Advertisement
The Columbus Dispatch's editorial in the August 21st issue stated that the ACLU was addressing a nonexistent problem and an unworthy cause. Perhaps we should reconsider.
Adoption itself is unconstitutional. There is nothing that affords the privileges of dismembering a family relationship or dispatching an infant apart from their own flesh and blood parents. We are assured that we are BORN with certain inalienable rights. It does not mean that we obtain those rights when we reach adulthood. It means that ALL citizens BORN in this country have those inalienable rights. No one, may speak on the behalf of a child, even "in their best interest" to remove from them their secure natural privileges. "Man hath an absolute property in, and right of dominion over, himself, his powers and faculties;" by the law he is "independent of, and uncontrollable by, any but him who created and gave him his powers. And whatever is acquired by the use of application of man’s faculties, is equally the property of that man, as the faculties by which the acquisitions are made; and that which is absolutely the property of a man he cannot be divested of but by his own voluntary act."(America’s Appeal to the Impartial World, " Hartford, 1775)
Historically, the first adoption law was passed in 1851 at the height of "slave power" in this nation. It was brought forth at the same time the "Fugitive Slave Act" was put into effect, which denied the African slave, of Habeas Corpus, the right to trial by a jury of peers, to defend themselves, or to accuse a white man. If accused or kidnapped it was left in the hands of a magistrate who decided their fate. So it was with the child. No defense, no lawyer, no constitutional rights, only based on the "subjective judgement" of an individual, who as we know from history could be easily bribed. In many cases, the motive to rid their community of undesirable blacks and children, led them to hand them over to slave dealers. There were no rights for the blacks or for the child.
While we know that millions of blacks suffered the most horrendous criminal treatment in the history of the world, we also record some 400,000 children shipped out west in the infamous "orphan trains" beginning in 1853, 12 years before the end of the civil war. Over 100,000 were sent to Missouri, a slave state. Need we question what became of the black children as well as children with dark complexions who could be sold on the market for hundreds of dollars.
It was George Fitzhugh, the "voice of the South" who argued that the democratic society failed, in light of it’s social poor and degenerates, and that a slave society was the only proper and religious society. He supported Filmer’s famous Toryist book "Patriarcha" which argued the biblical justification for slavery. But it was not only for the slavery of the blacks, it was also for the poor white, the common laborer. Fitzhugh expounded that they should all be brought under the "master", for their own good, for their "best interests". He actually argued that it was in the "best interest" of an African to be a slave. It was Fitzhugh that said a destitute woman and her children should sell herself and children into slavery for life. Not like the African, he believed, who should do the demeaning work, but a higher "kind of slavery".
Do we even question that adoption came to America via the Roman law, carried down millennium through pagan cultures.. The original translation of the Babylonian word "adoption", was "emancipation". To be adopted was to receive manumission. Even before the time of Abraham, this "emancipation" was transformed to include a clause requiring the slave to serve their master "as if free" until their masters death upon which they would receive an inheritance, a reward for their work as well as complete manumission. It was the brutal slave society of Rome that believed it had the power to dismember a family tie and create a new one.
Where, my friends, do you read in either Judaism or Christianity that you have the power to transfer parentage and confer it to a stranger? Neither God nor nature gives any one that right including the United States of America, home of the worst slave society in the history of the world. Are we friends of Rome, Fitzhugh, Filmer, or the rather the right of self-government in a free democratic society?
It is not incidental that 90 per cent of the wards of the Franklin County Children Services are black. Again it is "subjective". Are we to believe that only blacks abuse their children?
Our constitution demands that no one can lose their liberty without habeas corpus, trial by jury. I am not arguing this right to protect child abusers any more than we must demand this right to a serial killer. It is the law and fundamental right of our land. To take a child from it’s parents, vice versa, is the worst punishment that could be conferred onto any human being. Surely we must insist on a trial, both for the punishment of the child abuser, and the protection of our sacred laws. Let’s punish the abuser, not the child..
It is well known that the Franklin County Children Services receives money from the Federal government for every child that they move into an adoptive home. The government pays $4,000 a head for each child and a bonus if they are a "special needs child" which includes black children. Not only does the Services save money on foster care, welfare services, but it adds to its coffer with each child they place. Just total up government money, misguided religious zeal, and poor oppressed people and it turns into a disastrous formula that has been repeated over and over in the history of the world.
Have we lost all reasoning? How is it that we just put up a statue on July 4th commemorating Arthur Boke, the first "black American" born in Franklinton. Let’s see... his mother was a slave woman accused of abandoning her child. I suppose she would have runaway into the Ohio wilderness by herself, days after giving birth? The father was white. Doesn’t look good for Mr. Sullivant. Sarah Sullivant was a slave owner from Kentucky, who saw slaves as property and chattel. In her day, she believed that she owned any child born to a slave. So we have a statue of a slaveowner, holding up a bi-racial baby, probably from the rape of his mother by his master. While no one will ever know for sure, sadly, that was the norm in America at that time. There was no adoption law in 1803, yet we call his statue a "Celebration of Life"? A headline in "The New Standard" transforms that message to "Sculptor’s Latest Work Celebrates Humanity of Mother and Child".
Yes, there IS an issue with the Franklin County Children Services. One could only suspect that the stories by this agency are as historically unfounded as the story of Arthur Boke.
