|
|---|
|
Editorial:
There are two different philosophies fighting for control of Mass. fathers and their children. Very few of the fathers fully understand that this battle is raging and staring them in the face today. The most dangerous philosophy that will truly destroy them and their children, holds that all parents are bad for children. Under this philosophy, all children must be kept from their parents - whether that parent is a mother or a father. The only way to raise children, according to this, is to have them raised by the federal and state governments. The role model for those with this philosophy is of socialism, as evidenced in Sweden, Cuba and other socialist countries. There are very powerful people in Massachusetts - mainly the ultra feminists - who are working feverishly to achieve this. Although the fathers recognize this threat at some level of their consciousness, they fail to realize the ultimate aim of these people. The fathers must answer: what good is it to have politicians recognize the equal importance of fathers and mothers if we're all heading toward a system which believes that all parents are harmful? One important force that is working against all parents is the powerful NYTimes/Boston Globe/Worcester Gazette axis, which makes no secret that it is driven by extreme feminism. Are Mass. Parents Obsessive? The NYTimes axis and their feminist newspaper in Boston were deeply shaken in June 2001 by a U.S. government study. It showed that children in daycare do poorly compared to other children. This news was a potential disaster. The Globe and their friends want all of our children to be in daycare as a step toward their socialist model. In an attempt to refute the study, the Globe asked a professor at Harvard to come to the defense of daycare. In her zeal, the professor mistakenly disclosed the core philosophy of feminists. Their philosophy will disturb most parents. The professor wrote that the "myths" of motherhood and parenthood have caused young women in America to be "obsessive" about raising children themselves. (Those "myths" obviously apply to fathers also - particularly those who are so "obsessive" that they will fight against all odds to remain close to their children.) The professor, Kathleen McCartney of Harvard's Graduate School of Education, wrote that more federal daycare is needed so that all mothers can be employed. We must emulate Italy, she said. We must "provide the finest care and education to young children beginning in infancy," because the mother and father do not do that. It is only the federal government which can properly instruct and train the children, she argued. "In sharp contrast [to Italy]," she wrote, "American parents [fathers and mothers] and policy makers have sidestepped the quality question out of a longstanding ambivalence about childcare." There are two reasons for this. "First, Americans do not believe that child care is a public responsibility, in the way that grade school and higher education are. Second, Americans, buoyed by myths about motherhood [and fatherhood], are not ready to endorse supports for maternal employment -- hence our collective obsession with the American question. Our ambivalence has resulted in deadbeat daycare policies." In Which Group Are You? There are three different groups competing for the souls of children in Massachusetts. But most parents are unaware that any competition is taking place. 1. Parents Are Essential. One group, which includes those in the fatherhood movement, believes that parents are essential to the wellbeing of all children. They believe that whoever created us, whether it be God or an evolutionary force, created both mothers and fathers for a purpose, and we tamper with that model at our peril. 2. We Need Government Help. Another, much larger group agrees with the first group. But they also say they cannot afford to raise their own children and must receive help from the government. This group has swelled since the 1950s when only about 5% of a family's income went to taxes. Now, about 40% of a family's income goes to the government. Most women in 2002 must work solely for the purpose of paying the family's taxes. If this had been clearly argued in Congress, this tremendous burden on our families would surely have failed to pass. But no one realizes that the ability to raise their own children has been slowly removed by the government from our families by merely raising our taxes. Many of the parents in this group continue to look, by necessity, to the government for the answer to their problems. 3. Smallest Group Has Most Power. The smallest group of all has the most power in Massachusetts. It includes the extreme feminists who control the Boston Globe and other media, as well as academia. They are able to exercise such power because the majority of the women who believe that parents are essential are following that belief - and caring for their children themselves, perhaps even home-schooling them. A career is of secondary importance until their children are no longer dependent. In order for any woman to rise to power in political or business circles, it is important that she sublimate to some degree her motherly role. Almost everyone in the first group believes that women should have a choice and regulate their lives to coincide with what they believe to be the best interests of their child. But those in the third group, like Prof. McCartney, Ellen Goodman and all the rest at the Globe, would impose their beliefs on all women. They sincerely believe the old feminist war cry, that women who only take care of their children are the "ultimate parasites." Women Lawyers Are the