Wednesday, January 21, 2009

At Least They Didn't Name Him "Sue" (Breaking News Update Below)

Love and death, or as they're known in Greek, Eros and Thanatos.

"Come here, Thanatos," called the young father, beckoning to a small boy who had surrendered himself unconditionally to an arcade game.

In my astonishment, I performed a double-take of almost comical magnitude, thereby fumbling my attempt to keep my pinball in play.

"You named your child
Thanatos?" I said, a blend of puzzlement and pity coloring the question.

"Yeah," the dad replied, visibly proud of his cleverness. "It means --"

"I know
what it means," I interrupted in what I hoped was a neutral voice. "I just hadn't expected to encounter a child with that name."

That shopping mall encounter took place twenty years ago. Apart from his bizarre choice of a name for his son, the young father displayed no visible signs of derangement. The boy was energetic, playful, and outgoing, and obviously loved his father.

Yet I can't help but suspect that under the right conditions today, the child would have been seized by child "protection" bureaucrats, who would consider naming a child after the god of death to be
prima facie evidence of parental unsuitability.

Adolf Hitler Campbell (center) and his parents Heath and Deborah.

For reasons only they know, and haven't chosen to share with the rest of us, Holland Township, New Jersey residents Heath and Deborah Campbell named their oldest child Adolf Hitler Campbell.

His younger sisters are named Joyce Lynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlnn Hinnler Jeannie Campbell, the latter name apparently an illiterate tribute of some sort to SS Chief Heinrich Himmler.

Mr. and Mrs. Campbell -- both of whom are disabled, unemployed, and receive welfare subsidies -- insist that they are not Nazi sympathizers. There is compelling evidence that they are avid publicity seekers. Their child made international headlines a few weeks ago when they demanded an apology from the management of a local grocery store when its bakery refused to inscribe Adolf's full given name on a birthday cake (a customer request that was eventually carried out by a Wal-mart).

About two weeks ago, child "protection" bureaucrats from the New Jersey Department of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) materialized in the Campbell household in the company of a police officer. Referring to a conveniently anonymous report alleging some unspecified "imminent danger" to the kids, the DYFS child-nappers seized the Campbell children and placed them in foster care.

Sgt. John Harris of the Holland Township Police was the officer assigned to accompany the child-nappers "to keep the peace and protect the [social] workers," as he told ABC News. Harris points out that the couple had not been charged with any crime. Nor was he aware of any complaint that had been lodged against either parent for any form of domestic abuse or neglect.

In fact, the police officer, who has known Mr. Campbell for a decade, could actually serve as a character witness: "Just from knowing Mr. Campbell from the past ten or so years, I've never known him to abuse his children, and when he has talked about his children he has been very much into his kids. [He's] very loving."

This characterization is supported by Harris's boss, Police Chief Van Gilson. "He loves his kids -- there are no ifs, ands or buts about that," Gilson told the New York Times, adding that Heath Campbell "broke down" on hearing that his children were to be seized and taken away.

These comments summon an important question: Since the Campbells are innocent of any crime, and no complaints had been filed with the police,
why did Sgt. Harris permit the DYFS officials to abduct the children? His moral and constitutional responsibility was to prevent the kidnapping of the Campbell children, not to act as an armed accomplice to it.

The role played by Sgt. Harris in this crime illustrates a fact that simply cannot be repeated too often: In our system, the police do not exist to defend our rights, but rather to enforce the will of the nearest state functionary who claims the "authority" to violate our rights.

The Campbells have odd and reprehensible taste in names for their children, certainly. But it was the
conduct of Sgt. Harris -- who was only following the orders of his superiors -- that displayed the same authoritarian conformity that facilitated the evil acts carried out by the National Socialist regime.

New Jersey DYFS spokeswoman Kate Bernyk insists that "We wouldn't remove a child based on their name," and maintains that some unspecified "danger" prompted the removal of the children from an eccentric but by all accounts loving home. True to form, the agency has shut the children off from parental contact, slapped a gag order on the parents, and started the familiar tactic of drawing out legal hearings in the matter as long as possible.

The isolation of the children and the use of dilatory measures will help the agency create an after-the-fact rationale for its kidnapping, thereby justifying either permanent separation of the children or the imposition of a "parenting plan" to re-educate Heath and Deborah Campbell regarding their parental roles.

