Tag Archives: First Amendment

Abolish all Family Courts!

The American Freedom Party today (September 15, 2018) agreed to endorse an original understanding of the First Amendment Establishment Clause:
“CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.”

The American Freedom Party agreed to my proposal to adopt and endorse, as a key plank of the party platform, the gradual abolition of the family courts and family codes at both the state and federal level, and to return all control over family and child rearing decisions to the people and only such non-governmental institutions as those to which individuals, in the exercise and delegation of their freedoms of religion and association, may wish to adopt as their own by contract.

The American Founding Fathers opposed Monarchy and sought to establish a Republic. The Family Courts (in America and elsewhere) have de facto reestablished absolutely tyrannical monarchical control over the fundamental freedoms of every individual involved in any sort of “family” (divorce or child or elder-related) dispute.

These courts, on an ad hoc basis, routinely violate every fundamental freedom. establishing arbitrary and capricious rules that defy all reason, logic, and rationality. These courts intrude and infringe upon our rights to freedom of speech and association. They intrude upon every aspect of our lives.

Original Intent: In 1787-1791, the American Colonists were only 200-250 years away from historical memory of the first Protestant “Acts of Uniformity” by which the Church of England was established, and all its sacraments (including the licensing and solemnization of marriage) adopted by Parliament.

Thus, it can be inferred that the American Founding Fathers sought forever to prevent the Federal Government from licensing or otherwise regulating marriage (or its dissolution, or child-rearing). The abuses of the Family Courts were and are so great that we must now “disestablish” all family courts, and all regulation of the “businesses of family organization and reproduction.”

14th Amendment: The American Freedom Party recognizes that certain clauses of the 14th Amendment have been interpreted in such a way as to have disastrous consequences for the American people (especially the “automatic citizenship by birth” clause, which should almost certainly be repealed).

However, the American Freedom Party wholeheartedly endorses the “doctrine of incorporation” which has developed under 14th Amendment jurisprudence, which requires that the several states apply the First Amendment and other portions of the Bill of Rights as federally guaranteed rights within the borders of each state.

Thus, just as the First Amendment prohibits all Federal Regulation of Marriage, the First Amendment, incorporated to the States, should prohibit all State regulation of marriage or its dissolution and consequences, including child custody disputes. There is simply no way of saving the Family Courts in their present form. They have become dens of corruption and iniquity, which impoverish the people, confuse and disorient both parents and children, destroy all meaning value to family life, and render the people dependent upon the arbitrary and capricious whims of government for every iota of common, everyday, happiness.

As membership campaign manager and coordinator for the AFP, I solicit your suggestions about how this can be accomplished.

I suggest a seven year transitional plan starting with the immediate abolition of all state issued marriage licenses.

To facilitate this transition, the states will institute educational programs in both the schools and for the communities.

Every individual who comes to any state agency, from the adoption of such a law forward, to apply for a marriage license will be advised to go to counseling and arrange a marital contract regarding the nature of the relationship and the expectations of the individuals to be married, including their expectations regarding child rearing and child custody upon divorce.

For the initial stages of implementation, the courts, will continue to resolve divorce petitions filed under current law, but with a mandate to respect all constitutional rights, an expedited review process for all judicial infringements on constitutional rights, and a mandate to accommodate jury demands for all issues involving money or custody.

The next stage will begin between one and three after the adoption of the reform program, and after this date, the state divorce courts will only hear cases where a couple bring forward a marital or pre-marital agreement, or two comprehensive proposals, and the court will resolve those differences.

The goal will be the final abolition of the family courts within seven years…..and after that stage, the civil courts will only be involved to the extent required to interpret, apply, enforce, modify, or (only if illegal or unconscionable) abrogate the agreements between “partners”.

Robert Edward Lee’s Birthday—this Janus Faced Holiday—Why it Matters that Love Makes Memory Eternal

Brooksville, Hernando County, Florida

The Confederate Soldiers of 1861-1865

My son Charlie (Charles Edward Andrew Lincoln IV) and I used to celebrate this day every year….he’s grown up and is pursuing his own Law Degree at a distinctly proletarian law school (“Texas A & M in Fort Worth”), and I guess he feels weighed down by social pressures not to waive the same flags and carry on the same battles as his old man.  He has quite a collection of both history books and flags, I guarantee you that.  So far as I know, he’s never been to the White House in Washington, but he has been to Beauvoir, last home of President Jefferson Davis, in Biloxi, Mississippi.  The Confederate Soldier—a humble man not wearing a real army uniform carrying the rifle he used back home to hunt rabbit and deer, apparently is not a potent symbol for career development in modern America.

United Daughters of the Confederacy---50 years after the War

Love Makes Memory Eternal—

Love and Memory seem to me the key elements missing from modern lives and conventional history.  Well, truth and objectivity is pretty much missing, also….but without love and memory, who is there to enforce more than the one hateful version which supports the present Administration as a Marxist power-play to abolish private property and render us all slaves on a government plantation, once and for all? (http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2009/02/09/back_on_uncle_sams_plantation/page/full)(http://www.unclesamsplantation.com)
The story of the American War of 1861-1865 is very complex and very confusing.  Was it the Second American Revolution against Centralized Government and Oppression/Suppression of the Constitution, as the CSA President Jefferson Davis said in his “retirement” in Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government (1881) (http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Confederate-Government-Volume/dp/0306804182).  
Most would agree that “the War Between the American States” is best understood as the first “Modern” war in a great many ways: culturally, economically, politically, technologically, and socially.  The way the history is taught in American Schools—this war, under the false name of “The American Civil War” (if deciphered thoughtfully), is truly the story of the first of three important Marxist-inspired wars designed to cause and implement social change.  This year is the sesquicentennial of the bloody ending of that war.  There have been a lot of reenactments and books and conferences.  
I think of Isaiah 59:

Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.

The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.

Therefore is judgment far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness.

10 We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noon day as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men.

11 We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for judgment, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us.

