There have been many six-year old boys who died enroute to Communist slave camps in Siberia. Many more died of malnutrition because their parents refused to join the Communist Party. How many German six-year old boys died in the Dresden Holocaust when Allied bombers deliberately set out to create a fiery furnace for the innocent civilians crowded into the ancient city of Dresden?

When we count the many places where six-year old boys (not to mention any other age, greater or smaller) have met with violent deaths at the hands of Communists for whom there is no logic other than their own perverted irrational goals, it becomes an enigma as to why there is so much concern over this one little six-year old Cuban boy who was saved from the sea.

At first, the affair of Elian Gonzalez seemed like nothing more than a spate between feuding relatives. It is more. It is a matter of human rights to be defended by a free world as opposed to a tyrannical, despotic Communist slave-state where only a small number live well from the sweat and toil of the enslaved.

Because of this, everyone respecting human dignity is necessarily involved. There can be no neutral bystanders. In this matter, silence is consent.

All the players in this heart-breaking drama have unwittingly touched the tender, sensitive nerve of conscience. Either we all stand firm and denounce the travesty of the forceful and shameful abduction of a little six-year old boy from the caring home of his blood relatives, or we stand on the side of the guilty. There is no middle ground. Destiny and Providence have drawn the line!

It is not a confrontation of one man against his family for the possession of is son, it is deeper than that. It is akin to the struggle for the life of unborn children who are daily sacrificed on the altar of Moloch by the worshippers of Rempham and Astarte.

For this reason, we have an obligation to be properly informed. This cannot be done through the mass media because it is either owned or effectively controlled by the worshippers of Lucifer.

Keep in mind that you will never get the truth from your daily newspaper or your local radio or television station. No matter how honest the reporter may be, he or she will never be free to write or speak the truth. Writing or speaking the truth is the last thing anyone wishing to remain employed would venture to do.

All the information presented to the public concerning this matter of a little boy and his inalienable rights that are being alienated by Communists necessarily supports the selling into slavery of one little boy.

The only argument that those opposed to the blood relatives being the guardians of this boy is that "The father has a right to his son." Every bit of propaganda echoes this same slogan: Even after the brutal abduction of the child at gun point (The man holding the boy to protect him against violence was threatened: "Give me the boy, or I'll shoot you!") the only pharisaic response is: "The boy was reunited with his father."

The startled family was asleep and no doubt looking forward to Easter Sunday. But rather than the joys of the Resurrection, these good people who gave up everything to flee from atheistic Communism encountered violence not much different from that of Good Friday.

There are many questions that must be asked and appropriate answers given.

First question: Why was there so much concern for this little boy? His father is a member of the Communist Party, and as such, does not need to share the squalor of those who refuse to join this Coven of Satan.

Did the little boy's father love his son so much that he raised enough money to come to the United States to defend his paternal rights? How much does he get paid by the State-run tourist bureau where he works? Who is paying the lawyer who puts words into the mouth of Juan Miguel Gonzalez _ the boy's father? Why has the American government been so willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars making this Communist flunky welcome as royalty? "Birds of a feather flock together."

Is there any merit to the claims the father, Juan Miguel Gonzalez is making (or are being made for him)? He wants his son. It's just that simple? Then every bad father should have the same right to corrupt his son as much as this fellow from Cuba.

The alleged-goal to reunite the father with his son.

Is it really that simple? Let's look at the reality.

The father left the boy's mother to live with another woman. The sacredness of the family meant nothing to him because of his Communist ideology. The boy had no future with his father in Cuba, other than to become the unwanted "cinderfella" of a "step-mother" whose main attention will most certainly be her own child.

More important than the first objection, is the fact that upon becoming a Communist, the boy's father had to subscribe to the atheistic ideology of the Party. His son was no longer his son. He, therefore, abdicated all natural rights to his own son. Consequently, we are safe to conclude that the boy's father would raise the boy to be a ``good" atheist and servant of the State.

The boy's mother made plans to escape the island prison of Castro to join her relatives in the United States. The mother did not give up her rights nor her responsibility for the future of her son.

The mother, together with others, chose to brave the shark-infested sea to escape to what they perceived to be the freedom of the United States. The mother died in her attempt. Except for the courageous effort of one of the sailors, little Elian would have become a meal for the sharks.

The intention of the mother is very clear. It was sealed with her life. Only the most unfeeling, crass and callous human creature could ignore this most significant sacrifice of a mother for her child.

Now, an unfaithful husband who has made no apparent sacrifice for his son suddenly sheds tears of joy to be reunited with his son. This is touching, but hard to believe.