Not including their traumatic separation from their parents at gunpoint, there is only one documented sense in which the children have been recently endangered: Somebody sent a death threat to the parents. If this is the "imminent danger" DYFS refers to, then finding and prosecuting the author of the death threat is the appropriate course of action, rather than breaking up a viable family.

A fertile, and frequently evil, mind: H.G. Wells, popularizer of the Fabian agenda for war and totalitarianism.

The fact that the Campbell household is entirely dependent on government transfer payments italicizes one little-understood facet of the Welfare State: The same government that pays to feed and shelter the children implicitly claims them as its property, and stands prepared to exercise that claim whenever its functionaries see fit to do so.
This principle was laid out with admirable frankness by H.G. Wells (yes, that H.G. Wells), a supporter of Britain's Fabian Socialist movement, in his 1919 book New Worlds for Old.

After briefly describing the challenges, privations, and problems afflicting British families, Wells informed his reader that "Socialism comes not to destroy but to save" the family through firm but benevolent state intervention.
"Socialism regards parentage under proper safeguards ... as `not only a duty but a service' to the state; that is to say, it proposes to pay for good parentage -- in other words, to endow the home," he elaborated.

The Fabian program, continued Wells, was to provide welfare subsidies primarily through the mother. This had -- from the collectivist perspective -- the very useful effect of making the state the
de facto father of welfare children. It also turned the mother into a kind of state concubine; sure, the father retained certain marital prerogatives, but where raising the children was concerned, the mother was to be accountable to the state, on pain of separation from her offspring.

Wells didn't hestitate to spell this out explicitly: "Neglect [the children], ill-treat them, prove incompetent, and your pay will cease, and we shall take them away from you and do what we can for them...."
Who is to determine when a parent is "incompetent"?

In the arrangement Wells describes -- which is integral to every welfare state extant, our own emphatically included -- that decision would be made by bureaucrats who have strong institutional incentives to rule against parental authority.

It should surprise nobody that Germany's National Socialist welfare/warfare state operated on exactly the same principles. Hitler and his clique earned the support of many traditionalist Germans by condemning the Communist assault on conventional social institutions.

However, as G.K. Chesterton, the Catholic social commentator who was a passionate critic of all forms of collectivism, pointed out, the National Socialist approach was just as inimical to parental rights and the traditional home:

"Hitler's way of defending the independence of the family is to make every family dependent on him and his semi-Socialist State; and to preserve the authority of parents by authoritatively telling all the parents what to do.... In other words, he appears to interfere with family life more even than the Bolshevists do; and to do it in the name of the sacredness of the family."

To examine the case of the Campbell family is to collide with the irony that it is the supposed protectors of the Campbell children who are acting on collectivist assumptions identical to those of the Nazis. To be sure, naming a child after a Nazi is in incomprehensible bad taste -- but isn't acting like a Nazi under the color of government authority a much more serious offense?

Furthermore, it would be helpful if the Regime's child welfare directorate would make up its collectivist mind regarding the parental rights of people devoted to totalitarian icons.

Less than a decade has passed since theApril 2000 raid on the home in Miami's "Little Havana" where then-seven-year-old Elian Gonzalez, who came to the U.S. as a refugee from Communist Cuba, was staying with relatives. Elian and his mother were part of a small group of Cubans who fled to Florida in ramshackle boats that were barely seaworthy. Elian was the sole survivor after his mother was claimed by the sea.

For two days the child was adrift alone before being rescued bywo commercial fishermen. In what many regarded as nothing short of a divine miracle, Elian was found -- on Thanksgiving Day, 1999 -- in the middle of protective pod of dolphins that sheltered the struggling child from sharks.
Once in Miami, Elian was embraced by his mother's extended family.

His father Juan Miguel Gonzalez -- whose marital and legal status at the time of these events was ambiguous -- demanded that he be given custody of Elian, who would be compelled to return to Cuba. The Castro regime orchestrated street protests in support of Juan Miguel's claims -- not because the Cuban government recognizes and respects parental rights, of course, but because it claimed Elian as its own property.