Accordingly, during Most of the 20th and all of the 21st Century the war is not taught as anything but a war against Slavery.  The history of the period 1861-1865 is not remembered as the time when the U.S. Department of Agriculture was established to standardize agriculture nationwide according to the Communist Manifesto published so recently in London.  
Nor do our schools teach Cousin Abe’s War as the war during which the President illegally established the very first American Income Tax, also mandated by the Communist Manifesto of February 1848 (just 13 years and two months before the War broke out in America) or the War during which the Sixteenth President illegally re-established the National Banking System which Andrew Jackson had abolished. (Nor is it noted that Centralized, Nationalized or Internationalized Banking lies at the heart of the Communist Manifesto and Program).  Our schools likewise mostly omit mention of the First Republican President’s (1996 AEDPA, 2001 Patriot Act, and 2009 NDAA Predecessor) suspension of Habeas Corpus, the suppression of Freedom of Speech, and the accompanying the mass hangings and fixed elections which permitted Cousin Abe to win the war against his cousins, who were my direct ancestors.  It is indeed a short trip from what the First Republican President did to the Constitution during his first term, to what Newt Gingerich and his Republican Majority did to the Bill of Rights in 1996, what George W. Bush did after 9-11 in 2001, and what Obama has done to both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in 2009-2015….it’s a straight line progression, with very few hesitations or hickups along the way….. you might even call it “the Highway to Hell.”……
United Daughters of the Confederacy

The Battle Flag and the Historical Frame

And it’s just way too confusing to have to admit that the Native American Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole Tribes all together, but especially the Cherokee and Creek, fought on the side of the Confederacy, in part because Native Americans had traditions of slavery that pre-dated the Spanish Entrada of De Soto and the Foundation of Sir Walter Raleigh’s Colony of Virginia in the Sixteenth Century.  But in part because the Southern Tribes had survived, albeit displaced, where none of the Northern Tribes had survived at all, from Massachusetts and Maine all the way to Michigan and Minnesota….
Hernando County, Florida

Mixing Memory and Desire in the isolated backwaters of Florida, in June of 1916

Of what value are the stories of the wounded and dead on bloody battlefields if we do not make it all a part of our own blood, soul and acknowledge our kinship with the fallen heroes? 
 This Confederate Monument stands in front of the Hernando County Courthouse in Brooksville, Florida, where I attended a celebration of Robert E. Lee’s birthday last night (Saturday January 17, 2015, even though Lee’s real birthday is on the Federal Holiday Celebrated on Monday….. a true Janus-like irony, looking past and forward).
Hernando County, Florida

17 January 2015 a modern band played on the Courthouse Steps

So Charlie, Do you remember how we used to celebrate in Dallas, Lago Vista, Galveston, and New Orleans?   Do you remember Jefferson Davis’ home at Beauvoir near Biloxi?  The Confederate Memorial Hall just off Lee Circle in New Orleans?  Do you remember taking Taylor to these places before and after Audubon Zoo Camp and then to the Battlefield Monuments at Vicksburg?  The Mounds at Poverty Point or the Houses in Natchez and the Natchez Trace Parkway up to Shiloh? That was all in the summer of 1999.
What the world needs now is renewed faith and divine guidance so may God Vindicate Historical Truth—Deo Vindice!!!
We need to remember Robert Edward Lee’s sterling personal integrity—and is it rude to ask how his politics or personal integrity compares with that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in whose honor today is a Federal Holiday (http://www.martinlutherking.org/thebeast.html)
Even normally blindly liberal Salon.com covers these facts:
So what does January mean?  Like the Roman God from whose name this month takes its (little today considered) identity (since nobody reads Latin in School anymore), January is a time for looking backward in history and forward in time.  
Looking backwards: Robert Edward Lee represents, I suppose, “the old dead white man’s America”, the America of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Jefferson Davis, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, John Davis, Theodore Bilbo, Strom Thurmond, Sam Ervin, John Stennis, James Eastland, George Corley Wallace…..
Looking Forwards: Martin Luther King, Jr., represents “the new America, not white, not moral, basically communist”—well, that’s exactly the America Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., also wants…
Is the spirit of the humble Confederate Soldier crushed yet?  Charlie, my Whelp, what do YOU think?
Mixing Memory and Desire

Not Generals, Not Politicians, but Rural Enlisted Men who Fought and Died…for the Constitution? Freedom? Their homes?

Anti-Bullying Laws: Why do the SPLC and other Freedom-Hating Groups Promote these?

Mindin' Other People's Business seems to be High Tone, I got all that I can do just to mind my own….

The SPLC wants full time police surveillance of your home, your Church, your neighborhood parks, and above-all your schools….

These so-called anti-bullying laws would be the absolute last nails in the coffins of each of the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution. “Bullying” is such a vague, ambiguous, and over broad concept, it will take the police state into the farthest reaches of every person’s life.

There will be no right to privacy left whatsoever, no freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly, no security in anyone’s persons, papers, or homes, and no due process of law whatsoever. No reserved rights. Anti-bullying laws are truly the Constitutional Anti-Christ. Think of the possibilities:

(1) Did you just tell a woman that she was by far the most beautiful and desirable in a room at a party or at a beach? Do you really pretend you don’t know what effect that kind of statement has on every other woman (and even the gay men) on the beach? YOU ARE A BULLY.

(2) Did you just refuse to give up your seat on the bus to an ugly person or a drunk or a person on drugs? Do you pretend not to know that you might condemning that person to be arrested or hospitalized? YOU ARE A BULLY!

(3) Did you just walk into the PTA meeting bragging about your son’s or daughter’s straight A+ Reportcard, fourth semester in a row? How do you think that makes all the other parents feel? How does your child think his or her performance makes the other children feel? You are an unfit, antisocial family of BULLIES, and you should all be separated and sent to social re-education camps!

(4) You should never behave in any way that makes you seem superior or “better” than anyone else.

(5) You should behave humbly and quietly, just as they do in North Korea and as they did in Maoist China.

(6) Only capitalist pigs try to show themselves as better than others.

(7) The true communist never attempts to elevate himself above others.

(8) Christian morality, the law of the Hebrew Bible, the ancient codes of Honor among the Greeks, Romans, and Northmen, these are all evil assertions of superiority?

(9) But who are we, who want to impose these anti-bullying laws, to say so? We, who want to outlaw “misbehavior” which we dislike, are the arbiters of good manners and correct behavior in a absolutely egalitarian society, and we will smash all you bullies with our monopoly on Police Power.  Everyone knows or should know that Freedom and Equality are INCOMPATIBLE, and Equality must triumph, and shall forever triumph in the Communist State, over Freedom.

(10)  It is to suppress bullies that we want to make sure that no one has any guns—even though the Colt six shooting Revolver used to be called “THE GREAT EQUALIZER.”  But the government which exists to protect the ignorant slave masses from each other, must make ensure ABOVE ALL that  no equality shall ever subsist between the Police and the People.  The Police, by definition, in any Police State, must be SUPERIOR in every way to the People.  America is already a Police State, but Police Control over EVERY DETAIL OF LIFE is sadly imperfect, and the SPLC with all it’s red-Izod shirted good looking young paid white employees in the malls and city streets, wants to do its part to perfect the Communist totalitarian State in America.

