to ask the child protectors for their "definition," huh? And what about the condoms their own social engineers are distributing in schools? Is that child abuse? -RT]
"Divorced, single parent families seem to be targeted by FIA (and other child protection agencies) as high risk environments for emotional and environmental neglect. Most single parent families are low income and of course, according to FIA, cannot provide for the basic needs of the children as measured against middle income standards. Single parents work outside of the home, leaving their children unattended or with "inappropriate care takers" (neighbors, older siblings, grandparents, relatives) causing environmental and emotional neglect of the child. Single working parents are unable to clean their homes "appropriately" and leave their homes cluttered, disorganized, and untidy (i.e. beds unmade, dirty clothes on floors or hampers, dirty dishes in the sink from breakfast, unswept or unvacuumed floors and carpets, etc.) which the family must return to in the afternoon or evening that is classified as environmental neglect."
[There's that "low income" bugaboo again. And on the subject of single parents working outside the home, whose fault is that? When more than 50% of what they earn goes to the various governments in the form of all the hidden and blatant taxes they pay, it is necessary to spend time at work. And who defines inappropriate caretakers? The last I heard, the people on their list of "inappropriate caretakers" are the most "appropriate caretakers" there are. Parents know the neighbors, older siblings, grandparents and relatives with which they leave their children. They don't know the foster parents the "child protectors" might place them with and they have no control over that. As far as "dirty homes" are concerned, I don't know of a single child that was harmed by a home that wasn't in perfect shape, cleanliness-wise. Of course, if your home is "squeaky-clean," they use that against you, too, calling the parent a "clean freak" and claiming that is bad for the children. -RT]
Did you notice that every one of these causes of child abuse requires that the child protection caseworker to define it as child abuse? I've written extensively about the power seekers' use of "subjective" laws and regulations that allow those enforcing them to decide for themselves whether or not you're in violation. If they say you're not, you're not. But if they say you are, you're a "goner." They're making more and more of these laws and many of them contradict each other so that when you obey one, by doing so, you've violated another. In this way, they make lawbreakers out of all of us and are able to "come for us" any time they wish.
Ayn Rand said: "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one "makes" them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted-and you create a nation of law-breakers-and then you cash in on the guilt." - Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
FREE SERVICES: They offer people "free services" such as parenting classes, nutrition programs, household budgeting programs, employment training programs, etc. This is a device to "get into your house" so they can make a case against you for child abuse. The people who come to clean your house are trained to look for any sign of "child abuse" using a list a lot longer than the one noted above. They're trained to report anything that is remotely a possibility, and to let the caseworkers "decide" if it is a violation. It's a way to "get their foot in the door" and have a "spy" in your home. In many cases, just signing up for a program is an admission that you are an abuser by their definition. Think about it: if you sign up for a "parenting" class, you're admitting that you're a "poor parent" and that can be used against you later. But according to their subjective definitions, just to refuse is an "indication of child abuse."
In Michigan, the largest number of cases mentioned in a recent article by Attorney Janet M. Frederick, who worked in this area of law for two years are not brought because of real child abuse (the list above came from her article). She says: "All of the cases that I am working on do not involve children suffering from broken bones, bruises or starvation. In fact most of the cases that I am involved in regard parents that merely spanked their children by giving the children one or two swats on the clothed behind, parents who have physically defended themselves from a physically violent teenager, parents who argued in front of their children, recently divorced single parents, parents with low incomes, parents who have failed to take their child to a doctor for mere cold symptoms such as sniffles and mild congestion, or parents who owned pornographic materials stored in a safe place where the children broke into and viewed the materials."
Which tells us that a majority of their cases come from such spying as is routinely done by those working in people's homes as a result of their acceptance of these "free" services.
WHY DO THEY DO IT? The next question you're going to ask is: "Why do these locally-run child protection agencies do this? Why do they CREATE child abuse where none exists so they can take children from happy homes? Are they in a big conspiracy with the power seekers in the federal government to take away parental rights?"
Nope.
FOLLOW THE MONEY Rush Limbaugh always says: "follow the money" if you want to know why people do things. So let's do it: Child protection agencies receive, at this writing, $2,000 to $4,000 per month, per child in federeal grants for every child in foster care. They get smaller fees for each child they can rip from their families for however short a period. They get $10,000 for every child they can have adopted into a permanent home. States often match those funds and Bill Clinton recently signed a bill that doubled those figures.
