Posts with the tag discrimination

Attn: Joe Biden & Mrs. Clinton, from the frontlines

ObamaMama32 — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:53:20 EST

I wanted to remark as a follow up to the Fort Hood shootings and the office shootings in Florida. I think the actions have spoken louder than words.

My own hypersensitivity to these issues arises from the frustrations of single parenthood, the negative stigmas the city I live in so graciously applies to it ( I call it Salt Fake City, UT), and mostly to the huge catch 22 of employment issues and raising children singly. Over the course of the last three years here in what they think is a pretty great state, I have found out just what that means for someone with a multicultural family, for someone with an unfamiliar or regional accent, and simply for a women trying to raise a child with the sort of challenges most single parent families face.

I want to tell you the most difficult barriers I am aware we have to overcome in order for you to keep us off your meager assistance(which often keeps us from homelessness). You will have to handle the truth, just like Jack Nicholsen said you couldn't in a Few Good Men because the truth is what I feel is our countries ugliest sin. Let me make it clear...okay everybody who has a mother, who has children...immediately...don't think, just do it...daddies, brothers, get up and either hit em in the face, or run out for a cheaters rendezvous, and then leave em for dead. I order you. This is what our country willingly allows to happen to women and children...widows too (uh-oh...)

You think it's okay.

Yes it happens...and it's okay as long as it doesn't happen to you personally. My Catch 22 barrier list begins as follows. These are the things that must be in place for us to do it without some real gov't cheese:

1. Transportation:

Imagine trying to get your children to school when your car breaks down and there is no money to fix it, no way to get to work to earn the money (if you can work), and school is not within a safe walking distance, limited bus routes etcetera.

By the way, I will not explain anything here I haven't either experienced personally or witnessed first hand.

2. Reasonable employers:

Mine all have temper tantrums and scream me out of my jobs. The power-tripping first of all must stop before any of us goes "code red." Those of us who stay single or divorced as a result of battering seem to get hired by the bosses with anger-management issues, more often than the others...I for one would like to request again for Christmas this year that we go ahead and put the workplace anti-bullying laws and policies through, so some of us can at least have some sort of rights when we are f%$#d out of our jobs . Managers and bosses need to pay bills with no job, and see how long that works for you, if you are one of the ignorant among us.

Employers also need to understand that if a child gets sick and you are the only parent to take care of your sick child (daycares will not) then you need to work from home or stay home that day. Truthfully single parents all need to be provided legitimate opportunities to work from home. If not, I propose some system of contractual work. What bothers me most is that I can't negotiate with an employer what will truthfully be necessary in order for me to maintain my employment with them. I need to say, that I absolutely need a certain amount of sick leave because I get sick, kid gets sick, it happens...we're humans. H1N1 spread like wildfire. (Or maybe we should just die and cause the deaths of others in order to keep our jobs.) I need to be treated with at the very least the same professional respect as my male and married coworkers, which means no rumors and lies about some possibility that I am a lesbian, or my child not being my own because our Pantone chips don't match. I thought that was called harassment in all 50 states...what have we come to?

I call it trash.

I need a clause stating that if the trash is heavy enough for me to report it, that you handle it as detailed by your harassment policy, not by finding a way to get me out of your workplace as fast as possible to solve the problem. (Nice problem-solving by the way.)

Workplaces need to uphold labor laws and policies, civil rights acts, and what-not. In accordance with yesterdays interview...is it illegal to ask a woman at an interview if she is supporting a family?(I didn't lie and wear a ring for em.) It didn't feel illegal or intrusive, and I replied truthfully, but I don't know why the potential employer would need that information in order to determine whether or not I am capable of doing the job they are interviewing me for. Here in Salt Fake City, we still have employers that don't understand religious discrimination and will literally post "a love for the restored gospel" as a job requirement in their ads (a subtle way of saying "non-Mormon need not apply").

We are so limited by B.S. it is a tremendous barrier not only to landing a job, but also to keeping one. How do we earn the money we need to pay our bills, let alone get ahead???

Can you handle the answer, the bona fide truth?

We don't.

It's why were are often so angry when it comes to:

3.Child-support.

Deadbeat dads. I was corrected on this terminology by a male manager who was(yet again) intrusive into my personal situation. He suggested I refer to it as an "absentee parent". Fine, I'm one for more positive labeling, whatever the case. Not all are heartless as the term implies, for those of us who use it, we are most likely sure of it. Sociopaths, narcissists, psychopaths...the tricky rabbits occasionally are pulled out of the hat.

It's important that we receive the child support. The child support system is terrible and terribly slow. With email, fax machine, pdf formats...the technology is available. If I can trace a phone call or an IP address and provide you an exact location and you won't send a police officer over to arrest someone criminally negligent asap, then it's just another wild goose chase until the next time. Speed up your interstate communications, please. Those investigating need to be far less trusting, and stop siding with the criminals and their excuses and the people that lie for them or hide them. We feel the "lying to hide them" is obstruction of justice and needs to be treated as a misdemeanor offense if proven. Most of us are grateful that someone is attempting to help us, and attempting to uphold laws...but most us will believe you care about the children you serve when we see it.

Thank you, nonetheless.

4.Child Care.

This is one big ugly problem, and I think the best way to convey the issues is to do it for the parents that are most hurt:

If childcare costs $4-5 an hour (this is good...mind you, many charge $8-10), and your job pays you, lucky you, $8.00 an hour, how much money do you actually make in a month? Do the math...take-home pay is somewhere around $600 a month. You are also paying the rest to be an absentee parent. Good luck if your rent is not free, if you drive a car, or if you, or anyone you support has some kind of medical issue. That's why we, what?

Need child support.

Enforcement, please get on your jobs, staff up, something...

Some of us (with the least child care problems) just need our employers to understand the state laws in regards to child care. If your state law says they can only care for your child up to 10 hours, then it's a fact. At the end of the day, whether we are salary or not...we have to leave and pick up our children. If you insist we violate the child care laws, then our childcare dumps us and we might need a few days off to find a new caretaker. We might need you to be more reasonable if you would like to keep us as employees. We might find ourselves in the "most-hurt" position if that's not possible. Thanks for understanding.

5. Assumptions, associations and down-right wrong stigmas.

If we have custody of the children, we should receive the benefit of the doubt from friends, family-members, coworkers, and neighbors.

The non-custodial parent, may have less means to care for the child, may have been abusive in the relationship or marriage, may have simply reached an agreement with the other party that the kids are happier or better-off with the custodial parent. if you haven't heard both sides of the story, seen the paperwork and what-not...shut your mouths.

If the courts put custody in their hands, then you can feel personally fine, (especially since the issues are not yours personally), that the issues have been covered. The custodial parent has a huge amount of responsibility on their hands and every lie, and negative insinuation you lay against them usually only serves the non-custodial parent in hurting them and the children. Better to just shut your mouth and let them work out their own personal issues, don't help the haters and don't help anyone hurt their truly disadvantaged children.

As people in general, you put up the most barriers for them with your mouths.

6. GREEDY AMERICA.

My most favorite finding/understanding is one that applies to all of us. A lot of us at some point no longer understand why it's important to have wealth or appear to have it. Barriers are put up for us over the stupidest, most shallow things. As a greedy greedy, I will sing it like Jingle Bells GREEDY, country, we are literally murdering single mothers. In order to gain employment, they have to have a nice clean car and a presentable business outfit to wear to an interview. You wouldn't believe I was asked to park my car around back in order to maintain employment would you? Family, friends...if we are not receiving child support, if the enforcement people are overloaded with casework and we are far from a return phone call on the status check, if the assistance only pays our utilities and we refuse to prostitute (a lot of us won't date, anymore)... then please, can you see past the dent in car? The fact we can't get frequent facials and nails attended to is not your concern. Get over that we can't go out for daiquiri's with everybody after work even though we're single. We'll have company comrade re on company time. We don't have extra fundage often if we are employed and if we aren't you can still help us out and be kind to us. A lot of single parents are beautified to the max and do in fact magically have their appearances together. They can't believe you get so jealous...would you like their deadbeat dad problem? Would you like paying bills by yourself? Do you want their teensy apartment with a broken toilet? What are you so jealous of, that you have to hurt them over? Stop making pretty singles mental with your jealous lies, they are mommas and you are hurting their children too. Being kind is not as hard as you think it is, bringing me to my next point.

7. Isolation from family and friends.

This very much relates to the associations and stigmas section, because you feel you have a right to judge us when you weren't there to understand the situation personally. A lot of us find ourselves excluded on the basis that we have kids we have to care for while our exs are out enjoying life and spreading lies about how boring we are and "thats why they left"...because we cared more about our childrens' needs and/or we had to escape their abuse.

I've found that shallow people are happy to be around you when the sun is shining and everything is alright. They run for cover when you need help. If these are the people who raised you, or these are the people who are in your life, resentment builds, depression hurts (this message recommended by Cymbalta and the suicide hotline), and most of the time all we need is one step in the process of whatever we need help with. Can I borrow a wrench? Do you have time to drop me off somewhere? Can I borrow an onion? Will you keep an eye on my little one for a half-an-hour? I encourage other single parents to break up their needs in steps with strangers if people are too selfish to help you out, and remember what comes around goes around.

This is the primary reason single parents and children face homelessness. We can't rely on anyone anymore. If you are willing to help us you often want something unprovidable in return or it means you want to be granted the right to brag about your own hero-hood and how sorry you feel for us and our widespread national problem. you want to be able to explain the details of our situation for your storytelling pleasure and you want to explain your opinion on our lives. Most of us, especially those of us who are absolutely attempting to insure positive emotional health for ourselves and our children, will turn away your help in that case.

The rules for a lot of us:

1.Help, whatever you can, if it is in your heart 2. Don't worry about the inside details of our problem, we asked for help on something specific...it's just a ride to the grocery store. 3. You are a hero, we know it...let us brag about you. People that care enough to help, even in a church environment are diamonds in a landfill of doo-doo, we'll make sure you get credit. Gentlemen make sure you explain to your wives your endless attraction for them or don't help us. There is nothing like being called at midnight by a frantic wife assuming you are a mistress because he let you borrow some jumper cables. Wifey-poos, try not to assume. (karma is karma, I've witnessed a lot of lessons come around for you on false accusations and lies.)

You really hurt our children, just think...please think. Come over with your husband and hawkeye if it worries you. We won't mind, just please, no trash-talking us and our children, that's not called "help".

8. Hoarding, theft, rip-off scams, stalking & privacy

We know we've been ripped off by the ugliness of life, stop ripping us off on car repairs, as single women, on anything and everything we have to pay for. Mechanics especially see multiple dollar signs when they look at women who trust the mechanics to be fair, for lack of a better option. It needs to be regulated and illegal to rip us off on car repairs. It takes the food out of childrens' bellies, the Christmas presents out from under our trees, and believe me , we spread the word about your sickening faulty head-wiring, and highly recommend the Better Business Bureau until something changes for the better. If you can work out Cash for Clunkers...I have a feeling "I can believe" in something better in regards to the fleecing of single mothers on car repairs.

Your children are stealing from our children because there isn't a daddy around to stalk the little thief for our property back. Two bikes. I want both of them back. Teach your children right from wrong because we can't afford to replenish what belongings we have after your children steal them.

Hoarding? What's hoarding? We can seriously overcome this money-centered, greedy-minded all-too-American mentality (that a lot of us including the psychiatric community consider a mental problem) if we just do one thing.

Share.

If we share, there's less need for stealing.

Do you really need 10 shelves of costco-happiness? If the single momma next door can't get a ride to the grocery store, could you spare a roll of toilet paper?

Stalking.

A lot us live in fear of exs, a lot of us live in fear of peeping neighbors, a lot of us live in fear of coworkers that follow us home from work. If we need our privacy and we convey that we wish you to respect it, then do so. If we convey to you that we need help knowing who the strange shadow is outside our window at 2 am every Wednesday, and we call you and ask you to come over, Mr. officer, please, don't neglect the reality, take it seriously, we're protecting children as well as ourselves and case in fact, we may have to call you more often that the average household. Can the popo have a raise, Barack, because I know the people that would likely save my life in a scary situation are paid much less than the people that deliver my mail, "popo" is short for poor-poor. (no joke.)

Just askin, Merry Christmas.

Privacy and the opposite of.

I've mentioned a lot about privacy in regards to our personal matters, in the work place and also in receiving help from others. For some of us, it's necessary, because you hold so tight to those ugly stigmas, and it puts us further at risk for job loss, and isolation from people who would otherwise care about us. I can compare some of us to African refugees who come to our country to escape violence and turmoil. Some of us absolutely have to tell our stories, and it's therapeutic for us to talk about what happened to us. It's important that you receive our stories as ours, not yours , and without judgement on your part. It's what caring people do. Please cut us off, and don't listen if you intend to use our stories to spread gossip and rumours, we'll regret we trusted you, later on.

9.The system, the system, the system (...is down).

Thanks for the help, a lot of us don't have anybody but the gov't and their fine cheeses. A lot of us ask for help with employment issues. A lot of us ask for help with medical and dental issues. A lot of us cry when we find out how lovely it is for a single parent in France (I do and hail the Statue of Liberty, viva le France for great statuary gifts! ) They have something figured out there and we think in the US with as much we talk about being the greatest country with the worlds most opportunities...we frown a little and wonder why not for us? We are our nations mothers.

Why aren't the people there to help us in government helping us? It's what we all wonder, because we pay our taxes too. A thousand transfers to someone who doesn't know how to help us, just helped us miss the next bus. A thousand letters written to congress has not lead us to see change. Our system doesn't give a rats A-- about how the negligence and ignorance effects our nations children. We can't change you, you have to want to change, is what I've personally determined.

10. Affordable Real Legal Help.

Because the system is down, we turn to the next host of leeches who need to be regulated. If you charge $100 for a consultation...please consult. Some us come in knowing and have researched our rights, and the ones that have been violated. If we can tell you what we need in your terms and you say "mmm-hmmm....mmm-hmmm." "uh-uh, thank you that will be $100, please make check out to:" Then you are adding to the problem. Expecting gov't legal-aid to help every single mother in the world is why legal aid is helping very few of us. If you became a lawyer to serve people, then try remembering why you became a lawyer. If it was just for the accumulation of consultant fees, then we need to address your situation with the bar.

By the way, we need you because we have been screwed out of our livelihood. It will be a no-brainer to reward you your costs and fees when you win it back for us. Please don't adhere "Assumptions and stigmas" to us from the get-go, like everyone else.

The bottom line.

It's financial. It's sabotage. It's financial sabotage, and most of us didn't have much choice but to split. Give up your self-righteousness, try to cooperate more and avoid unfair competition with single parents, try to be more reasonable people in the workplace. Simply being kind and lending a hand from time to time goes a really long way.

It might be you or your daughter next day.

My 2 cents in: Help an African refugee in our country while your at it. Pick one, any one...start with "Hello". Consider that the single parent you provided a false reference for to backlash after she reported your childish powertrip is degreed, graduated with honors, certified and did not provoke you. Cowards pickin' on women, stop victimizing.

Xenophobia

Jere — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:55:33 EST

To begin with, the topic of the sermon for Sunday, July 19, 2009 was extremely thought provoking. One of my prayer partners had a wonderful conversation with me about the meaning of the word itself and how it is applicable to church. Well, hang on heathcliffe, what an awareness of not only our attitudes as Christians, but also our attitudes and perceptions of others that we feel are different from ourselves.