College Nerds can Now be Jailed for Asking Hot Girls on Dates—This is a TOTAL OBAMANATION!!!!

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MANDATES UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPEECH CODES AT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES NATIONWIDE

May 17, 2013 : http://thefire.org/article/15767.html

UPDATE 5/17/13: FIRE President Greg Lukianoff, in The Wall Street Journal‘s lead op-ed space, discusses how the government has mandated a breathtakingly broad definition of sexual harassment that makes nearly every student in the United States a harasser, completely ignoring the First Amendment. 

WASHINGTON, May 10, 2013—In a shocking affront to the United States Constitution, the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education have joined together to mandate that virtually every college and university in the United States establish unconstitutional speech codes that violate the First Amendment and decades of legal precedent. 

“I am appalled by this attack on free speech on campus from our own government,” said Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which has been leading the fight against unconstitutional speech codes on America’s college campuses since its founding in 1999. “In 2011, the Department of Education took a hatchet to due process protections for students accused of sexual misconduct. Now the Department of Education has enlisted the help of the Department of Justice to mandate campus speech codes so broad that virtually every student will regularly violate them. The DOE and DOJ are ignoring decades of legal decisions, the Constitution, and common sense, and it is time for colleges and the public to push back.” 

In a letter sent yesterday to the University of Montana that explicitly states that it is intended as “a blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country,” the Departments of Justice and Education have mandated a breathtakingly broad definition of sexual harassment that makes virtually every student in the United States a harasser while ignoring the First Amendment. The mandate applies to every college receiving federal funding—virtually every American institution of higher education nationwide, public or private. 

The letter states that “sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as ‘any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature'” including “verbal conduct” (that is, speech). It then explicitly states that allegedly harassing expression need not even be offensive to an “objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation”—if the listener takes offense to sexually related speech for any reason, no matter how irrationally or unreasonably, the speaker may be punished. 

This result directly contradicts previous Department of Education guidance on sexual harassment. In 2003, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) stated that harassment “must include something beyond the mere expression of views, words, symbols or thoughts that some person finds offensive.” Further, the letter made clear that “OCR’s standards require that the conduct be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person in the alleged victim’s position, considering all the circumstances, including the alleged victim’s age.” 

Among the forms of expression now punishable on America’s campuses by order of the federal government are: 

  • Any expression related to sexual topics that offends any person. This leaves a wide range of expressive activity—a campus performance of “The Vagina Monologues,” a presentation on safe sex practices, a debate about sexual morality, a discussion of gay marriage, or a classroom lecture on Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita—subject to discipline.
  • Any sexually themed joke overheard by any person who finds that joke offensive for any reason.
  • Any request for dates or any flirtation that is not welcomed by the recipient of such a request or flirtation.

There is likely no student on any campus anywhere who is not guilty of at least one of these “offenses.” Any attempt to enforce this rule evenhandedly and comprehensively will be impossible.

“The federal government has put colleges and universities in an impossible position with this mandate,” said Lukianoff. “With this unwise and unconstitutional decision, the DOJ and DOE have doomed American campuses to years of confusion and expensive lawsuits, while students’ fundamental rights twist in the wind.”

“The Departments of Education and Justice are out of control,” continued Lukianoff. “Banning everyday speech on campus? Eliminating fundamental due process protections? Ignoring its own previous statements? They even misquoted the Supreme Court. This cannot be allowed to continue. FIRE will use all of its resources to oppose this menace to our constitutional freedoms and to free speech and academic freedom on campus.”

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, freedom of expression, academic freedom, due process, and rights of conscience at our nation’s colleges and universities. FIRE’s efforts to preserve liberty on campuses across America can be viewed at thefire.org.

Tell our government to protect student rights on campus!

CONTACT:
Greg Lukianoff, President, FIRE: 215-717-3473; greg_lukianoff@thefire.org
Will Creeley, Director of Legal and Public Advocacy, FIRE: 215-717-3473; will@thefire.org

 

The Family is the Template and Tool of the State: the Importance of Keeping Children as Chattel Slaves—or, why Megan Stammers was a Threat to the U.K. Nanny State’s Socialist Public Order

Back in “the bad old days” before the Nanny State, children ran away all the time.  There are no statistics on such things, for the most part, because keeping careful statistics is also a feature of the Nanny State.  A hundred years ago, it is reasonably certain that the major scandal involving Megan Stammers and Jeremy Forrest is that they didn’t get married.  As I have commented before, given how anxious they were to be together, I’m quite sure that if marriage had been an available option, and especially an available “cure-all” option, Jeremy and Megan would now be man and wife—and given the status of modern marriage, that would surely be punishment enough for the both of them.  

But “morality” is not even remotely at issue in the Forrest-Stammers arrest and trial and (now) conviction.  And on the whole, that’s a good thing for the both of them—about the only good thing for them in the whole bloody picture in fact.   They are as immoral as Tristan und Isolde, Tannhauser and any number of the denizens of the Venusberg, the incestuous brother-sister couple Siegmund and Sieglinda, and the maidens of the Perilous Castle in the story of Parzifal.   But in fact, the Wagnerian couple of most relevance to the story of Jeremy and Megan is the Flying Dutchman and Senta.  

To relax my mind from the horrible stress of wanting to go over to Lewes in East Sussex and set off rocket launchers in the direction of the Court and prosecutor’s office (it’s a long shot from the South Jersey Shore, and I lack the necessary technology….unfortunately), I have been celebrating the eve of the Summer Solstice watching fireworks out my window and listening to the Flying Dutchman (a really peculiarly staged and set up 2010 Production of the Netherlands Opera, Netherlands Philharmonic, and the Amsterdam State Theatre; how peculiar? try to imagine Act II, if you can, the spinning scene, with a single spinning wheel in the middle of a rather luxurious modern lady’s spa, complete with swimming pool and totally out of place black men randomly stalking around [trying to pick up blonde Norwegian girls I guess?] with most of the girls wearing white terrycloth bathrobes and some walking around topless or in their underwear—yes, ahem, THAT peculiar).

Anyhow, the  plot of Der Fliegende Holländer juxtaposes an “Ordinary Mortal” Sea Captain, Daland, against the mysterious and effectively supernatural, vampiric, Captain Hendrick Vanderdecken (whose ship is called “The Flying Dutchman).  