Since one of the main motivations for bureaucrats is to protect their own jobs and make new jobs for other bureaucrats, the money this brings into the child protection agencies is important. Add to that the fact that these agencies often pay bonuses to social workers for removing children and for adoptions, and you see where THEIR motivation comes from. The power seekers in the federal government play on this by making more and more jobs in the industry and by making sure those working in it do what they're told by paying them to do it. The more "compliant" they are, the more money they'll get in the form of bonuses and promotions.
YOU CAN'T WIN When you go to court in this system, the cards are well and truly "stacked" against you. In the first place, the judges consider the social workers as professionals and accept their word for things not in evidence. You can bet they take advantage of this. Contrarily, they don't believe a thing you say. What you say must be "self-serving." And while they believe "experts" hired by the child protectors to be believable, they do not extend such credit to the experts you hire. They consider them "hired hands" willing to say anything "their boss" wants them to say (subjective double standard).
In many cases the court can issue an "emergency pickup order" based on nothing but the unsupported word of the social worker in a hearing at which the parent is not allowed to be present or to present evidence. It will then issue an "ex-parte emergency order" that allows the child protectors to enter your home without a warrant or go to the children's school and pick them up. All without even the pretense of fairness. Once they get the children, they've got the "whip hand." They tell you that if you don't "jump through their hoops," you'll "never see the children again."
So you do it. They set up a "Parent/Agency Agreement" to define the hoops you're to jump through. So you jump through them successfully. But you aren't finished. They "change the rules mid-jump." They say you "didn't do it right." And they can do that because the agreement is "lengthy and vague," leaving much room for them to "define" whether or not you did what you were told. In reality, you will never be able to satisfy them and soon they'll be moving for "termination" of your parental rights.
FOSTER (ADOPTIVE) PARENTS There's a reason for this: the hoops you jump through are merely a cover for the real motive of all this: adoption.
Each child adopted through this system is worth $10,000 or more to the child protection agency and in many cases, bonuses to the social workers. A large majority of foster parents only get into the foster parent business because they want to adopt a child. So when your rights are terminated, the foster parent is, in a majority of cases, the adoptive parent. I can't prove that, because they studiously avoid keeping such figures and I would have to examine their records to do so. And you know how much chance I have to do that (something about a snowball in a hot place?). But it's true. That's what happened to my two boys in 1969 (with no charges ever filed against me and none proven against my ex-wife). The foster parents adopted both boys. That's what would have happened to my youngest son's two boys if we hadn't won against all the slimy, underhanded tricks they could play (because I had been through it before and could advise him). The foster parents were well known to be poised for adoption.
RANSOM And when it's all over, comes the "ransom demand." Win or lose, you owe them money. They billed my son for "the cost of foster care" he neither wanted nor agreed to. But they've got the "law" on their side and he ended up paying. Of course, since the children had already been returned by court order and the case closed, they didn't have the children to hold for ransom. So he "horse-traded" the $10,000 they demanded down to $1,500.
In my own case, I don't even remember if they demanded this tribute. I told them flatly that so long as they had my children I wouldn't be paying a penny for child support or for anything else. And in 1969 they didn't have the laws they have now, so I got away with it, even if I did lose the kids.
This system needs to be changed or abolished, to be replaced with a system that actually does protect children rather than abuse them to gain a political and financial advantage. The "child protectors" routinely abuse children with "star-chamber" style interrogation sessions that go on over a period of months, even years, trying to get an "admission" out of them. They use the slimiest tricks on these innocent and impressionable children, Scams they wouldn't be allowed to use on a suspected murderer.
When they succeed in extracting an "admission," they quickly bring in the video cameras they fight tooth and nail to prevent use of during their regular sessions to capture the child's "admission" before he/she changes his/her mind. This "admission" is believed implicitly and criminal charges are quickly filed. The parent is offered a "plea bargain" if he/she will "Admit wrongdoing" and make a guilty plea. Or they can make a plea that basically says that they know they can't win, so they're making this plea to get a reduced sentence without admitting any guilt. Of course, the child protectors use this plea as "evidence of guilt" and put his/her name on the state-wide registry of child abusers along with whatever other punishment they mete out (They do this even if the victim is not proven guilty and it takes an "Act of God" to get a name removed).