In doing research on the topic itself before church, I came across many cultural and societal differentiations as well as spiritual. The most comprehensive statement was found on the MOST website and is as follows: “An attitudinal orientation of hostility against non-natives in a given population.” After much thought, meditation and prayer, I have reached a conclusion in my life that perhaps I need to work on better understanding various cultures even within Houston itself.

The feelings that I am having are of a migrant worker status, very transitory here in Houston, and not to be taken seriously. In other words, I to shall pass on to the next job, the next adventure, the next whatever, and will no footprint here in Houston, because it is not the way things have been done. I hear the demeaning way people talk about each other, IE: Wetback, Spic, Kike, Tennessean, Californian, Northerner, among others, and here I have concluded that being an outsider with different ideals, norms, situations, that I am not allowed to express these ideas, because of some preconceived notion that I and people like me will take over and change things. A great fear here in Houston, perhaps founded or perhaps unfounded, this remains to be seen.

In my feelings, growth does not mean destruction, knowledge leads to wisdom, communication with understanding leads to a melding and appreciation of various cultures and societal norms. Perhaps we are all afraid of the realities that surround us, varying ideologies, varying ways of doing things, each one not superior, but just a way of doing things. In my way of thinking and feeling, there is not a right way or a wrong way, there are just many ways to do anything and everything.

Without creating alarm, perhaps the question could be “What Would Jesus Do?”. We tend to leave that question as a stand alone question, however, I do see things a bit differently, and follow up with the question, “How Would Jesus Do It?” Just another way of looking at a very popular question in our Christian way of life. Are we Acting as a Christian should Act (by perception), or are we putting our Christian way of live into Action itself? Acting a part is exhilarating, to say the least, but actually living the life is a whole different concept perhaps, that many are not familiar with. Acceptance and understanding are majors parts of feeling and sharing love. Going on the premise that we are all sinners and are save by grace, are we not all equal in the eyes and sight of God? The bible speaks in Romans as well as throughout the New Testament of the differences that already existed in the Christian Faith, and the acceptance/understanding issues of the day. Perhaps we have not learned yet that in our cultural diverseness, there is a great strength and power for learning other ways, and while we may not adhere to them personally, they are all valid ways of expressions of faith, hope and love.

I believe for now, these are enough questions to approach a situation in all our lives and carry forward from here…

Join the fight against blatant disregard in Texas

Victor from Spring, TX — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:53:09 EDT

...for disabled and abused children, specifically my son.

State and federal officers are all behind protecting those who have been, and still are, abusing and retaliating against my son (Black Latino) and I (Latino) since I found out in Dec 16, 2007 they've been causing him brain damages to get Federal funding for special ed services which are denied him.
I've spent the last 1.5 years in the Courts, avoiding attempts on my life and freedom, trying to get our case heard. I've been rejected twice by Tx Supreme Court, six times by US Supreme Court. However, state entities and federal officers are all waiting for me to be made scapegoat according to a classified plan referred to as 'the protocol' - one straight out of Project Paperclip.

Primary Defendants include a Family Judge, Executive Director of Special Services for Spring ISD, and my ex-wife. Below is just 1/64th of a list of reference material.

   Harris County Sherrif's Drowning Case # 0007192537 in 07/2000
   Tx Attorney General's CVS Report # VC02461605 in 07/2002
   B.O.E. OCR Complaint #06071260 in 04/2007
   Biased Final Decision Due Process Case No. 206-SE-0407 in 08/2007
   1st medical neglect finding by CPS, # 26492443 in 01/2008
   2nd medical neglect finding by CPS, # 26550760 in 01/2008
   3rd CPS filing ignored, 401346 in 12/2008
   Unheard, disregarded filings, Case No. 2008-03143 in 01/2008
   Tx Supreme Court Denies Habeas Corpus Case No. 08-0896 in 10/2008
   Unfinalized 'Final' Orders Case No. 2000-27121 in 11/2008 ('bill of attainder')

Blacklist

equal citizen — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:27:45 EDT

i wanted to set up an appointment with my congressman because i was blacklisted for exercising my rights as a citizen. i was locked into an office against my will to be tormented by my supervisor. i filed a formal complaint and was terriably harrassed by the healthcare institution where i worked. not able to find a job in my skilled field; i decided to start my own business. i faxed a request a month ago as instucted. i called to find out if indeed my fax was recieved and to make an appointment. i got some information per sba etc.; but no appointment. after following up with questions, i was told to apply for welfare. what a cut down. is this the change we are suppose to look forward to?

How To Fight Discrimination In I.T.

Kevin from Beverly Hills, CA — Sat, 23 May 2009 23:04:24 EDT

The Indian offshoring industry uses a three-pronged strategy to purge Americans out of the I.T. industry:

1. DENIGRATE
2. DISCRIMINATE
3. DISPLACE

If you ever watch Prof. Vivik Wadhwa, NASSCOM shill, TiE chapter founder, and failed businessman, on something like CNBC, he first denigrates the typical American I.T. worker. He makes sordid generalizations like "these are washed up coders with no new skills." This myth gets parroted in the media by the likes of Business Week "journalists" Steve Hamm and Moira Herbst.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - Once Progressive, Now Antiquated

Melodie Miller — Sat, 23 May 2009 19:48:03 EDT

In 1993 the federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. 654) was passed that prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because it "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability."

16 years ago this law was progress. Today the law is antiquated and irrelevant.

It seems logical that sexual activity of any kind, by anyone, discussed or performed while fulfilling military duties would "risk the high standards of morale, good order and discipline and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." So why would a persons sexual intent be a topic of discussion or behavior while on duty?

Socially acceptable behavior, values and morals are not the divine providence of the “straight” men and women of the United States of America. Sexual orientation is not a precondition for promiscuity nor is it a guarantee of holiness. Straights and gays alike have high standards, faults and vices but these are not determined by their sexual orientation.

Each person is born to this world with a genetic code. Soon science will determine what percentage of who we are is determined by our DNA and what percentage is dictated by social conditioning.

In the mean time the United States of America is threatened by losing valuable, highly educated and skilled members of the U.S. military due to their sexual orientation. Men and women who have committed their lives to protecting the United States of America are targeted for discrimination because of fear and prejudice. This act of discrimination in the military must be stopped thru legislation.

President Obama I respectfully request that you and the current administration make every effort to repeal the federal law “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. 654) of 1993 and replace it with a law that offers protection against discrimination due to sexual orientation for all men and women that serve in the military of the United States of America.

Getting Over Xenophobia-Phobia

Kevin from Beverly Hills, CA — Wed, 13 May 2009 08:16:37 EDT

There seems to be a fear in the I.T. community about dealing with the fact that the industry is starting to be dominated by one country - India. And it is not just I.T. -- it is finance, science, and education.

As I posted before, this is not an accident. An Indian economist described India's "friendly takeover of the world" in 2000:

“…The process is in its infancy still. But remember that most H1-B visa holders will become US residents, and bring over several family members too. Something similar will happen in Germany and other Western countries. So, in a few decades, we can look forward to the creation of a huge global brainpower network of 50 million people of Indian origin. These will constitute a tiny fraction of the global population, but a big slice of the influential global population. “

“…They will matter in academics, business, stock markets, law, medicine and the arts. And so they will matter in politics too…”

http://www.swaminomics.org/articles/20001010_vishwabharat.htm

I suggest this community get over their Xenophobia-phobia and start speaking truth to power. NASSCOM, USINPAC, and TiE want to use our fear of being labeled politically incorrect against us as they pursue their campaign of occupational apartheid. One can still be enlightened, savvy, and rational, yet still point out that Americans are being denigrated, discriminated, and displaced by people from one country - INDIA.

The sooner you get over this fear, the sooner the enemy has one less weapon in their arsenal. Until then, they will view you as cowering babies, terrified to speak up against their agenda.

AND THEY WILL NEVER LET YOU BACK IN I.T. ONCE THEY GET RID OF YOU.

Carrie Prejean: Are Progressives Becoming as Intolerant as Conservatives?

Eric from Covina, CA — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:55:07 EDT

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Carrie Prejean: Are Progressives Becoming as Intolerant as Conservatives?

I've always been proud to consider myself a progressive, because being a progressive meant that I was open-minded, willing to assess every issue on its own merit, and I'm tolerant of varying points of view. But it seems that many of today's "progressives" have corrupted the term. Though many of these people call themselves progressives, they are not progressive thinkers–they are progressive in name only. Over the years they seem to have somehow lost their way, and as a result, have managed to redefined the term "progressive" to simply mean, not conservative.

A case in point is the unconscionable way in which the so-called progressive community has demonized Carrie Prejean after she indicated, almost apologetically during the Miss America Pageant, that she thought marriage should be between a man and a woman. Why in the world did she say that?!! Thereafter, she was called a bitch, seminude photos of her have been posted on the Internet, and she's been generally, dragged through the mud. It is unbelievable that people who call themselves progressive could do that to that young woman.

Banker's Compliance Consulting Blog Home Mortgage Disclousre Act (HMDA)

Dale — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 12:35:22 EDT

Received this from the consultants@bankerscompliance.com which is a Banker's Compliance Consulting Blog. Read below how these consultants tell the banks how to make it difficult for the consumers to get the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) information regarding discriminatory lending practices.

It is apparent from this article many financial institutions are discriminating illegally.

Put a message on this blog for them to stop this practice and report them to the Federal Reserve and FDIC as a consumer complalint. Ask them to send a letter to this blog to stop sending messages encouraging illegal practices.

________________________

My message to this blog and to Federal Reserve / FDIC

As banking consultants, your encouraging the banks to make it difficult for the consumers to get the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) information regarding discriminatory lending practices, is encouraging banks to hide those activities and make them inaccessible. Stop encouraging illegal practices.

RETRACT THESE STATEMENTS IMMEDIATELY!

It is apparent from this article many financial institutions are discriminating illegally.

Your activities are being reported to the Federal Reserve and FDIC.

________________________

HMDA Data Requests
Posted: 22 Apr 2009 10:00 PM PDT
We are hearing that many banks have recently had requests for their HMDA Data. While you are required to make this information available, you are not required to provide it for free or provide the data electronically.

Racial Discrimination and Abuse in PA Prisons

Donna from Washington, PA — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:32:19 EDT

Racist Abuse of Pennsylvania Prisoners: "The Other Inauguration Celebration"

Monday, March 16 2009 @ 05:52 PM CDT

Contributed by: Anonymous

For millions of people, both in America and abroad, the inauguration of a Black person as President of the United States was a moment of transcendent history, one of meaning and significance that suggests real change in a nation that has long labored under its racist history....But for half a dozen men in Pennsylvania's Camp Hill prison, in its SMU (Special Management Unit), the day will be remembered quite differently.

Please take action in support of these prisoners:
phillyimc.org
The Other Inauguration Celebration
[col. writ. 3/9/09] (c) '09 Mumia Abu-Jamal

For millions of people, both in America and abroad, the inauguration of a Black person as President of the United States was a moment of transcendent history, one of meaning and significance that suggests real change in a nation that has long labored under its racist history.

This was perhaps best evidenced by the vast number of people who swarmed Washington to be part of such a day.

But for half a dozen men in Pennsylvania's Camp Hill prison, in its SMU (Special Management Unit), the day will be remembered quite differently.

For that day marked a fit of beatings, electric stun gun (and shield) shocking, kicking, punching and other such treatment, accompanied by a rash of racist slurs by white guards against Black prisoners.

According to the Pittsburgh based Human Right Coalition (HRC), guards and staff launched an attack timed to the inauguration, to send the message, "F--k a historical day, y'all always going to be niggers!"

In an extensive 6 page report sent to members of the press, the HRC's Fed Up! chapter documents assaults and threats against 6 men that day: David Smith, Gary Tucker, Damont Hagan, Ronald Jackson, Willie Robinson and Jamar Perry. Some of these men were threatened with death for daring to file suits in courts against their treatment in the unit.

On the morning of the inauguration, one high-ranking guard reportedly announced over the PA system: "He (speaking of Obama), may have won, in my eyes he's still a nigger." He also stated: "There will be no showers or yard today. We are going to show you niggers who runs this SMU." *

Men were handcuffed, sprayed with hot pepper mace in the face, blinded, stripped naked and beaten in retaliation for exercising their alleged constitutional right to file a civil rights suit in an American court, on the very day that Barack H. Obama was taking the oath of office, telling the assembled throng before him and the nation and world viewing it remotely, that "we do not torture."

For more information contact:

HRC/Fed Up!
5125 Penn Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15224
hrcfedup@gmail.com
(412) 361.3022, ext. 4

You have strong convictions, but President Obama says that doesn’t matter.

Jason M. Christos — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:50:21 EDT

Remember above all this is an issue of protecting the rights of doctors against discrimination based on moral convictions. In violation of federal labor laws. It is not so much an issue of abortion or religion. However closely related lets stick to the issue.

You have strong convictions, but President Obama says that doesn’t matter. He’s ready to rescind the Conscience Clause.

The Conscience Clause was implemented by former President George W. Bush to give physicians and nurses the choice to act according to their conscience — to not participate in abortion procedures if it conflicts with their personal convictions. If President Obama makes this damaging move, if he reverses the Conscience Clause, pro-life doctors and nurses will be forced into performing abortion procedures, despite their individual beliefs... more

When we equally pay our taxes we expect equal help when needed

ObamaMama32 — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:06:58 EST

It's a frustrating circumstance when you are fired for following the rules, Barack. Some of us actually are brave enough to report harassment and discrimination when we experience it, and anyone who has been harassed knows that the experience is no laughing matter. When we are fired for following correct procedures to report violations of our EEO rights and then not only penalized for it by our employer, but then left out in the cold by the very government we are all busy filling out paperwork for to figure what we owe you or what we get back as a refund. There are apparently too many reports to handle in the COLD COLD state of Utah...and believe me, we have some cold and disrespectful people in our gloriously snowy state.

I give you another recent example of someone...a mentor, just trying to go to work every day and make her dollar. She wasn't trying to get rich the way her offender was talking about it.

http://cityweekly.net/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=FA61588F-14D1-1357-9C47D0934F95C710

Exposing and Eliminating Corruption

Dr Linda Shelton — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:45:29 EST

Truth commissions worked in South Africa to encourage confession, resolve mysteries, increase transparency, resolve conflicts, decrease corruption, reduce bias and discrimination, and allowed the country to get beyond conflict, to forgive, to accept the past, and to move on in a more honest, united and open manner.

Would this not work in the United States. We should begin a pilot project run by US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in C[r]ook County.

An early disappointment!

mike shaw — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:17:42 EST

President-elect Obama has made his first of what I hope will be very few blunders. In selecting Rick Warren to be on stage in an official capacity (or at all) for his inauguration, he has insulted the GLBT community AND their allies. Warren played a part in the recent anti-gay proposition that passed in California and has spoken out against the civil right of marriage for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

I encourage any and all of you who agree with me to speak out about this and let's get Barack on the decent and moral side of this issue. I know that I will be condemning this move in my church and local newspaper.

Arabized media in the west, the CNN case

Natalia from Acampo, CA — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 10:11:19 EST

Arabized media in the west, the CNN caseNov. 2008

Arabized media in the west, the CNN case.