The Dutchman is infinite in every way, unhappily immortal by a curse he invited upon himself, from which curse he can only be released by the eternal devotion of a woman who will be treue zum Tod.  It is one of the hard lessons I, and so many other men, have had to learn that women willing to true to until death are as rare and, at least in my generation, entirely as mythical as selkies, mermaids, and sea captains who sail the sea forever, but apparently R. Wagner knew this when he was 30, because it was at that age that he wrote and produced this opera, for the first time in Dresden, and Daland’s daughter, Senta, is in fact almost as eerily abnormal as Vanderdecken himself.

The way that this story bears on the story of Megan and Jeremy is just this—the Dutchman offers Daland literally a boatload of treasure if he will introduce him to his daughter.  This refers back again to “the bad old days” when children who DID not run away from home, especially girls, were often treated as chattels for exchange or barter.  Now, as it happens, Senta had already fallen in love with the myth of the Dutchman before the met the reality, but that is just the trope fantasy of the age of arranged marriages.  (Cf. Fiddler on the Roof: “Matchmaker, Matchmaker…..playing with matches a girl can get burned”).  

In the story of Megan Stammers, and the case of Jeremy Forrest, I think we see the darkest side of the Brave New World of Socialism in action: children must be controlled, and their residence and mating habits must be controlled, if the Socialist State is to have effective control over the future (and by this we mean the replacement and extermination) of the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic populations of England (and the Anglo-European population of America, as a whole).  

All slave societies seek to control mating habits.  The biological definition of a “domesticated animal or plant” is one whose reproduction is controlled by human agency.  The biological definition of a slave is, likewise, a human being whose reproduction is controlled by other human beings.

On this auspicious Summer Solstice 2013, I had occasion to speak several times to Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, a really dear and very respected friend now resident in Ashtabula, Ohio.  By some coincidence Thursday, June 20, in my Forward Day-by-Day Pamphlet not only celebrates the reckless love of God or quest for God’s love implicit in the Widows’ Mite, but also urges us to pray for the Diocese of Ohio, where Melinda is a devoted Church of Englander aka “Anglican Province V: Episcopal Church).  Melinda is a loving grandmother as well as conservative-libertarian activist who has done more than her share to save the White Race, and she was sadly recounting the story of one of her highly intelligent daughters (Dawn) who had made the decision not to have children.  Melinda is one person I know who is critically aware of the government’s ambitions to replace the current population of Western Europe and North America with a race of slaves.  

But slave-conditioning is unnatural, and that’s why the Stammers-Forrest case was so incredibly important, in my opinion, to the modern British government.  An example had to be made of this mad, reckless couple, to deter other couples who might be both more moral in the traditional Christian and Victorian senses and more reproductively oriented.

This is not just my opinion as a mad radical.  The “Child Custody” and “Family Protective Services” rackets in the United States are just that, and are being widely recognized as such, see, for example, Children_as_Chattel by Kurt Mundorf, (http://www.parentsinaction.net/english/Children_as_Chattel.pdf).

The life of my son and at least one of my son’s neighbors in Cedar Park, Texas, are examples of the nightmare that convinces me that Megan Stammers’ case is part of a very sinister plot against children’s freedom to choose.  

It is hard for me to accept and believe that it was eleven years ago, more than 20.7% of my life, since my wife Elena and I broke up at the end of July 2002, for the last and final time, leading to my son apparently developing some very severe developmental and emotional problems.  I have so often written about the villains in this psycho-drama, chief among them Attorneys J. Randall Grimes, Laurie J. Nowlin, and Judge Michael P. Jergins of the 395th District Court in Georgetown, Texas, in and for Williamson County.  It has been ten years since Grimes, Jergins, and Nowlin took control of my son’s life, and effectively destroyed it, and his psyche, and his will to freedom.  I have already sworn a vow never to forgive or forget them, but always to remind the world of where I first learned of the conspiracy to enslave all our children and make them prawns, I mean pawns, in the Brave New World game.

The issues were really quite simple: did I, as a father, have the right to discuss my son’s welfare with my son?  I have recently heard from a mother in Williamson County, reporting that Judge Jergins only recently compared her communications with her children as child abuse equal to her husband’s drinking.  Daniel Louis Simon, John Henry Franks, Michael Houghton, Rhonda Moe Malmquist, and so many more were the victims of this trio of criminals in Family Court and their relentless assault on freedom of speech and the rights of parents to talk to their children about what they wish and want.  Rhonda Moe was actually jailed for two months for her conversations with her son (Jergins’ original sentence against her was four months).  

Jergins’ told me that my open and frank discussions with my son amounted to “felony child abuse.”  Judge Jergins’ simply included illegal injunctions against free speech against all of the parents and children over whom he presided.  When John Henry Franks was enjoyed against discussing anything with his daughter, his daughter was barely a year old (and thus highly unlikely to be discussing anything at all).  Despite the fact that Judge Jergins’ injunctions against all manner of freedom of speech were utterly illegal and contrary to Federal and State Precedent regarding the issuance of “prior restraint” censorship against free speech, both the State and Federal Courts in Texas refused to review the matter meaningfully, and sanctioned me (and Dan Simon) for trying, rather severely, too. Judge Walter S. Smith of Waco particularly faulted me for spearheading a crusade to have the Texas Family Code declared unconstitutional as applied, to restrict fundamental, enumerated, “Footnote 4” rights.

My son Charlie tragically bears the scars of all this ordeal to the present day.  A friend of his from just down the street, whom I will call “Chris B” suffered even worse because he was a repeat runaway from home—and knowing me and who I was and what I stood for, he always ran to me.   I did what I could to protect him and give him the freedom he wanted.  But the State of Texas, those fine Williamson County Judges, found reason to go and get him from my home in Lago Vista.  And he too was scarred for life.  Arresting a runaway and treating him as a criminal is about as counter productive as any kind of law enforcement could possibly be.

I see no reason to think that parents know better how to make their teenage children happy than the teenage children do themselves.  That is why I believe in a fundamental right of teenagers to engage in exactly the same “self-emancipation” as runaway slaves.  Keep in mind that in the early 19th century, runaway slaves were treated alternately as insane or criminal, or as insane criminals.  

That is how our children who choose freedom are treated today.  The result of this treatment is that our children are being turned into one of three things: good slaves, criminals, or insane people.  I am more than slightly mortified that my own son, now an adult, has, as a result of Laurie J. Nowlin’s conditioning, at least in part, chosen a life which appears to linger at the border between the good slave and the insane person.  He has dropped out of college and apparently attempted to continue his own education with the remnants of my library, I guess, at our old home in Cedar Park under his mother’s watchful eyes and firm thumb.

