The Great Welfare Empire Conspiracy - Page 09

Judge Says Banning Game and Perjury Are Okay

Speaking of the APWA plan to ban the game, the judge said, "Well, there's nothing wrong with banning your game. As a matter of fact, as long as they do it legally, there's nothing wrong with banning your game."

Judge Hargrove even blamed me for the government attacks on the game. He said, "I think it was your desire to create a fear also that your game would sell, didn't you (sic)?"

When I asked the judge to make APWA release the names blacked out from Slavin's notes, he refused, calling Slavin a "newspaperman" and a "reporter."

Judge Hargrove said that the facts in this case were "almost a carbon copy" of the facts in the case against Brezenoff, which they most decidedly were not, and he expressed as fact his notion that there were defendants in the New York case "similar to NOW, APWA, and NAACP," which, of course, there were not.

When I began to point out that Starnes had lied under oath about his agreement with Snowden to keep each other advised of their efforts, that Starnes had lied about his relationship to others involved in the conspiracy, and that Snowden had lied under oath both about his connection with Starnes and about his connection with a NOW representative, Judge Hargrove said, "So what? People do it all the time, I suppose."

Judge Hargrove granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, keeping the case from going to a jury. The Appeals Court in Richmond upheld his ruling, and once again, the U. S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. And that was that.

We were run out of business by the welfare empire assisted by a federal judiciary which took a liberal position on the political content of the game.

Welfare Empire Poisons Wellspring of American Democracy

Forty-five years ago, there was no welfare empire. No Department of Health and Human Services, no food stamps, no Great Society programs, no War on Poverty (the longest and most costly war in American history), no presumed "right" to fare well at the involuntary expense of others. Based on what the American people read, observe, and think, they may decide that they like what the government is doing so much in this regard that they will want to add more welfare programs; but then again, they just might come to think that it is all a waste of money and decide to changed things back to the way they were in 1960; or, they might opt for something in between. This is matter of public policy to be decided by the informed members of the electorate, according to their own political opinions. That's the way it's supposed to work in our democracy, anyway.

The welfare empire poisoned that process. Its leaders and minions, directing and working with powerful welfare special interests, smothered the flames of controversy and severely limited the welfare debate in America to the end that they might perpetuate their own socialist ideology and expand their power, immune from the rejuvenating tonic of open public criticism. They feared that the unhindered, widespread dissemination of our words and graphics in the form of a popular board game might lead the public, by the power of the vote, to forbid the continued entrenchment and expansion of their system.

<< Back - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - Next >>