Family Court
Family Courts are an indication of a decaying society. The entire notion thereof is ludicrous. A family should never bring Government into its home. Ever.
If one parent commits a criminal act against another parent, the police, prosecutors, and criminal courts can handle the matter outside the home. Assault, parental alienation, neglect, abuse, and all manner of criminal matters can be handled without bringing the Government into the home, into the family, and into child-rearing.
Family is the greatest threat to Government. Government is the greatest threat to Family. Strong families, who stick together and can support one another lack a dependency upon the Government that families with weak ties rely upon. Strong families band together into larger communities who rely upon each other further minimizing the need for Government. If a child is situated without his birth-given caretakers, the community - if sufficiently strong and well-connected - can step in to fill that gap.
The fact that we, as a society, have so often turned to Government to manage our familial ties that a category of courts unto itself has arisen in the family’s stead is remarkable. Where are the brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and cousins? Where are the lifelong friends? Where are the fellow parishioners? What kinds of communities are we building if any at all?
This state of affairs harkens back to our first Supreme Court upon which Mr. Justice Iredell sat. He stated in the case of Fries:
"All systems of government suppose they are to be administered by men of common sense and common honesty. In our country, as all ultimately depends on the voice of the people, they have it in their power, and it is to be presumed they generally will choose men of this description; but if they will not, the case, to be sure, is without remedy. If they choose fools, they will have foolish laws. If they choose knaves, they will have knavish ones. But this can never be the case until they are generally fools or knaves themselves, which, thank God, is not likely ever to become the character of the American people."
Has this passage come to falsehood? I understand only a knavish and foolish society could abide Government child-rearing; yet, we have Government child-rearing. We, the Parents, should be raising children. If the Parents are unaccounted for, then the duty falls to We, the Families. If the Families are unaccounted for, then the duty falls to We, the Communities. If the Communities are unaccounted for, then surely we are lost, and the case is without remedy.
If Family Courts are necessary, then our children are living in solitude among the indifferent.
Reason and Passion
These two (very broad and general) senses were of top importance to the founders of our great Nation. They taught that these two forces were constantly at play within the human spirit causing us to act upon the world to both good and bad effect.
Reason ought to prevail in matters of general welfare and, thus, in matters of Government. Passion hasn’t much place in the Government. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers are among the best political writings of all time. They in great deatail explain the necessary, the sufficient, the negative requirements as well as productions of the systems of Government under which humans had lived to that point. They, then, explain - also in great detail - a new system of government that would become the system under which we live today in these United States.
Our founders surmised that pure Democracy devolves into a constant swinging of statutory measures. these swings move with the Passions of the ever-changing majority leading to the tyranny of the many. Our founders also concluded that the pure Republic could lead to the tyranny of the few. Of course, a feudalistic, aristocratic, theologic, noble, or royal Government would fall to similar Passions and devolve into Tyranny. They supposed there must be some way to take the good parts of all forms of Government and give Reason the best chance of prevailing. Here, our form of Government is born.
To bring Reason ahead of Passion, we combine all systems in clever ways. We use the Democracy to give Reasonable consent to be governed. If the majority wants a Government, then a Government shall exist; if the majority wants anarchy, then so too we shall have it. We use the Republic to give a distilled and Reasonable voice to the Passions of the people. The people elect by majority a representative; that representative is then sent to the Halls of Government to voice the collective opinions of the constituency. In so doing, we have taken the ever-swaying Passions of the people and separated those Passions from the Government under the authority of the Legislature.
When power becomes necessary to hold order and protect individuals, we take from the more Tyrannical forms of Government to uphold law and order. A lawful order from a Police Officer places a person under a strict and abiding suspension of Civil Rights and Liberties. If the system calls one to Justice, one must answer; this is the Government side of the Doctrine of Equal Protection Under the Law. To balance this, we have provided for the doctrine of Due Process of Law to allow one so called to Justice to defend oneself against a potential Tyranny conducted by Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement is Passion and Power based under authority of the Executive, Due Process bends only to Reason behind Judge and Jury under the Authority of the Judiciary.