And that is why I urge all freedom loving Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Europeans to demand the immediate release of Jeremy Forrest and immediate and final emancipation for Megan Stammers, that they may live their lives, happy, sad, or indifferent, be a couple or not according to their own compatibility, not state control, and above all, that they serve as a beacon of hope and a template for the freedom of all children in the English speaking world to choose and determine their own future without state interference. 

Parents can and should always and eternally provide for, teach, counsel and advise their children, but the best way to teach them freedom is to let them be free.  The State should have no role in this at all except to give both parents and children a safe world in which to live and attempt to thrive as best they can.  But the State that exists to “protect and serve” on any micro-level, is a Slave-holding state.

Should Private Gun Sales by Regulated by the State or Federal Governments? Well, it could be a return to slavery for all or it could be a “Great Leap Forward,” could it not? (only 2.5 million died of violence, the rest merely died of starvation)

Consider the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania (319 U.S. 105,  108 , 63 S.Ct. 870, 872, May 5, 1943):  

The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press * * *.’ It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is in substance just that.

Now let’s paraphrase that statement with reference to gun control:

The Second Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that, ‘* * * the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  It could hardly be  denied that a regulation laid specifically on the exercise of this right would be unconstitutional. Yet the legislation now before Congress would  imposed by its express terms as  well as substance just such an unconstitutional infringement.

Later on, the Court in Murdock made the general point more broadly and directly (319 U.S. at 113, 63 S.Ct. at 875):

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce * * * * A license tax applied to activities guaranteed by the First Amendment would have the same destructive effect.  * * * * It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. That is almost uniformly recognized as the inherent vice and evil of this flat license tax.

And again, we could easily paraphrase this text to apply to the Second Amendment, and we would be bolstered by recent Supreme Court Decisions especially 06-28-2010 McDonald v City of Chicago Ill 130 SCt 3020

(For the Full text of Murdock, see: Murdock v Com of Pennsylvania May 3 1943)(see also *2 below).

The right to self-defense is fundamental.  One who believes in the theory of Darwinian Evolution might say it is the most fundamental of all rights: once alive, every creature has the right to do whatever is necessary to preserve its life “in nature red in tooth and claw.”

But in historical as well as evolutionary time the right to self-defense antedates any rights protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States because it does not depend on our humanity (where speech clearly does).  Being part of every animal’s instinctive makeup and nature, it is a right of all who are “born free.”  

I wrote recently of my conversation with a New Orleans Policeman at one of my favorite cafes: the Trolley Stop at 1923 St. Charles Avenue.  This officer (an African American) told me he believed in the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, “but do you want them to have more firepower than us?  do you want them to be able to outgun us?”

The right of government officials to have more “firepower” than the people is not fundamental, anymore than it is the right of “some animals to be more equal than others.”  Certain lions might wish for stronger jaws or sharper teeth, but none have any “right” to more than others.

Government “entitlement” to superiority on the battlefield, in a very real and direct manner, is like slavery itself: a purely human invention res contra natura alteris omnis rebus (an unnatural thing, unlike all other things).   Legislatively determined inequality of firepower is, to my mind, as utterly intolerable as inequality of speech or the rights to breathe and walk upright.  (If you order me to bow down, you had better be a King, deriving his rights from God, and if you are such a Divine King, you have the right to kill me but I have no right to kill you—and this is inherently un-American.)

As Justice Clarence Thomas has written in several opinions now, the coincidence between the abolition of slavery and the advent of gun control laws in the United States was no accident: freedom for former slaves implied the full panoply of rights available to white citizens.  For better or for worse, discrimination has never been written into the constitution, until now.  But people have been conditioned to think that discrimination against the poor is acceptable, discrimination against the non-elite middle class is acceptable, in fact ALL discrimination is acceptable so long as it is not done along racial lines, apparently.  So the government now wants to establish a hierarchical class system in relation to gun ownership.

The evolving classes, castes, and categories of citizens recognized by the Patriot Act the NDAA, and the proposed gun control legislation now before Congress are basically these: (1) Federal Government Police & their Agents, (2) State Government Police & their Agents, (3) Everyone else in North America.  I fear that these are categories or classes of people which today’s Supreme Court might just uphold as “rational” and therefore constitutional, since they are neither racial nor sexual and therefore not “suspect”—ONLY racial discrimination has been outlawed in the US, NOT discrimination by class or title or status as office or license holder….and this is an American disease or sickness that is killing the Constitution.

The chimeras haunting both American Slavery and the abolition of American Slavery are both Racial: in the beginning, the alleged Racial inferiority of Africans was asserted in Defense of Slavery, and it was widely found to be an inadequate defense.   But afterwards, in a SUPREME Perversion of logic, the Supreme Court of the United States basically rendered all the civil rights laws of the United States enacted after 1865 bad jokes: simultaneously nugatory pointless and toothless, by saying they were designed ONLY to insure equality of the races and nothing else.

Now that we have an “African” President [I would call him African rather the African-American—Jessie Jackson, Morgan Freeman, and Al Sharpton are “African Americans”, but Obama is not] the civil rights laws, it seems, can be dispensed with entirely.  

Total Power in the Hands of Government: this ultimately, appears to be Obama’s goal in life—his self-perceived destiny, his ambition (and his goals are supported by a remarkably broad coalition including obvious evil-doers Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, but treacherous snakes such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham).

The long “road to serfdom” that began with the map laid out by the Communist Manifesto in February 1848, finding its first governmental foundation laid down by Abraham Lincoln in the United States 1861-65, and was afterwards expanded into a highway under Progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the possibly unwitting (or just witless) Woodrow Wilson, then a superhighway under Franklin D. Roosevelt and all his successors, is about to reach its final destination in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat if Barack Hussein Obama can just disarm the American People FOREVER!

The Courts have been heading in this general direction (the abolition of civil rights all together, once and for all, forget about giving any rights to black or white people) for a very long time.  In fact, the entire purpose of Earl Warren’s Civil Right’s Revolution in the Courts, in retrospect, was simply to pit race-against-race, to create unhealthy envy and hateful one-upsmanship rather than healthy competition.  

True, there are some majestic, wonderful opinions and some beautiful language I have found in those old decisions from the 1960s and 1970s in particular, mostly petering out around 1985-6.  Very little GOOD has happened in civil rights since 1987, but, strange as it may seem, the recent jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court has created at least one “Point of Light” in Second Amendment Jurisprudence in particular.  Ordinarily, political rhetoric concerning the lessons of or effects lingering slavery becomes tiresome quickly.  But in the case of the Second Amendment after emancipation, nothing could be clearer than the need of former slaves to own guns to protect their newly acquired liberty and property (even as limited as it was for most of the century and a half since emancipation).  