A crafty lawyer without scruple or self-respect now enters the picture to "defend" the "rights" of the father _ no doubt at a very high price. A price, one might ask, paid by whom?

Now come the arguments. From the very first, it was clear from all that the Communist side _ including those so-called "humanitarians" representing the American people, i.e., our government- there was never any intention of respecting the rights of the blood relatives in Miami. It was only a question of time.

The crafty lawyer ridicules the impassioned pleas of loving relatives who have cared for the boy at their own expense. He refers to the fervent and loving efforts to regain the boy as a "soap opera".

The Communist lawyer now pretends that there is "joy in the family" because the boy is happily reunited with his father.

In fact, the boy is now behind a virtual mini-iron curtain: no blood relatives are permitted to visit the boy. Why not _ if the boy is as happy as they would want the world to believe?

If the boy is so happy, why does our government fly in the boy's classmates and their parents? Why are these `props' needed to convince the boy that he will be `happier' in the squalor of his hometown?

Obvious pressure is being put on all the judges who supposedly will have to become involved in portraying a façade of justice in denying any legal recourse to the blood relatives. Pontius Pilate should have had it so good!

One radio commentator stated that the real reason why the violent attack upon a little house in Miami was approved by Clinton and Janet Reno was because a "poll" indicated that a high percentage of Americans favored violent intervention. The fact that our government paid no heed to the open expression of the will of the people who demonstrated in favor of protecting the boy against his Communist father made no impression on those who supposedly work for us.

Did you hear that, all you `Americans'? Did anyone ask you what you thought about the whole thing? No one asked me. But suddenly I am among the `Americans.' We all know the value of statistics and polls….

The fallacy behind the "parent-child relationship". As already mentioned, actions speak louder than words. We have become fatigued at the deliberate harping about the "boy must be reunited with the father" slogan.

How true is this? This is the tactic of the propagandist. To the thoughtful observer, there has been not a single solid argument of merit on the side of the father.

No one has been permitted to ask any questions. The statement is made and remade. It is repeated to condition the people to repeat it with a air of certitude. But, the fact is otherwise.

Although it is generally true that parents love their children, it is also true that many parents do not love their children.

The vague appeal to parental rights is nothing more than one of the most dangerous fallacies. It is called the Fallacy of Absolute and Qualified Statements.

The fallacy lurks in the exceptions to such a rule. Thus, as a general rule, it is legitimate to state that `Parents love their children (i.e., ordinarily speaking); `children should obey their parents (i.e., as a rule); `property rights must be respected (i.e., except in the case of necessity); `it is wrong to kill a person' (i.e., without sufficient reason); `the Germans are industrious;' `the French are vivacious,' `the Americans are inventive,' etc.

Each of these, and many more like them, is true, but with the qualifying limitation. The limitation is not mentioned, but it must be understood and must be taken into account.

For example, no parent has the right to sell or give its child into slavery. But, this is what Juan Miguel Gonzalez is prepared to do: He is prepared _ and even insists _ to give his son to the State and abandon all rights to the child.

And when the argument of parenthood appears futile and weak, the next argument is absolute: "Ít's the law!" Ah, yes, it's the law! What law has been written so that it covers a situation where a mother, abandoned by her husband, is fleeing an inhuman political regime with her son; risks all _ even the life of her son _ but dies in her attempt; the son is saved and taken to this free land. What law is there that could possible by written to cover such a situation? There is no such law. And if there were one, it would be unreasonable, and therefore, no law.

This must be an `acceptable' price to pay for two adults who get tired of each other and go lusting after someone else. And the children of such irresponsible parents? The children become pawns in a strange game _ more often used as instruments of spite than of genuine love.

We are supposed to be impressed with the subjective statements of alleged "experts".

These `expert' pediatricians know less about children than they do about themselves. You can't give what you don't have. And those who have not made any sacrifice of self-interest are incapable of genuine love.

There is no doubt that the children forced to witness the irresponsibility of adults are not stupid. They may not understand fully what is taking place, but they are not happy. Their own little lives are deeply affected by the actions of their parents. They may not be able to express their real feelings because they lack the vocabulary. Or, they have a tremendous ability to survive and for the sake of survival they say nothing. Their silence is misinterpreted as consent, whereas it is nothing more than fear. Nevertheless, the emotional tension is real. Furthermore, the bad example of their parents become the matrix for their own values.

A broken home is not a happy home. There can be no genuine happiness where selfishness rules. Since Communism is opposed to all that is genuinely natural, it is inconceivable that there could be any lasting and genuine love.