Then, at final cause our Founders have provided that any powers not so invested into the Government are retained by We, the People. The Government is positively empowered rather than negatively weakened. That is to say, their powers are strictly enumerated rather than strictly taken. This gives to We, the People, and the States all the powers that the Federal Government is not given by express, written permission. these are our 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution.
Humans are full of Reason and full of Passion. There are times when either may be of good use. Governments and laws should change only on Reason; protection and duty may be more deftly applied through the use and application of Passion. Our system of Government allows the expression and temperament of both these human motivations toward a great end.
Culture Gap
With all this talk about the "wealth gap" (which is a lie in this nation) we miss the more fundamental and far more important culture gap. This has been exemplified by Howard University and expressed as politely as possible by one of their Deans:
"Because of the size of the room, and because our relatives sometimes do not know how to act, the Fire Department is now here to shut us down." - Gina S. Brown, Dean, Howard U. College of Nursing
The phrase "don't know how to act" is commonly used by blacks to distinguish us from those who bear a title less prudent than can be stated here. This culture gap is an issue of paramount importance; so much so, that it being left unchecked for decades has caused it to cancel a graduation. Ridiculous.
These kids did not walk for High School because of COVID. Now, they walk not for University because they have failed to withhold invitation from those who - for the sake of decorum - needn't arrive. Part of maturing is leaving behind those chains that bind you to your sophomoric past. I do not care whom they might be, if they are of the class of citizens who "don't know how to act," do not bring them to these places. Let this lesson be one learned, and learned well.
More generally, if we look at black persons in this nation we see this divide, this very clear divide, between the haves and the have nots. Racism cannot be a cause of such a divide because we’re all black. Birthright is also not to blame as the data show immigrant blacks performing just as well as well-off American blacks. Something else must be at cause. It is the culture and one’s capacity to leave that culture.
Using this latest Howard University debacle as a backdrop, we can see several key issues with certain cultural traits that are selected against.
The first and most obvious is punctuality. These people outside the ceremony had arrived after everyone else had already been seated; they were thus denied entry.
Second, we have entitlement. What right do they have to disrupt a private ceremony? None! Go home!
Third, there is a disregard for the rule of law. These people do not get to trample the rights of others simply because they have been inconvenienced. This behavior is indicative of a weak and childish culture.
Finally, we have selfishness. This ceremony was for the graduates and their instructors. Guests are not nearly the focus thereof. These acts - slamming doors, yelling, chanting, breaking glass, etcetera - are the acts of a self-important 7-year-old, not of well-governed adults.
No wonder the fire department shut the event down. These tyrants just outside the doors would be quelled only at the event’s cessation. I try to look on the bright side. The beauty of this event is that it cannot be swept under the rug by Leftist race-baiting. It should cause the black community to come together in the hopes of finding a solution to the cultural problem; it likely will not, but it should.
What would it look like to be rid of these cultural traits and retain the good parts? This is a solved problem and has been answered time and time again. We see it in the careers of Calvin Broadus Jr., Andre Romelle Young, and Curtis Jackson III. One can certainly create and consume Hip-Hop without having to act it out. One can certainly have locs, twists, and cornrows without being consumed by infantile madness. One can certainly be black without having to jettison morals, etiquette, and civility.
Not much in a free society can be done to directly cure this defect. The framers of our nation taught that ruling can be done by words or by power; we choose words. We can do nothing but speak and write about better a way, it is up to those in need to take up the lessons. The children of these juvenile adults are likely to become themselves juvenile adults. This is how gaps and disparities form and continue. This is the culture gap.
Adoptive Fathers are not Mothers
Yesterday was Mother’s Day. Although I do not speak with my mother, I respect that she raised me. I respect all mothers who raise their children. Full stop.