Abolition of the private right to keep and bear arms, without much doubt, is a RETURN TO SLAVERY FOR ALL, regardless of race, creed, color, ethnic origin, religion, sex, or occupation—unless you are a member of the police.  The State will then have an ABSOLUTE monopoly on legitimate violence, and the jails and prisons will be filled with all dissenting individuals.

Aside from Clarence Thomas, who will defend us against the threatened confiscation of our only sure means of self-defense AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT?  Anthony Kennedy, painfully and unhappily, stands as at least an occasional beacon for individual privacy and personal autonomy. Antonin Scalia would probably be a constitutionalist if it were politically popular, but he appears to believe that legislatures and congress can limit the constitution pretty much at will if they want to.  So Scalia’s contributions to “freedom” jurisprudence are pretty much limited to the realm of “judge made” law and precedent.  We need two more votes—perhaps we have Samuel Anthony Alito (*), John Roberts, Stephen G. Breyer?  Maybe or maybe not.  John Roberts appears to blow with the political winds like Scalia.  Breyer would probably follow Hillary Clinton’s anti-gun lead.  It looks bad, folks!

But to go back to the key point of Murdock v. Pennsylvania and its companion cases (e.g. Douglas v City of Jeannette (Pennsylvania) 319 US 157 63 SCt 882 87 LEd 1324 *1943* and Jones v City of Opelika:

the power to regulate commerce does NOT include the power to infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by Amendments 1-10.   As legions of Law Professors have correctly pointed out, this concept (that there MUST BE an exception to Congress’ broad regulatory power, even after the onset of the New Deal) traces back most precisely to Footnote Four of U.S. v. Carolene Products, Inc., decided in 1938. US v Carolene Products Co 304 US 144 58 SCt 778 82 LEd 1234 SCOTUS 04-25-1938.

Given the advances in Second Amendment Jurisprudence seen over the past decade in D.C. v. Heller and MacDonald v. City of Chicago, I would hate to see this Country take another Great Leap Forward (*1)  into Maoist Communist Dictatorship. 

So, should Private Gun Sales be Regulated by the State or Federal Government? Only if we want to take a Great Leap Forward into a de facto Communistic Caste System, or an animal farm where “Some Animals are More Equal than Others”

(*1)  Wikipedia casually and very briefly mentions in a longer and very favorable, supportive (i.e. pro-communist, pro-Maoist) article on the Great Leap Forward:

Deaths by violence

Not all deaths during the Great Leap were from starvation. Frank Dikötter estimates that at least 2.5 million people were beaten or tortured to death and 1 to 3 million committed suicide.[100] He provides some illustrative examples. In Xinyang, where over a million died in 1960, 6-7 percent (around 67,000) of these were beaten to death by the militias. In Daoxian county, 10 percent of those who died had been “buried alive, clubbed to death or otherwise killed by party members and their militia.” In Shimen county, around 13,500 died in 1960, of these 12 per cent were “beaten or driven to their deaths.”[101]

Modes of resistance

There were various forms of resistance to the Great Leap Forward. Several provinces saw armed rebellion,[106][107] though these rebellions never posed a serious threat to the Central Government.[106] Rebellions are documented to have occurred in HonanShandongQinghaiGansuSichuanFujian, and Yunnan provinces and in the Tibetan Autonomous Region.[108][109] In Honan, Shandong, Qinghai, Gansu, and Sichuan, these rebellions lasted more than a year.[109] Aside from rebellions, there was also occasional violence against cadre members.[107][110] Raids on granaries,[107][110] arson and other vandalism, train robberies, and raids on neighboring villages and counties were common.[110]

According to over 20 years of research by Ralph Thaxton, professor of politics at Brandeis University, villagers turned against the CPC during and after the Great Leap, seeing it as autocratic, brutal, corrupt, and mean-spirited.[1] The CPC’s policies, which included plunder, forced labor, and starvation, according to Thaxton, led villagers “to think about their relationship with the Communist Party in ways that do not bode well for the continuity of socialist rule.”[1]

Often, villagers composed doggerel to show their defiance to the regime, and “perhaps, to remain sane.” During the Great Leap, one jingle ran: “Flatter shamelessly—eat delicacies…. Don’t flatter—starve to death for sure.”[34]

Impact on the government

Many local officials were tried and publicly executed for giving out misinformation.[111]

Mao stepped down as State Chairman of the PRC in 1959, though he did retain his position as Chairman of the CPC. Liu Shaoqi (the new PRC Chairman) and reformist Deng Xiaoping (CPC General Secretary) were left in charge to change policy to bring about economic recovery. Mao’s Great Leap Forward policy came under open criticism at the Lushan party conference. The attack was led by Minister of National Defense Peng Dehuai, who, initially troubled by the potentially adverse effect of the Great Leap Forward on the modernization of the armed forces, also admonished unnamed party members for trying to “jump into communism in one step.” After the Lushan showdown, Mao defensively replaced Peng with Lin Biao.

However, in June 1962, the party held an enlarged Central Work Conference and rehabilitated the majority of the deposed comrades who had criticized Mao in the aftermath of the Great Leap Forward. The event was again discussed, with much self-criticism, with the contemporary government calling it a “serious [loss] to our country and people” and blaming the cult of personality of Mao.

(*2)  A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce (McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Co., 309 U.S. 33, 56-58, 60 S.Ct. 388, 397, 398, 84 L.Ed. 565, 128 A.L.R. 876), although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory. Id., 309 U.S. at page 47, 60 S.Ct. at page 392, 84 L.Ed. 565, 128 A.L.R. 876 and cases cited. A license tax applied to activities guaranteed by the First Amendment would have the same destructive effect. It is true that the First Amendment, like the commerce clause, draws no distinction between license taxes, fixed sum taxes, and other kinds of taxes. But that is no reason why we should shut our eyes to the nature of the tax and its destructive influence. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down.  *   *   *   *   *   *   * [I]n Jones v. Opelika, * * * 316 U.S. at pages 607-609, 620, 623, 62 S.Ct. at pages 1243, 1244, 1250, 1251, 86 L.Ed. 1691, 141 A.L.R. 514 * * * as in the present ones, we have something very different from a registration system under which those going from house to house are required to give their names, addresses and other marks of identification to the authorities. In all of these cases the issuance of the permit or license is dependent on the payment of a license tax. And the license tax is fixed in amount and unrelated to the scope of the activities of petitioners or to their realized revenues. It is not a nominal fee *114 imposed as a regulatory measure to defray the expenses of policing the activities in question. 8 It is in no way apportioned. It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. That is almost uniformly recognized as the inherent vice and evil of this flat license tax.

