In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Independence Day-Do we have what we celebrate?
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Independence Day--
Do we really have what we celebrate?
By Al Benson, Jr.
Published 06. 30. 02 at 21:52 Sierra Time
xxx The Fourth of July is almost upon us. It will be celebrated with fireworks, parades with blaring fire engine sirens, and the usual gaggle of politicians, marching here and there in a frenzied attempt to garner more votes in the fall elections so they can continue to feed at the trough. There will be the usual floats, with adds promoting someone's business, and then there will be still more politicians on floats, with hired flunkies tossing penny candy to the children of the gathered masses, as if to say "I've got the loaf, you can have these crumbs."
There will be the usual speeches about of "freedom and independence" and how we are the most free people on the face of the earth, and on an on, ad nauseum. Hogwash! In our day it's all illusion, smoke and mirrors--all form with no substance.
If we are honest with ourselves, we will be forced to admit that we are celebrating something we really know nothing about. The true liberty and freedom the founders sacrificed to purchase for us are things none of us alive today have ever lived under nor experienced. The Constitutional Republic, with attendant states' rights, that men like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson labored to give us no longer exists. They have, indeed, not existed since 1865. What we all live under today is not a truly republican form of government, but rather a form of fascist "democracy."
Professor Thomas DiLorenzo has noted in his new book "The Real Lincoln" how the Lincoln Administration worked mightily to change our form of government from that given t us by the founders into a collectivist, centralized, mercantilist society. On page 223 of his book he has observed that: "The character of the American state had changed almost overnight, from the one established by the founding fathers whose primary responsibility was protecting the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, to an expansionist, imperialistic power that was more willing than ever to trample on individual rights and abandon the Constitution to achieve these ends. This was especially easy to accomplish once the check on centralized power that states' rights created was destroyed."
DiLorenzo continued: "Government power corrupts, and the more detached the citizens are from their government, when it becomes more centralized, the more corruption there will be. This expansion of government was exactly what the Southern secessionists feared. Indeed, it was a major reason why they seceded..."
With the military defeat of the Confederacy and the death of states' rights, the advocates of centralized government were free to pursue their agenda--and it has seldom been deviated from even until now. No longer are we a truly "free" people. We have not been so since the conclusion of the War of Northern Aggression.
How many things can you really do with your own property today without some government official at some level having his nose in your business? Can you add a sun deck or a new porch to your own dwelling without having to get prior permission from some local political hack who has to come out to your house to make sure your porch or deck isn't an inch longer than the regulations allow? And, in some cities, you can't even add a porch to your house--it's against local regulations! I've read accounts in some places about people not even being able to put a rock garden in their front lawn because of some ordinance, or people not even being able to have a Bible study in their own house because they don't have a "special use" permit.
We all pay property taxes to support the bloodsucking, brain-numbing government school system. If you think you really own your property, even though your name may be on the deed, just try not paying your property taxes for a couple years, and you will find out who really owns your property. It can be taken from you and sold to someone else who is willing to pay the yearly "rent" for it. How many in various parts of the country are forced to take their vehicles to be inspected on a yearly basis, for "emissions" or other problems? And if you refuse to go through the governmental regulatory hoops you will find that you can no longer have the right to drive your car or pickup. I have friends in rural areas of the country that are afraid to cut down too many trees on their property, lest the agricultural agent come by, notice some trees missing and question them as to what happened to them. Even though that should be none of his business, you have to account to him anyway and then he gives you a lecture about "responsible" use of your property--so who really "owns" the property? In a fascist society, ownership is not nearly as important as control.
Look at what some people are forced to endure to get on a plane to fly somewhere in this country now, and it's all supposedly to "combat terrorism." Yet, how much of this Mickey Mouse stuff really combats terrorism and how much of it is designed to control or harass honest citizens--to let them know who is really running things? The Bill of Rights, or whatever shreds of it were left, have been gutted by the Patriot Act. The states have become mere appendages, federal districts, to the federal government--in stark contrast to the way it is supposed to be. State governors and legislators are told by the feds when to jump and to ask how high on the way up.
If someone really thinks he is living in the most free country on earth, then he has spent too much time absorbing the propaganda in government school "history" books or his is smoking the wrong weed. We have become so politically correct we don't even have free speech anymore, lest it "offend" someone--and we talk about being free!
