TARGET: Your Child

Copyright 1997 By Ray Thomas


The federal government has an agenda -- to take control of what your children are taught in school without interference from you. To accomplish this, they will kidnap your children, use them in depraved "sexual experiments" they call "psychological treatment," and condition them against you and your values under the guise of "counseling. Then they'll put your children up for adoption against your will while accusing you of the very atrocities they are committing against them. They'll do this without any proof of any kind except their hearsay "evidence." They will do this to "silence" you so they can teach your children to love collectivism. Think I'm lying? Everything in this Comprehensive Report is researchable by you. Check my facts and believe what I'm telling you. You -- and your children -- may well become their next victims. Read on:


The government wants to control your children, and you're a big "thorn in their side" when you object to the things they do. So they've embarked upon a scam designed to remove parental authority from your hands and place it in the hands of the government. They'll do this by "criminalizing parents" by any means possible.


There has been a big upsurge recently in the number of stories in the news about parents who abuse their children. This fits with the well-known (to those of us who pay attention) Hegelian Principle looters (also known as: collectivists, socialists, liberals) use when trying to put over a con. Using the Hegelian Principle involves three steps:

  1. Create a problem: Or call attention to something you can con the public into believing is a problem;
  2. Publicize the problem: Make use of every propaganda method known to man to condition the public to believe there is a problem and get your friends in the mass media to publish one or more "horror stories" every day to condition "the masses" to believe there is really a problem that needs to be solved;
  3. Offer a solution: One that takes away one (more) "small" rights (But hey -- you can afford to give up that "itty-bitty right" in order to "solve the problem," can't you?) or adds one more small tax. In this manner, they get their victims to give their sanction for their own enslavement. The victims agree to changes they would not have agreed to without this prior conditioning.


The power brokers are now at "stage two" in their campaign to take control, not only of what our kids are taught in school (they've already got that to a great degree), but control over all decisions that are made about them. They want to completely discredit parents by convincing everybody -- including other parents ("Present company excepted, don'tcha know.")that the biggest majority of parents abuse their children, so the government should "take over" all parenting decisions ("There's a 'problem,' so you should be willing to give up your parental rights in order to solve it.").


You still get to do the work, but now you have to ask a bureaucrat for "permission" to do whatever must be done (If you are a child molester or abuser, you'll still get to molest or abuse them, but the bureaucrats won't care. They'll have the "power" to control your kids -- and your actions toward them. Their biggest "concern" will be that you obey their "regulations." Not whether or not you abuse the kids.).


In phase two, they constantly feed the gullible press item after item about "parental child abuse," many of them items that would never have been seen outside of local papers, and not there either, for the most part. The press predictably (and without checking the facts, as usual) repeats the mantra over and over, every time they are asked to do so. A good example is the Associated Press item seen in June, 1996 (nationally) about a Winchester, Indiana man who was arrested because his three-year-old boy was seen drinking beer and smoking a cigarette (Wow! Three of their pet projects in one incident!). Now I'm not saying it's OK to allow a three-year-old to smoke and drink, but I am saying that you'd never see such an item in an Associated Press national dispatch as a rule. That's "local news."


The pattern, under phase two, is to have one or more items that "fan the flames" appear in the media every day, in as many news venues as possible, while constantly criticizing "child abusers" in other items, and calling for "tougher laws." Pretty soon the incessant din (drumbeat: boom, boom, boom) has to have an affect on the people -- then others start joining in the calls for tougher laws. Then it's time to start pushing phase three in a big way.


Phase three involves organizing things such as "Children's Rights Marches," where "abused children" are paraded before the news media and the world, while their "plight" is emphasized. They trot out the "studies" and arrange "conferences" to "study things that ought to be done to alleviate the problem." Child abuse becomes an election-year issue, and the president chimes in. Pretty soon they're arranging a photo op with the president and "a group of abused children," and everything else they can think of to "stir the pot." All the bureaucrats who make their livings by controlling what parents may do regarding their children will be there to protect and promote their interests.