(*3): do you ever why do we have or how we got three justices named “Anthony” or a rare Italian variant “Antonin”>|?)

IN OUR LAWLESS SOCIETY: ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF FREEDOM/FREEDOM OF SPECH—and so STAND WITH LANDEN GAMBILL—is reporting a rape on campus to be deemed “disruptive or intimidating behavior?” To the best of my knowledge, no one has questioned this young lady’s honesty, but a dishonest accusation should be the ONLY possible grounds for any accusation of “a violation of the Honor Code”

To the Administrators of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the litigants among the “Survivors of Sexual Violence” Civil Rights Action:
         I am a Tulane Alumnus, class of 1980—and I discovered this group cause in the U.C. Lobby on a recent visit to “the old school” campus in New Orleans of which I am so fond.  
        Since I left Tulane I earned both a Ph.D. and a J.D. from Harvard and the University of Chicago, respectively, clerked for two Federal Judges, and made many more enemies of Judges through Civil Rights Activism, ultimately leading to my disbarment but not to my retirement from civil rights crusades.    
       I would like to lend my support to SAPHE and Landen Gambill.  Mainly I do not understand what is going on very well, but from what I have read it sounds as though a severe injustice has been done.  
          The University of North Carolina is, of course, a branch of the State of North Carolina and so it is bound by the Incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment to respect the rights guaranteed by the First, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution.
         I am horrified that a student could, in this day and age, be accused of “disruptive or intimidating behavior” for reporting a crime.  I asked the students at the SAPHE desk in the University Center Lobby whether anyone had ever challenged Landen Gambill’s honesty or accuracy and was told “no.”
   Only a CONFIRMED, CLEAR and CONVINCING ACCUSATION OF DISHONESTY (which appears not to have been made by the alleged rapist or anyone else)  could possibly justify a charge of an “honor code violation”, whether at a private or public institution, if the word “honor” can have any meaning.* (but see note on “False Rape Culture” below—which I find less than a “clear and convincing” denial of anything—but more of a political rant about the possibility of false accusations, which are protected under the First Amendment and the Right to Petition.)
             Obviously, by threatening any sort of disciplinary action against a student for filing what she believes (and no one has challenged or questioned) to be a legitimate complaint of criminal conduct, the State Officials at the University of North Carolina are attempting to infringe upon Landen Gambill’s rights to freedom of speech and more importantly to PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, broadly defined, under the First Amendment.  
             No exercise of First Amendment Freedom should ever be grounds for any sort of punishment, so Gambill’s right to substantive DUE PROCESS OF LAW under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is also being violated here.
               I would further submit that the right of to speak out in any way regarding the injuries one has suffered is a fundamental right and power reserved to the people under the Ninth Amendment.
      Throughout my lifetime, the tortured question of relationship between the sexes has been evolving and changing.  Nothing is more essential (literally) to the preservation of our species on earth than a stable and successful relationship between men and women, but the competing philosophies and moralities of the “bad old world” and “brave new world” have left a tremendous amount of uncertainty and doubt in everyone’s mind about everyone’s status, standing, and situation.
           As I was commenting to one of the students at the SAPHE desk at the Tulane UC on Friday, there was a time when a woman’s deadly response to male rape or sexual assault was deemed praiseworthy and beyond reproach, much less prosecution, in the State of Texas and elsewhere throughout the South.  
          How have we come from that state of mind to this, where complaining of rape could be called “disruptive or intimidating behavior?”  
          I remain profoundly confused by the description of events.  If there is no charge of dishonesty, then Landen Gambill’s charges must be heard, and Landen Gambill is entitled to the full protection of the law afforded by the State of North Carolina.
            Obviously Landen Gambill’s fundamental federal rights are at stake here.  No rights are more important than the rights to control over one’s own body and “personal space”.  No situations in our radically disintegrating (i.e. diverse and non-uniform) society present more opportunities for abuse of each individual’s body and personal space than sexual relationships and dating situation.
              Because the old Victorian and pre-Victorian normative systems have collapsed and/or failed, all that remains for us today is the “social contract” which must be negotiated between individuals at all times and in all places.  
            Everyone bears the responsibility in society for maintaing the respect to be afforded each individual for his or her fundamental rights to personal integrity, but none bear this responsibility more than the administrators of the Universities and Colleges into which today’s youth go in major part for the purpose of adjusting to the normatively disintegrated society in which we live and discovering their own place—and the dimensions and boundaries of their place—in the remnants of society that now remain.
         To the Administrators of UNC-Chappel Hill I would say: The Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution must inform all dialogue concerning individual rights and responsibilities, and above all the role of our institutions of higher learning in assuring the rights of each individual to speak and petition regarding the most intimate and difficult phases of human life, which for young people today, as much as in the time of Abelard and Heloise, is most endangered and “risky” in the College and University Setting.  I would also say: if you harbor any doubts about this woman’s veracity or honesty, you must be open and honest about your doubts and you must submit to a trial on the merits of the question—you might even want to initiate such a trial (with real rules and standards of proof, possibly even as a declaratory judgment in court) rather than standing spinelessly idle.

             To those who are plaintiffs in the Civil Rights Suit I would say this: your cause and claims for constitutional vindication just, but focus on the basic constitutional rights and not on the ephemeral modern civil rights statutes which pit one group against another.  The strength of your claim lies in reliance on the First Amendment and other parts of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Realize that by defining and describing your experiences in the uncertain and undefined world of modern moral uncertainty, ideally you are working towards the formulation of a new set of norms, of a new moral code where once again predictability and certainty will replace randomness and confusion.

I have found that standing up for the right to complain, to criticize, and to attack the system for offering remedies which do more harm than heal can be hazardous to one’s professional health and career.  It was only after filing a series of seven civil rights suits in Texas against an abusive police department in Travis County that certain judges found it more advantageous to attack me and slander me than to listen to me, but that quite simply has not stopped me.

So to Landen Gambill and all her supporters, I hope that you will find the strength similarly to persevere I your quest for justice and to demand redress of grievances concerning the system that purports to protect you when in fact it does not.