So what happens if the child "recants" and says no abuse occurred? They ignore it, saying the child is "in denial." Same with a parent recanting. If you confess, they believe you. If you recant, you're a liar "in denial." You can't win.
In many cases they even sexually abuse the child, subjecting them to invasive genital examinations, putting their fingers and other objects into their vaginas and anuses. They sometimes still use a "treatment" called "penile plethysmography" in which a penis-shaped sensor is pushed into the vagina of a girl or a ring is placed at the base of a boy's penis and they are shown government-made pornography, supposedly to find out what "turns them on." It is also designed to find out if they are "sexually aware" (which is, according to them, sure "evidence" of child sex abuse) while making them sexually aware, themselves. So who is the child sex abuser?
They do all this without having to worry about taking responsibility for their actions. They've gotten complete and total protection for all their excesses and abuse under the "Good Samaritan Laws" where they can't be sued and no criminal charges can be filed against them or any "mandated reporter" (doctors, child care workers, etc.) who makes a "report." As long as they operate "for the child's welfare." (More subjectivity: what constitutes "child's welfare?" How can you prove otherwise?)
THEY'RE SUCCEEDING Today, it is almost impossible to get a school policy you don't like changed. And if you push hard to accomplish it, you're usually investigated for child abuse, and that's like an "atom bomb." You're instantly discredited and you will usually suffer many consequences of your "intemperate act" of opposing the social engineers. Is this the way you want the world to work?
No? Then do something about it. Get together with others who are working to change this system to one where children are REALLY protected instead of being used as pawns in the game of power. By their own figures, up to 80% of child abuse "reports" cannot be substantiated. That means that in 80% of all their cases, they're wrong! Many are wrong because there is no "penalty" to be paid for a false report even if it can be proven it was done for a nefarious purpose. Lawyers routinely advise clients to make such reports, even if not true, as a means to divert their opponent's attention and money in a direction away from the litigation in which they're involved.
Join some of the Discussion Lists on the Internet devoted to solving this problem. Subscribe to the "Child Protector Watch" online web site based newsletter. To read the current issue, go to: https://www.angelfire.com/co2/childprotectorwatch now. You can subscribe to the Announcement List that notifies you when a new issue comes out by going to: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/childprotectorwatch and following their instructions. To get a list of some of the better Discussion Lists, send me an email at raythomas101@hotmail.com and ask for it.
Department: Ayn Rand's Message This section will be dedicated to highlighting sections of her works and philosophy so that those who know nothing about it can learn.
Previously, I quoted Ayn Rand's remarks about the looters' technique of "creating lawbreakers" to make them controllable. It's such a basic ploy, I'll quote it again: "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one "makes" them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted-and you create a nation of law-breakers-and then you cash in on the guilt."
This is so elementary I'm surprised anyone who is paying attention to politics needs to have it explained. In the newspapers all the time are questions from pundits about how much more difficult it has become to do business, even to live today without breaking a law or becoming entangled in a bureaucratic nightmare. That it seems as if while obeying one, you're violating another. They decry this without ever tumbling to the fact that it is a looter ploy to "create lawbreakers" where there were none. Lawbreakers they can control. Law-abiding people they can't. So they make more and more laws and regulations, making sure that they conflict so that people who blindly obey them are, by obeying them, violating others that were written for the expressed purpose of being violated. Once you understand this, you can then know why there is always a drive on to make new laws, even when the old ones aren't being enforced.
Such is the case with the "anti-self-defense" crowd. They aren't interested in "gun safety." They're interested in disarming all Americans any way they can. So they use such things as the Columbine and Atlanta massacres to scream for more and more anti-gun laws even while they don't enforce the 20,000 anti-gun laws already on the books (unless it suits their purpose). The reason they don't enforce them is that they don't want anti-gun laws to work. If they worked, there would be no need for making more, now would there? So to ensure that their anti-gun laws never work, they simply don't enforce them unless they have a specific reason to enforce one.
The result is that with so many new laws being made, some of them are going to conflict with each other and when they do, the looters are in the enviable position of being able to prosecute people for violating one while obeying another. Learn to see these "basic concepts" and you'll be better able to recognize when you're being "taken to the cleaners" by the power seekers (looters).
Liberal theories are not an expression of ideas, but a bucket of slime emptied in public."
(With thanks to Ayn Rand)
Continued