I received this e-mail from congresman Ron Paul:
Subject: Elian Gonzalez
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 15:57:03 -0400
Add Addresses
> Legislative Update
> For the Week of April 24, 2000
>
> There are those who would have us believe that the Elian
Gonzalez
> 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 Gonzalez 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
> Gonzalez 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
Gonzalez? 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. |