A father's rights are not contingent on the soundness of his religious or ideological views, so it would have been improper to dismiss Juan Miguel's petition for custody simply because he was an active member of the Cuban Communist Party. Given the fact that he had divorced Elian's mother, however, there was some legitimate question as to whether he was the
legal custodial parent. With Elian in a secure, comfortable, loving environment, the custodial issues could have been worked out carefully and proper deliberation.

However, the same Clinton Regime that massacred dozens of children at Waco in April 1993 wasn't willing to grant the necessary time for these issues to be settled rationally and equitably. Its designated "expert" on Elian's state of mind, pediatrician Irwin Redlener, insisted that Elian was in "immediate danger" and "suffering from psychological abuse" by living with relatives whose love and concern for him were palpable.

Poor, abused little Elian Gonzalez, seen here suffering at Disneyland with his stern and forbidding cousin, Marisleysis.

It mattered not that Redlener, whose name must be one of history's whimsical little puns, was neither a psychiatrist nor a psychologist, and that he had never met Elian in person: His was the voice of government "authority" in the matter. So Attorney General Janet Reno, the same maniacal virago who had approved of the assault on Mt. Carmel with tanks and poison gas, ordered a pre-dawn paramilitary assault on the Miami home of Lazaro Gonzalez, Elian's uncle.

The attack -- which was "authorized" by a spurious search warrant -- took place on Holy Saturday, the day before Easter, a holy day for Cuban Catholics. It was also a high holy day for Communists of both the Cuban and Clintonian varieites -- April 22, Lenin's Birthday, the Marxist equivalent of Christmas.

Wielding machine guns and clad in body armor, a squad of eight federal stormtroopers used a battering ram to beat down the front door. Trampling underfoot the family's cherished religious icons, the "child rescuers" painted the foreheads of Elian's unresisting relatives with their laser sights while spitting out such compassionate suggestions as "Give us the f*****g boy or we'll shoot you."

A visibly terrified Elian was pried, at gunpoint, from the arms of Donato Dalyrymple, the same fisherman who had plucked the boy from the ocean six months earlier.

Elian was reunited with his biological father, and -- more to the point -- taken into the proprietary embrace of the Cuban state, which now treats him as a cherished icon of the revolution, which was the whole point of this exercise (in addition, perhaps, to demonstrating that precious little of substance separates the Regime in Washington from the one in Havana).

Because he is so valuable to the regime as a symbol, Elian enjoys privileges not available to typical Cuban children.
Whatever his father's intentions may have been, Elian has been used to embody the regime's dogma that all Cuban children are the property of the revolution.

This was explained to me in some detail by Rev. Oscar Bolioli, who in 2000 was head of the office on Latin America and the Carribbean for the National Council of Churches (NCC). Although it claims to be an association of Christian churches, the NCC's ruling ideology is a kind of paleozoic Stalinism; its Trinity is Marx, Lenin, and Castro.

Bolioli was arrestingly blunt in reciting the Communist doctrine of
parens patriae. While Elian's father had a limited role in supervising the child's upbringing, this had to be done in the interests of socialism, Bolioli insisted. "The state is trying to give the socialist mentality to the child because that is what is necessary for the basic good of society," he explained. "This is why the state has to limit the decision-making power of people."

Ah, yes -- this is so much better than Disneyland: Castro takes ownership of Elian, seen here wearing the neckerchief of the Communist "Young Pioneers."

When I asked him why the Cuban state refused to permit the free emigration of people -- such as Elian's mother and his relatives still residing there -- Bolioli replied: "In Cuba's Marxist system, it is understood that the human resources are to serve that society, rather than
other societies. It is understood that Cubans must render service to that community."

It seems clear to me that the reason the Clinton Regime acted with such potentially lethal urgency to seize Elian was not to vindicate Juan Miguel's parental rights, but rather to prevent Elian from losing the "socialist mentality" he had begun to develop in Cuba -- the willingness to consider himself a "human resource" to be used by that state as it saw fit. That is, after all, the same mindset that collectivists of the Clinton/Obama variety are trying to cultivate here in the U.S. as well.

Living among resolutely anti-Communist relatives in Little Havana, Elian was "in danger" of developing individualist tendencies that would have complicated matters dramtically. So Janet Reno sent in the stormtroopers.
All of this was done, remember, to prevent the "abuse" of this seven-year-old by removing him from a totalitarian environment.