Actions speak louder than words. We have been reading and hearing all about the propagandists' cry that "the boy must be reunited with the father." There have been no reasonable arguments to prove this endlessly repeated drivel. It is drivel because no one has taken the time to ask a few more basic questions than the fact that, generally speaking, parents love their children. We also know that many parents do not love their children.

Then, too, it is important to define what we mean by `love'.

Then, when the argument of parenthood seems weak to the ambitious lawyers, they hit upon another buzz word: "It's the law!" they scream. What is most revolting to thinking people is that the very people who mock the law are the loudest to shout "It's the law!"

It is not an accident or coincidence that the hidden nature of those favoring the sacrificing of this six-year old boy to the god of atheism should occur on the eve of Easter. It some how reminds one of the episode that took place in Jerusalem when certain people shouted for the blood of Jesus Christ. They, too, kept shouting into the ears of the people and the public magistrates: "We have a law! We have a law" They even prevailed upon a weak government to throw up its hands in despair and deliver an innocent man to be brutally tortured and then ignominiously crucified.

Shortly before all that occurred, one of their kind, a treacherous high-priest said: "It is better that one man die than that the whole nation perish". Now that is an interesting display of moral rectitude! This is the same amoral attitude of Communism: For the Communist, the end justifies the means. This is the mentality inherited from the Jewish founders of Communism. It is nothing new. It is the same mentality that drives the present immoral machine that would sacrifice a six-year old boy to the false god of Communism: MOLOCH.

If the position of those who hypocritically pretend that "the boy belongs with the father" is examined reasonably and according to the laws of logic, if the spirit of the law is honestly respected, a completely different picture emerges from all the subtle distortions of the press. Even those of the press who would be tempted by conscience invariably fall back into their shackles of silencing moral truth.

The stories all speak of the boy and his mother fleeing from "Cuban paradise" in a small boat. The boat sinks; ten people drown. Among these is the boy's mother. The boy's mother!

The boy and his mother were risking their lives to flee to freedom!

Where was the father of the boy? He was running around with another woman. He was `enjoying' the kind of `freedom' that Communism rewards its disciples. The father was a member of the Communist Party. He had already shown his true nature: He subscribed to the luciferian ideology of this politico-religious sect. Communism is not simply another "political system". There is no such creature.

No political system can be without its theology _even if its theology is a denial of God, it is still an expression of a religious position. Communism is a religion that deifies man and makes him god. In this, Communism is Judaic _ a religion that makes its followers gods. This is the reason why some people have correctly observed: Communism is Talmudic.

This is the religion and social position of this six-year old boy's father. If Juan Miguel Gonzalez were not a member of this Satanic religion, he would never have cared about getting his biological son back to a life of misery. Like the Jews of old who sacrificed their own sons and daughters to the false gods Astarte and Moloch, Juan Miguel Gonzalez is funded by all those who would do likewise with his own son.

The mother of this little boy was risking not only her life, but even the life of her little son whom she must certainly have loved more than life itself. Imagine for a moment the decision that had to be made; consider the options this mother had, and then judge who it was who loved this little boy. To abandon a familiar environment and to brave the shark-infested waters of the sea; to make such a perilous journey with almost nothing but the hope of a better world for the child.

The mother was willing to risk her own life for her child. She risked it, and she paid the price: She died by drowning. Very little is said about her supreme sacrifice. Instead, the evil detractors suggest she was fleeing with her `lover'. How noble these Communists and their fellow-travelers are! Nothing is said of the fact that the boy's father was already running around with another woman. Or are we to believe that these `virtuous' Communists uphold any moral law? Juan Miguel was too busy satisfying his own lusts to be bothered with his son. Now, all of a sudden, he wants his son. He `pleads' with the American people for his son. Then his unscrupulous lawyer, Craig, ridicules the genuine emotions deeply felt by the Cuban relatives in Miami. Craig cruelly dismisses the fervent efforts of the boy's blood relatives as nothing more than superficial soap operas. Yet, the lawyer Craig's own tactics are nothing more than soap opera quality material. It proves the hypocrisy and low esteem these people have of the American people.

Juan Miguel Gonzalez did not decide on his own to appeal to the American people. It had to be his lawyer who looks upon the American people as gullible dupes. By the way, does anyone know where Juan Miguel Gonzalez is getting all that money to pay for his trip to the United States, to hire such an `expert' lawyer, to live in comfortable hotels while all this Greek tragedy is taking place? Gonzalez is said to work for a tourist bureau. Does he really make all that kind of money?

And now we read that classmates of the little boy and his teacher are being flown in. Why? Is it really that important to spend money for one little boy? What is the real game here?