Bombarding propaganda

Qatar is one of CNN's major financier, (Qatar airlines and its financial center) you are getting sick of the repeated advertisement of Arab media tools how so hypocritically they show you their "equality" for everyone, covering the awful truth about oppressing all minorities, all those that are not Arab in the middle east who the supremacists Arabs think its' all "theirs" (ironic funny enough Qatar airlines shows in its ad a green eyed white face of a woman...).

'Inside the middle east'

For years, the Syrian born Hala Gorani was going up ranks her "inside the middle east" is still going strong.'Inside the middle east' sponsored by the Egyptian telecom 'Orascom' (who tells us over an over again in its silly advertisement that "we share the same belief" creating the impression as if Christians and Jews -- the few left after the racist expulsion in the late 1940s -- are not discriminated in Apartheid Arab Muslim middle east) is basically an Arabic program that its aim is to hide its oppressive tyranny, in a region where no Arab country is true democratic or free (in the true sense, including the Iranian/Syrian occupied Lebanon - the terrorized Hezbollahland), by exaggerating true or untrue stories that can be used to idolize Arab middle east.'Inside the middle east' will never show you the true (story of) repressed conditions of non Arabs such as: Kurds, Berbers, Jews, or non Muslims such as: Copts in Egypt, etc.

Ugly 'Palestinianism'

Also appearing in that Arab program which is only to "educate Americans only about the cherry picked stories - Arabs want us to see"... is Ben Wederman, the notorious west bank based CNN terribly biased journalist, who never seems to find a spot to reveal the oppression of 'Palestinians' upon their people: whether its out of blind radical Islamic motivation or typical Arabisn dictatorship, or the Islamic apartheid against the minority Christian Arab community that live in fear and under persecution, or the genocide campaign that is rampant among most 'Palestinians to "eradicate" the "Zionist entity" or about the epidemic of 'honor killing' crimes, or about corruptive leadership that robs its own people ever since Arafat era, but Ben Wederman doesn't see any "use" in reporting these burning issues, he is instead a great spokesman for the 'Palestinian cause', an example from Nov 7-8 (2008), Ben had a program about "olives", supposedly just talking about olive oil... soon you saw the blatant despicable 'Palestinianism' as the Arab farmer talked about how "old" his tradition is and how the land is so "his"... nothing about Arab immigration into Israel-Palestine of course, that's a no-no mention in rewriting - Palestine.He had his camera ready to film Israeli police dispersing a crowd that protested illegal Arab infiltrators into Jewish land... (the true story Ben didn't tell you) when he was asked politely by the police to evacuate the area he refused (after all, he knows very well he wouldn't dare refuse any order from the 'Palestinian' police... what he never bothers explaining his "situation" living in the west bank, how "neutral" a journalist can be), only the 3rd time when he made sure he had enough to portray the Israeli restrained cops as "bad occupiers" he said he is "going"...

As if it wasn't enough with Arab tyrants' regimes "culture" infesting the mainstream media in the US, CNN made yet another Arab program, "MME" Market middle east, by the rich Arabian Dubai financial center DIFC, who pays a man by the name of J. Defterios, 'paid' to glorify its host (besides the weekly Friday Arabist program, here's an example, on Nov 16 2008 at the same time the G20 summit was still on, he "revealed" to us that the Gulf Arabs who combine 1.5 triillion dollar of GDP, "lost" 1.5 billion since June peak season, what a "creative" way of portraying the oil masters that with out any shame exploit the world's need for energy overcharging all of us as "losing" because they lowered a bit their outrageous overcharge as soon as they saw westerners consuming less of it...), where one of the very first opening broadcasts was "naturally" about "how to help the "poor", "poor" "Palestinians" (no, not how the filthy rich Gulf oil Arabs should help, not those Arab regimes that have encouraged the Arabs --not yet called "palestinians"-- in 1948 to evacuate Israel-Palestine, but how the west should rather help them), those self destructive guys, the violence-happy crowd, where bigoted Jihadism and militant racist Arabism was always mainstream, ever since the Mufti Al-Husseini led the massacres in the 1920's - the "creme de la creme" of the middle east.

The middle east insider

Piercing through the thick cloud obscuring any clarity, clotted by the oily international Arab lobby...

There's no room there for criticism of call for change in the diabolic 'Palestinian' society to leave hatred and terror behind and to choose education for their children and 'normal life' for themselves.There's no space for criticism of all Arab regimes that rule their people with an iron fist, Arabian middle east where synonymous with torture, no, not the light type attributed to the CIA in Gtmo., but the darkest kind, where most of all: Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran (and its Hezbullah thugs) & Egypt are doing it with passion and special "tender love".That's true Islamism & Arabism, to keep committing the crimes in the middle east and to show [fake] unity outside, that's the true "middle east insider".

A Heartbreaking Election Day For A Million Obama Supporters in California!

Rob from Los Angeles, CA — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 15:09:07 EST

The day before you were elected I enjoyed full equality as a gay person living in California and the day after you were elected I had lost my civil rights and been relegated to second class citizenship when Prop. 8 was passed. Where was your leadership when it mattered most? Why didn't you urge everyone, especially the African American community who knows what it's like to be discriminated against, to vote no on Prop 8.? Many were lied to by their pastors who claimed that their churches would be forced to perform gay weddings or else lose their tax-exempt status (which they should anyway) and that gay marriage would be taught in schools. These are both lies of course. 70% of them voted to strip away our rights, including the rights of gay African Americans, even though straight blacks have made a complete mockery of marriage with the the highest divorce rate and number of broken families in the nation. Some religious blacks and others think that this is not a civil rights issue because people choose to be gay. This is crazy! I've never met anyone who chose to be gay. Why would anyone want to be ridiculed, taunted, and discriminated against by society and be relegated to second class citizenship? Why in God's name would a black person living during times of segregation choose to be gay? To risk being jailed or even beaten to death? You find me one single person, black, white, brown, any color or ethnicity, who says they woke up one day and decided to be gay. Good Luck! You say you favor equality and non-discrimination for everyone but at the same time oppose same-sex marriage? Unfortunately your own voice stating your opposition to same-sex marriage at the Saddleback Ranch in front of an evangelical audience was exactly the ammunition conservative Black and White reverends, pastors, and ministers was used on robocalls to hundreds of thousands of conservative churchgoers throughout California as well as Rick Warren's e-mail to his massive following of worshippers that used your direct quote as he urged everyone to vote yes on Prop. 8. In my heart I know you really don't oppose same-sex marriage, but you were afraid of not getting elected if you came out in support of it. So you tried to play it both ways. Well guess what? You put politics ahead of liberty and equality. You would have been elected anyway. As a result of your lack of leadership over a million gay citizens in California lost their equal rights, including the entire black gay African community. I donated to your campaign and wore a shirt with your picture for weeks leading up to Election Day. Now I feel like throwing it in a trash bin. Have you even bothered to see all the protest marches against Prop 8 that have been going on throughout California everyday since the election? This state is in a state of chaos right now. You contributed to it.
While millions of people celebrated on Nov. 4th, over a million gay citizens of California that had voted for you were devastated.
All I can say is: SHAME ON YOU BARACK OBAMA!! If I wanted a president who supports discrimination I could have voted for McCain.

American Novelist Talia Carner: "The Scandal In Our Own Backyard"

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:41:27 EST

The Scandal in Our Own Backyard http://www.vibrantn ation.com/ interviews/ 2008/08/26/ the-scandal- in-our-own- backyard/ The scandal in our own backyard by Talia Carner Talia Carner, a novelist and an advocate for child victims of the legal system, is the author of Puppet Child, a legal drama about a mother trying to save her daughter from the legal system’s justice. Learn more by visiting her website, www.TaliaCarner. com. “There is something bad happening to our children in family courts today that is causing them more harm than drugs, more harm than crime and even more harm than child molestation,” said Judge Watson L. White from Cobb County, Georgia, Superior Court. In researching for my book, Puppet Child, I discovered that “something bad” to be the judges, especially when it comes to adjudicating allegations of child sexual abuse. In Clarke v. Cowles in California, eight-year-old Loren (not her real name) told her caseworker and later her psychological evaluator in graphic detail how her father had sexually molested her. The first report was suppressed by the judge, the latter was never presented at the trial. The father was awarded full custody while the mother received supervised visitations on the unproven assumption that she had brainwashed her daughter. Years later, after the girl wrote repeatedly to her caseworker about molestation, a judge refused to hear the evidence because the question of sexual abuse had been decided five years before. Loren is only one child out of thousands being handed to their abusers. According to The American Judges Foundation, in 70 percent of cases in which abusive men ask for custody, they succeed in gaining full or joint custody. This national scandal is made possible by the secrecy within the Family Court System and by public disbelief in the scope of the problem. The very system designed to safeguard helpless children has become a national disgrace as injustice has reached epidemic proportions. Whatever you have ever known about democracy becomes irrelevant at the gate to family court. There, one person is judge, jury and executioner. Paradoxically, a family court judge is the one professional in the courtroom who is not required to be trained in domestic violence and child abuse. As a result, wrapped in their own mix of prejudices, religious beliefs, or misguided assumptions, all too many judges are ignorant about the dynamics of family abuse, ignorant about the nature of child molestation, and ignorant about the ways in which an abuser manipulates the courtroom as the arena where he can hand a woman the final blow by taking her children away. Although studies such as the one by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Research in Denver—an organization which mothers’ groups claim is biased against women—shows that at least two thirds of sexual abuse allegations made by a child were proven to be substantiated (the one third unsubstantiated are not necessarily false.) Yet a study by the California Protective Parents Association found that 91 percent of fathers identified by their children as sexual predators received full or partial unsupervised custody—while in 54 percent of these same cases the non-abusing mother was placed on supervised visitations. How is that possible? Here are some of the more glaring errors the courts perpetuate: * Viewing children as property. When the crime of sexual abuse is committed upon a child who lives next door, the perpetrator is subject to harsh jail punishment. The same abuse committed upon one's own child is likely to result in a father getting sole custody. Behind this unfair ruling is the lingering feudal tradition that regards children as the property of their fathers. * Mistaking controlling men for loving fathers. Used to getting their way and given to expressions of anger, controlling men fight hard in the court they regard as a boxing ring. Having seen too many men walk away from their children, judges often mistake for love a father’s unwillingness to let go of the child who has become both a sexual object and a weapon against a mother trying to get away from her husband’s control. * Favoring the Parental Alienation Syndrome theory. PAS maintains that a child has been brainwashed to give false testimony. Not listed in the American Psychiatric Association manual, PAS is refuted and considered bogus theory by nationally recognized academic and clinical institutions— and by a 1999 Congressional act (VAWA). In fact, the lone advocate who coined the term, Richard Gardner, has also written that “pedophilia is natural.” Nevertheless, increasingly, legions of children are removed from their mothers’ care under the PAS theory. * Tolerance of child sexual abuse. A Tennessee judge granted visitation rights to Ralph Gonnella two weeks after he had been arrested for taking sexually explicit photographs of his seven-year-old son. In California, Manuel Saavedra, a convicted sex offender who had pleaded guilty to lewd conduct with a child was awarded custody of his two daughters. All across America, convicted pedophiles—a crime known for its high rate of recidivism —are given access to their children. * Refusing to stigmatize a man as a pedophile. A 1996 report by The American Psychological Association states, “women seldom make false reports of child abuse or battering.” Yet in case after case, when a father is found to be sexually abusive, judges suppress evidence. While many judges, many of whom are fathers, do not truly believe that sexual abuse exists, they also do not wish to venture into the criminal arena of pedophilia due to overlapping jurisdiction between civil and criminal courts. * Not following the law. In demanding burden of proof of sexual molestation that supercedes the required “preponderance of evidence” and instead seeking the criminal definition of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” judges often demand dates, times or witnesses that are impossible for a child to provide. Interestingly, the same judges demand no proof when speculating that at the roots of the sexual abuse complaint is the mother’s coaching the child. * Misogyny. In Virginia, Kathy Wade was told by the judge handing Kathy’s two-year-old daughter to the sexually abusive father, “This is what you get when you don’t have a lawyer.” In Florida, Judge Paul Marko told Marianne Price: "The singles' bars are full of guys… you go and find one.” In Michigan, Judge Gregory Pittman ordered a couple shackled together after the woman complained that her former husband had violated the order of protection. Routinely, American women are denied the right to due process, are subject to ex parte hearings, and are victims of perjury or illegal out-of-state jurisdictions. Through it all, children are at a disadvantage because they are dependent upon mothers with no or poor legal representation and who are short on financial resources to wage protracted legal battles and appeals. (Professionals in the field report increasing support for men from well-financed fathers’ groups.) Moreover, men, poised and collected and surrounded by a legal team, “look good” in court when compared with frightened, distraught mothers, whom judges often view as hysterical, paranoid and vindictive. Yet all across the nation, behind every case in which a woman’s constitutional rights are being ignored in family court there are children needing protection. Instead, they receive a life sentence without parole. Public disbelief guards the system from exposure. There are child services, therapists, and legal guardians who commit atrocious mistakes. But ultimately, the untrained judges are the ones responsible for saving the children. While I met compassionate family court judges, the shocking overall picture of injustice indicates that they are in the minority. Until the public grasps the scope of the scandal in our own backyard and holds judges accountable for the grand scale in which children are being removed from the custody of good mothers to be placed with pedophiles, we are facing a national shame of catastrophic proportions. Talia Carner, an advocate for child victims of the legal system, is the author of Puppet Child, a legal drama about a mother trying to save her daughter from the legal system’s justice. Visit Talia's site,www.TaliaCarne r.com. Learn more about child abuse issues on Talia's website Tags: abuse, abuses, child, civil, constitutional, discrimination, domestic, human, rights, violence

American U.S. Justice Department files 40 page brief Against American Murdered Abused Children Of American Battered Mother In International Human Rights Court...

