|
Should the Statue of Liberty be Demolished? © 2000 Joe Murray When
I was a child, my father worked for a construction company that did a lot of
demolition work. My mother would often take my brother and me to watch when
my dad was going to wreck an extra big building or one that posed specific
challenges. The most memorable one was an old grain elevator. The building
was held up by four large beams. They hooked chains around each one of them,
with a bulldozer on each end. My dad then went inside and cut most of the
way through the beams with a chain saw. When everybody was out of the
building, they pulled the beams out. The building came down just like a tree
that had been cut. It started slowly, then came crashing to the ground on
its side. A
couple weeks ago, pictures of demolition experts blowing up the dilapidated
Kingdome in Seattle, Washington filled the air waves. It has always been a
lousy place to play baseball, so I kind of enjoyed seeing it go. The old
multipurpose dome was once considered state of the art -- a modern wonder --
but it is now going the way of the dinosaur.
The company that blew up the Kingdome did such a wonderful job that I
think it may be time to hire those crews to blow up the Statue of Liberty. Oh,
it isn’t dilapidated. Renovation efforts a few years ago put it in fine
shape. However, what do we need it for? It was a gift from a dead European
white guy who paid homage to the United States and gives the impression that
America offers a superior way of life. That is no longer an acceptable view
among the intellectual and political leaders of this country. The United
Nations surely doesn’t accept that view, even if they locate their
headquarters in New York City. Most people probably won’t care. It won’t
affect their lives. We might even have a celebration, and it could be
incorporated into Hollywood’s next action thriller. Crowds cheered while
watching the movie “Independence Day” a couple years ago when the
special effects gurus in Hollywood simulated our national symbols being
destroyed. It was kind of cool-looking, so why not do it for real? Who needs
symbols of the past? OK,
I confess. I don’t really want to destroy the Statue of Liberty. I think
there probably would be some outcry, if the government really wanted to
destroy it. However, I bet a large amount of people would say, “Sure, go
ahead,” unless the pigeon lobby would get upset they were losing a good
bird perch and restroom. But,
if it was promised that it be replaced with a bird refuge, opposition would
shrivel away. Many
don’t seem to care too much any more about freedoms and liberty. If they
no longer care about the principles that the Statue of Liberty represents,
why should they care if the statue is gone?
Nowhere
has this become more evident than with the eagerness to crush little Elian
Gonzalez’s quest for freedom. It
was just last Thanksgiving that Elian’s brave mother gave her life on the
sea, trying to free her young son from the modern-day equivalent of
Devil’s Island. The small boy was found clinging to an inner tube off the
coast of Florida. As the good book says, “No greater love than this...” The willingness to give one’s life to gain freedom is the
essence of what this nation had always been about -- until now. It is the
essence of parental love. Sending
this boy back into slavery is an abomination. It is a shameful day to be an
American when nobody with the power to do something about it is standing up
for our most cherished principles, and the boy who longs to experience them. I
know that this is a difficult case because there is a parent involved, or at
least someone that claims to be a parent. Of course, this Miguel
Gonzalez’s name didn’t appear on the boy’s birth certificate until a
day after Elian turned up in the United States. This is the father that
wasn’t married at the time of conception and never lived with or supported
the child. That’s right; he is possibly a dead-beat dad. Worse yet, he has
been accused of being abusive to the child and his mother, when she was
alive. Janet
Reno made a name for herself riding her broom in to “save” children from
fathers and others where there was little or no evidence of wrong doing. All
that was needed was an allegation of abuse. That allegation was often made
by a child after hours of interrogation by law enforcement officers, social
workers and various other sundry psycho-babblers. The child must be believed
because they would never make up a story or be brainwashed by Hillary’s
“loving village” to make something up. Now,
today, Reno claims to be the champion of unfettered parental rights and
ignores this heroic child’s cries for freedom. That’s right. This is the same person who ordered the Waco barbecue of 80
children because she supposedly was told they might be abused, although
almost no evidence has surfaced to support the claim. Of course, in little Elian’s case, death might be a
better fate than returning him to Cuba. Even
if his father does love him, the child won’t be raised by him. He will
become a slave to Fidel Castro. Children are officially the property of the
state. Yes, child labor laws will be violated as Elian and all the other
children in Cuba are forced to work in the sugar cane and tobacco fields.
Where’s Kathy Lee? They will be forced to take military training.
Yes, that includes handling a gun.