But let us not stray too far from the main point to be made.

The point is this: The mother of the boy expressed her intention to bring her son to the United States even under the most dangerous circumstances. This was her intention as a mother. Her relatives and in-laws in Miami know her intention. This was, in a dramatic way, her last will and testament. To dishonor this last will and testament of a loving mother in favor of a profligate biological father is the ultimate insult to motherhood. This is the kind of insult that Communism breeds in people.

It is the boy's mother who should be heard from her watery grave. Her voice is heard through the relatives in Miami.

A close analysis of all the rhetoric of those who were already determined to sacrifice the boy to their own god could easily discern that there was never any genuine intent to give objectivity to this case. There was never any suggestion of an honest desire to hear the sincere arguments of the relatives of the boy. There was only the unchanging determination to return the boy to Communism. Note: To return the boy so that he could be indoctrinated in the errors of Communism. Neither the boy's father nor the boy are of any real value to these people. Their goal goes beyond the individual. It is a most wicked goal: To destroy innocence and to create another immoral monster.

This is why the mother's intentions are never even considered. This is why the intentions and desires of the relatives and the main body of Cubans in Miami are ignored. The genuine intentions of the Cuban relatives and friends were never really taken seriously. The conduct of those promoting the entire affair had only one purpose: To achieve their fanatic end at any price.

The American people are not competent judges in these matters. The lawyer Craig knows this and for this reason has the boy's father "appeal to the American people" for his son. Talk about "soap operas" Mr. Craig!

Does the Zionist, Doris Meissner, have any sound reason on her side? Does her rabbinical interpretation of the law regarding immigration really cover this case? If it does, then what is Doris Meissner doing about the thousands of illegal Mexicans who keep coming into this country? What does she do to send back all these illegals to their own homeland?

Let us take a closer look at what is really going on. We Americans _ Christians for the most part who believe in Christian values _ are looked upon by the rest of the world as naïve and stupid. Our kindness is too often mistaken for weakness.

Can we really be as stupid as our government tries to make us? If this is true, then we deserve everything that is done to us in the name of "government".

Does the majority of Americans know that thousands of Mexicans are in the United States illegally and are being supported by American taxpayers unknown to them? Do the American people know that the United States is being invaded by these illegals to the point that like the "Jewish refugees" who invaded Palestine after World War II, these illegal "refugees" from Mexico are pushing Americans out? Not only that, but these illegals are actually imposing their language on this country by simply refusing to learn English.

Why is it, then, that the government of this huge country does nothing to stop the flagrant violation of the law, but instead, encourages such violation by rewarding it? Yet, this same government, under the pretense of "law" is most willing and eager to send one little Cuban boy back to Communism _ and at such great expense! This government is eager to do this despite the fact that thousands of Cubans who fled from Communism are expressing their intention that the little boy should be permitted to remain among relatives and friends in this country.

The courts will supposedly decide the fate of little Elian Gonzalez. The first question is this: Does a six-year old boy have any rights. We hear that he does. But, who will speak for him? His mother died in her brave escape from Communism. She can only speak through her relatives and friends who have risked the same peril to flee from slavery to freedom. They alone have the right to speak. This is their natural right which no court of law can give or take away. This point is too easily overlooked.

This matter is beyond the limitations of any civil court. It is a matter of natural law to which legitimate civil law must conform. Just recently we have been exposed to the evils of slavery. But, while we supposedly abhor black slavery, there does not seem to be much concern about any other kind of slavery.

Let's be honest: The only ones who freely remain in a prison are those who either control the prisoners or benefit from keeping them in some other way.

No one has ever attempted an `escape' from a free country. If the Cubans, for example, were free to go wherever they wished, they would not be forced to flee under death-defying circumstances. Guard towers are only necessary for prisons.

This in itself is already a violation of human rights. A country that requires fences, walls and armed guards to keep the people from leaving is not a free country. Homes have fences not to keep the families from going out, but to keep intruders from coming in.

We lock our doors at night (and even during the day!) not to keep the homeowners and dwellers from going out, but to keep uninvited guests from coming in.

The mother and her son were fleeing from a regime that was violating their human rights. It is not essential that the child be fully aware of this. The mother knew this and she was the guardian of this child by virtue of natural law.

The mother's intention was clearly to seek political asylum for herself and for her son. Because the boy's father had chosen to participate in the violation of the boy's mother and the boy's natural right, he no longer has any parental authority.

No earthly authority is absolute. Consequently, no earthly authority can make laws that are absolute. What we are facing in the case of Elian Gonzalez is not only a violation of his natural right to freedom, but a fallacy in reasoning on the part of those who would deprive him of his birthright.