This Fourth of July, instead of shooting off illegal fireworks and reveling in our illusions of "freedom" maybe we had better go back and read a little accurate (not the government school variety) history and attempt to ascertain, in our thinking, what Lincoln's victory in the War of Northern Aggression has really cost us. That war was our French Revolution--and we have never recovered from its results to this day.
Al Benson's Newsletter
The name of the newsletter is The Copperhead Chronicle. I publish it four times a year for a subscription price of $8.00 per year. Each issue is eight pages in length. I deal a lot with historical issues concerning the War Between the States, but also with some contemporary issues.
Mailing address is The Copperhead Chronicle P O Box 1883 Arlington Heights, Illinois 60006.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/post.asp?method=Topic&FORUM_ID=4&CAT_ID=1&Forum_Title=General+Discussion
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Do we really have what we celebrate?
By Al Benson, Jr.
Published 06. 30. 02 at 21:52 Sierra Time
xxx The Fourth of July is almost upon us. It will be celebrated with fireworks, parades with blaring fire engine sirens, and the usual gaggle of politicians, marching here and there in a frenzied attempt to garner more votes in the fall elections so they can continue to feed at the trough. There will be the usual floats, with adds promoting someone's business, and then there will be still more politicians on floats, with hired flunkies tossing penny candy to the children of the gathered masses, as if to say "I've got the loaf, you can have these crumbs."
There will be the usual speeches about of "freedom and independence" and how we are the most free people on the face of the earth, and on an on, ad nauseum. Hogwash! In our day it's all illusion, smoke and mirrors--all form with no substance.
If we are honest with ourselves, we will be forced to admit that we are celebrating something we really know nothing about. The true liberty and freedom the founders sacrificed to purchase for us are things none of us alive today have ever lived under nor experienced. The Constitutional Republic, with attendant states' rights, that men like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson labored to give us no longer exists. They have, indeed, not existed since 1865. What we all live under today is not a truly republican form of government, but rather a form of fascist "democracy."
Professor Thomas DiLorenzo has noted in his new book "The Real Lincoln" how the Lincoln Administration worked mightily to change our form of government from that given t us by the founders into a collectivist, centralized, mercantilist society. On page 223 of his book he has observed that: "The character of the American state had changed almost overnight, from the one established by the founding fathers whose primary responsibility was protecting the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, to an expansionist, imperialistic power that was more willing than ever to trample on individual rights and abandon the Constitution to achieve these ends. This was especially easy to accomplish once the check on centralized power that states' rights created was destroyed."
DiLorenzo continued: "Government power corrupts, and the more detached the citizens are from their government, when it becomes more centralized, the more corruption there will be. This expansion of government was exactly what the Southern secessionists feared. Indeed, it was a major reason why they seceded..."
With the military defeat of the Confederacy and the death of states' rights, the advocates of centralized government were free to pursue their agenda--and it has seldom been deviated from even until now. No longer are we a truly "free" people. We have not been so since the conclusion of the War of Northern Aggression.
How many things can you really do with your own property today without some government official at some level having his nose in your business? Can you add a sun deck or a new porch to your own dwelling without having to get prior permission from some local political hack who has to come out to your house to make sure your porch or deck isn't an inch longer than the regulations allow? And, in some cities, you can't even add a porch to your house--it's against local regulations! I've read accounts in some places about people not even being able to put a rock garden in their front lawn because of some ordinance, or people not even being able to have a Bible study in their own house because they don't have a "special use" permit.
We all pay property taxes to support the bloodsucking, brain-numbing government school system. If you think you really own your property, even though your name may be on the deed, just try not paying your property taxes for a couple years, and you will find out who really owns your property. It can be taken from you and sold to someone else who is willing to pay the yearly "rent" for it. How many in various parts of the country are forced to take their vehicles to be inspected on a yearly basis, for "emissions" or other problems? And if you refuse to go through the governmental regulatory hoops you will find that you can no longer have the right to drive your car or pickup. I have friends in rural areas of the country that are afraid to cut down too many trees on their property, lest the agricultural agent come by, notice some trees missing and question them as to what happened to them. Even though that should be none of his business, you have to account to him anyway and then he gives you a lecture about "responsible" use of your property--so who really "owns" the property? In a fascist society, ownership is not nearly as important as control.