*(Note: Since writing the above, I found at least one male interest group which DOES not only strongly question but attack Landen Gambill’s honesty and reputation for truthfulness, regarding which doubts, whether clear and convincing or not, see:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/unc-landen-gambill-and-false-rape-culture/

            I have repeatedly written that we live in a lawless society—a society in which our values have become so “relative” and so “circumstantially dependent, that there is no longer any such thing as “right” or “wrong”.  And yet, Nietzsche notwithstanding, our world is not “Beyond Good and Evil.”   All that is constructive is good and all that is destructive is evil, and yet truth is ALWAYS good and lies are ALWAYS evil, even though truth can be used to destroy lives and societies while lies can be used to build careers, cultural monuments to the liars, deceitful empires, and unnecessary wars….
            The debate over the right to charge “rape” on a crowded campus may be one of the areas of lawlessness in America where abuse is not only possible but tolerated.  
           Nevertheless, we have to choose which type of error to make: the error where we repress legitimate complaints or the error where we allow false complaints (related to but not entirely co-extensive with the more serious philosophical and statistical problems sometimes referred to as errors of false affirmation or false negation).
       In the Arena of Freedom of Speech, it is my position that NO COMPLAINT should ever be suppressed; NO DIALOGUE should ever be silenced, and so I support Landen Gambill until and unless she is herself charged and proved criminally guilty of or held civilly liable for (a) defamation, (b) malicious prosecution, (c) conspiracy to commit either offense.
              About a decade ago, I lost custody of my only son, Charlie IV, because I continued (a) to listen to HIS complaints about his mother and her treatment of him and (b) accordingly continued to question his mother’s fitness and her psychological (and physical) treatment of him.  Judge Michael Jergins of the 395th District Court in Williamson County actually rendered an injunction against my ability ever to speak to my son regarding his own happiness, even during my own periods of custodial “possession”.   I investigated, and it turned out this was a standard order of his: he had a custom, practice, and policy of suppressing parents’ freedom to discuss the welfare of their children or to discuss family “issues” of any kind with their children.
              Since I absolutely refused to allow any judge to limit my speech, I was deprived of the right to see my son.  Eventually, my son sought me out and I took him to summer school at Harvard.  Then my son started college at St. John’s College in Annapolis after spending three summers with me. And then after one seemingly happy year, he turned on me, at his mother’s urging and indeed her insistence.
                My son refused to go for a summer abroad in Rome after I had paid his tuition and then abruptly dropped out of College and has come (now as an adult) under his mother’s complete and unfettered control, totally refusing any contact with me at all (and since he is an adult, I have nothing to say about his choice).  
             But I will say this, “In the best interests of the child” (as if that really were the purpose of Family Courts): I should have been allowed to maintain my complaints, especially since they were always based either on what I saw with my own eyes or what my son reported to me directly and graphically).  
          To suppress freedom of speech and the right to petition, either by injunction or to punish the exercise of these rights without appropriately clear and convincing findings of abuse, is to destroy every individual’s humanity.  To invoke the power of the state to limit by censorship or sanction by any means any one person’s ability to complain of perceived wrongs, especially by such a socially unusual and stigmatic sanction as expulsion from school, embodies the antithesis of the American ways of life and justice (but do see the “False Rape Culture” article above regarding a contrary opinion).  
                Perhaps I was a reprehensible Father for listening to my son’s complaints about his mother which wee not only consistent with what I had seen his mother do but also consistent with what I had seen his mother and HER mother do to another male member of the family (my son’s Uncle George, who died in Cancun, Mexico, several years ago at the ripe old age of 51, basically abused and abandoned but totally controlled by his mother and sister—who coincidentally were my son’s grandmother and mother).  
 
               And perhaps Landen Gambill is a compulsive liar who continued to date a man who raped her on every date (as the “False Rape Culture”) article above suggests.   But even so, she must be allowed to speak.  My very guilty wife (my son’s mother) always remained silent, and never even so much as took the witness stand or wrote an affidavit to specifically deny the charges against her (which at one point included felony injury to a child).   Landen Gambill’s accused has likewise remained silent—and it is greatly to his discredit to do so.  
             In criminal courts and procedings we preserve the right to remain silent as sacrosanct and do not allow comment upon the maintenance of silence—but in all civil contexts, silence is confession.   The manufacturer falsely accused of making dangerous products who remains silent will lose.  The boyfriend falsely accused of raping and assaulting his girlfriend deserves precisely the same fate in a civil context.   

         Despite the possibility, whether it is a strong one or a weak one, that Landen Gambill has made false accusations of rape, I categorically refuse to withdraw anything that I wrote above about the way SAPHE at Tulane has presented Landen Gambill’s case, or my endorsement of her claim that the Administration must either listen to her or prove her wrong and lying by a preponderance of the evidence.  

            Where insufficient evidence exists for a criminal prosecution, but this much noise has been made, someone needs to file suit for declaratory judgment and a civil adjudication of the matter.

           A false accusation of rape is such an outrage, represents such “hubris” that for the male party involved not to respond by public action in his own vindication, with other values, such as that male’s honor and dignity, at stake, landen gambill must be accorded a presumption of truth.

         The First Amendment right to speak out (complain) and to petition for redress of grievances IS paramount.  If there is any insinuation of a “false rape culture”, it is because of the collapse of traditional morality, as I mentioned above: the death of the Victorian and Pre-Victorian standards and norms of sexual behavior and their replacement with, in essence, NOTHING except the power to negotiate and speak and discuss and define.  

              But if men are falsely accused, then they have to say so–and “act like men”—even if that itself is a victorian or even viking standard of honor.

           The  contrary article above on the “False Rape Culture” raises some disturbing but altogether unsubstantiated claims about why we should ignore Landen Gambill.  But the fact that a men’s activist group attacks her credibility does not automatically mean that Landen Gambill should be sanctioned for her complaints and freedom of speech, does it?  especially when her “silently” charged (presumably by now completely ex-) boyfriend has not stood up publicly to defend himself.   Our society and culture have indeed lost absolutely all integrity if even the falsely but very publicly accused center of a controversy remains silence.

         Supposedly, now, this “false rape culture” article says that she continued to date the man (boy?) whom she accuses of raping her—if true, that would indeed tarnish her credibility substantially.  But why then has the young man (boy?) in question not stood up for himself and cried “false”, “defamation”, “Malicious and perfidious lies”????   He has the same right to freedom of speech that Landen Gambill possesses.  I still find this entire story confusing in the extreme.  

           If a man can be publicly accused of rape and say nothing, i believe that  his silence constitutes a confession—either of guilt or of soulless, spineless indifference to the concept or Code of Honor.  “manhood should be made of sterner stuff”.   And for violations of this code of honor, there must be the sanction of enduring continuing complaints and accusations.


Charles Edward Lincoln, III

“Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint, und das mit recht, 
denn alles was entsteht, Ist werth daß es zu Grunde geht.”
Deo Vindice/Tierra Limpia