Now, in the case of the Campbell family, the same child-snatcher apparatus (let's dispense with the idea that we're dealing with anything other than a monolith here) has seized three children from parents who named them after the leaders or adherents of a long-dead and unlamented totalitarian regime.

Hypocrisy being the natural consort of tyranny, I suppose this sort of thing should terrify but not surprise us.

Breaking News Update

Whoop, there it is.

From today's Boston Globe:

"A man accused of a horrific rape and killing spree told investigators that he was `fighting extinction' of the white race and had stockpiled 200 rounds of ammunition to "kill 'nonwhite people' such as African Americans, Hispanics and Jewish people," according to a police report filed today in court."

From this space, January 14 -- Something to keep in mind:

"This is emerging as a standard narrative among federal law enforcement agencies: A plummeting economy + the election of a black president = a racist renaissance and a surging tide of hate crimes.... Given the prominence of federal informant/provocateurs among white supremacist groups it's quite likely that federal seed money is the only thing keeping that movement alive; it's simply too useful an antagonist for the Feds to permit it to die outright."

There's no way to tell if this murderously unbalanced individual was a self-propelled instrument of mayhem, or if someone was pushing his buttons. I wouldn't be surprised to learn, had I sufficient resources to do the necessary excavation work, that he was influenced by one of the racial hate-merchants on the Federal payroll.

On sale now!

Dum spiro, pugno!


Hershel Dunne said...

I have personal experience with the legalized child snatchers. I too am perplexed why an officer who is sworn to protect and serve, would protect the nazi-like soldiers of the State over the parents when in the majority of cases there is no evidence of abuse or neglect and the word of the Social Nazi is enough to remove the children. Parents, do not let any "official" in your home without a warrant including a peace officer and if they come to you, have a plan in place to protect your children by putting them somewhere safe if necessary, and making sure your lawyer is present when they execute the warrant.

liberranter said...

Mr. and Mrs. Campbell -- both of whom are disabled, unemployed, and receive welfare subsidies...

I certainly hope that the Campbells can both find sufficient gainful employment in very short order, sufficient enough to end their financial dependence on the State. While such dependence by no means justifies or excuses what the criminal agents of the State have done to the family, the fact that the Campbells remain wards of the monster simply adds a facade of legitimacy to the State's criminal kidnappings and other forms of malicious mischief.

Anonymous said...

..."I too am perplexed why an officer who is sworn to protect and serve,"...

The problem obviously lies in the perception by the officer and the state of who the officer is to "protect and serve".

Anonymous said...

Of all the powers with which the State can threaten you, few are more feared than the power to take away your children. State power always strives toward totality--that's why it's called "totalitarianism"-- and to achieve absolute power over the lives of its subjects, authority over your children is a power the State must reserve for itself, along with restricting your travel and speech and a host of others. But before the State has fully consolidated its power, it must tread carefully, and be selective of its victims when setting precedents. Now, if you embody the State on some level, and you are looking to further its interests, it's unwise to try to take away all rights and exercise total power, over everybody, all at once; that raises alarm and invites revolt. No, when 'trying a new power on for size', so to speak, you first have to establish a precedent--get your foot in the door. You test it on someone. But who to pick on? Obviously not someone popular, or even ordinary. No, first you single out victims who are sure to be publicly unpopular that few will dare to be seen publicly defending their rights, for fear of being accused of sympathizing with the unpopular or hated trait or belief, fear of being 'painted with the same brush'.

Unpopular people like neo-nazis or polygamists, for example.

Who wants to stand up and publicly defend the rights of neo-nazis or polygamists? You'll be lumped in with them, and you don't want that. First they take away the rights of those whom everyone else fears to be seen and heard defending. "What? You're defending a neo-nazi? You must be a Nazi sympathizer yourself!" "What? You're defending polygamy?" So the State gets away with it, precedents are set...their foot is in the door. Then, widening the net, applying the precedent to an ever-widening list of victims, is just a matter of process.

It's likely that authorities are actively searching for victims who fit these profiles, like the Mormon polygamists and the neo-nazi parents, to establish these precedents which can one day be used against any of us. "First they came for the polygamists, and I didn't stand up, because I wasn't a polygamist..."

The fact that both these parents were wholly dependent on State subsidies brings to mind the famous quote: "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything you have".

monax said...

Discussion (with primary William Grigg link to this article) at rigorous intuition.