Naturally, at about this time they pick an especially bad case to publicize -- such as the Denver ten-year-old who (supposedly: I still haven't seen any proof at this writing in 1997 and when this report was updated in 1999) kicked a baby to death because his dad didn't keep his house clean. Or the one where an eight-year-old broke into a home to rob it "because his parents abused him" -- so he beat another infant almost to death. There's always such a case ready to be exploited because their welfare policies have created an atmosphere in which such cases abound. When kids have nothing to do, and their parents are drug addicts and criminals because they had nothing to do when they were children, it's a normal thing for the kids to do violence. The fact that the looters in fact created this problem seems to be lost on everybody who insists that the looters should be placed in power over the children.


Then there are the stories of "recovered memories" of abuse that are used by the "Family Service Gestapo" to put parents in jail -- never mind that a large number of such cases have been proven to involve planted, rather than "recovered" memories. Never mind that the entire "recovered memories business," even though so profitable, has been largely discredited because they attempted to use these "recovered memories" as evidence, unsupported by corroboration. Something as nebulous as a memory that has to be "recovered" should not be used as evidence to put someone in prison without other corroborating evidence that the memory is true. The memory might be used as a "starting point" in an investigation to find out if wrongdoing did occur. But to use it as prima facie evidence of a crime is preposterous.


Distinguished professor/syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell said in a recent column: "Make no mistake about it, those who organized this political pageant (The 'Rally for Children' (the 'Million Man March for Kids') held in Washington, DC in early 1996) were doing so on their own behalf -- for money and power -- and children were just pawns in the game." He also said in the same article: "No doubt that many -- perhaps most of those gathered in front of the Lincoln Memorial were sincere. Savvy leaders often surround themselves with `useful idiots' who actually believe the propaganda. These leaders also know that no one makes better hostages, to march across the political minefields in front of them, than children. (Emphasis added)


He also pointed out that what they want is "...not just money, but power -- the power to take over the role of parents, without having to take the responsibility for the consequences." This has been the agenda of groups like the Children's Defense Fund since long before this rally was planned or held, specifically to promote the theme of "collectivism" in the raising of children that will end up with the collectivists completely in the driver's seat. "To the 'anointed,' other people's children are guinea pigs for social experiments and targets for brainwashing in politically correct views and attitudes. Lots of statistics were thrown around at the Washington rally, showing how many children were in poverty, abused or otherwise getting a bad start in life. It never seemed to occur to any of those present that the kinds of people and the kinds of policies represented at this rally are themselves a major part or the problem." And he asks: "What has gotten better (in the last 30 years) as a result (of liberal control and growing welfare state programs usurping parental control and all sorts of avant-garde quack theories about how to raise children?") But they just keep on pushing and people (many of them children) just keep on suffering and even dying.


Most cases of child abuse are raised and prosecuted with little more evidence than the unsupported (by physical evidence) word of a child, a parent (often one who benefits by making the charge), or by an outsider who may have misinterpreted what he or she saw or who may have his or her own agenda. In no other area of law are people allowed to be sent to jail on such little, or nonexistent evidence. Independent corroboration is always required -- except in child abuse cases. Child courts are much like the courts landlords use in eviction cases -- when the eviction is filed, you're as good as gone. Here, when the abuse charge is filed (and sometimes when it is not), your kids are as good as gone. Another good comparison is the Salem Witch Trials where innocent persons were burned at the stake because someone accused them of being witches.


Lots of people think all prosecutors are honest and competent, that there is no way they will compromise their integrity in order to advance personal goals. That every "criminal" they put away is guilty. That the very act of charging a person with a crime means they must be guilty. It just ain't so, and those who believe it just have no idea of how this world of ours works. One of the most powerful motivators for prosecutors is the "high-profile case." This is the case that can make their careers, put them in line for promotion or to be elected to a higher office -- or cause them to be noticed by "higher-ups" who could even get them a cabinet post. Whenever a prosecutor gets such a case, he or she wants to be sure not to "blow it," because being involved in such a case can also ruin a career if it is not perceived to have been competently handled. So it is to their powerful interest to make sure such cases finish the way they want them to. So why do so many people think that cases of prosecutorial misconduct resulting in the jailing -- and even sometimes the execution of an innocent person are rare events? Such cases aren't rare, at all. In fact, they are common: a lot more common than most people would think. If they weren't common, why can I come up with so many cases that have happened recently? Such as:


Samuel Gross, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School says: "It is quite certain that some innocent people have been executed in the past. It will happen again." It will certainly happen again if we don't do something to rein in such prosecutors and police officers as these:


Attorney Joel Rudin made these five cases a "hobby" and worked on them until all five convictions had been reversed and the innocent men released from prison. Grady's and that of Albert Algarin, Jesus Torres, and Franklin Beauchamp, workers at a day care centerand that of Alberto Ramos, who had already been cleared earlier. But it turns out that the mother of the primary accuser was mad at center management over a bill she hadn't paid, and that no adults could corroborate the children's ever-changing allegations. A juror in the Beauchamp case was allowed to remain on the jury in spite of the fact that she had a son awaiting sentencing on a crack charge. Algarin's jury pool may have been poisoned when Merola told the New York Times that Algarin was tested for venereal disease because one of the students had gonorrhea (not true). In the Ramos case, prosecutors either lost or deliberately withheld evidence that could have cleared him.


What got Rudin interested? The Beauchamp family talked him into reading the transcript of his trial. "It was appalling, frightening," Rudin said. "It was the result of a very ambitious prosecutor who saw a good story and jumped on a national bandwagon. The true victims were the defendants." The new Bronx district attorney, Robert Johnson, declined to re-prosecute any of the five -- having read the transcripts himself -- and all were freed. Unfortunately, Mario Merola can't be prosecuted for his crimes -- he died in 1987, while all five were still in prison, After ruining so many lives in his quest for political power, he died, at age 65, of a heart attack -- and it was a day of celebration for the five men he raped.


There are just too many such cases in too short a time for it to be a "blip" on the screen and not representative of something that is all too common. And most of the cases I've seen involve children, whom Child Protective Services routinely manipulate to give themselves more power over more people. It's a "cancer," and we've got to do everything we can to cut it out.


We need to come up with a system of oversight, not only on prosecutors and police, but on the judges and the Child Protective bureaucrats, as well. They're killing and jailing too many people, and ruining too many lives to be allowed to continue their rampage. They lie, twist the words and actions of adults and children, rip children from the arms of their parents on the thinnest of (unprovable) evidence. They force those parents they don't put in prison or on death row to dance to their tune sometimes for years, spending thousands of dollars of their own money for psychological evaluations to counter the phony ones CPS uses (at taxpayer expense, of course) to create criminal behaviour where none existed. They counsel the children to say what they want them to say, and then sometimes, years after the children have been returned to their parents, come back for surprise inspections that allow them to be taken again. Or they bill parents for the cost of foster care the parents neither asked for or wanted -- indeed, fought against..


Many lives have been ruined by corrupt prosecutors, police, and child protection bureaucrats in order to advance their own careers and increase the amount of power they have to tell others what they may or may not do. These people don't care that they are ruining innocent lives, of both adults and children. All they care about is increasing the amount of power they can wield over those innocent parents, and how many children can be placed permanently under the control of their bureaucracy.


They have created a mindset in the people just entering the profession. They teach their students that all parents are "potential" child abusers and molesters, and that all protestations of innocence are "evidence of guilt." You can't win against this kind of a mindset, and it needs to be changed, before government agencies have total control over our children and what is taught them in school. If this happens, they'll be having sex in the halls at school, using condoms provided by the school. They'll be doing no schoolwork because they will have been taught that it isn't necessary to work to have "self-esteem." The society we know will have ceased to exist and chaos will prevail. That's what is coming if we don't stop it.


Michael Thomas, of Denver, Colorado. Yes, we are related, He is my son. Which is why I have so much personal knowledge of his case. But lest anyone accuse me of lying because of this, or of "looking at it through rose colored glasses," I ask -- no demand that if anyone can come up with proof that will stand up in court that any of the accusations made against him (unsubstantiated, made by a vengeful ex-wide in a contested divorce action) are true, I will back off. Michael Thomas, who does not drink, smoke, or do drugs (and after 18 years as a paramedic, scraping the remains of drug addicts and drunks off the streets, I would know), and whom I've never known to abuse his children (and he has lived with me and I him on several occasions), has been accused (by his ex-wife) of beating his kids, starving them, and allowing them to live in filthy surroundings. He has been accused of threatening his wife with a gun and of throwing her up against the wall in anger.

