Copyright ©2001 Massachusetts News, Inc. Photocopying and data processing storage of all or any part of this issue may not be made without prior written consent. 

Editorials

Terrible Things Happening to Children Are Done On Purpose

It’s embarrassing to realize that it took us two years to realize that the terrible things being done to children in Massachusetts are being done on purpose.

The sight of children being dragged from their families is terrible to most of us only because we still believe that children are better off with their mothers and fathers. If we didn’t believe that children need their parents, both parents, then we would not be unhappy with what we are seeing. 

We might even be happy to see these “poor children” taken from those brutes and given to the state to raise.

— We see terrified children being dragged kicking and screaming from their homes and their parents by the DSS with the physical help of town policemen. This is done without any hearing of any sort before a court or anyone. We mistakenly thought we were only watching a typical bureaucracy at work.

— We see grieving fathers who are begging to see their children and are treated like criminals. But we thought it was only because the judges and lawyers were too busy to care. 

— We see schools teaching homosexual sex to children behind the backs of the parents. But we thought it was only because of arrogance on the part of teachers.

Why Did it Take So Long?
Many of those who are in charge of our system want this upheaval to happen. Why did it take us so long to see that?

Why wasn’t it obvious that this nastiness is part of an effort to turn our society, i. e. our capitalist system, into a total failure? Goodness knows, they’ve told us enough times. The feminists have said over and over that they are going to destroy the institution of marriage and families because that is the only way they will achieve the “total freedom” of women.

They wish to replace our society with a socialist state as is seen in Sweden or Cuba. They believe that children should be raised communally. If you believe that, then all parents are a liability, not an asset. The more mothers and children that they see sitting in battered women’s shelters, the happier these feminists are. They are happy to see families that have been destroyed. From their worldview, this is progress.

The more divisiveness there is between men and women, the happier they will be.

Wellesley College Teaches Women to Hate Men
If you doubt that feminists want conflict between the sexes, just search for “Wellesley College” on our website and read one example of how that institution is trying to create a war between the sexes. It’s one of the reasons why we started Massachusetts News. My wife read an article in her alumnae magazine a few years back which told a total lie about the president of Harvard and a speech he made at Wellesley in 1899. It was obviously written with only one purpose in mind, and that was to make women believe that men were nasty to women a hundred years ago – until the feminists arrived to save them. The alumnae magazine was very successful in its propaganda effort because most of the alumnae believed the lies. But it looked a little fishy to my wife. So she went to the Wellesley College library and searched to see what the man had really said.

You’ll find the article on our website a very useful insight into the feminist mind. They will do anything to win. Even a third grader could read what the president of Harvard said and report it accurately. They knew they were lying.

Many of the judges in Massachusetts are feminists, both women and men. They are extremely happy to push men around like so many cattle. They truly believe that most men are violent and should be separated from their families. The head of our court system is a big feminist, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall. She is not ashamed to proclaim at large meetings that she is both a Democrat and a feminist, even though the basic canons of ethics require that judges avoid even the appearance of being a partisan.

There was a small brouhaha in 1999 when the American Psychological Association printed an article which said that fathers may even be detrimental because of the male tendency to consume “resources in terms of gambling, purchasing alcohol, cigarettes, or other nonessential commodities,” which “increase women’s workload and stress.”

The authors admitted they had a strong political agenda saying, “We acknowledge that our reading of the scientific literature supports our political agenda.” Their “agenda” is to create a socialist state such as exists in Sweden. They also said that their concern is with the “backlash” against “the gay rights and feminist movements.”

They believe that any attempt to reintroduce the father into the American culture through the use of marriage is “an attempt to reassert the cultural hegemony’s traditional values, such as heterocentrism, Judeo-Christian marriage, and male power and privilege.”

Now you can understand why the feminists in our state would do anything to help eliminate marriage and replace it with state institutions.

This same belief was stated by a feminist member of the Vermont Supreme Court, Denise Johnson, in the famous opinion last spring about domestic partnerships. She said,

“[T]his is a straightforward case of sex discrimination.”

She doesn’t believe that a child will do better if it has both a mother and a father. “[W]hile it may be true that the female voice or point of view is sometimes different from the male, such differences are not necessarily found in comparing any given man and any given woman. The State’s implicit assertion otherwise [that a child will do better with both a mother and a father] is sex stereotyping of the most retrograde sort.”

Mothers Also Treated This Way by DSS
It is not just fathers and their children who are treated with disrespect by the DSS. It is also mothers who will not cooperate with the social workers and it is mothers whose children who are attractive enough so that they can be put up for adoption. These mothers also lose their children without a trial or any hearing of any type. A hearing may be “required” in some cases, but it doesn’t happen.

If the children are beaten or tortured as the Crowley children were, it’s all for the common good of toppling “the system.” Therefore, until one torturer of children, Steven Albrizio, was convicted and sent to jail for seven years last year, he was approved by the DSS to live with yet another family and torture more children. What else can one believe when he was on their list of batterers for years, yet they never stopped him from abusing more and more children? It was only because one mother was able to interest the state police that charges were finally brought against him.

As Nev Moore wrote in this issue, these social workers are already volunteering to be in charge of us when we have our new socialist model. It really is amazing that they spell out their plans so carefully and clearly, yet most of us choose to ignore those plans.

So the next time you see crazy things going on that you find so hard to believe, don’t forget that you are seeing things through your own eyes. Try it from a different point of view. Try pretending that you are a feminist and it will quickly make sense.

Chief Justice of SJC Is Rabid Feminist

We’ve written a lot lately about Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, the supreme feminist on the Supreme Judicial Court. We don’t have to wonder how she would vote if this state ever had to make a decision like the Florida Supreme Court did. It would be right down the feminist line. That’s why our courts are showing such stress.

We realize that it is not “chic” to believe that husbands and wives influence each other. But Marshall’s husband, Anthony Lewis, is so ultra-left that it is impossible to believe that this woman does not share some of his personal philosophy. He is the premiere columnist for the New York Times, which owns the Boston Globe.

Some of his columns have included the following:

 • “Mr. (David) Duke was only following in the footsteps of respectable politicians. [Such as] Ronald Reagan [and] George Bush.”

• “If the official Republican platform is carried out, a 13-year-old girl who becomes pregnant as a result of being raped by her father and has an abortion could end in the gas chamber.”

• “People across the country, opponents and supporters both, are learning something that Massachusetts has understood for some time. Never underestimate the intelligence or determination of Michael Dukakis.”

With beliefs like those, it’s going to be difficult to contain yourself when you’re deciding some of the issues before our courts, like whether or not the Constitution allows children to be torn from their parents by bureaucrats without any hearings whatsoever.

Average Mother Works to Pay Taxes

The average mother today is working only to earn the taxes that her family is required to pay. In 1950, the tax burden on a typical American family from all levels of government was about 5% of annual income. By 1997, that had jumped to about 40%. This means that the average mother is working only to pay her family’s taxes.

A New ‘Look’

It’s always good to have some new blood in an organization, and the “new blood” in ours wanted to change the look of our front page. Therefore, you’ll note that we have a different flag trumpeting the name of the paper.

We know that most people like their newspapers to stay the same and dislike any change in what they’ve become accustomed to seeing. That is sometimes difficult for us because we have many more in-depth articles than do most newspapers. Like most editors, we would like to put everything on the front page.