This article was printed from KeepAndBearArms.com.
For more gun- and freedom-related information, visit
http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
Transcript of the Legislative Update For the Week of April 24, 2000
There are those who would have us believe that the Elian Gonzales affair
is all about the rule of law and a father's right of custody. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
Custody cases are properly handled in a family court, with contesting
sides present. After hearing the case a judge rules with the loser having
the right to appeal. When one sides refuses to show up in court this in
itself tells us a lot about the circumstances and can't be ignored.
If, in this case, the father had lived in California he would have been
expected to come to Florida and state his case. No one would have expected the child to be placed on an airplane and delivered to someone at the other end without a hearing and decision by a judge. As important as it is that parents have
custody of their children, there are times when a distant single parent
poses a danger to the child. Family courts exists to examine the
circumstances of such controversial custody battles.
But the Elian Gonzales case is not about "custody" and "the rule of law"
as Janet Reno professes. The rule of law, and the Constitution has been
completely ignored and a police-state mentality dictated the actions by
the Administration and carried out by Janet Reno.
Family custody fights should be settled in local family courts, not by
Justice Department storm troopers in the middle of the night. Reno did not
have a court order to invade the private home in Little Havana. She had no
authority to snatch away Elian and even if by the furthest stretch of the
law Reno had jurisdiction, a court order is required by the Constitution.
Common decency and morality would require knocking on the door, not
breaking in with a battering ram. This case is about much more than what
Janet Reno claims. And it's very important.
The administration is not driven, as it says, to enforce the rule of law.
That's a joke. And it's not a concern for family values and a father's
right to custody. Janet Reno's express concern for Elian is no more
believable than her love expressed for the children that burned to death
at Waco. The administration and the media, except for Fox News Network,
have a passionate hatred for the Cuban-American community and a love
affair with Fidel Castro. Liberals profess to champion the right of all
minority groups--except for Cuban-Americans who do not play the role of
victim. The best way to understand this antagonism is to look at the way
the liberal left treats Clarence Thomas. The fact that Thomas made it all
the way to the Supreme Court should please those looking for successful
members of minority groups. Instead, the left passionately despise Supreme
Court Justice Thomas because he rejects the welfare state, the tool used
by them to maintain political control over large minority groups willing
to be victimized.
Cuban-Americans are conservative, mostly Republican, believe in the work
ethic, are patriotic, family oriented, right to life, and above all else,
despise Castro's communism. These beliefs liberals find offensive and
therefore the Cuban-American community must be discredited. The Elian
Gonzales case has provided an opportunity for Castro's sympathizers to
emerge enmasse.
Can one only imagine how the left would have responded if this case had
involved a Haitian child? Would anyone have ever considered sending a
Jewish child back to Nazi Germany? Would they have been chanted "Rule of
Law" and "father's rights" under those circumstances?
But the overriding issue is the police state mentality that exists in this
country. And this is not a problem that just started with the Clinton
administration, although it delights in firmly using the illegal powers
that Congress has carelessly allowed the Executive Branch to usurp. One
irony of this current tragic episode in modern-day American justice is
that many conservative critics of Reno's policies have promoted
legislation that federalizes much of our police powers, especially in
their efforts to fight the War on Drugs. Police powers granted to the
Executive Branch over decades have been used by this administration and
others to trample the rights of citizens at places like Ruby Ridge, Waco,
and now in Little Havana. Unfortunately, many unpublicized episodes of
ruthless tactics by the DEA, BATF, the FBI, IRS and many other federal
agencies go unnoticed. If the flag amendment had been passed, hundreds
more would have been arrested in Little Havana. In their frustration, the
distraught Cuban-Americans flew the flag upside down and tied a black
ribbon around it-acts that, if the amendment had passed, could easily have
been outlawed by federal law as acts of desecration.
We must someday develop a consistent opposition to all federal laws
nationalizing police powers. Most of these laws are well intended but when
individuals bent on exerting power, like Janet Reno and Bill Clinton are
in charge, these powers are abused. The founders never intended for the
federal government to send armed thugs into a private home, without a
court order to settle a custody case just because it was not going the
administration's way.
An armed federal police state is what this case is all about. Let there be
no doubt about it. Law enforcement must once again be made a local
responsibility. Reassuring us that the INS agent's "finger was not on the
trigger" and "the gun was not directly pointed at someone's head" is the
most ludicrous justification for illegal armed might one can conceive of.
It always amazes me that the anti-gun forces, who would take all the guns
from all the people and trash the 2nd Amendment are the first to champion
the illegal and dangerous use of federal bureaucrats to break into our
houses without warrants, armed to the teeth, to enforce what they call the
"Rule of Law." What bunk!
Where do the champions of father's rights now have Elian Gonzales? He is
hidden away on a military base with custody turned over to Castro with the
US Military carrying out his demands. Some believe this is a response to
direct threats from Castro for Clinton to do his bidding.
Even a few cannot be allowed to threaten a police state. A police state is
too easily undermined if not firmly entrenched. Our police state is young
and small but growing rapidly. The true believers in a police state
though, get nearly hysterical if its powers are challenged and they do not
hesitate to have a show of force.
Even if the challenge is by a single family, desiring only to be left
alone, as was the case with the Randy Weaver family, it must be made clear
that the Rule of Might must prevail.
If it's a non-militant group, but non-conventional such as the Branch
Davidians, the same is true even if all must die, including the children.
This is what Janet Reno is reaffirming in Little Havana. "Do not defy me;
do no defy my power. The Constitution has no place in this matter.
Government agents must control all the guns so do not challenge state
authority even if it's unconstitutionally obtained."
Americans must answer back to all the Janet Reno's and the Bill Clinton's
now infiltrating our government. Only with a firm belief in the principles
of the Separation of Powers, and federalism as mandated by the
Constitution can we hope to reverse the rapid movement toward a police
state and preserve the American Republic. Note: Please help save our liberty and our nation's sovereignty by joining our electronic march on Washington and by making a contribution to keep the fight going.
To join our electronic march.
Go to the Contribute page to make a contribution.
Also, please ask a friend to join the fight.
Thank you, Kent Snyder |
||||||||