Look at what some people are forced to endure to get on a plane to fly somewhere in this country now, and it's all supposedly to "combat terrorism." Yet, how much of this Mickey Mouse stuff really combats terrorism and how much of it is designed to control or harass honest citizens--to let them know who is really running things? The Bill of Rights, or whatever shreds of it were left, have been gutted by the Patriot Act. The states have become mere appendages, federal districts, to the federal government--in stark contrast to the way it is supposed to be. State governors and legislators are told by the feds when to jump and to ask how high on the way up.
If someone really thinks he is living in the most free country on earth, then he has spent too much time absorbing the propaganda in government school "history" books or his is smoking the wrong weed. We have become so politically correct we don't even have free speech anymore, lest it "offend" someone--and we talk about being free!
This Fourth of July, instead of shooting off illegal fireworks and reveling in our illusions of "freedom" maybe we had better go back and read a little accurate (not the government school variety) history and attempt to ascertain, in our thinking, what Lincoln's victory in the War of Northern Aggression has really cost us. That war was our French Revolution--and we have never recovered from its results to this day.
Al Benson's Newsletter
The name of the newsletter is The Copperhead Chronicle. I publish it four times a year for a subscription price of $8.00 per year. Each issue is eight pages in length. I deal a lot with historical issues concerning the War Between the States, but also with some contemporary issues.
Mailing address is The Copperhead Chronicle P O Box 1883 Arlington Heights, Illinois 60006.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/post.asp?method=Topic&FORUM_ID=4&CAT_ID=1&Forum_Title=General+Discussion
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Cities From Cambridge to Berkeley Reject Anti-Terror Measure
By Dean Schabner
July 1 - Cities across the country have been quietly staging a revolt against the USA Patriot Act, saying it gives law enforcement too much power and threatens civil rights.
Print This Page
Email This Page
See Most Sent
A Cup a Day Keeps the Doctor Away?
New York's Bravest Heat Up Calendar
Surviving a Round [of Golf] With Dirty Harry
MORE ON THIS STORY
COMMUNITY
Does Patriot Act Threaten Civil Rights?
Over the last three months, the Massachusetts cities of Cambridge, Northampton and Amherst and the township of Leverett, as well as the town of Carrboro, N.C., all passed resolutions that call the USA Patriot Act a threat to the civil rights of the residents of their communities.
Congress passed the act in October to give federal investigators sweeping new powers to probe terrorism in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and soon came under criticism from civil libertarians. The public has been supportive of the measure.
The five municipalities join Berkeley, Calif., and Ann Arbor, Mich., in taking a strong stance challenging the way the Bush administration wants to pursue its war on terror within the borders of the United States.
In Cambridge, where the measure passed the city council by a 5-4 margin on June 17, the resolution says in part, "We believe these civil liberties [freedom of speech, assembly and privacy; equality before the law; due process; and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures] are now threatened by the USA Patriot Act."
"For me, it was that historically there have been attacks on civil liberties in times of war," Councilman Brian Murphy said when asked why he co-authored the resolution. "I think if you look at USA Patriot, this is another example of that."
The resolutions are largely symbolic, because the local governments have no authority to compel federal law enforcement to comply.
"One of the recognitions is that there is a supremacy act and that there are limits to what a city can do," Murphy said. "If the FBI chooses to take actions in Cambridge, they're able to do that under the law as it is constituted.
"We feel it is important that communities send a message that there is opposition to this act," he added.
House Committee Has Questions
Even before USA Patriot was passed, the police in Portland, Ore., broke ranks with the Justice Department's war on terror, saying that it would not cooperate with the FBI on investigations of Middle Eastern students in the city, because state law barred police from questioning immigrants who are not suspected of a crime.
The city council of Boulder, Colo., is considering a resolution similar to the ones passed in the seven other cities, and Denver has also passed a resolution that, while not going as far as the others, still expresses concerns about whether USA Patriot might be implemented in such a way that it could threaten civil liberties.