There has been a recent usurpation of motherhood by men. This trend is tragic and silly. When men who pretend to be women celebrate themselves on Mother’s Day, one more thing is taken from women. Women used to have their own sports - no longer. Women used to have their own bathrooms - no longer. Women used to have Sorority houses - no longer. Women used to have Mother’s Day - no longer. How many more things should we take from women that they must share with men?
Happy Mother’s Day to the real mothers - the real women - who sacrifice every day for their children.
Pro Se 101
I would be remiss if the reader were not met, at the beginning of this writing, with this information: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice; this is simply me sharing my experience in the Courts of this Nation.
In this country, one who is deemed a competent adult may represent oneself before a Court of Law. This is typically referred to as pro se litigation although there are some variations on the reference and naming there applied. The law is not small. There are entire schools dedicated to its teachings. There are hundreds of volumes dedicated to its text. There are thousands of legislators assigned to its construction. The most important thing here, despite the sheer size of the mountain made of law, is that law is people. Always keep this in mind. The opposing attorney is a person. The judge is a person. The clerks are people. The jurors, sheriffs, prothonotaries, and marshalls are all people.
People are fallible. People can be persuaded. As a pro se litigant, the point is to find the wrongs of the opposing counsel and persuade the judge and jury of your point. How are flaws in argument found? How are judges persuaded? Where does one even begin?
Most of the time, when one is thrust into the legal system it is through the Government filing an action against the person. These citations, subpoenas, and other such orders state the charges against the person and some amount of description (usually a Police Officer affidavit) in support of the charges. Even traffic violations are charges; they will be listed on the ticket you receive. Many people pay the ticket and move on - this is a guilty plea. When you pay the government you receive a criminal record in return. These kinds of violations are small and usually impact your insurance rates and loan rates but nothing more. These low-risk violations are the best to use in figuring your way through the legal system.
Get a good legal research tool and learn to use it. there are many such tools such as LexisNexis, West Law, Find Law, and Case Text. With these tools you can usually type in the charge number that is printed on your notices and find both what the law states and judges’ rulings in other cases with similar charges.
Read the text of the law carefully; often the facts on the citation do not match exactly what the law states. Even if you broke the law, if the charges filed differ from what you did, the case must be thrown out because the system cannot charge you for something you did not do; they must charge you for what you did.
One reason to read other cases carefully is to find if a lesser charge would fit your crime. Even if the fact pattern matches what was charged, if a lesser charge could have been filed with the same fact pattern, you can usually persuade a Judge to allow the lesser charge to stand in place of what the system is attempting to give to you.
Reading laws and prior cases is the easiest way to learn how to make your way through the legal system. These cases were written by judges. The more you read how judges write, the better you will be able to persuade judges through your own writing. The more you read how judges write, the better you will be able to detect how what was levied against you is wrong and how you can fight it. Reading is key in the pro se journey.
Criticism is not Racism
One cannot be both Israel First and America First. Yes, Hamas is an evil entity that must be stopped. Yes, Palestine is occupied by Hamas illegally. However, this does not mean everything Israel does is beyond reproach. Asking simple questions about funding Israel at the level at which we are funding them is not a racist act. It is an America-First act.
We had given more than 20 times as much to Israel as we had given to our own Veterans in 2023. This is clearly not America First. Without our military, we would not be in a position to aid any nation including Israel. It is imperative we take care of those here at home before we take care of others, for without those at home, we would lack the capacity to help foreign entities at all.
Criticizing the amount, frequency, and reporting regarding money given to foreign nations (such as Israel and Ukraine) is our right and duty as We, the People, of the United States. This is not racist. This is not anti-Semitic. This is America First.
We are the nation within which those in need seek refuge, and even those who speak against it will not leave. Destroying this safe haven is an act of global terrorism; protecting it is the most humane act one can perform in this era.