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:33:58 EST

Human Rights Court Say US Didn’t help Battered Mother & Murdered Abused Current mood: forgotten ..> IACHR-update; Jessica Gonzales v. U.S. - Favorable Admissibility Decision Below is an email from Carrie Bettinger-Lopez, our co-counsel on Jessica Gonzales' case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, with an update about recent developments. Sandra Park, Staff Attorney Women's Rights Project | American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004 T: 212.519.7871 | F: 212.549.2580 | spark@aclu.org ________________________________ For those of you who have been following the case of Jessica Gonzales v. ..:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1>United States, before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, I am pleased to inform you that we received a favorable decision on Friday, October 5 declaring Jessica Lenahan's (formerly Gonzales) case admissible. This is the best decision we could have hoped for. The decision says that Ms. Lenahan (Gonzales) exhausted all domestic remedies (i.e. that she pursued every potential legal avenue available to her but had those doors closed to her). The decision also indicates that countries in the Americas, including the U.S., are responsible under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man for protecting victims of domestic violence from private acts of violence. This is the first time that the Commission has ever made such a pronouncement. This admissibility decision is the first phase of a two-step process before the Commission. The next step is the merits phase, where the Commission will decide whether the US and the Castle Rock Police Department/Colorado violated Ms. Lenahan (Gonzales') and her children's human rights. (Specifically, the rights to life, non-discrimination, family life/unity, due process, petition the government, and the rights of domestic violence victims and their children to special protections ). For more information on the Gonzales case, and to view the Commission's admissibility decision, go to http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/2007eng/USA1490.05eng.htm (Spanish version forthcoming). The decision is also available at https://www.law.columbia.edu/focusareas/clinics/humanrights97614 or http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence/32105lgl20071005.html . To view Ms. Gonzales' testimony before the Inter-American Commission in March 2007, see http://www.oas.org/OASpage/videosondemand/home_eng/videos_query.asp?sCodigo=07-0041or http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence/gonzalesvusa.html. Below is an article that came out today in the National Law Journal about the decision. Also, here is a link to a Channel 4 newscast from last night featuring Jessica. http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_281095916.html Several amicus briefs are currently being drafted on the following topics: the children's rights dimension of the case; the protections and limitations of VAWA and obstacles that DV survivors still face in obtaining government assistance and support; framing domestic violence as a form of torture. Please contact me and Araceli Martínez-Olguín (amartinez-olguin@aclu.org) if you or your organization are interested in signing on to those briefs. Further information on the case is below. Thanks for all your support. Apologies for cross-postings. All best, Carrie (on behalf of Jessica's legal team) Caroline Bettinger-López | Human Rights Fellow & Attorney Columbia Law School | Human Rights Institute & Human Rights Clinic 435 W. 116th Street, Box C-16 | New York, NY 10027 Phone: (212) 854-8364 | Fax: (212) 854-3554 | Email: c.lopez@law.columbia.edu Further information on the case is below. Rights panel to hear U.S. domestic violence case Marcia Coyle / Staff reporter October 15, 2007 .. Jessica Gonzales poses with a portrait of her three daughters, from left, Katheryn, Rebecca and Leslie. Image: Craig F. Walker / The Denver Post WASHINGTON - The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has agreed to decide whether the United States violated the rights of a domestic violence victim whose three children were killed when local police failed to enforce a restraining order against her former husband. The complaint by Jessica Lenahan (formerly Jessica Gonzales) is the first brought by a domestic violence victim against the United States for international human rights violations. On Oct. 4, the commission ruled her complaint "admissible," which is akin to finding jurisdiction, after rejecting arguments by the U.S. Department of State, including that Lenahan had not exhausted available remedies, and, significantly, that the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man imposes no affirmative duty on states to actually prevent the crimes committed by Lenahan's former husband. Officials at the State Department were unavailable to comment because of the Oct. 8 federal holiday. Lenahan's legal odyssey began in 1999 when she filed a lawsuit against the Castle Rock, Colo., police department seeking to hold it liable for failing to respond to her repeated calls and appearances for help after her husband abducted her children. Her daughters were found dead in their father's pickup truck after he was killed in a shootout with police at police headquarters hours after their mother sought police assistance. A landmark case Her lawsuit attracted national and international attention when it was reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held in June 2005 that she had no constitutional right to police enforcement of her restraining order. That December, Lenahan filed her petition with the Inter-American Commission, charging that police inaction and the Supreme Court decision violated her human rights. "This case is not just about Jessica Gonzales, although it clearly is very important for her," said Caroline Bettinger-Lopez of Columbia Law School's Human Rights Clinic, who, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, represents Lenahan. It is important for victims of domestic violence and intimate-partner violence in the United States and throughout the world, she said, adding, "We've gotten calls from the United Nations and organizations around world who see this case as a landmark one on the duty of states to protect victims of domestic violence." The admissibility decision itself has "immediate importance," according to Bettinger-Lopez, because it is the first time the commission has recognized that the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man imposes affirmative obligations by countries in the Americas to protect individuals from private acts of violence. The commission was created in 1959 and is expressly authorized to investigate allegations of human rights violations by members of the Organization of American States (OAS), which includes the United States. 'Compulsory jurisdiction' The commission has jurisdiction to receive complaints against any OAS member state where it is upholding the rights set forth in the 1948 American declaration, said international law scholar Robert Goldman of American University Washington College of Law. "The commission is the only organization in the world that has compulsory jurisdiction over the United States," he said. "The only way to escape jurisdiction is to denounce the OAS charter." Having survived the "admissibility" phase, Lenahan's case moves into the merits phase, in which there will be additional briefing and possibly another hearing. The commission may attempt a "friendly settlement," noted Goldman, a former commission member. The United States does not have a good record of compliance with commission recommendations, said Goldman. But if Lenahan prevails, he added, it will not be a Pyrrhic victory. "The commission articulates standards with respect to very important rights," Goldman said. "What you'll find is a state that can't comply for a variety of reasons now might comply in the future." It also puts the United States, he added, in a very uncomfortable position. Congress mandates an annual human rights report that often points the finger at other countries' practices. "To the extent an authoritative body finds violations by the United States and it does not comply, it resonates," Goldman said. But for now, Bettinger-Lopez said, a "new legal avenue" has been established. "It opens a door for domestic violence victims in search of vindication, whose legal options have recently been limited by harsh court rulings in the United States." http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1191834195781 CASE SUMMARY In June 1999, Jessica Gonzales' estranged husband abducted her three daughters, in violation of a domestic violence restraining order. Ms. Gonzales called and met with the police repeatedly to report the abduction and restraining order violation. Unfortunately, her calls went unheeded. Ten hours after her first call to the police, Ms. Gonzales' estranged husband arrived at the police station and opened fire. The police immediately shot and killed Mr. Gonzales, and then discovered the bodies of the Gonzales children - Leslie, 7, Katheryn, 8, and Rebecca, 10 - in the back of his pickup truck. Ms. Gonzales filed a lawsuit against the police, but in June 2005, the Supreme Court found that she had no constitutional right to police enforcement of her restraining order. In December 2005, Ms. Gonzales filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, alleging that the police's actions and the Supreme Court's decision violated her human rights. This was the first individual complaint brought by a victim of domestic violence against the United States for human rights violations. On March 2, 2007, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights heard the case of Jessica Gonzales v. United States . Jessica Lenahan (formerly Gonzales) provided testimony. This was the first time that she was afforded an opportunity to tell her story to a tribunal. Ms. Lenahan is represented by the Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The Commission is expected to issue a decision before the year's end. To view or listen to the hearing, download the video or audio webcast at: http://www.oas.org/OASpage/videosondemand/home_eng/videos_query.asp?sCodigo=07-0041 (video) or http://www.cidh.org/Audiencias/Audios%20hearings%20127%20PS.htm (audio, 4th entry under March 2). Jessica Lenahan's statement (which she read at the hearing) can be found at: http://www.law.columbia.edu/null/Jessica+Statement+-+IACHR+hrg?exclusive=filemgr.download&file_id=1391&showthumb=0 or http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence/29338res20070302.html. More information on the Gonzales case (including the Petition submitted to the Inter-American Commission and additional briefing and exhibits) can be found at: http://www.law.columbia.edu/focusareas/clinics/humanrights97614 or http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence/gonzalesvusa.html..:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O>

For Sale: American Murdered, Abused Children Of American Battered Mother In America

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:31:56 EST

Internanational Human Rights Court Affirms A Failure TO Protect

Mother’s File International Complaint Against United States, violation human rights of abused www.StopFamilyViolence.org MOTHERS FILE INTERNATIONAL COMPLAINT AGAINST UNITED STATES Mother's day complaint claims United States courts violate human rights of abused women and children. NEW YORK, On May 11, just before Mother's Day weekend, ten mothers, one victimized child, now an adult, leading national and state organizations filed a complaint against the United States with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights. The case claims that U.S. courts, by frequently awarding child custody to abusers and child molesters, has failed to protect the life, liberties, security and other human rights of abused mothers and their children. "For more than 30 years U.S. judges have given custody or unsupervised visitation of children to abusers and molesters putting the children directly at risk," says Dianne Post, an international attorney who authored the petition. "These horrendous human rights violations have been brought to the attention of family court systems, and state and federal governments, to no avail. We turn now to international courts to protect the rights and safety of US children." The complaint details several cases with ..ed medical evidence of child sexual abuse, yet in each instance the abusing father was given full custody of the children he abused. Several of the mothers were jailed by the courts because of their persistent efforts to protect their children from abuse, several were ordered not to speak of the abuse and not to report abuse to authorities. Every mother was denied contact with her child for some period of time though none was ever proven to have harmed them. "My life was completely shattered apart on that day and my childhood was destroyed," said Jeff Hoverson, the adult child petitioner, about the day a family court judge ordered sheriff deputies to deliver him into the custody of his abuser. "It was as if I was just kidnapped. I was torn from everything I knew....I was made into a possession rather than a child." Hoverson endured years of trauma and fear living in his father's home before escaping and returning to his mother at age 17. He is haunted by years of feeling helpless to prevent his father's night-time visits to his sisters' bedrooms. "The cases in this petition represent the proverbial tip of the iceberg," says Irene Weiser, executive director of the online organization Stop Family Violence. "We are contacted by an average of three protective mothers each week who have lost custody to child abusing fathers. This is a nationwide crisis of enormous proportion." "The lives of thousands of children and mothers have been irreparably harmed by family courts across our nation," says Joyanna Silberg, Ph.D., executive vice-president of The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, another national organizations supporting the petition. "The years of trauma and psychological abuse because of the courts' failings result in lasting emotional damage to the children they are supposed to protect." Studies of gender bias in the courts, conducted in the 1980's and 90's, found disturbing trends of courts minimizing or excusing men's violence against women, and favoring the abusers. In 1990 the United States Congress passed a resolution recommending the prohibition of giving joint or sole custody to abusers. Seventeen years later, the practice continues unabated. Ten years ago today, leading national organizations were joined by members of Congress in a protest in Washington D.C. to again raise awareness about the problems in family courts. Today, petitioners say, the problem is systemic and widespread in family law courts across the nation. The petition seeks a finding from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that the U.S. has violated the Declaration of the Rights and Responsibilities of Man and the Charter of the Organization of American States and a statement of the steps that the U.S. must take to comply with its human rights obligations in regards to battered women and children in child custody cases. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was created in 1959 and is expressly authorized to examine allegations of human rights violations by members of the Organization of American States, which include the United States. It also carries out on-site visits to observe the general human rights situations in all 35 member states of the Organization of American States and to investigate specific allegations of violations of Inter-American human rights treaties. Its charge is to promote the observance and the defense of human rights in the Americas. Dianne Post, a 1980 graduate of the University of Wisconsin law school, has worked on issues of gender based violence since 1976. In addition to private practice and legal aid, she has taught legal classes and been a consultant working or living in Russia, Cambodia, Hungary and some dozen other countries. She is currently in Vladivostok, Russia. In addition to The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, other national organizations supporting the international lawsuit include: National Organization for Women and the NOW Foundation, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Justice For Children, National Family Court Watch Project, Legal Momentum, Family Violence Prevention Fund, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Domestic Violence Report, Sidran Traumatic Stress Institute, and the National Center on Sexual and Domestic Violence. The petition is supported by many state organizations as well. In December 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a petition against the United States with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights for their failure to protect Jessica Gonzales' three children from their abusive father, who murdered them. Their petition, the first of its kind, asserted that domestic violence victims have the right to be protected by the state from the violent acts of their abusers. For additional information, contact: Irene Weiser, Stop Family Violence iw@stopfamilyviolence.org 607-539-6856 The petition and supporting ..action is available on the Stop Family Violence website on: www.StopFamilyViolence.org View the petition at: http://www.StopFamilyViolence.org/468

American National Organization OF Women "Disorder In The Courts I"

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:29:12 EST

Admin Options

F m i l y L a w : D is o r d e r i n t h e C o u r t s

Introduction
By Helen Grieco, Rachel Allen and Jennifer Friedlin

The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the country's largest and longest running women's rights organization. NOW is committed to fighting discrimination against women and girls, and ensuring their equality in every aspect of society. NOW is structured in chapters, and California NOW (CA NOW) is the largest chapter in the country, with 100,000 members and donors. Imagine this: A mother endures years ofabuse at the hands of her husband. One day, her husband strikes the children or gets caught in the act of sexually abusing one of the kids, and she decides she has got to break free. She files for custody, assuming she's got an open and shut custody case. But the family court judge fails to look at all the evidence and the professionals who are supposed to evaluate the family ignore all the signposts of abuse. Eventually, the mother loses custody. In order to see her children, the mother may have to pay for supervised visits or she may lose all rights to her kids. No, you say, this can't be. Well, think again. In the 1990s, CA NOW started getting call after call that fit this pattern. In fact, as then president of CA NOW, Helen Grieco received so many calls from desperate mothers that sheformed a statewide task force to strategize how to best address the startling trend. Under Grieco's leadership, CA NOW proposed legislation, lobbiedfor statewide reform, called for investigations of court funding and worked to get public attention on the injustices women faced in family courts. In an effort for CA NOW to ascertain how widespread the problems were, Grieco createdand posted a questionnaire on the CA NOW website to collect information on individual cases. Rachel Allen joined CA NOW as public relations director in 2001, and had worked on the family law issue as president of the Marin County NOW chapter for several years. In 2002, Allen and Grieco (along with Sue DiPaolo and Elena Perez) analyzed the findings of the hundreds of questionnaires submitted, and tried to answer the question of how and why so many women were being victimized by the courts. The end product was the "CA NOW Family Court Report, 2002,"which presented findings from analysis of over 300 mothers' cases. The report showed that perfectly fit mothers were regularly losing custody of their children to less-than-fit fathers, and put forth an explanation for why it was happening. Analysis of the data rendered stunning statistics. We found that 76 percent of respondents' cases involved allegations of some kind of abuse by the father and that in 69 percent of those cases the offender was given unsupervised contact or custody. Although conservative commentators and right-wing fathers' rights groups tried to discredit the research by saying that the sample was not representative of a larger problem, we knewthat the 300 cases we studied and their staggering similarities exposed trends that were impossible to ignore. This study and the calls we have continued to receive over the years from flabbergasted mothers have revealed that the courts are regularly ignoring evidence of child abuse and domestic violence when deciding contested custody cases. In addition, we have documented a common pattern of gender bias, denial of due process, corruption, fraud and reliance on unscientific labels to pathologize normal mothers. These women speak of judges who beratethem in court and dismiss crucial evidence; attorneys who bail on them midway through their case or who side with the father instead of representing the interests of the children; andevaluators who decide they are unfit parents for a whole slew of often contradictory reasons. Evaluators have been known to support denying awoman custody because she: is "too close" to her children; breastfed her children for too long; did not cooperate in giving unsupervised access to an abusive father; works outside the home; doesn't work outside the home. We hear from motherswho walked into the court as the primary caregiver and protector of their children and walked out unable to even send the kids a birthday cardor talk to them on the phone. These mothers often lose custody to men who have criminal records, histories of domestic violence and/or child abuse and substance abuse problems. Some of the men have never even met their children. How can this happen? One of the roots of the problem, we believe, stems from the activities and advocacy efforts of so-called Fathers' Rights groups. Connected to a larger right-wing ideology, the movement for "fathers' rights" rests on a belief in unquestioned patriarchy – some have even called for the overturning of the 19th amendment! They seek to abolish child support and to instate automatic joint custody. Although fathers' rights advocates refer to "equality," "equal access" and "shared parenting," they are not fighting for joint childcare responsibilities inside of marriage. Instead, the call from fathers' rights groups for equal parenting turns up only after divorce, a transparentploy to use rhetoric to reduce men's financial obligations to their children and their ex-wives and tomaintain control over their families, even after the marriage is legally dissolved.These groups have helped propagate bunk psychological syndromes like Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), which is based on the unfounded"theory" that mothers regularly brainwash their children to say that they have been abused by their fathers. PAS is then used as a legal strategy tojustify taking children from their mothers, while subverting evidence of abuse by fathers. Fathers' Rights groups claim that fathers are discriminated against in family courts, receiving custody of children only a small percentage of the time. The truth is, however, that when fathers fight for custody, they get it 50 to 70 percent of the time. Sadly, all too often they get custody even when it is not inthe best interest of the child. Meanwhile, the fathers' rights movement has been gaining strength and legitimacy. Fatherhood groups are well funded, well organized and publicly supported through conservative mouthpieces in the media. In addition, the Bush Administration supports the so-called "responsible fatherhood" agenda. Some organizations, such as the National Fatherhood Initiative receive millions of dollars from the federal government, much of which is not accounted for in direct programming. Some people suspect that a portion of the money may even be used to litigate custody cases on behalf of fathers. (For more about the history and activity of the fathers' rights movement, see the CA NOW Family Court Report at http://canow.org/famlaw_report/famlawreport.php.)