But, of course, they will be allowed to see the world as they are
sent as mercenaries and terrorists around the world to attempt to enslave
even greater numbers of people. Castro
is such a “loving father of his country” that his own daughter defected
7 years ago. Not surprisingly, she doesn’t think Elian should be sent back
to Cuba. She fears for his life and testifies about the suffering and
oppression experienced by everyone under her daddy’s custody.
If Fidel and Janet cared so much about reuniting families, how come
nothing has been done to reunite Arianne, Hoarta, and Estefani, her six year
old child. As
recorded in Insight Magazine, “Horta also survived the ocean trip
that brought Elian to the US, but she decided to leave her little girl
behind when the boat developed engine trouble and initially turned back. The
Immigration and Naturalization Service claims they must act with haste to
reunite father and son, but they have failed to act on Arianne’s request
for asylum for 3 months now. Until this is finished, her daughter cannot ask
to leave Cuba. The US State Department says it cannot grant a visa without
Castro’s permission -- which he rarely does because he needs all the
slaves he can get. A
loving father would never want his child subjected to slavery.
But then, we really don’t know if that is what the alleged father
really wants. If he were to say
something against Castro, he could be sent to jail for up to 14 years under
the Cuban Rule of Law. We
don’t know who is being held hostage and what threats have been made.
According to Janet, we should have no reason to think he might not be
telling the truth because Janet can look into his eyes and tell he is
telling the truth. Now, Janet might be a smart woman and an expert on a lot
of things, but this may be the first time in her life she ever looked into a
man’ eyes. So, I don’t think we can trust her judgment by this
barometer. If we could, her boss would no longer have his job. If
the statutory law of the land becomes incompatible with the higher law, then
it shouldn’t be followed, and it needs changed. Do you think these
self-proclaimed “champions of civil rights” would give a speech
defending slavery and those who complied with the fugitive slave law?
I don’t think so. Yet,
they are trying to do essentially the same thing.
If
you have never read “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” or forgot the story, maybe it
is time you read the story or refreshed your memory. This book was probably
as responsible as anything for finally turning people in this country
against slavery. The
plight of the mother and child fleeing from slavery has a remarkable
similarity. Sending the boy back is obscene and shouldn’t happen, even if
there is a law that allows it to happen.
However, as usual, Clinton and Reno have distorted and lied about
what the law says. The law requires that all Cubans who reach the United
States have a full evidentiary hearing, if they seek asylum. Asylum is
almost always granted. Reno
claims the father must speak for the child.
This might be true, if he had been the custodial parent or if it was
consistent with the wishes of the custodial parent. Obviously, neither of
these conditions were met. Just
two years ago, the Clinton administration implemented new regulations that
made it easier for children to be allowed to stay in the United States.
There is a family reunification immigration policy that seeks to allow
families of refugees from oppression to be reunited. The problem for the
government is that they generally use the law to allow every family member
of wide degree of kinship to come to the country, once one of them makes it
to the United States. It normally isn’t used to send someone back to
another country. Finally,
the legal standard for custody in this country is “the best interest of
the child.” It is simply irrational to say that any child is better off
living as a slave. If the strict letter and normal enforcement of the law is
followed, then the presumption is clearly in favor of leaving the boy in the
United States. If the father wanted to be with the son, he and the rest of
his family would be welcomed with open arms into the United States. Now, given the cowardice and laziness of the
legislative branch of government -- which has lead to granting almost
limitless power to the executive branch of government in many cases -- the
power may be there to allow the government to send the boy back.
But, there is no legal standard that requires it. The
courts haven’t rendered their final decision yet. The cowards in congress might suddenly develop a backbone, so
there still is a little hope that the right thing may occur, but I am not
counting on it. Once again, the
Clinton administration will likely get away with another grab of arbitrary
power that is based on their ruthless and bloodthirsty quest for power. I
guess we shouldn’t be shocked that they would willingly throw moral
principle out the window and feel that a murderous communist dictator like
Castro is the person best to care for a little boy whose mother gave her
life trying to gain freedom for her child. But, I still am amazed that this
bunch can never do the right thing. If
allowed to grow up in America, this child may grow up to be a champion of
freedom that would live the ideals represented by the Statue of Liberty. He
might have the influence to see his native country finally liberated and to
stop the erosion of freedom in his new country. We
might as well tear down the Statue of Liberty, if we cannot give freedom to
one small boy whose mother longed so much for him to have that life she gave
him with her own life. Let us
not let her death be in vain. Insight Magazine WorldNetDaily News Max News Max Washington Post News Max WorldNetDaily Jewish World Review Cato Organization WorldNetDaily News Max News Max News Max News Max News Max
|