Worst One of the largest groups of women in the third category - and the most influential -- are those who have chosen to be lawyers. Although many women lawyers are solidly in the first and second categories, that is not true of the ones the fathers see in the courts - both as legal aid lawyers opposing them and as judges deciding against them. They are the strident extreme feminists in the third category. They do not like men, or straight women who do, and they make no secret about it. These women have a hammerlock on the entire legal system in Massachusetts. There are 19 publicly-funded legal groups throughout the state that help women in divorce, but not one of them will help any man. You will not find any woman from the first category in this group. Although our publisher is an experienced lawyer, he did not understand what was happening himself until we witnessed and wrote about the experiences of many fathers who were represented in many Mass. courts by competent counsel. It quickly became evident that practically all of the women in the publicly-funded legal services groups are extreme feminists who dislike men intensely. Many have such negative feelings towards men in general that they have completely rejected the opposite sex and choose to live solely in the company of other women as lesbians. There is absolutely no other way to explain the actions against Ken Newell (and many, many other fathers) who has been arrested by his ex-wife 27 times, with the encouragement of legal aid lawyers, without being found guilty of anything. Yet the courts continue to torment the poor man and his children without reason except for the animus and intense passions of the extreme feminists, including lesbians. Although these facts show up constantly in the lives of those in the fathers' movement, they are able to observe only the "tree" that they are facing and fail to understand that their "tree" is only one part of a large forest that is against both fathers and mothers who are "obsessive" in their desire to care for their children. They must realize that they are seeing
only a small part of a much larger movement as exemplified
by the NYTimes. The failure of the fathers to understand the dynamics of the socialist agenda showed itself two years ago when the tragic figure of Elian Gonzales appeared. Although it was obvious to everyone that the government of Cuba was in total charge of the entire Gonzales family, all of the fathers of Massachusetts united behind Fidel Castro who was forcing the father to demand the return of the boy from our free country back to Cuba. There are telephone records which show that the father had called relatives in Miami three days before Elian was picked up from the shipwreck to tell them that Elian and his mother were on the way. But the father could not stand up to the power of the Cuban government, particularly when many in America were approving the grotesque actions of the Clinton administration, including the infamous night raid that threatened the freedom and the lives of many. (If you wish to read the sad details of Elian, which has not been revealed in any other source, see the June 2000 issue, which can be found online or from the MassNews office.)
Sidebar: An intense battle is now underway by those who are trying to force everyone to follow the socialist model. They are strongly opposed to the "Protection of Marriage" Amendment to our state Constitution because it would damage their plans. They even forced Senate President Tom Birmingham to break the law in an attempt to defeat it. Why are they so against the Marriage Amendment? Because they are the ones who would have the children raised by the government. They are pushing the homosexuals out in front and telling everyone that the Amendment is only an attack on homosexuals. Every time the Boston Globe has written about the Amendment, they have always described it as the measure which would ban gay marriage. However, the homosexual newspaper, Bay Windows, has confirmed that it was actually the powerful, national friends of the Globe from the AFL-CIO, ACLU, Anti-Defamation League, NOW and other liberals who were behind the illegal adjournment of the vote on the Amendment on July 17. The newspaper also indicated that most homosexuals are not interested in the subject. It was like pulling teeth to get them to contribute to the effort, one activist reported. This confirms what we have been saying all along, says Sarah McVay Pawlick, President of Mass. Citizens for Marriage. "This is not primarily about homosexuality. It's about a powerful, liberal agenda to change our morality. These liberals are seeking a socialist state similar to Sweden or Cuba, with a free-love society in which children are the responsibility of the state, not their parents. "That's why the national, liberal organizations are so interested in what is happening in Massachusetts. They are hiding behind homosexuals and others to achieve their political objectives. "They wish to diminish the institution of marriage which has been the bedrock of our country since its founding. When the state was first founded, every citizen knew what 'marriage' meant. So it was never written down. But it's obvious to everyone that we must do so now." The Bay Windows editorial emphasized the importance of liberal allies when it wrote the following: "Gays and lesbians cannot win these fights on their own. They must have strong and committed straight allies, such as labor unions and the ACLU." It also listed other organizations and said, "Our hats are off to them." Although Bay Windows did not say so, it is also obvious that the Globe and its owner, The New York Times, are important players in this attempt to increase the power of the state in our lives. Both papers reported about the Amendment only in a negative manner that was an attempt to damage it. If fathers don't realize the importance