Anonymous said...

Wal-mart strikes a blow for customer service.

Really what does it matter what the kid's name if you are decorating a birthday cake for goodness' sake.

I am glad the police officers told the truth,even though they didn't stop the snatching of the babies.

Maybe they COULD NOT stop it?

I read last year of a case in Canada a little girl, 2nd grade I think it was, had a magic marker drawing of a swastika on her arm.

The authorities took all the kids from that house.

Elian, oh dear he is a man now, saw his pic I think in Cuban army a couple of years ago. A nice looking young man but what they did to him we won't know for some time. The photo of his rescuer holding him in the closet as the US Federal agent in what looked like Army gear with a submachine gun pointed at them.

That was under Bill Clinton, the kindly democrat.

Marisleysis. Had forgotten about her. I have to confess she was quite the good-looking gal.
Yes Elian you were snatched from people who loved you and wanted you to have a normal life.

The sick affair in MA this mentally ill "MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE"? allegedly RAPES a black woman and killed some. What in Heaven's name is that all about?

Like that White tails and top hats borderline morons from TN in their late teens according to Feds were going to A. Decapitate an entire black high school populace and B.then attempt to do harm to the incoming administration.

Recall the 2 crack heads arrested in Denver supposedly more assassins.

Week after week after week there is all this news coverage of White "Supremacists" on National Geographic the History Channel the regular news outlets, the print and electronic press.

Looks like the government is SETTING the STAGE for something REALLY NASTY.

If you ever meet a KKK or american nazi you have a 2 in 3 odds that it is a Federal Agent or an agent of one of those Jewish alphabet agencies.

They want the internet SILENCED of any TRUTH.

Sure you can read approved news and do games or whatever but nothing like what WNG writes or any other critical thinker with b*lls.

Anybody remember LEO FELTON he was a NEO-NAZI with a black dad and a Jewish lesbian mother. He was supposedly going to blow up Boston or something.

Anonymous said...

Yes, these people have made naming choices that are sure to raise eyebrows - but that in and of itself is not a reason for the state to intervene in their lives.

The only reason this case makes headlines, and others like the FLDS fiasco last year, are because they have propaganda value.

Do not forget that this kind of thing goes on daily in this country and has its genesis in the family court system.

The family courts routinely relegate fathers in this country to non-custodial parent/obligor status - nothing less than indentured servitude that feeds state coffers through federal title IV-D funding.

This is where the destruction of families in amerika has its origins and is the source of funding for outrageous propaganda stunts like these.

The family courts, the practice of family law, CS and CPS need to be abolished wholesale. It is the most corrupt blight to ever fall on families.

Personally, I think there ought to be a family law judge/attorney hung from every lamp post . . .

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Orion said...

Anyone have an idea why the traditionally GOP Cuban-Americans of South Florida voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996?

If Clinton's Janet Reno had not been in power Elian would have lived life of his own choosing by now. Instead he is a pawn of Communism.

Anonymous said...

The Omega Man made a great point.
Who wants to stand up for the civil liberties of people on the fringes of society? Not many people, Willaim Grigg does but he isn't an ordinary man.

Some years back in California a little gal who was a White Nationalist as they term themselves, she headed a Baby Clothes Drive for, IIRC, the moms and babies of skinhead persuasion who didn't have enough money for various items for the babies.

Well for some reason the G got a fix on her, and so they raided her apartment and found various household items under the sink.
Stuff like ammonia, bleach, every single item was a household item, that I am sure all readers of this blog have in their homes.

The G said that these were BOMB MAKING equipment.
She said it was just stuff for cleaning the house.

Well nobody, nobody respectable that is, went to bat for her, and when that jury saw the kinds of pamphlets and flags she had in her house well, that was it, stick a fork in her. IIRC her name was Christine Greenwood.
She did time on that may still be doing so.

Now Mr Grigg sees through the propaganda and does an astute analysis.

So let's look at some more recent BREAKING NEWS with some excerpts:

EXCLUSIVE: Sources say Terrorist Caught in Mobile

Mobile police sources tell NBC 15 News they've arrested a man believed to be a domestic terrorist. The investigation began January 5, when a local synagogue was spray painted with Nazi markings. Mobile Police are not making an official comment yet, but sources within the department say they got a very dangerous man off the streets, just in time...

