MCP wrote:
> Women Violating Women
>
> When Hillary Clinton says it takes a "village" to raise a child, does
this
> mean that snooping, nosey, prying and gossipy people will be
surrounding all
> of us -- snoopers who are employees of the state with the power of
police?
>
> This woman wonders. I was forced by DSS to attend a "support group"
for
> abused women, against my will. Or else I would never see my daughter
again.
[...]

Here's where this turns to a cautionary tale of big, unrestrained
government.

> How Did We End Up In DSS?
> Government intervention turns to harassment
>
> Thirteen months after my husband drank too much one night and with no
> problems of any kind after that incident, the social worker, Kathy
> Marciante, and Sue Ash, the domestic violence "expert," showed up
while I
> was working in my garden in May 1997.

[...]

> They informed me that I would not be able to contact anybody or allow
anyone
> to know where I was. I kept asking them why they were here, but I
didn't get
> an answer. They said that if I didn't go with them, they would have
to
> consult with their legal department about removing the children. My
16-year
> old son told them that they were ludicrous and there was absolutely
no
> reason for them to be there. He also told them that our daughter was
very
> close to us and clingy, and that it would deeply traumatize her to
take her
> away from us and her home.

Nice going, kid!  An Angry Harry in the making!

[...]

> take her away. The following day they snatched her from her
classroom. It
> was weeks before we saw her again.
>
> It was four months before we were able to get a hearing before a
judge in
> Barnstable Juvenile Court. We had 29 continuances before our case was
heard.
> It was 13 months before our daughter returned to her home.

[...]

I'm going to assume, based on probability, that this woman was a
womenfirster* of the feminist or traditionalist sort.  The default
American woman is.  This is not to say that she deserved what happened
here.  She clearly did not, and her children certainly didn't deserve
it.  But the story serves as a valuable lesson for her and her fellow
womenfirsters.

Ladies, you created this gigantic, unrestrained government so it could
serve your needs at our expense, and now you're upset that you can't
control it.  Well I'm terribly sorry, but it's a bit difficult to feel
sympathy for you, even if I do feel sympathy for the people in your
life whom Big Mother hurts.

You were Dr. Frankenstein standing over the operating table shouting,
"It's alive!!!"  Now that the monster is going after everyone else
_and_ you as well, you won't have it.  Of course, I feel sorry for the
innocents whom the monster hurts, but if the monster kills you, then
you're up for a Darwin award.

Did it never once occur to you that freedom was a better solution to
your problems than more social control?  And have you no grasp of
history?  Do you not know what typically happens when a government gets
out of hand?  Do the names Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pot, Minh, and Castro
mean nothing to you?

Unlike you, the men who framed our government knew this might happen,
so they took steps to prevent it.  They set up a federal system, with a
federal constitution, a Supreme Court, and similar systems for the
individual states.  The purpose was to limit what government could do
and to keep the government focused on its true purpose, which is to
protect our inalienable rights.  Not to give us rights, mind you, but
to protect the ones we already have.

But, as John Adams wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral
and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any
other."  In other words, people determined to circumvent the
constitution can do it, and this has happened, mainly at your behest.
After you complained that it was written by old white sexist men, you
called it a "living, breathing" document.  People consider it a guide,
and judges take the place of legislators, also at your behest.  The
term "constructionist" is hurled at judical nominees as if it were an
epithet, when it's really a compliment.

The government is a broadsword, not a scalpel.  It can't selectively
slay your enemies without maiming you as well. I'm sorry to break this
to you, but if you take steps to protect your own freedom, you'll
inadvertently protect men's freedoms too, and there's no way around
that.

The best chance you have to protect your freedom is to reverse what
you've done.  Work with freedom-loving men to reduce the size and scope
of government, rather than continually trying to expand it so it can
make you secure and make us work.  The latter will leave you as
vulnerable to bureaucratic whims as we are.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/31/04 10:54:43 AM