of this threat to all parents, fathers and mothers,
they will be like the people who were arguing about
who was going to sit with the Captain of the Titanic
on its cruise through the icebergs. 1) Some libertarians oppose the Amendment, including the Mass. Libertarian Party. They believe government should not give special treatment to people just because they sign a contract of marriage. But other libertarians say that the cheapest way to raise children is to let the parents continue to do it. They also point out that domestic partners would cost the taxpayers over $15 million the first year alone. This would rise each year as more and more heterosexual state employees included a friend, whether same sex or different, as their "partner." The Libertarian Party was so strident two years ago that the homosexual activists told them to back-off on their support of gay marriage because they were hurting and not helping the movement. We must also realize that many homosexuals have joined the Libertarian Party in an effort to remove all restrictions on sex. (They even got Gov. Cellucci two years ago to caution the state police that they should no longer attempt to stop public, homosexual sex in parks and other areas.) 2) Others wish to avoid any responsibility for the children they create. They want to weaken or eliminate the institution of marriage because that would allow them to eventually eliminate the laws that make them legally liable for support of their children. Most men in this group want all women to support themselves. 3) Some of the homosexuals, who are about 3% of the population, believe that if they are allowed to "marry," it would help them be more accepted in society. 4) Feminists oppose the bill. (This term includes some men.) They teach that women will not be "free" as long as there is the institution of "marriage." They do not believe in letting each woman make her own choice. They would impose their agenda on all. Marriage would eventually be abolished entirely. In their view, government schools and daycare centers will do a better job of raising children than mothers and fathers. They favor weakening and eliminating the institution of marriage and "freeing" women for full time employment. They see "gay marriage" as a means to accomplish their goal. What Does Shannon O'Brien Believe? It is good to know that Shannon O'Brien is with the fathers on shared parenting, but now the fathers must ask her where she stands on the more important questions. Is she in favor of lowering taxes for all parents? Does she oppose the standard feminist dogma of putting the state more and more in charge of all children? Those, and many others, appear to be important questions. Why Do the Liberals Act this Way? Many of the liberals act this way because they have high IQ's and believe they are destined to "lead" the masses who are not as "smart" as they.
Sidebar: It is no surprise to many that the ACLU is praised by homosexual activists as one of the principal opponents of the Marriage Amendment. The ACLU was started in 1920 by Roger Baldwin who believed that the Soviet Union was "a great laboratory of social experimentation of incalculable value to the development of the world." He admonished his followers, "Do steer away from making it [the ACLU] look like a socialist enterprise." Although the ACLU attempts to look like a protector of rights for everyone, it has a radical political agenda. Our publisher tells how he first became acquainted with the ACLU in 1964 while representing a father who had been denied his civil rights in Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court in that state held at that time that a father would never get custody of his children unless he could show that the mother was totally unfit, basically the same standard that the DSS needs in order to take a child away from a parent. But worse than that, the Court held that a mother was not obligated to help support her children, only the father was. Therefore, although this father had supported his wife's schooling to become a teacher and she was now earning $133/week while he earned $73, he must pay her $20 because the judge was not allowed to know that she was earning money. This meant that the father was left with $53 to support his wife and child while the wife had $153 to support herself and two children. (Our publisher knew the father well and would testify very positively to his character.) Our publisher was young and poor, so he wrote to the ACLU for help in both areas. It responded that it was a very interesting case and they would consider it. He never heard from them again. A week later, he read in the paper they were representing a girl who wished to play on the boys high school tennis team. In Massachusetts in 2001, the ACLU trained the blockers who went out to the shopping malls and illegally disrupted the signature gatherers. They knew this illegal action would violate the voting rights of many citizens from signing the Petition. But they were not interested in their rights, only in helping the move toward socialization of our children. (More about the ACLU can be found in a book that is available in a few Massachusetts libraries and can probably be ordered from any public library, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union by William A. Donohue.) 
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Copyright 2008 ©All Rights Reserved MassNews.com® 508-410-2087 |
|---|