Lest anyone reading this should draw the conclusion that we are simply interested in bashing men, we are not. We are well aware that thereare many loving, caring fathers who are deeply concerned about doing right by their children. We are also aware that these men rarely demand sole custody and the removal of the mother from the child's life. We have heard from many decentmen who are just as disturbed by the family court's treatment of women and children as we are. And, as you will see on the pages of this book, some of these men have become our allies in the fight for justice in the legal system. Theproblem we have been struggling with does not have to do with these men; it has to do with the abusive men who use the court system to continue terrorizing their families. After all, what better way to further abuse a mother than by taking her children from her? As CA NOW took up this issue, we found allies around the country who were just as concerned as we were. Although many media outlets shied away from this complicated topic, media stars like Dr. Phil were brave enough to speak out against what he called "America's silent epidemic."Feminist icons like Gloria Steinem have weighed in, too, calling the crisis in the family law courts an issue that "the women's movement,which provided leadership in past reforms and crucial struggles to make law more gender free, supportive of children and families, and economically just, must lead on." One of the most amazing outcomes of this horrific situation is the steely determination of the women who have been through the system to change it. After losing their children, women from Delaware to Alaska have fought back in an effort to change the system and to prevent the same thing from happening to other women. These women have written legislation, formed organizations,started court watch programs, built websites, held conferences, organized demonstrations and protests and worked to get media exposure. A couple of years ago, after researching an article about moms who turned their personal tragedies into political crusades, freelance journalist Jennifer Friedlin suggested a project that would highlight the work being done across the countryto change the way custody decisions involving allegations of abuse are made. This book is borne of our mutual desire to underscore and applaudthe achievements of the mothers and the various professionals who are working for justice. In this collection of essays, you will hear from experts – from psychologists and legal experts to journalists and moms – who have been fighting on the frontlines for mothers' rights. Karen Andersonturned her own personal struggle to protect her children from sexual abuse into a crusade onbehalf of all mothers. Dr. Lundy Bancroft has been a fierce supporter of battered moms and now calls on these women to spearhead a mothers' rightsmovement. Sharon Bass shares her insights on the issue of court appointed evaluators and their far reaching influence. Dr. Robert Geffner lends his expertise on child sexual abuse and the ways it is treated in the family law arena. Retired judge Sol Gothard gives his perspective on the family courts based on nearly fifty years of experience. Professor Mo Hannah explains her motivation for organizing the country's leading conference on the issue of battered women and custody. Karen Hartley-Nagle tells the story of her family law case andhow it inspired her to run for office on a family law platform. Paige Hodson turned her experience in the courtroom into a battle for protective legislation– and won! The legal team of Kristen, Diane and Charles Hofheimer offer advice to motherson how to present their cases in court. Filmmaker Dominique Lasseur explains his motivation for making the groundbreaking film, "Breaking theSilence." Professor Garland Waller advises people on ways to get media attention, and journalist Kristen Lombardi explains the difficulties of reporting onthese issues. Professor Geraldine Stahly allowed us to print her research on domestic violence and custody, and blogger Trish Wilson makes a powerful argument against assumed joint custody.This book will help explain how the courts work and give any mother going through thefamily court system some of the tools she will need to protect herself and her children. And,for mothers who may have lost their children, we hope these essays will provide you links toresources that may assist you in your effort to regain custody of your kids. This book will not replace good counsel and a strong support system,but we hope it will provide you a greater understanding the issues, and that is may inspire you to help join the movement for change. We have found that lawyers and domestic violence agencies are always looking for more information that can help them serve their clients,and we trust that this book will meet this need. We believe that this book will also inspire other women's rights organizations to take up this issue, and that it will give them the tools and information they need to get started. Mostly, we hope that this book will generate greater activism among people interested in righting the numerous wrongs of the family court system.We know that this book is just one step in the battle to reform the family court system. But CA NOW is committed to fighting for change until we win. Whether you are a parent, a psychologist, a lawyer, a judge, a journalist, an activist or a concerned citizen, we encourage you to get involved and to fight along side us aswe work to ensure that our family court system never again strips a fit parent of her parental rights in favor of an abuser.

American College California State University, The Book "Disorder In The Courts II",A Study of Judicial Abuse

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:27:50 EST

Disoder In the Courts II

Protective Mothers in Child Custody
Disputes: A Study of Judicial Abuse

By Geraldine Butts Stahly, PH.D., Linda Krajewski, Bianca Loya, Linda Krajewski, Bianca

Loya, Kyra Dotter, Kimberly Evans, Wesley Farris, Felicia Frias, Grace German, Nancy Stuebner,

Kiranjeet Uppal, And Jenna Valentine

California State University, San Bernardino

Abstract

This project is a pilot study of a national survey undertaken to examine the experiences of protective mothers. One hundred fifty-seven self-identified protective mothers, completed a 101-item questionnaire describing aspects oftheir custody dispute. The pilot data includes demographic factors, economic impact, and a full variety of protection issues, including the range of allegations, the role of psychological expert examinations, diagnosis and testimony, family court response and outcomes for children. Findings to date suggest that protective mothers are likely to be mothers who have been victims of domesticviolence, and are likely to be labeled "alienators." Mothers were also likely to be advised by their attorneys and other professionals not to report abuse of their child during custody proceedings. Mothers who support their children's allegations of physical or sexual abuse were overwhelmingly denied custody and sometimes denied visitation with their children. Introduction Empirical studies have established an increase in child abuse in families in which there is domestic violence, and an increase in custody challenges by fathers who have a history of battering (Stahly,1999). There is evidence of an increase in the negative labeling of mothers who report child abuse or domestic violence during custody disputes. Several high profile cases have led to increased public attention, and fractious public debates have erupted between groups supporting the alleged perpetrators of abuse as victims of malicious accusation on the one hand, and groups supporting the reporting parent as the victim of malicious psychiatric labeling on the other (Dallam, 1998). For example, in spite of thelack of empirical support and peer review, Richard Gardner's (1985) theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) continues to influence judges,court appointed evaluators and mediators and other court personnel with adverse consequences for the protection of children in custody disputes. There have been no studies to date on the extent of the overall phenomenon of protective mothers, the psychiatric labeling of protective behavior or the extent to which protective behavior appears to be justified by the circumstances and evidence in custody cases. The current study was undertaken to study the experiences of protective mothers. Methods The study utilized a 101-item self-report questionnaire which was distributed to a sample of convenience that included individuals who self-identified as protective mothers contacting the California Protective Parents Association and California NOW, as well as individuals visiting the California NOW website. Questionnaires were available for completion through the website and were also distributed at conferencesregarding child abuse and domestic violence held in California. Data collected from the questionnaires included demographics, legal history of thecustody case, allegations of abuse, criminal conduct, substance abuse and results of psychological Mother Father Child

*92% of the Protective Mothers made allegations of child abuse.

*56% of the allegations were supported by medical/physical evidence.

80% had some other corroborating evidence.

*75% reported fathers as the perpetrator.

ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD ABUSE

TYPES OF ABUSE REPORTED evaluations, including the role of the allegation ofparental alienation in custody case outcomes. One hundred fifty-seven completed surveys from protective mothers were collected and enteredinto SPSS. Descriptive statistics were run on the data from this initial sample. A majority of the respondents were from California (89). Atotal of 271 children were involved in the study (157 girls and 114 boys); 65 percent of the childrenwere age five or under.

In America 75% Rates At Which Batterers Get Custody Of The Children

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:26:34 EST

Rates At Which Batterers Recieve Custody
by Joan Meier, Esq.

One statement in Breaking the Silence: Children's Voices that has provoked controversy was my statement that "the studies are showing" that up to 2/3 of accused or adjudicated batterers receive joint or sole custody in court. While no empirical study can definitively determine a universal statistical rate, the key point is that the research consistently shows that accused and adjudicated batterers receive joint or sole custody disturbingly often. This confirms the anecdotal experience of domestic violence attorneys and victims around the country. The following research supports this perspective.

I. A History of Domestic Violence is Common among Contested Custody Cases.

The remarkably consistent research on this issue is compiled in my previously-issued statement , Research Indicating that the majority of cases that go to court as 'high conflict' contested custody cases have a history of domestic violence (Nov. 9, 2005).

One good example is a study cited by Janet Johnston, a leading researcher of parental alienation, which found that, among custody litigants referred to mediation, "[p]hysical aggression had occurred between 75% and 70% of the parents . . . even though the couples had been separated. . . [for an average of 30-42 months]". Furthermore, [i]n 35% of the first sample and 48% of the second, [the violence] was denoted as severe and involved battering and threatening to use or using a weapon."
- Janet R. Johnston, "High-Conflict Divorce," The Future of Children, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 1994, 165-182) citing Depner et al., "Building a uniform statistical reporting system: A snapshot of California Family Court Services," Family and ConciliationCourts Review (1992) 30: 185-206

II. Domestic Violence Perpetrators are More Likely to Contest Custody than Non- Abusers.

The American Psychological Association's Presidential Task Force on Violence in the Family, the leading review of the research as of 1996, found that men who abuse their partners contest custody at least twice as often as non-abusing fathers. They are even more likely to contest custody if the children are boys.
- American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence in the Family (1996) at p. 40.

III. Accused and Adjudicated Batterers Receive Joint or Sole Custody Surprisingly Often.

The research on this has only emerged in the past few years and most studies have been small and local. Nonetheless, they document disturbing trends, which surprised even me when I first discovered them.

A. Multiple studies have documented gender bias against women in custody litigation.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom that women are favored in custody litigation, both the experiences of battered women and the empirical research are showing that women who allege abuse are deeply disfavored in custody courts.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Task Force was one of the first states to document the gender bias against women in family courts. This court-initiated study expressly found that "our research contradicted [the] perception" that "there is a bias in favor of women in these decisions." Moreover, it found that "in determining custody and visitation, many judges and family service officers do not consider violence toward women relevant." The Court's study further found that "the courts are demanding more of mothers than fathers in custody disputes" and that "many courts put the needs of noncustodial fathers above those of custodial mothers and children."
- Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts, 24 New Eng.L.Rev. 745, 747, 825, 846 (1990)

More recently, and since the evolution and widespread adoption of "parental alienation syndrome," a multi-year, four-phase study using qualitative and quantitative social science research methodologies by the Wellesley Centers for Women found "a consistent pattern of human rights abuses" by family courts, including failure to protect battered women and children from abuse, discriminating against and inflicting degrading treatment on battered women, and denying battered women due process. Histories of abuse of mother and children were routinely ignored or discounted.
- Wellesley Centers for Women Battered Mothers' Testimony Project, Battered Mothers Speak Out: A Human Rights Report on Domestic Violence and Child Custody in the Massachusetts Family Courts (Nov. 2002)(hereafter "BMTP"), Executive Summary at 2.

A comparable study by the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence found that most of the women surveyed felt the history of abuse was not taken seriously and that they were ignored, disrespected and discriminated against by court personnel.
- Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Battered Mothers' Testimony Project: A Human Rights Approach to Child Custody and Domestic Violence (June 2003), pp. 47, 49, 6.

A study of the Domestic Relations Division of Philadelphia Family Court conducted by the Philadephia Women's Law Project in cooperation with the court, found that litigants are often denied due process, and that applicable legal standards are "not always observed, particularly in the consideration of abuse in custody proceedings, leaving families at risk."
- Tracy, Fromson & Miller, Justice in the Domestic Relations Division of Philadelphia Family Court: A Report to the Community, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORT, Vol. 8, No. 6 (Aug/Sept. 2003), p. 94.

B. Studies show Accused and Adjudicated Batterers Receiving Sole or Joint Custody Surprisingly Often.

My own survey of the case law in 2001 identified 38 appellate state court decisions concerning custody and domestic violence. To my astonishment, 36 of the 38 trial courts had awarded joint or sole custody to alleged and adjudicated batterers. Two-thirds of these decisions were reversed on appeal.
- Meier, Domestic Violence, Child Custody, and Child Protection: Understanding Judicial Resistance and Imagining the Solutions, A.U. J. Gender, Soc. Pol. & the Law, 11:2 (2003), 657-731, p. 662, n. 19, and Appendix.

These cases included a case in which the perpetrator had been repeatedly convicted of domestic assault; in which a father was given sole custody of a16-month old despite his undisputed choking of the mother resulting in her hospitalization and his arrest; in which the father had broken the mother's collarbone; had committed "occasional incidents of violence"; and had committed two admitted assaults. More such instances can be found in Meier, supra.

The American Judges Association has found that approximately 70% of batterers succeed in convincing authorities that the victim is unfit for or undeserving of sole custody. Another way of saying this is that 70% of batterers obtain sole or joint custody.
- American Judges Association, "Domestic Violence and the Courtroom: Understanding the Problem . . . Knowing the Victim" http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/domviol/page5.html (at "Forms of Emotional Battering. . . Threats to Harm or Take Away Children")

A survey of battered women by the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence found that courts awarded joint or sole custody to the alleged batterers 56-74% of the time (depending on the county). Many of these cases involved documented child abuse or adult abuse.
- Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Battered Mothers' Testimony Project: A Human Rights Approach to Child Custody and Domestic Violence (June 2003), pp. 33-34, 47-49

A study of 300 cases over a 10-year period in which the mother sought to protect the child from sexual abuse, found that 70% resulted in unsupervised visitation or shared custody; in 20% of the cases the mothers completely lost custody, and many of these lost all visitation rights.
- Neustein & Goetting (1999), "Judicial Responses to the Protective Parent's Complaint of Child Sexual Abuse," Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 8 (4): 103-122.

The Wellesley Battered Mothers' Testimony Project found that 15 out of 40 cases resulted in sole or joint physical custody to the fathers, all of whom had abused both the mother and the children.
- BMTP, supra at Appendix A.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Task Force found that 94% of fathers who actively sought custody received sole or joint custody, regardless of whether there was a history of abuse. While fathers received primary physical custody 29% of the time, mothers received primary physical custody in only 7% of the contested cases. The Study also cited other research which similarly found that fathers who sought custody received primary physical custody 2/3 of the time, with mothers receiving it less than ¼ of the time; and another study which found that fathers seeking custody received joint or sole custody 79% of the time, with mothers receiving sole custody in only 15% of those cases (compared to fathers' sole custody in 41% of the cases).
- Gender Bias Study at 831-832 and citing Middlesex Divorce Research Group relitigation study and Phear et al., 1983.