There are several logical fallacies employed by the enemies of freedom. The first one is one of the most dangerous fallacies. This one is being used like a verbal battering ram. It is called in logic the Fallacy of Absolute and Qualified Statements.

Juan Miguel Gonzalez is a Communist. This is more than a "political system of government". It is a godless unnatural system of forced government and therefore, a system in violation of natural law. It is a system imposed by force and fear. This is the kind of lifestyle that Juan Miguel Gonzalez has chosen and now wishes to impose upon his offspring. The boy's mother rejected this false unnatural life for herself and for her son. She sought to escape this unnatural lifestyle and to seek asylum with her relatives.

It is the mother and her like-minded relatives who can speak for the good of this boy. It is the duty of the law enforcement agencies of a free country to recognize this right and to defend it.

Therefore, the painful conclusion follows: the government of the United States violates not only the natural right of this boy and his relatives, but defends the ideological enemies of this country and every loyal citizen of this country. In effect, then, our constitutional government has become a government that supports this country's enemies. It is no longer our representative government. It is by logical conclusion a Communist government.

Another fallacy being employed by the lawyer defending the actions of the US government, is that which appears in many guises. It is called: an appeal to the people. Quite clearly, Juan Miguel Gonzalez knows that he has no solid arguments to defend his position. Before all else, his lawyer, Craig, knows this and it must be Craig who suggests the use of this propagandist's tactic: Gonzalez appeals to the American people to put pressure on US authorities to cave in to his demands. He wants the boy. He is a tool of the State because the boy is the property of the State. It's like owning a pet, or a mule or any thing. The boy is a `thing' and all the superficial sentimentality is only window dressing.

What do the American people know of life beyond a Communist fence? What do they know about anything going on in the world except what the controlled "free press" wants them to know? They know practically nothing because they have been psychologically conditioned to respond like Pavlovian dogs.

So, here, too, when solid reasons fail for a certain measure, the only thing left is to make an appeal to the prejudices and passions of the populace. Hence, the "polls" that would have the uninformed believe that "the majority of Americans want the boy reunited with the father." No one stops to reason: "Who constitutes this `majority of Americans'?" Is there a real `majority,' or is this just another lying press gimmick?

The next argument, as employed by Janet Reno, attorney general for a "free country" and supposedly dedicated to defending everyone's rights: The argumentum ad baculum. The appeal to might. This is a threat of dire consequences to those who will not follow a certain course of action or who oppose a certain policy. This play on fear is an unworthy attempt to substitute penal measures for arguments which are either weak or entirely lacking. Reno used such threats and carried them out in complete disregard of the principles of right reason and the purpose of legitimate laws. Vile and violent threats against the people who were defending the natural right of this little boy is a slur upon all the decent people of this country.

The Use of Force

No amount of propagandizing and hypocritical weeping on the part of Janet Reno will convince intelligent Americans that the argument of force had to be used to achieve the pre-determined end. The boy was to be taken no matter what.

Not only the threat of force was used. But force itself. And how brutal! How un-American, and how Communist! Could it be otherwise? Communists in our government agencies aiding and abetting our sworn enemies!

The man pictured in the attack upon the little boy and the adult protecting him is guilty of criminal aggravated assault.

He entered the room violently and pointing a weapon at the man shouted: "Give me the boy, or I'll shoot you!"

Janet Reno and her clique are supposedly trained in law. How is it, then, that they fail to remember the basics of American Law? This is certainly aggravated assault. One might even add: "with the intent to kill" because the armed man pointed a gun at the unarmed protector of the little boy and said: "Give me the boy, or I'll shoot you!" Anyone in that situation would perceive his life in danger. This is sufficient to constitute aggravated assault. Question: Can the police break the law with impunity just because their masters order them to? Let's have some TV reporter question the police on this point? Ask them why they obeyed such an illegal order.

Is this the kind of police force we Americans are paying for with our tax money? There is nothing more menacing than a bully who dons the respectable uniform of a "peace officer" and then terrorizes helpless civilians _ and children at that!

Juan Miguel Gonzalez should be sent home to his Communist paradise together with his woman either at his own expense or that of his master, Fidel Castro. The American people should not suffer this indignity of paying for the private adventures of our enemies.

One can only apply the words of Jesus Christ to the Pharisees to all those who work so diligently to deprive a small boy of his freedom:

"Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you traverse sea and land to make one convert; and when he has become one, you make him twofold more a son of hell than yourselves" (St.Matt. 23, 15).

Return to Contents

Return to Homepage.