Posts from former Discussion pages 

Police State Focuses on Family

NOTE: All posts are presented 'as is' as the poster wrote it originally, with no editing of the content except for last names and E-Mail addresses.  The poster's ISP address is included as it was required to create the original post. 

 

000005e6
Police State Focuses on Family
From: 
Remote Name: 209.144.106.2


Comments
Also last week, a federal appeals court finally ruled unconstitutional the Elizabeth Morgan Act, a textbook bill of attainder whereby Congress legislatively separated father and child and "branded" as "a criminal child abuser" a father against whom no evidence was ever presented.

 "Congress violated the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder by singling out plaintiff for legislative punishment," the court said. 

The very fact that a bill of attainder was used at all indicates something truly extreme is taking place.  Bills of attainder are rare, draconian measures used for one purpose: to convict politically those who cannot be convicted with evidence. So do these decisions demonstrate that justice eventually prevails? Hardly. 

In both cases, the damage is done. Foretich's daughter has been irreparably robbed of her childhood and estranged from her father. Moreover, millions of fathers continue to be permanently separated from their children and presumed guilty, even when no evidence exists against them. 

The Pennsylvania men will fare worse. For many, the incarceration has already cost them their jobs and thus their ability to pay future child support. As a result, they will be returned to the penal system, from which they are unlikely ever to escape. 

Permanently insolvent, they are farmed out to trash companies and similar concerns, where they work 14–16 hour days. Most of their earnings are confiscated for child support, the costs of their incarceration, and mandatory drug testing. 

This gulag recalls the description of the Soviet forced-labor system, described by Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski in their classic study of totalitarianism: "Not infrequently the secret police hired out its prisoners to local agencies for the purpose of carrying out some local project…. Elaborate contracts were drawn up…specifying all the details and setting the rates at which the secret police is to be paid. At the conclusion of their task, the prisoners, or more correctly the slaves, were returned to the custody of the secret police." New repressive measures against fathers are enacted almost daily. 

Last week, Staten Island joined a nationwide trend when it opened a new "integrated domestic violence court." The purpose of these courts, says Chief Judge Judith Kaye, is not to dispense justice as such but to "make batterers and abusers take responsibility for their actions." In other words, to declare men guilty. 

Anyone who doubts this need only look to Canada, where domestic violence courts are already empowered to seize the property, including the homes, of men accused of domestic violence, even though they are not necessarily convicted or even formally charged. Moreover, they may do so "ex parte," without the men being present to defend themselves. "This bill is classic police-state legislation," writes Robert Martin, of the University of Western Ontario. Walter Fox, a Toronto lawyer, describes these courts as "pre-fascist," and editor Dave Brown writes in the Ottawa Citizen, "Domestic violence courts…are designed to get around the protections of the Criminal Code. The burden of proof is reduced or removed, and there's no presumption of innocence." Special courts to try special crimes that can only be committed by certain people are a familiar device totalitarian regimes adopted to replace established standards of justice with ideological justice. New courts created during the French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror and were consciously imitated in the Soviet Union. In Hitler's dreaded Volksgerichte or "people’s courts," write Friedrich and Brzezinski, "only expediency in terms of National Socialist standards served as a basis for judgment." Even more astounding, legislation announced in Britain will require the police to consider fathers guilty of domestic violence, even after they have been acquitted in court. Fathers found "not guilty" are to be kept away from their children and treated as if they are guilty. As Melanie Phillips writes in the Daily Mail, "This measure will destroy the very concept of innocence itself." These are only the most recent developments. Young herself has written eloquently on the practice of extracting coerced confessions from fathers like Massachusetts minister Harry Stewart. In Warren County, Pennsylvania, fathers like Robert Pessia are told they will be jailed unless they sign confessions stating, "I have physically and emotionally battered my partner." The father must then describe the violence, even if he insists he committed none. The documents require him to state, "I am responsible for the violence I used. My behavior was not provoked." Again, the words of Friedrich and Brzezinski are apposite: "Confessions are the key to this psychic coercion. The inmate is subjected to a constant barrage of propaganda and ever-repeated demands that he ‘confess his sins,’ that he ‘admit his shame.’" G.K. Chesterton argued that the most enduring check on government tyranny is the family. Ideological correctness notwithstanding, little imagination is required to comprehend that the household member most likely to defend the family against the state is the father. Yet as Margaret Mead once pointed out, the father is also the family's weakest link. The easiest and surest way to destroy the family, therefore, is to remove the father. Is it extreme to wonder if government is quietly engaged in a search-and-destroy operation against the principal obstacle to the expansion of its power?    (Last changed: February 26, 2006)

 

NOTE:  The above post appears to be directly quoted from an online article, but without proper citation, and the posting is an incomplete copy of the original article.

The full article is on http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/baskerville3.html   This is the only online site for this article that this webmaster could find.  The article is marked Copyright © 2003 Stephen Baskerville.  Dr. Baskerville, Ph.D., teaches political science at Howard University.  The citation of his artcle is:

Baskerville, S. The Anti-Father Police State (December 23, 2003).  URL:  http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/baskerville3.html
 

 

 

END OF THIS TOPIC.

 

 

 

RETURN TO CATEGORY INDEX

 

RETURN TO HOME PAGE OF 
PARENTAL ALIENATION WEB SITE

 

Disclaimer: PsyCare Inc. and Dr. Douglas Darnall, Ph.D. assumes no responsibility for the views expressed in any posting.  When posting on any public forum, users should be aware that User Names and E-mails addresses which the poster included were/have been archived by sources which compile almost all Internet websites into an archives. Since these posts in their original forum  were / have been online since 2006, there is no way to remove content because almost all Internet Websites are "archived" and therefore, the content with the identifiable information will remain in the Internet Archives even if completely removed from these pages.  Internet Archiving is not under the control of PsyCare, Inc., its owner, or employees.