Let's take the gun. Mike was a private security agent and thus had occasion to carry a gun. Which means that a gun will probably be in the house at any given time, leading to the possibility that a girl who would rather tell a lie than tell the truth, even when the truth would serve better, would accuse him of threatening her with a gun after a heated argument. This girl (girl, not woman) is a congenital liar, an inveterate thief (I was forced to put a lock on my door when they lived with me), a snooper who sticks her nose into everybody else's belongings and who just steals whatever she wants. She is a person who, when she finishes with some trash, just opens her hand and lets it drop to the floor (and that includes such things as dirty diapers (whenever she can be forced into changing one) and partly empty potato chip wrappers, which she has been known to drop on the floor and leave until the potato chips were ground into the carpet. She is also well-known to have regularly cheated on him, with both male and female lovers. This is not suspected, it is known -- but made no difference to this court. This, and all the other things I have noted here are from personal knowledge, coming from close association with both of them for long periods of time.


Yet when she made accusations against him when they separated (mostly because of what I just enumerated), she was instantly believed -- in spite of the fact that as this is written, she is reported to have green hair in a spike hairdo, to be living with a truck driver in his car somewhere in the outback of Colorado, and is rarely seen on child visitation day (did not see them for six months, while Mike was there every week).


This is a girl who begged for Mike's (and my) help some years ago when her alcoholic mother was abusing her when she was still a teenager. Who (the mother), when Mike worked to help her become an emancipated minor, cut the tires on his car in retaliation, and is now trying to get custody of his children (More revenge, perhaps?) even though the children's mother seems to have lost interest. A mother who went to their school while the children were in Mike's legal custody and spirited them away without his knowledge so she could abandon them. Who tried to get the bureaucrats to take them, then the police (neither of which would do so without a court order), and finally the court (where she succeeded finally getting a court order to put them into the custody of the authorities, thereby playing right into their hands). She ended up turning them over to their court-appointed attorney at a 7-Eleven store and disappearing for six months (It is my theory that her parents put her up to this so they could get their further revenge on Mike by taking custody away from him, either temporarily or permanently. He has not been proven to be an unfit parent in any way).


Notwithstanding the fact that this entire "case" is nothing but her unsupported word and that not a single bit of actual evidence exists that he was either abusive to her or to the children -- and he was never even charged with a crime -- they forced Mike to attend the "Amend Program" sessions that most people are only required to attend under the threat of jail time (To everyone's surprise, however, he enjoyed the sessions, saying that he thought he had learned a lot about interpersonal relationships).

When, when after three years of "jumping through their hoops," he won, finally getting his children back, they informed him that he owed them $15,000 in "the cost of foster care." We're still fighting that one at this writing. It's down to $1,500 and we found that they had spent $50,000 of the government's money on the case.


The Child Protective Services, (under whatever alias they use) will do just about anything to gain control over our children and "take the patents out of the loop." Their very funding depends upon how many children they can take away from parents, for however short a time they can accomplish it. The longer, the better. And if they can take them away permanently, better still.


There are a number of medical conditions known to mimic the symptoms of certain types of child abuse, yet most doctors are taugh -- tin medical school -- to instantly make a diagnosis of child abuse when any of these symptoms are present. Then CPS (Child Protective Services) steps in and takes the child from the home (thereby giving themselves another statistic toward more funding while denying the child treatment that can cure the problem and prevent the disease from permanently incapacitating them) and charges the parents with child abuse.


They've made a law that makes it impossible for the parents to sue the doctors who make these mistaken diagnoses -- which tear their families asunder -- so they (CPS) can regularly get an excuse to rip even more children from their homes with no more proof of abuse than the presence of medical symptoms that might indicate child abuse, but which might also be an indication of something else entirely.


Here is a partial list of medical conditions, the symptoms of which mimic certain kinds of child abuse:

This is an incomplete list of such disorders. I'm sure there are many more and I'm just as sure that CPS goes about gleefully ripping children from their homes on the thinnest of pretexts based on such so-called "evidence."

**COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. Reference.

To find more information click on the "Manual for the Falsely Accused" Report. The information on this site is not legal advice. Before carrying out suggestions found here consult your attorney. To contact me by mail, write to: PO Box 16247, Denver, CO 80216-0247

Continued | Send email to: