• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Specific events, regardless of their actual importance to history,
sometimes capture the human imagination. In doing this, they become
rallying
points for masses of people. They become pivotal to political careers.
Such
events can bring about the collapse of governments or determine the outcome
of elections.

In the case of the 6-year-old boy, Elian Gonzalez, some observers might
suppose we are looking at a mere custody battle transformed into a battle
between Castro and his enemies. But if we look closer, we will see
something
a little more significant.

Except for clueless and apathetic persons, America has been split into
two hostile ideological camps. One is the anti-communist or anti-statist
camp, which looks to traditional moral values, the Constitution, a strong
family unit and the free market. The other camp is socialist or
“progressive” in its outlook, globalist and environmentalist in its policies

– made up of people who align themselves with homosexual rights and radical

feminism, who continue to oppose the Strategic Defense Initiative and
stronger armed forces.

It needs to be acknowledged that the alleged end of the Cold War did not
lead to the dissolution of these two camps. These camps continue in our
midst today, under new banners and new code words. In the case of Elian
Gonzalez, the two camps have thrown themselves into an unprecedented custody

fight, loading an otherwise minor question with national and international
significance.

In this context, if Elian Gonzalez were Mexican his case would have been
simple. But Elian is from a communist country. Therefore, political forces

have melted away the facts, which have entered the sphere of ideology and
obfuscation. Personal wishes, plans and intentions have been absorbed and
transformed by the two opposing camps.

Strange as it may seem, the Clinton Administration pretends it is
upholding the law in the Gonzalez case. But in reality, being part of the
socialist or “progressive” camp, the administration has revealed a kind of
militant hatred, paranoia and one-sidedness which is consistent with a party

at war. Some may disagree with this analysis, but actions speak louder than

words, and the government’s action on Saturday morning — in taking Elian
Gonzalez by force — is a virtual confession.

Twenty Immigration agents, many of them dressed for combat, broke down
the front door of the boy’s Miami relatives and roughed them up. Tear gas
and pepper spray were used. Loaded rifles were shoved in people’s faces.
If
this were not enough, the assault came in the early morning hours, when most

Americans are asleep in bed. In other words, it was a surprise attack. It
was a military-style operation. And Clinton’s agents acted like thugs,
destroying property and striking a bystander in the head. They seriously
frightened good people, who were unarmed and behaving in a nonviolent
manner.

Translating these actions into words, President Bill Clinton and Attorney

General Janet Reno were saying to the country. “We will not show any
sympathy to these people. Instead, we will show maximum hostility and
distrust. We will not send someone with court papers and a sad smile to
collect the boy. Instead, we will send armed combatants. Furthermore, we
will not come on a weekday, but on a religious holiday weekend. We will not

come at a decent hour, but in the darkness of morning. We will not ring the

doorbell, but we will knock the door down and choke the residents with
teargas. We will put guns to their heads and terrify them. We will not
approach them as human beings. We will not give them a chance to cooperate,

but we will trample them with our boots as an enemy. And if they offer no
resistance, we will spare their lives.”

This is an honest and straightforward interpretation of the Clinton
administration thinking — as exemplified by their methods.

It also should be noted that these methods were used at Waco and
Ruby Ridge. The government came in by surprise, without properly announcing

itself. Its agents were aggressive and hostile in approaching ordinary
citizens who were not violent criminals. This resulted in tragedy at Waco
and at Ruby Ridge. But politically correct government paranoids, deluded by

a progressive “child-saving” ideology, have learned nothing from their past
mistakes — which they refuse to acknowledge.

Yes, the court made a decision. But there was a right way to carry out
that decision and a wrong way. The Clinton Administration took Elian in the

wrong way. That is what has shocked so many people. That is why the mayor
of Miami is upset.

Trust and respect are two-way streets. Governmental distrust and
disrespect for law abiding citizens cannot be excused. If the leftists in
the Executive Branch want to wage war against their political opposition,
let
us not allow that war to be prosecuted under the cover of phony neutrality,
moderation or respect for the law.

Clinton’s readiness to use a brutal show of force against unarmed
citizens should worry us all. And we should be reminded that this is the
president who has lobbied for a federal police force. Let us make double
sure that never happens.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.