At the same time, the House Judicial Committee has sent a request to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft asking him and FBI Director Robert Mueller to respond to 12 pages of questions - 50 in all - about how the act is being implemented and how effective it has been.
"We plan to schedule a public hearing in the near future to allow further public discussion of these and other issues relating to the Department of Justice's activity in investigating terrorists or potential terrorist attacks," the letter said.
The letter requested a response no later than July 9.
Threat or Protection?
Though the USA Patriot Act was passed by overwhelming margins in both the Senate - 98-1 - and the House of Representatives - 356-66 - the 342-page law has been criticized by civil libertarians and constitutional rights groups as overstepping the bounds of proper law enforcement procedure.
"This law is based on the faulty assumption that safety must come at the expense of civil liberties," Laura W. Murphy, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington National Office, said in that group's analysis of the law. "The USA Patriot Act gives law enforcement agencies nationwide extraordinary new powers unchecked by meaningful judicial review."
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said that he was unaware of the resolutions being passed by cities around the country, but he said their concerns and criticisms of the law were unfounded.
"USA Patriot was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in both the House and the Senate," Corallo said. "The Patriot Act protects civil liberties and is fully within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution."
The U.S. attorney's office in Boston was also unaware that four cities in the state had approved measures that sought information from federal law enforcement about anti-terror actions being taken in their communities and directed local police not to cooperate with federal agencies if they were asked to do things that violated someone's civil rights.
After reviewing the Cambridge resolution, Jerry Leone, the assistant U.S. attorney in Massachusetts and the anti-terrorism coordinator in the state, said the city leaders do not understand the Patriot Act.
"I think some people have formed misconceptions of what the intentions of USA Patriot are," Leone said. "If one is a civil libertarian, I think the first reaction is, 'Hey, that's one more tool for the government to infringe on our rights,' but if you look at the implementation of the law, that's not the case."
Making Muslims Feel Safe
In Ann Arbor, though, City Councilwoman Heidi Herrell said that there have been problems with the way the law has been implemented, and that was why the city felt compelled to act.
"We're very concerned about civil rights and about potential discrimination against members of our community," she said. "We spent a lot of time since Sept. 11 making sure that the Muslim members of our community felt safe."
She pointed to the ruling by a federal judge in Detroit in April that it was unconstitutional for the Justice Department to require immigration court judges to bar the public and the media from hearings for detainees who have been determined to be of special interest to federal authorities.
The Detroit ruling came in response to three separate lawsuits asking that hearings for Rabih Haddad, who was arrested in Ann Arbor in December on charges that he had overstayed his tourist visa, be opened.
"The judge ruled that the hearings had to be open, so it seems like the court agreed with us in that case," she said. "We're not saying that people shouldn't be questioned. We're just concerned about civil rights."
The Justice Department is appealing the decision, and the Supreme Court has stayed a similar ruling in a New Jersey case to decide the issue.
Constitution's `Not a Suicide Pact'
The council in Denver, the largest of the seven cities, adopted the least-strongly worded resolution, and language about not cooperating with federal authorities was removed before it was finally passed, 7-4.
The resolution says that it "reaffirms Denver's commitment to unbiased policing," and states that the police should continue to adhere to their policy that "no information about political, religious or social views, associations or activities should be collected unless the information relates to criminal activity and the subject is suspected of criminal activity."
City government officials described it as an affirmation of Denver's commitment to civil rights.
"We were concerned about the abridgement of free speech because of national security concerns," Councilwoman Kathleen MacKenzie said. "It seemed to us that it was more unpopular than ever to criticize the government or protest for peace, and that was really scary. As awful as we feel about Sept. 11 and as concerned as we were about national safety, we felt that giving up the right to dissent was too high a price to pay.
"It resonated to us of the McCarthy era and other times," she added, referring to the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings of the 1950s.
For some, though, even the milder version of the resolution went too far. Councilman Ed Thomas said that by approving it, the council was saying that "Denver would be a haven for terrorists."
"My opinion was that we have lost our collective minds if we are going to come up with these kinds of motions," he said. "The last time I checked, I believe we are at war."