Sources within the Mobile Police Department say the culprit was a domestic terrorist. They say the markings were not a joke.

Police sources tell us they when investigators arrested their man, they found bombs inside his home, and during questioning, he refused to talk. Sources say his motives extended way beyond spray-painting Nazi markings.

Now another report:

Hate Crime Suspect Arrested

Mobile Police say a man accused of making threats against Jews and Blacks has ties to a neo-nazi group. And, that's not all. Police say Thomas Lewis had items that could be used to make explosives in his home. Lewis is accused of spray painting anti-semitic messages on The Congregation Tree of Life synagogue in West Mobile and at Cooper Riverside Park. Police are investigating whether others are involved in the case,"we believed he intended to do some harm at some point. We hope that that has been thwarted. We can certainly say that for his part, at this point, it has been," said Mobile Police Chief Phillip Garrett. Lewis is charged with criminal mischief, possession of explosives, and possession of a controlled substance. He is behind bars for now and is expected to have a bond hearing this week.

Now another:

Mobile man charged in racial graffiti
January 27, 2009 18:14 EST

Police spokesman Cpl. Charles Bagsby Jr. said a search of Lewis' home last week found an explosive liquid and other items possibly related to explosive making materials.

The anti-Semitic images were spray painted on the Tree of Life Synagogue in west Mobile, making reference to the neo-Nazi type groups "Combat 18" and "Waffen SS."
Police also found similar spray painting at Cooper Riverside Park downtown, depicting threats against Jews and African-Americans.

Lewis, who is white, was charged with criminal mischief and two felonies: possession of explosives, and possession of a controlled substance.


Suspect in racist vandalism linked to neo-Nazi groups, AL
Detectives, using leads from an informant, linked Lewis to the vandalism and searched his home, where they found what police believe to be explosive materials, Garrett said.

Pending analysis of the materials, Garrett declined to identify them.

Police also found a white powdery substance believed to be either methamphetamine or cocaine, according to an assistant district attorney working the case.

Lewis bonded out of jail just two hours after he was booked, according to online jail records, but police asked a judge to revoke his bail and rearrested him Tuesday.

"We felt like it was better for the safety of the community" to keep him behind bars pending a bail hearing, Garrett said...

FIrst it is bombs, then it is a LIQUID. What IS the G planning?

Unknown said...

UPDATE: I'm from the Campbell's neck of the woods. On the news this morning, Mr. Campbell is in the hospital due to stress over losing his kids and has broken the judge's gag order to speak to local 9 news.

they took his kids and no one has contacted him about where they are exactly, why they took them, what he needs to do to get them back, or why he can't talk about it.

His quote was something like, so what if they send me to jail for talking, they've got my kids. Enough is enough.

Anonymous said...

Power bases are very dangerous because they attract people who are truly insane, people who seek power only for the sake of power.

Acutely Aware said...

Mr. Grigg,
I love your doses of smack-in-the-snoot reality. Your commentary is always a pleasure to read.
I have an update on the Heath Campbell story.

Keep up the good work.

Acutely Aware

Anonymous said...

In the Age of the State, a defection is an abduction, a biological parent can be a kidnapper, and the untimely death of that parent is a technicality to stand in the way of amnesty.

Anonymous said...

Why does Grigg use excessively complicated language when simpler terminologies will suffice?
Grigg is clearly attempting to appear ultra-intellectual which is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

UPDATE The Campbells' fourth child has been abducted by the agents.
I wonder what this child's name is. I also wonder if the other three's fosterfamilies have changed their names.


Anonymous said...

If children are generally happy and parents are doing all they can to see to their children's needs, the state has NO RIGHT to interfere. I am multi-racial with West African and Jewish heritage, and although the naming of the Campbell's children is a bit questionable in my opinion, it is just that: MY OPINION. That is a far cry from evidence of mal-treatment of the children. I think the kids may face some ribbing or quite possibly bullying in public school. If the parents tend to associate with individuals of the same background and opinions, even the probability those scenarios would be next to nil. By all accounts this guy was a good father, dispite his views, and that should carry all the weight. What is horrific is that this Parens Patrae doctrine has percolated into the mainstream. Take my case for example:
May the wrath of God come down unmixed and full strength upon those who knowingly participate in the destruction of innocent lives!