Susan Slattery
Regional Director
Concerned United Birthparents
Adoption itself is unconstitutional. There is nothing that affords the privileges of dismembering a family relationship or dispatching an infant apart from their own flesh and blood parents. We are assured that we are BORN with certain inalienable rights. It does not mean that we obtain those rights when we reach adulthood. It means that ALL citizens BORN in this country have those inalienable rights. No one, may speak on the behalf of a child, even "in their best interest" to remove from them their secure natural privileges. "Man hath an absolute property in, and right of dominion over, himself, his powers and faculties;" by the law he is "independent of, and uncontrollable by, any but him who created and gave him his powers. And whatever is acquired by the use of application of man’s faculties, is equally the property of that man, as the faculties by which the acquisitions are made; and that which is absolutely the property of a man he cannot be divested of but by his own voluntary act."(America’s Appeal to the Impartial World, " Hartford, 1775)
Historically, the first adoption law was passed in 1851 at the height of "slave power" in this nation. It was brought forth at the same time the "Fugitive Slave Act" was put into effect, which denied the African slave, of Habeas Corpus, the right to trial by a jury of peers, to defend themselves, or to accuse a white man. If accused or kidnapped it was left in the hands of a magistrate who decided their fate. So it was with the child. No defense, no lawyer, no constitutional rights, only based on the "subjective judgement" of an individual, who as we know from history could be easily bribed. In many cases, the motive to rid their community of undesirable blacks and children, led them to hand them over to slave dealers. There were no rights for the blacks or for the child.
While we know that millions of blacks suffered the most horrendous criminal treatment in the history of the world, we also record some 400,000 children shipped out west in the infamous "orphan trains" beginning in 1853, 12 years before the end of the civil war. Over 100,000 were sent to Missouri, a slave state. Need we question what became of the black children as well as children with dark complexions who could be sold on the market for hundreds of dollars.
It was George Fitzhugh, the "voice of the South" who argued that the democratic society failed, in light of it’s social poor and degenerates, and that a slave society was the only proper and religious society. He supported Filmer’s famous Toryist book "Patriarcha" which argued the biblical justification for slavery. But it was not only for the slavery of the blacks, it was also for the poor white, the common laborer. Fitzhugh expounded that they should all be brought under the "master", for their own good, for their "best interests". He actually argued that it was in the "best interest" of an African to be a slave. It was Fitzhugh that said a destitute woman and her children should sell herself and children into slavery for life. Not like the African, he believed, who should do the demeaning work, but a higher "kind of slavery".
Do we even question that adoption came to America via the Roman law, carried down millennium through pagan cultures.. The original translation of the Babylonian word "adoption", was "emancipation". To be adopted was to receive manumission. Even before the time of Abraham, this "emancipation" was transformed to include a clause requiring the slave to serve their master "as if free" until their masters death upon which they would receive an inheritance, a reward for their work as well as complete manumission. It was the brutal slave society of Rome that believed it had the power to dismember a family tie and create a new one.
Where, my friends, do you read in either Judaism or Christianity that you have the power to transfer parentage and confer it to a stranger? Neither God nor nature gives any one that right including the United States of America, home of the worst slave society in the history of the world. Are we friends of Rome, Fitzhugh, Filmer, or the rather the right of self-government in a free democratic society?
It is not incidental that 90 per cent of the wards of the Franklin County Children Services are black. Again it is "subjective". Are we to believe that only blacks abuse their children?
Our constitution demands that no one can lose their liberty without habeas corpus, trial by jury. I am not arguing this right to protect child abusers any more than we must demand this right to a serial killer. It is the law and fundamental right of our land. To take a child from it’s parents, vice versa, is the worst punishment that could be conferred onto any human being. Surely we must insist on a trial, both for the punishment of the child abuser, and the protection of our sacred laws. Let’s punish the abuser, not the child..
It is well known that the Franklin County Children Services receives money from the Federal government for every child that they move into an adoptive home. The government pays $4,000 a head for each child and a bonus if they are a "special needs child" which includes black children. Not only does the Services save money on foster care, welfare services, but it adds to its coffer with each child they place. Just total up government money, misguided religious zeal, and poor oppressed people and it turns into a disastrous formula that has been repeated over and over in the history of the world.
Have we lost all reasoning? How is it that we just put up a statue on July 4th commemorating Arthur Boke, the first "black American" born in Franklinton. Let’s see... his mother was a slave woman accused of abandoning her child. I suppose she would have runaway into the Ohio wilderness by herself, days after giving birth? The father was white. Doesn’t look good for Mr. Sullivant. Sarah Sullivant was a slave owner from Kentucky, who saw slaves as property and chattel. In her day, she believed that she owned any child born to a slave. So we have a statue of a slaveowner, holding up a bi-racial baby, probably from the rape of his mother by his master. While no one will ever know for sure, sadly, that was the norm in America at that time. There was no adoption law in 1803, yet we call his statue a "Celebration of Life"? A headline in "The New Standard" transforms that message to "Sculptor’s Latest Work Celebrates Humanity of Mother and Child".
Yes, there IS an issue with the Franklin County Children Services. One could only suspect that the stories by this agency are as historically unfounded as the story of Arthur Boke.
Susan Slattery
Regional Director
Concerned United Birthparents