He said there were reasons why stricter law enforcement measures have traditionally been taken in times of national emergency or war.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact," he said. "I think history will prove this to be folly. I felt that at that time [when the resolution was passed] and I still feel that way. We've lost our collective minds if we're doing this kind of thing."
In Ann Arbor, Herrell said the mistake would be to respond to terror by compromising the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
"At times like these, I think our constitutional rights are even more important," she said. "There have been times when we relaxed these things - the McCarthy era, the '60s civil rights struggle, the detention of the Japanese-Americans in World War II. We look back at those times with shame. . I think this will be another time we look back on with shame. That's what I fear."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/usapatriot020701.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Rebels They were Not!
Steve Farrell
July 1, 2002
Hitler said: "Tell a lie, tell it often enough and the people will believe it."
Maybe you've heard this one: The Founding Fathers were "rebels" against the existing order - just like Progressives, Marxists, Third Wayers and Globalists are today.
Lies don't come any bigger.
So with Independence Day upon us, let's set the record straight: The Founders took up arms to uphold the existing order - namely, natural law, inalienable rights and self-government - because their mother country refused to - and because without representation, they were denied redress.
That makes the British, not the Founders, rebels - and listen here, a few top Brits admitted it.
Adam Smith, of "Wealth of Nations" fame, pronounced the prohibitory laws of England toward the colonies "a manifest violation of the most sacred rights," "impertinent badges of slavery imposed upon them without any sufficient reason by the groundless jealousy of ... [England's] merchants and manufacturers. ..."
The war with the colonists, wrote Edmund Burke, is "fruitless, hopeless, and unnatural."
"The colonies," said Dunning, "are not in a state of rebellion, but resisting the attempt to establish despotism in America, as a prelude to the same system in the mother country. Opposition to arbitrary measures is warranted by the constitution, and established by precedent."
"A fit and proper resistance," said Wilkes, "is a revolution, not a rebellion. Who can tell whether, in consequence of this day's violent and mad address, the scabbard may not be thrown away by the Americans as well as by us; and, should success attend them, whether, in a few years, the Americans may not celebrate the glorious era of the revolution of 1775 as we do that of 1688? Success crowned the generous effort of our forefathers for freedom; else they had died on the scaffold as traitors and rebels, and the period of our history which does us the most honor would have been deemed a rebellion against lawful authority, not the expulsion of a tyrant."
"We are the aggressors," said Chatham. "nstead of exacting unconditional submission from the colonies, we ought to grant them unconditional redress."
"I am not surprised," he noted a few months later, "that men who hate liberty should detest those that prize it; or that those who want virtue themselves should persecute those who possess it. The whole of your political conduct has been one continued series of weakness and temerity, despotism and the most notorious servility, incapacity and corruption. ...
Later, the senior statesmen Chatham, rising from his sick bed, put out his final inspired warning:
"The spirit which now resists your taxation in America is the same which formerly opposed loans, benevolences, and ship-money in England; the same which, by the bill of rights, vindicated the English constitution; the same which established the essential maxim of your liberties, that no subject of England shall be taxed but by his own consent. This glorious spirit ... animates three millions in America. ...
"Let this distinction then remain forever ascertained: taxation is theirs, commercial regulation is ours. They say you have no right to tax them without their consent; they say truly. I recognize to the Americans their supreme, unalienable right in their property, a right which they are justified in the defense of to the last extremity. To maintain this principle is the great common cause. ... 'Tis liberty to liberty engaged'; the alliance of God and nature, immutable and eternal. ...
"When your lordships look at the papers transmitted us from America, when you consider their decency, firmness, and wisdom, you cannot but respect their cause, and wish to make it your own.
"For myself, I must avow that in all my reading - and I have read Thucydides and have studied and admired the master-states of the world - for solidity of reason, force of sagacity, and wisdom of conclusion under a complication of difficult circumstances, no body of men can stand in preference to the general congress at Philadelphia. The histories of Greece and Rome give us nothing equal to it, and all attempts to impose servitude upon such a mighty continental nation must be vain.
"We shall be forced ultimately to retract; let us retract while we can, not when we must. These violent acts must be repealed; you will repeal them; I stake my reputation on it, that you will in the end repeal them. Avoid, then, this humiliating necessity. .
"... [T]hrow down the weapons in your hand. .
"Every motive of justice and policy, of dignity and of prudence, urges you to allay the ferment in America. ...
"If the ministers persevere in thus misadvising and misleading the king, I will not say that the king is betrayed, but I will pronounce that the kingdom is undone; I will not say that they can alienate the affections of his subjects from his crown, but I will affirm that, the American jewel out of it, they will make the crown not worth his wearing."
Chatham, Smith, Burke, Dunning and Wilkes - statesmen from the enemy camp - were right. The War for Independence was a just war, fought on the American side by those who upheld and defended established law, eternal principles and inalienable rights, as no men in the world's history before them had.
And so, let this then be said and remembered forever: These, our Founders, were not rebels, but principled patriots and prophets who bravely battled for Liberty and Law!
Contact Steve at Cyours76@yahoo.com.
http://www.newsmax.com/commentmax/articles/Steve_Farrell.shtml
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Dean Tong
Friday, June 28, 2002
As America celebrates its first Independence Day since the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, we mourn our dead and stand proud by the freedoms we enjoy. Perhaps we don't take those freedoms for granted as we did prior to those evil, terrorist acts against us.
Abuse and exploitation of our most precious resource, our children, is a form of domestic terrorism. This July Fourth let's say a prayer for two children who were abducted recently, Danielle Van Dam and Elizabeth Smart. It is incumbent upon us to prosecute their perpetrators to the fullest extent allowed by law.
Yet, according to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, of the approximate 3.3 million reports of alleged child abuse and neglect that will be filed in America this year, over 2 million will be deemed 'unfounded.' In other words, over 2 million American families will be faced with proving their innocence of crimes before our behemoth child protective service agencies. Why is this?
In any alleged child abuse case in America, an accused is guilty until proven innocent, in contravention to the Constitution and our 14th Amendment right to due process.
We recognize that our local priest could be a child molester. We recognize that child abuse is a taboo. Do we recognize that many professionals who investigate and evaluate alleged child abuse cases suffer from confirmatory biases - preconceived notions that these crimes have already been committed - before their work even begins. Consider the following two e-mails sent to me on June 24 and June 26, respectively:
I would like to tell you that I find your website revolting. I have been a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner for 6 years and have seen all kinds of abuse. I have performed exams on sexually abused children and adults, and physically abused children. In my experience, there are very few "false reports." However, there are cases where the abuse cannot be proven in court but this does not mean it didn't happen.
According to the DOJ [Department of Justice], the false reporting rate for sexual assault is 2-4%, which is comparable to other types of violent crimes. I understand that sometimes with divorce cases, one parent may worry about abuse by the other parent, however most of the time, there is some cause for concern. Your type of advertising is what makes people think they should not report because they won't be believed. - KM, RN (SANE Program Coordinator)
And the second e-mail:
I am very concerned that you are spreading this misinformation. As a former volunteer at a rape crisis center, I know firsthand that children do not make up this information. I realize that many cases lack enough evidence to be proven in court, but this does not mean that it is untrue. As a matter of fact, I find this offensive.
Perhaps something in your own personal history has led you to hold these views, I do not know. What I do know is that women and adult survivors of childhood sexual assault do not suffer from borderline personality disorders, it is as a direct result of the sexual abuse. For you to distort the truth and put victims on trial is a terrible miscarriage of justice. Where do you get off printing this information as if you are some sort of an expert. This shocks and upsets me. - JN
According to KM and JN, children and women never lie or are never wrong about abuse. According to KM and JN, we should convict before the accused is afforded a defense, before the accused has the constitutional right to a trial by a jury of his peers.
While child abuse is a serious problem in America, we must never forget that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. And even if one's case is deemed unfounded, after being accused of child abuse those people will still bear a scarlet letter emblazoned upon their names.
Dean Tong, forensic consultant and author of the book "Elusive Innocence: Survival Guide for the Falsely Accused" (Huntington House, 2002), has been retained by parents and attorneys in 32 states in abuse and custody cases. His website is http://www.abuse-excuse.com.
Contact Dean Tong at DeanTong@aol.com .
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/28/124347.shtml
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
IM PROUD TU BE AN AMERICAN.
Thank a Vet.
Rugster