While the Massachusetts study and those it cited were not able to identify what proportion of the contesting fathers were batterers, the studies cited in my other Statement indicate consistently that 75% of cases have a history of domestic violence, with a substantial proportion of severe violence. Hence, it is likely that a substantial proportion of the fathers receiving joint or primary physical custody in this study had committed domestic violence.
- Meier Statement, Research Indicating that the Majority of Cases that go to Court as 'High Conflict' Contested Custody Cases have a History of Domestic Violence (Nov. 9, 2005).
violence

American College Northeastern University Press The Book "From Madness To Mutiny"

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:25:05 EST

From Madness to Mutiny
Why Mothers Are Running from the Family Courts -- and What Can Be Done about It
Amy Neustein, Michael Lesher

Northeastern Series on Gender, Crime, and Law
Northeastern University Press
University Press of New England
2005 • 316 pp. 6 x 9"
Gender Studies / Law

"This book is essential reading for any health or mental health professional or legal advocate for children."—Family Violence and Sexual Assault Bulletin

A powerful exposé of the family court system's prejudice against mothers trying to protect their sexually abused children.

In this astonishing book, sociologist Amy Neustein and attorney Michael Lesher examine the serious dysfunction of the nation's family courts -- a dysfunction that too often results in the courts' failure to protect the people they were designed to help. Specifically, the authors chronicle cases in which mothers who believe their children have been sexually abused by their fathers are disbelieved, ridiculed or punished for trying to protect them. All too often the mother, in such a case, is deemed the unstable parent, and her children are removed from her care, to be placed in foster care or even with the father credibly accused of abusing them.

Employing a special form of sociological inquiry known as ethnomethodology, they show how judges, private attorneys, law guardians, child protective service caseworkers and court-appointed mental health experts on a day-to-day basis collaboratively produce a closed and claustrophobic family court setting that makes practical sense to the system's practitioners -- but looks like madness to everyone else. They also describe the social interactive work of mothers trapped inside the system. Faced with judicial rulings that seem to violate their most basic parental values, these mothers litigate furiously, take their stories to the press, go on hunger strikes, or turn fugitive with their children through a modern-day "underground railroad."

From Madness to Mutiny offers an overview of family court malfunction and the parental mutiny that results from it. The authors outline the new legal landscape that makes the madness possible and show how the system has failed to react to severe criticism from media and legislators. And they discuss ways to reform the family courts, with the goal of transforming them from instruments of punishment to true institutions of justice.

"There is extraordinary merit in the claims the authors make… [and] many of the reforms, suggested in the concluding three chapters, are worth consideration."—Law and Politics Book Review

".. [Y]ou will find this a hard book to put down, because it is a book that matters."—The Residential (Edgewater, NJ)

"Unusually rich and detailed documentation . . . Amy Neustein and Michael Lesher have produced a searing and profoundly disturbing indictment of family courts in the United States . . . I commend Neustein and Lesher for their major contribution to this struggle."
—Violence Against Women

"This book is a must read for every feminist, especially mothers." —Helen Grieco, Executive Director, California National Organization of Women

"A groundbreaking new book that is perhaps the most highly readable scholarly work I've encountered in my 14 years in academia . . . The very first to provide the historical and contextual chronology of this system's steady decline into chaos and corruption over the past two decades. It is eminently accurate and rigorously documented -- a book that will hit scholars, professionals, and lay persons right between their eyes. This is the book that mothers have been waiting for . . . I consider this book among the most important of the decade."—Maureen Therese Hannah, Siena College

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword - Raoul Felder • Acknowledgments • Part I. Family Courts: The Problem • An Oveview of Family Court Madness - and Mother's Mutiny • The New Legal Landscape • Part II. Observations in Depth • Research Methods • Robed Rage • Lawless Law Guardians • Anti-Social Services • Mental Health Quackery • Mothers and Madness: The "Aftershocks" of the System • Part III. Changes • "Rebirthing" the Family Court System • Reforming the Courts • Reforming the Court Auxiliaries • Notes • References • Index

AMY NEUSTEIN, Ph.D., is a sociologist, author, and lecturer. In 1986 she founded a legal research and advocacy center in New York City, Help Us Regain the Children, to study the plight of mothers who lost custody of children. The findings of her study were published in the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, and have frequently been cited in the published work and lecture material of other researchers. In 1996, she received a Humanitarian Award from Mothers Against Sexual Abuse. Dr. Neustein has also published in a number of national journals, magazines, and newspapers, and has made appearances on radio and television.

MICHAEL LESHER is a lawyer and writer who has published in The Village Voice, The Jewish Week, Forward, Canadian Jewish News, and North Jersey Herald & News. He has contributed to legal publications such as Moore's Federal Practice, Weinstein's Evidence, and The Federal Litigation Guide

The American Documentary "Small Justice"

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:22:32 EST

The Making of the Documentary Small Justice
By Garland Waller

Diane Hofheimer, a paralegal and child advocate, handed me the VHS tape with a warning: The video would chill me to the bone. She told me itshowed a three-year-old girl clinging to a banister, begging not to be sent to live with her father.As Diane explained, a family court judge had awarded custody of this little girl to her dad despite evidence that he had sexually abused her. The thought of this made my skin crawl and part of me refused to believe that our court system would do this to a child. So I did what many people in my situation would do: I put the tape on top of my "to do"file. And there it sat, staring me in the face, for six months. About once a week, Diane would call tocheck in and see if I had watched the tape and each time I had to tell her, "No, not yet." She was patient. A little background. Diane is a childhoodfriend. She and I grew up in the same Quaker meeting in Virginia. She and her husband, Charlie Hofheimer, had created a law office in Virginia Beach, Va., that represented women in custody and divorce cases. Together they had learned that the courts often ignored evidence of sexual abuse and awarded custody to the abusive parent, typically the father. Diane was alarmed that no one in the media was telling this story. And that was why she had turned to me. She was hoping that I would use my skills as a TV producer to get the word out about this issue.Eventually, I mustered up the courage and put the tape in the VCR. As promised, the videotape showed a towheaded girl, clinging to a banister,screaming, in a aunting, horrifying cry, "Please, Mommy, please don't make me go to my daddy's house." It was a singular moment in space and time for me; it was the moment that changed my life. If, as Diane said, this child was not a loneexception but part of a trend that extended across America then this amounted to a national scandal that needed to be exposed. I began to research custody and divorce cases in which violence or abuse was a component. Ihad always expected that parents going through a divorce would put the needs of their kids first. But, as the research unfolded I began to see that violent men tended to be the ones who demanded custody. And when they did, they had a good shot at receiving it. During the course of my research, I read things like:"Fathers who battered the mother are twice as likely to seek sole custodyof their children as non-violent fathers."– American Psychological Association's Presidential Task Force, Violence and the Family. (2000) and:"Abusers/batterers who are crimi nally liable for their violence nonethelessare getting sole or joint custody in approximately 70 percent of challenged child custody cases." – The American Judges Foundation, Domestic Violence in the Courtroom: Understanding the Problem,Knowing the Victim. (1996) "Between 50-75 percent of themen who batter their wives or female partners also abuse their children. "– Lenore E. Walker et al, "Beyond the Juror's Ken: Battered Women." 7 Vermont Law Review 1, (1982) I was growing increasingly convinced about the extent of this scandal and its potential as the subject of a documentary. But despite my background producing well-funded syndicated documentaries on such topics as the fear of nuclear war, rape, child abuse and drug addiction, I had a feeling no network would back me on this project until I could show them the finished goods. So, I decided to make my first independent, low budget documentary using $20,000 of my own money and one of my graduate students at Boston University who generously agreed to work for free. In 1998, I began shooting "Small Justice:

Little Justice in America's Family Courts." I spent months gathering information, and fully immersing myself in this issue. Given the complexity of the family court system and the intricacies of abusive relationships, I was lucky that I had DianeHofheimer to guide me. Diane explained legal theories and the intricacies of the family court system and she gave me boxes of legal research. She also introduced me to mothers who had lost custody of their kids to abusers. To document the abuse of justice being perpetrated by the family courts, I decided to follow Diane and Charlie Hofheimer as they worked with three mothers who were losing or had lost custody of their kids in family courts. I never doubted these women or their stories because they were so open, so desperate for help, so determined to protect their children. But I could see how they could lose in court, not because there wasn't evidence, but because they presented themselves poorly. They were overwrought and angry, and their emotions often affected their composure.I can't imagine any loving mother, frankly any loving father, acting differently. Sometimes, after a day of shooting, I would lie in bed at night, unable to sleep because of what I had seen. I wondered what I would do if the court ignored me and my efforts to protect my child. Would I run away with my child? How would I live? Where on the planet could I go without being caught? I saw the underbelly of American justice and I wondered what options these protective mothers had. In addition to the mothers, my crew and I also interviewed leading experts like attorney Richard Ducote, Dr. Carolyn Newberger of Children's Hospital in Boston and Karen Winner, author of "Divorced from Justice," one of the few books on this issue. These interviews further convinced me that the system was deeply flawed. Unfortunately, all of the dads involved in the cases I featured refused to speak with me, as did their lawyers. But I did manage to get an interview with Dr. Richard Gardner, the man who devised Parental Alienation Syndrome, the debunked theory behind many of the most egregious decisions handed down by family court judges. According to Dr. Gardner, alienating parents, typically the mothers, use accusations of abuse in order to alienate their children from their fathers. During my interview with Dr. Gardner, one of the last he gave before he committed suicide in 2003, I asked him what a mother should do if her child revealed that his or her father had abused them sexually. Gardner said she would respond by saying, "I don't believe you. I am going to beat you for saying that. Don't ever talk that way about you father.'" Although Gardner's theory has been widely discredited by the psychological establishment, the fact is that many members of the judicial system have bought into PAS. Now, when a mother brings allegations of sexual abuse before the court she is often accused of PAS. Unfortunately, many judges find PAS more credible than a hospital record of vaginal tearing or unexplained blood in the anus of a child. As I wrapped up production of "Small Justice"in 2001, I thought I would have no problemselling the show. After all, I had uncovered a national scandal and I had extensive testimony from three protective mothers and a litany of experts from across the spectrum. I was wrong. I took the show to all the news magazines at CBS, ABC and NBC, but no one wanted it. HBO and CNN also said no. I heard these responses over and over again: "What's wrong with the mother?""Give me something that is more clear cut.""It's her word against his." "He looks pretty normal to me." "Guys don't do this to their kids." "I thought all mothers got custody unless they were, like, nuts." "We can't air that. We could get sued." "It looks like 'He said-She said" to me." "This is way too complicated to explain to folks."

It is probably hard for anyone involved in this awful situation to understand why the media will not touch this issue. After all, these stories are filled with injustice and human drama. Unfortunately, television stations fear lawsuits and that fear hinders their willingness to uncover important stories and stand up for what is right. Although the large broadcasters rejected "Small Justice", the good news is that the documentary received some acclaim. It garnered the award for "Best Social Documentary" at the NY International 2001 and was honored with theAward for Media Excellence from the 8th International Conference on Family Violence, which was presented in California at the International Conference on Family and Domestic Violence. I showed clips of "Small Justice" and spoke at two conferences hosted by the National Organization for Women. "Small Justice" was also shown at The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and the Key West Indie Film Fest gave it an award. I like to believe that "Small Justice" contributed to the growing interest in this area. Over the past couple of years, conferences like the Battered Mothers Custody Conference have been dedi cated to the issue, books have been written and recently Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories aired on PBS. These are big accomplishments and eachone helps to call attention to the heartbreaking injustices in the system. There are still nights when I cannot sleep because I hear Suzi begging not to be sent to her father's house. Every day, I get at least one letter from a terrified mother or worried grandfather, someone trying to protect a child from a family court system that is at best woefully misguided and, at worst, dangerous. And so, I believe that those of us who are able to fight the system, must continue the uphill battle to get the courts and the media to listen to a disturbing truth.

The American PBS Documentary "Breaking The Silence The Childrens Stories"

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:21:19 EST

Admin Options

What Breaking the Silence Means

By Dominique Lasseur

Documentary film producer Dominique Lasseur set out to explore the failures of the family court system in "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories." But when public television broadcast the program in the fall of 2005, the father's rightsmovement was quick to react with scathing criticism and a deluge of viewer complaints. What compelled you to take on this issue? We didn't set out to produce a piece about custody issues. We had planned to make a documentaryabout the impact of domestic violence on children. We really wanted to show stories of what was being done to help children who wereraised in domestic violence environments. What we found was one story after another of protective mothers having their children taken away from them and given in sole or partial custody to the very man who terrorized the mother and the children. It was so outrageous, that when we heard the first stories we thought they were aberrations, but then we found that this was in fact happening often and everywhere. We knew at that point that this was the story to concentrate on. When did you become convinced that there was a systemic problem within the family court system? I met a woman in New Jersey and I spent an afternoon listening to her story. She had been divorced for two to three years and had lost custody of her kids. Her ex-husband was making her life a total prison by dragging her into court every month. She was a professional, intelligent woman, and I thought this can't be happening. This is clearly a horrible story, but it has to be one case in a million. But looking further we found the same story everywhere, in Florida, New Orleans, Ohio,California, etc.I spoke with dozens of women who were very candid about what they had endured. After listening to one story after another, there was no way to ignore the extent of the problem. We chose to feature the stories where there were extensive court proceedings so that we could verify that what the women was telling us was what she had testified in court as well. So there was a clear history of allegations of domestic violence and/or child physical or psychological abuse. All the women we interviewed went to court believing the system was fair, not thinking for a moment their kids could be taken from them. It seems that we are now on this issue where we were 20-25 years ago on domestic violence. I would assume that it was as difficult at that time to talk about domestic violence, as it is to talk about this particular issue now. People don't want to believe it. They don't want to know about it. To tell you the truth, many in my interviews I said to the woman I was interviewing, "It would be easier to believe that you were fabricating all this because what you're telling me is so horrendous. It feels like you're telling me a story about some remote country where there is no notion of justice." And the fact that it's happening here in America was unbelievable, is unbelievable. In your opinion what is the underlying problem? In my view, the problem is that while criminal courts have made tremendous progress in dealingwith domestic violence, family courts are not as informed about the dynamics of family violence. Why hasn't the family court system progressed in the same way as the criminal court system? On the record family court judges say to women, "You're an intelligent, professional woman, so I don't believe you've been abused." You would not hear a judge in criminal court saythat because people know that domestic violence is not just happening in inner city, poor neighborhoods. That's one example. The other example is people who are aware of the dynamic of domestic violence know what an abuser looks like and behaves like, they know that someone who is professional looking can be behind closed doors someone who has terrorized his wife and family. In fact, you have doctors, attorneys, actors who all look fabulous to the community but who are violent abusers. I think it comes down to a lack of training, lack of accountability.

What is the long-term impact of this problem? As long as this situation continues we will undo years of progress on domestic violence because women are put in a Catch-22. If they don't report child abuse or domestic violence, they stand the risk of losing their kids because they failed to protect them. But if they do disclose domestic violence or sexual abuse then the kids are at riskof being taken away because the mothers will be blamed for alienating them or fabricating charges. Was it difficult to find a network to back your show? No, I can't say it was hard. We've been producing programs for Public Television for more than 20 years. I'm glad and proud that they are broadcasting our programs. We co-produced Breaking the Silence with Connecticut Public Television and it was aired nationally by PBS.

But the backlash has been pretty strong.There's been an organized campaign mostly by father's rights groups to demand that PBS stop distributing the program. They characterized the as an attack on fathers. This is akin tosaying because you're doing a documentary on the Holocaust you're accusing all Germans. It makes no sense. But it has given them a forum and they have jumped on it. Our point was not to deny that some men are victims of domestic violence. We did not seek to portray all men as rabid violent abusers. What we wanted to say is simple: children should not be put in the custody of a parent who is endangering them. In reviewing the show, ombudsmen for boththe Corporation for Public Broadcasting and PBS criticized Breaking the Silence forlacking balance. How do you respond? The CPB Ombudsman, Ken Bode, clearly had some personal axe to grind. He did not bother to contact us before writing his "report" and simply regurgitated the fathers' rights arguments. He went on to write two more "updates" without any indication that he was interested in the fairness and balance he claimed our documentary was lacking. The PBS Ombudsman did a more honest job even if we disagreed with his conclusions. And unlike Ken Bode, he published letters he received from people who disagreed with his report. PBS's official statement on the film indicated that, "The producers approached the topic with the open mindedness and commitment to fairness that we require of our journalists. Their research was extensive and supports the conclusions drawn in the program. Funding from the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation met PBS's underwriting guidelines; the Foundation had no editorial influence on program content. However, the program would have benefited from more indepth treatment of the complex issues surrounding child custody and the role of family courts and most specifically the provocative topic of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS).

Additionally,the documentary's 'first-person story telling approach' did not allow the depth of the producers' research to be as evident to the viewer as it could have been." Did you look for a father who had a similar experience to some of the mothers featured in your show? Yes, I spoke with a father's organization and it was clear that that they had a specific political agenda that they wanted to bring to this. The women we interviewed were simply mothers who were trying to protect their kids. Your main source of funding for Breaking the Silence, the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation, has also distanced itself from the program. you surprised by this? The Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation did not distance itself from the program. There are very strict guidelines for PBS underwriters who are not to exercise any control over the editorial content of the programs they support. Mary Kay simply made it clear that these rules had been respected and that we the filmmakers had full editorial control. The work of the foundation and of Mary Kay Corporation on the issue of domestic violence is remarkable and will continue to affect positively the lives of thousand of women across the country.

It seems that the discussion about Breaking the Silence has turned into a debate over style rather than substance. Would you agree?

If the documentary helps in any way to open a dialogue about how family courts are victimizing very families they are supposed to protect, then any debate will have been positive.

Has there been any positive outcome?

Yesterday, I was in Westchester County where I showed an eight-minute excerpt of Breaking the Silence to family court judges and personnel. Some were aware of the issues we presented and others were surprised. But it was very positive to see this information being used. You are not the first journalist to get into hot water after reporting on this topic. Kristen Lombardi, another contributor to this book, was sued and lost after writing an expose in the Boston Phoenix.

Why do you think these stories generate so much of a backlash?

These are complex stories filled with pain and extreme passions. There are strong vested interests that want to keep the public from knowing what is going on in family courts. I believe we're approaching a tipping point when people will demand more accountability from our courts.

What advice do you give to other journalists who want to cover this issue?

My only advice is, get your facts straight, get good insurance and get a good attorney.

Are you planning to do a follow up to Breaking the Silence?

While our next project will not be on domestic violence, we are committed to do more on this issue and to follow up on what we have learned with Breaking the Silence.

American Journalist Kristen Lombardi Phoenix Globe Article The "Custodians of Abuse"

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:19:54 EST

Custodians of Abuse
by Kristen Lombardi

IF YOU'RE A PARENT, it's your worst nightmare: finding out that your child is being molested — by your spouse. If you seek a divorce as a result, or are already going through one when you make the discovery, you hope that family court will do the right thing: grant you sole legal and physical custody of your child. In fact, you can't even imagine that there could be any other outcome in the custody judgment. But for many parents — in nearly every instance, mothers — just the opposite occurs: the alleged abusers don't just get unsupervised visitation rights, they get full custody. How can this happen?

Easy, say family-law attorneys, child-abuse advocates, and child-law specialists. Family courts aren't equipped to adjudicate criminal matters. They exist to settle divorces, wills, adoptions, guardianships, and other matters related to litigation between family members.

Three recent studies that looked at the outcomes of custody disputes involving child-abuse claims — one study surveyed California courts, one surveyed Massachusetts courts, and a third tracked 300 cases over a 10-year period in courts throughout the country — all came to the same conclusion: the nation's family courts are failing to protect children from abuse.

"Family courts are not in a position to litigate the complexities of child sexual abuse," explains Seth Goldstein, a Napa, California–based attorney who represents men and women in custody disputes involving child-sex-abuse charges. Goldstein, who also founded the Child Abuse Forensic Institute, in Napa, says that most family courts are "overburdened" with cases and don't have time for the lengthy trials and investigations that child-abuse allegations demand. "In many family courts," he says, "you often have only one sitting judge to hear hundreds of matters that have to do with many, many things, so the courts are compelled to move things along as quickly as possible. The system is just not conducive to [dealing with] child abuse."

Colorado attorney Alan Rosenfeld, who specializes in representing parents in custody disputes involving child-abuse allegations and has counseled approximately 1000 mothers trying to protect their children from abusive ex-husbands, is blunt: "If we ever sat down to design the worst possible system that protects the smallest number of children, it would look a lot like the family courts look today."

Nearly 25 experts in custody litigation involving child-abuse claims were interviewed for this article. All had the same three complaints about family court — regardless of which state's court system they were familiar with:

Family courts do not rely on criminal investigators to examine child-abuse claims. They rely on family advocates called guardians ad litem (GALs), whose charge is to investigate allegations of abuse, abandonment, and neglect and to represent the best interests of the children in disputed custody cases. More often than not, they are licensed psychologists or social workers. Sometimes, they are attorneys. They may be highly trained in their own areas of expertise, but that doesn't qualify them to evaluate physical evidence of abuse and to interview victims and alleged abusers. Yet in contested custody battles, they are frequently called upon to do just that. Their recommendations carry significant weight in judicial decisions that set the course of a child's life.

Normal courtroom checks and balances don't exist in family court. Unlike in criminal and civil court, there are no juries. And family courts do not mandate legal representation. Therefore, the only litigants with attorneys are those who can afford them. In this atmosphere, judges have extraordinary powers and can work with near-complete impunity. It is not uncommon, for example, for judges to hold hearings in which important rulings are made with only one party present (called ex parte hearings); such hearings can violate basic constitutional rights of due process.

Gender bias and traditional stereotypes of how women and men parent children continue to prevail in family court. As a result, while conventional wisdom has it that mothers almost always fare well in family court, statistics show otherwise. In 1996, the Williamsburg, Virginia–based American Judges Association released a report, "Domestic Violence and the Courtroom," in which it noted that wife batterers and child abusers convince family-court officials that their ex-wives are "unfit" or "undeserving" of sole custody in roughly 70 percent of contested custody battles. A 1989 Massachusetts study commissioned by the state's Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) showed that gender bias often hampers the administration of justice for women in custody decisions. It's true that mothers are almost always awarded full or joint custody of their children in divorce cases where custody isn't disputed. Yet the study found that when there was a fight over the children, fathers won primary or joint custody more than 70 percent of the time — whether or not there was a history of spousal or child abuse. (See "Changes in Massachusetts Family Courts Since 1989," this page.) Although the study is 13 years old and a number of things have changed since it was first published, at least 23 states have conducted gender-bias studies since — and all have made similar findings.

AMERICA'S DARKEST SECRET

IT'S HARD TO say how many children are affected in these cases. Massachusetts family courts mediated approximately 9450 custody cases in 2001; multiply that by 50 and you get an extremely rough estimate of how many such cases are heard nationwide every year 472,500. Of these, it's impossible to say how many involve charges of child abuse. Massachusetts family courts, for instance, do not keep statistics on the types of custody cases litigated. To date, the most reliable and largest national study of the incidence of child sexual abuse in contested custody cases occurred in 1990, when the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, in Denver, surveyed 9000 custody disputes in 12 family courts across the country. Fewer than two percent involved child-sex-abuse charges.

The number is small. But the implications for the children concerned are staggering. Take, for instance, Idelle Clarke's 16-year-old daughter, who is now living with her father, a man twice found by Los Angeles child-protection workers to have sexually assaulted her.

"This is one of America's darkest, most shameful secrets," says Clarke, a 54-year-old Southern California mother whose case has become something of a cause célèbre among the burgeoning community of women and advocates seeking reform of the nation's family courts. (See "Five Steps Toward Family-Court Reform," page 3.) After a nine-year custody battle that began in Los Angeles County Family Courts in 1993 and ended in California Supreme Court last October, Clarke not only lost custody of her daughter, but cannot have any contact with the girl. No phone calls. No visits. Nothing. Family-court judges simply didn't believe that the girl had been sexually assaulted by Clarke's ex-husband, Ovando Cowles, even though two separate, exhaustive sex-abuse investigations by LA child-protection workers found that she had been. Instead, judges maintained that Clarke had brainwashed her daughter into making up bogus charges about her father. So now, even though her daughter lives just minutes away from Clarke's Sierra Madre home, she hasn't been able to see the girl in the two years since the initial family-court judgment, which prohibited Clarke from going within 100 yards of her daughter. "It's a punishment greater than those given to serial rapists," says Clarke, who is now preparing to file a January 14 petition asking the United States Supreme Court to hear her case. Meanwhile, Clarke's daughter doesn't just live with the man who's sexually abused her on at least two occasions. The teenager, who is developmentally delayed, lives with her abuser not understanding that the people who want to protect her, can't. And that those who can protect her, won't.

In the small world of contested custody cases in which child-abuse claims arise, Clarke's situation isn't an exception. It's more the rule. Colorado attorney Rosenfeld has seen mothers lose custody of children who've contracted sexually transmitted diseases from their fathers or who've made graphic disclosures such as "Daddy took Mr. Cocky and I played with him and took a tissue and cleaned it up." Nevertheless, for years, parents who've lost their children to abusers have believed their cases were exceptions. Until Clarke went public with her story.

In 1999, the now-defunct Los Angeles New Times published a detailed account of the prolonged custody battle. (See "Additional Reading," page 4.) Since then, Clarke has fielded countless phone calls from women
across the country who, like her, expected to find justice in the family courts, but found something quite different instead. "Rarely a day goes by where I don't get a call from a mother," she says. The outpouring inspired her, along with four mothers from California, Alaska, Michigan, and New Jersey, to organize the grassroots group United for Justice, whose members include hundreds of women in 49 states caught in Kafkaesque nightmares in the nation's family courts. Says Clarke, "Women are being routinely punished and abused if they bring up child-sexual-abuse allegations in the family courts." And it's not just Clarke and other mothers who've lost custody of their children who make this claim.

New York area sociologist Amy Neustein, along with two co-authors, is writing a critique of the family-court system for Northeastern University Press. In 1988, she established the Help Us Regain the Children Legal Research Center, which tracks custody battles involving child-sexual-abuse claims. Over the past 14 years, she has compiled a database with nearly 1000 cases, and has identified a frequent and disturbing pattern: "the penalization of mothers for bringing these allegations to the court's attention in the first place."

In a 1999 study on judicial responses to mothers' child-abuse complaints, Neustein and a colleague followed 300 cases through the family courts in places across the country for a 10-year period, from 1988 to 1998. Only 10 percent of the 300 cases resulted in what Neustein termed "a positive outcome" — meaning that the mother had won primary custody of her children and the alleged abuser had gotten supervised visits. In 70 percent of the cases, the mothers had to send their children on unsupervised visits and share custody with the alleged abusers. More than 20 percent of the cases led to what Neustein referred to as "a negative outcome" i.e., the mother lost visitation rights altogether. Too often, she concludes, "The system retaliates against mothers with such ferocity that they lose their rights."

Her research, which entails combing through court transcripts, depositions, sex-abuse evaluations, GAL reports, and judicial findings from the 1000 child-custody cases in her database, has exposed punitive measures commonly issued by judges against mothers who continue to charge child sexual abuse. Family-court judges, for example, hold women in contempt, throw them in jail, scale back their visitation privileges, and even forbid them to seek psychological care for their children. In some instances, judges have gone to the extreme of ordering women not to have any contact — no letters, no phone calls — with their children.

"What I have seen in the family courts goes beyond the maltreatment of any other afflicted class in the history of this country," Neustein maintains. She ticks off a shocking number of injustices committed against mothers. Family judges routinely refuse to hear evidence of child sexual abuse; fail to give mothers a chance to testify in court on critical matters concerning abuse; hand down judgments against mothers in ex parte hearings without giving them prior notice; and evade the rules that guide courtroom conduct. She says, "People would be flabbergasted by what I have found in the family courts.... It's as if you're looking into a world that's completely outside the normal range of legal conduct."

DOCUMENTING THE ABUSE

NOT LONG AFTER Clarke's story was published, the California National Organization for Women (NOW) drafted a friend-of-the-court brief urging California appellate judges to review Clarke's case, as did the Washington, DC–based legal-watchdog group Judicial Watch. (Her case has attracted an impressive list of notables from the mental-health and legal fields. Among the dozens who submitted letters this year urging the California Supreme Court to review the custody dispute were University of Southern California law professor Susan Estrich, National NOW president Kim Gandy, and former American Psychiatric Association president Paul Fink.) After NOW's brief was reported in the press, the organization, like Clarke, began receiving e-mails and phone calls from women nationwide describing similar problems. The vast majority of these women, says Rachel Allan of California NOW, had lost custody to husbands or boyfriends believed to be sexually abusing their children. In response to the stories, the group launched a three-year effort to examine the problems women face in California's family courts. In 2001, the organization posted a 21-page questionnaire on its Web page. Feedback was overwhelming, Allan says; the group received detailed responses from women in every region in the country, including Massachusetts. "Women had expected to find a family-friendly venue [in family court] to make arrangements on divorce and custody," she explains, "but they found something quite different."

Last June, after surveying 300 California mothers who had participated in the questionnaire and conducting follow-up interviews, NOW released a 134-page report on the state of the family courts in California. Not intended as a neutral analysis, the document portrays a system that's "crippled, incompetent, and corrupt" and riddled with abuses against women. Women reported being openly insulted and called "sexist names" by judges, GALs, and court evaluators. Some complained that judges silenced them during hearings while allowing their estranged partners to speak. Others complained that judges refused to let them call their own expert witnesses who'd analyzed forensic evidence in their cases or even to let women testify in custody disputes that would affect their own children. Evaluators and GALs often sided with the fathers and their attorneys, especially when spousal or child abuse arose.

The NOW report found that the most serious problems occurred in custody litigation involving allegations of domestic violence; in 76 percent of the cases surveyed, the fathers were accused of having physically or sexually abused their children. In 50 percent of these cases, the abuse was substantiated with police reports. In 30 percent, court-issued restraining orders had been directed against the fathers. Yet when mothers raised allegations of child abuse in disputes, fathers won sole or joint custody 69 percent of the time. Family-court judges did not permit evidence of the father's child abuse to be heard in 73 percent of these cases, even though blocking such evidence from court proceedings violates due-process rights. Allan and her colleagues repeatedly found that judges had disregarded compelling evidence of child sexual abuse. Some judges deemed such material irrelevant because of earlier rulings or similar technicalities. Others flouted the rules altogether. "I've been in a family court where the judge openly proclaimed, 'I don't care what the law says. This is my courtroom,'" Allan says. "In so many cases, judges just ignored the evidence of abuse and the word of children themselves."

Massachusetts hasn't escaped these problems. Last November, the Wellesley Centers for Women, at Wellesley College, issued a sharp critique of the Massachusetts family-court system as part of a three-year research effort known as the Battered Women's Testimony Project (BWTP). The November 25 report, "Battered Mothers Speak Out," stems from interviews with 40 women from across the state — all of whom had suffered physical, emotional, or psychological abuse during their marriages — and 45 victims' advocates, judges, and other courtroom personnel. The study found that officials who work at nearly every family court in the Commonwealth regularly commit what the report described as "human-rights violations" against battered mothers. Women complained about a host of offenses: how court personnel labeled them hysterical and unreasonable; treated them with scorn, condescension, and disrespect; failed to give them a chance to be heard in court; and denied them access to sensitive investigations and documents pertinent to their custody disputes.

Fifteen of the 40 women interviewed said their ex-partners retained sole or joint custody of the children — even though all 15 men reportedly abused both their ex-wives and their children. Eighteen complained that judges or family-service officers granted or recommended that abusive fathers get unsupervised visitation with their children. When it came to allegations of spousal or child abuse, 38 women said judges, family-service officers, and GALs had ignored or minimized their claims. Nine of the 40 women said judges and GALs failed to investigate allegations of physical and sexual abuse. And six of the 40 women said that judges and GALs refused to take into account documented evidence of child abuse when deciding their custody disputes. The Wellesley report concluded that family courts across Massachusetts are systematically failing to protect battered women and their children from further harm. As Carrie Cuthbert, one of the report's five authors and co-director of the Wellesley Centers' Women's Rights Network, explains, "Not only is the safety and well-being of mothers and children at stake, but so is battered mothers' trust
in our family courts." Within the community of battered women and their advocates, she continues, "the family courts have gained a reputation as a place where women don't find justice."

Not surprisingly, Massachusetts family-court judges disagree. They condemn the 106-page Wellesley report as skewed because it relies solely on testimony from women with complaints about custody decisions, not those satisfied with their rulings. "It is incomplete and flawed in its methodology," states Sean Dunphy, the chief justice of the Massachusetts family and probate courts. He maintains that the report's approach, which frames the 40 women's accounts in the context of human-rights violations, "may work well for systems in Third World countries, but not for a court in the United States." He and other judges argue that the women's testimony would have been strengthened if it had been verified by a review of court transcripts and by interviews with lawyers in the cases. (In fact, the Wellesley report's authors fact-checked 10 of the 40 stories with court records and other documentation. "In every one, we found the documents thoroughly supported the women's statements," says Lundy Bancroft, a report author.)

Nevertheless, Dunphy finds the claim that the state's family courts aren't working to be a "broad-brushed statement." It concerns him, however, "that individuals would have such perceptions and beliefs." Jeremy Stahlin, associate justice at the Suffolk County Probate and Family Court, concedes that if the complaints outlined in the report were true, "then, yes, it's a problem." But he also concludes: "I don't think the court is predominantly favoring one side or the other in these custody cases, and I find that hard to accept as a premise."

Complaints about faulty methodology strike advocates as a convenient way to deflect attention from the issues laid out in the controversial reports. That so many women across the state reported strikingly similar accounts should, in and of itself, be cause for alarm, Bancroft says, noting, "It's shocking that 40 women who don't know each other would offer the same complaints about the family courts." He adds, "The family court's current response to custody disputes, particularly those that involve child-abuse allegations, is repeatedly failing to protect children."

Losing custody to a child molester

[note: a portion of this article has been deleted]

THE NOTORIOUS Fells Acres day-care and McMartin preschool child-sexual-abuse cases have left behind a terrible legacy: That same year, Karen Henderson of the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on problems in her diocese and beyond. Yet it wasn't until 2002, when the details of sexual abuse by scores of clergy within the Boston archdiocese were made public, that enough people believed the charges, victims could credibly demand their abusers be held accountable, and law-enforcement and court authorities would finally listen.

So it should come as no surprise that family-court officials often disbelieve charges of child sex abuse — even though few sex-abuse allegations ever turn out to be patently false. Kathleen Coulborn Faller, a professor of social work at the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor, has done extensive research into child-sex-abuse allegations in custody cases and has found that 70 percent of these allegations were indeed true. Of the other 30 percent, she reports, very few involved parents maliciously conjuring up bogus charges — only 10 out of 215 cases fit that description. Even that number seems inflated, given that four of the 10 cases involved one father who Faller says "admitted that he had filed false child-abuse reports ... to obtain greater access to his daughter." Thus, the data, she says, "thoroughly debunks the myth that false allegations are rampant in custody disputes."

Even so, the myth persists. Combine that with gender bias — after all, most claims of abuse are made by women against their ex-husbands or former boyfriends — and you have situations in which mothers find it very difficult to get their claims taken seriously. Eileen King, director of the Washington, DC, office of Justice for Children, a national child-advocacy group, has worked on roughly 100 custody cases involving child-abuse allegations in many states over the past two years, and has seen how gender discrimination comes into play. If a mother who suspects molestation appears distraught in the courtroom (which seems only natural when dealing with the horror of hearing a child say, "Daddy puts his pee-pee in my pee-pee") she often gets slapped with the "hysterical" label. If she appears composed, the label is "cold and calculated." Mothers, King observes, "are often put into no-win situations."

Gender bias against mothers, combined with a culture resistant to believing fathers molest their children, has made for a potent mix, giving rise to a bogus mental disorder called "parental-alienation syndrome" (PAS) that is frequently employed by alleged sex abusers in their custody battles. Essentially, PAS involves brainwashing a child to allege molestation. The syndrome, according to the theory, afflicts mostly "vindictive mothers" who "program" their kids to fabricate claims so they'll have an advantage in litigation. The brainchild of Richard Gardner, a psychiatrist affiliated with Columbia University (who believes that up to 90 percent of all child-sex-abuse allegations are false), PAS has been referenced in courtrooms in Massachusetts and across the country, even though it's widely discredited by mainstream mental-health professionals.

Since 1987, when Gardner first coined the phrase "parental-alienation syndrome," he has provided no scientific data to support it. Most of his 140 or so articles on the subject have not appeared in peer-reviewed medical journals, which require evaluation of articles by fellow professionals before publication. The American Psychiatric Association has not included PAS in its diagnostic manual of certifiable disorders. "It is a non-syndrome," explains Robert Geffner, a psychologist who has evaluated child-sex-abuse allegations in family-court litigation for 20 years and who established the Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute, in San Diego. "PAS [is] no medical diagnosis whatsoever. You cannot confirm a syndrome simply by stating that it exists."

Nevertheless, Gardner's PAS theory is widely accepted in a legal system seeking neat, convenient ways to get rid of time-consuming custody battles. A prolific writer, Gardner has self-published hundreds of books, audiotapes, and videotapes and has lugged them across the globe to train family-court judges, GALs, and psychologists on how to recognize PAS. "People believe him," Faller says. "The idea of an alienating parent has taken on a life of its own." His teachings have become so thoroughly integrated into the language of family law that mothers almost always face a variation on them in court: a mother who alleges abuse is crazy, for instance; or she coaches the kids; or she is crazy and coaches the kids. As King, of Justice for Children, explains, "No one has to cite 'PAS' anymore. They say the mother is 'delusional,' or that she is 'destroying the relationship' with the father. It's the most common defense in these cases." Or, as Suffolk family judge Stahlin says, "It's very common for one parent to say the other is 'alienating' or 'coaching' the child. Often, it's the only explanation that the accused can come up with for why the child is saying what he's saying." Indeed, Gardner's influence has become so entrenched nowadays that the Massachusetts Citizens for Children, a statewide child-advocacy group based in Waltham, organized an October 2002 conference — attended by just six family-court judges, including Dunphy and Stahlin — meant to counteract the negative impact of PAS-like defenses.

For all too often, the language of PAS works. Kelly Fink, one of the 40 women who participated in the recent Wellesley report, knows firsthand the shame and humiliation of being labeled crazy and a brainwasher by family-court officials. The 39-year-old nurse and Natick resident comes across as a formidable personality — she's smart, articulate, and persuasive. Yet her five-year custody battle at Middlesex Probate and Family Court — during which she criticized judges, GALs, and doctors for how they handled her allegations — ended last August when she lost custody of her school-aged daughter to the man whom she has repeatedly accused of child molestation. The experience has left Fink convinced that, in her words, "the family courts aren't at all interested in protecting innocent children."

Fink's custody battle dates back to summer 1997, when she filed to divorce her then-husband, Jonathan Meier, a 37-year-old engineer and Massachusetts resident. Their marriage, Fink says, was an unhappy, abusive relationship that deteriorated for good soon after the birth of the couple's daughter, Melissa (not her real name). After a bitter divorce trial in January 1999, Fink was awarded full custody of Melissa. And due to allegations of emotional and physical abuse that Fink lodged against her ex-husband — including charges that he had bruised Melissa's leg as a baby — Meier got only supervised visitation. Gradually, though, as he received positive marks from a supervisor who monitored visits, Meier was allowed to spend unsupervised time with his daughter.

It wasn't long after the court loosened the stringent visitation provisions that Fink began to suspect Meier was abusing Melissa. In October 1999, Melissa, then two, returned from a visit with her father and, several days later, complained that, as Fink recalls, "her bottom hurt her." Fink took her daughter to a doctor, who diagnosed the little girl with bloody, superficial cuts and tears around the vulva. The doctor didn't consider the injuries particularly revealing, though child-abuse experts like Children's Hospital's Newberger say such physical injuries on a toddler "exclude any benign or accidental cause." Yet something the girl said gave the doctor pause. During the genital examination, according to court records, the toddler told the doctor, "Don't put your fingers inside."

Taken aback, the doctor asked Melissa if anyone else ever did such a thing.

Melissa, court records show, replied, "Dad did, I do."

Concerned, the doctor filed a report of suspected child abuse with the state DSS. When the agency receives these reports, known as "51-As," says DSS spokesperson Michael MacCormack, it "screens" them to see if they warrant investigation. In this case, the DSS called the GAL assigned to represent Melissa at the time. But the agency then screened out the doctor's report according to department regulations — something that happens more often than you might think. In 2001, for example, DSS received 64,304 reports of suspected child abuse and neglect. Of those, it instantly threw out 21,828 because, MacCormack explains, "They did not meet our criteria." Either the child wasn't in immediate danger, he says, or the alleged abuser wasn't a primary caretaker. In the courtroom, the agency's unwillingness to investigate child sexual abuse helped cement the idea that Fink's allegations were nothing but "distortions" and possible "delusions." A court-ordered evaluation into the claims concluded that, according to documents, "There is no data ... to indicate that [the child] has been sexually abused by anyone." And so, the unsupervised visits were allowed to continue.

More than a year later, Fink voiced concerns about abuse again. This time, in April 2001, Melissa, who was now four years old, returned from a visit with her father appearing upset. When Fink asked what was wrong, her daughter told her that "her bottom hurt." The girl's genitals, Fink says, looked red and raw. So Fink called the girl's GAL, who reminded Fink about "problems with past allegations," as stated in court records. Fink did the only thing she could think to do: she brought her daughter to Children's Hospital. Melissa's diagnosis of a "perineal rash" does not specify abuse. But while the doctor was examining Melissa, court records (and an audiotape of the examination provided to the Phoenix) reveal she blurted out to her mother: "That's where Daddy touches me."

Melissa's comment set off a chain reaction. The hospital performed a rape-kit exam and filed a 51-A report with the DSS. The department, in turn, performed a two-month investigation, interviewing Melissa, her parents, and others. In the end, however, the department did not support a finding of sexual abuse — because, as court documents show, Melissa did not make "specific definitive disclosures" about being abused. It was one of 16,637 cases in 2001 where DSS did not substantiate suspected abuse or neglect. In accordance with agency guidelines, the DSS referred the case to the Middlesex County District Attorney's Office, which opened a criminal investigation. State prosecutors discovered that Melissa's rape-kit exam had yielded traces of DNA from "saliva" on swabs taken from the girl's genital area. The presence of saliva doesn't prove molestation; indeed, it could have come from Melissa's own fingers. Court records show that prosecutors convened a November 2001 grand jury and issued a subpoena ordering Meier to provide a DNA sample, which he did in February 2002. But they've since told Fink that the DNA from the rape kit turned out to be too small for testing. In other words, it's still not known whose DNA matches the rape-kit sample. The Middlesex DA, through its spokesperson Seth Horowitz, declined to comment on the specifics of the criminal investigation except to say that the office "had no positive forensic evidence" at this time.

Her daughter's disclosures prompted Fink to ask Middlesex family court to issue a no-contact order against her ex-husband and to review the visitation set-up. She filed the motion on April 27, 2001. On July 12, 2001, Meier filed a counter-motion seeking full custody of Melissa. Meier did not return a phone call from the Phoenix seeking comment. Through his Newton attorney, Lisa Marino, he declined to comment on the case. Marino offered this statement: "My client understands the importance of abuse allegations and has always taken them seriously. However, in this case, the allegations are not true." In court records, Meier has repeatedly denied that he's ever harmed his daughter. He has claimed that his ex-wife has made "false allegations" against him and has "physically and emotionally" harmed his daughter by subjecting her to repeated sex-abuse investigations that fail to yield any evidence.

In February 2002, Middlesex Probate and Family Court associate justice Beverly Weinger Boorstein presided over the couple's second custody trial on the new appeals. During the three-day trial, as many as 14 witnesses were called to testify. Yet according to trial transcripts, the court heard far more testimony about the mother's mental health and parental fitness than about physical evidence of child sexual abuse. At the end of trial, Fink says, Boorstein requested that she bring her daughter to court so the judge could meet her. When Fink showed up at the courthouse on February 27, 2002, she says, the judge offered her an ultimatum. "She said if I voluntarily gave up my no-contact order, she'd allow me to retain full custody," Fink recalls. "I told her I wouldn't do that." Fink's comments are echoed by her partner, Jason Morse, who accompanied Fink into the judge's chambers that day. (Fink filed a February 28, 2002, complaint about Boorstein with the Commission on Judicial Conduct, whose investigation confirmed the events at the February 27 meeting yet absolved Boorstein of misconduct.) On March 5, 2002, Boorstein awarded joint physical custody to Fink and Meier. But five months later, she reversed her order and stripped Fink of custody. Fink, the judge ruled, could only see her daughter twice a week, under strict supervision. In the August 5, 2002, ruling — an exhaustive, 28-page summary of the case — Boorstein casts Fink, who suffers from post-traumatic-stress disorder, as a delusional woman whose sex-abuse allegations are false beliefs unsupported by the evidence. Boorstein declined to comment on the case for this article. In her ruling, she states that the "mother's mental state and her resulting actions will destroy [Melissa's] relationship with her father and continue to have a negative effect on [Melissa's] emotional and mental development."

Fink, who's appealing Boorstein's decision, holds a different view: "I feel like she reversed custody just to punish me" for filing a complaint against her with the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Though Fink acknowledges that the judge's findings deal a severe blow to her credibility, she attributes the punitive judgment to "an effort to psychologically slam me and debilitate me so that I will shut up." Fink — who attended a battered women's testimonial at the State House in May 2002, at which dozens of mothers spoke out about problems in Massachusetts family courts — says her experience fits a shockingly similar pattern in custody cases involving child sexual abuse. As she describes it: "It's [to] pathologize the moms and turn attention away from the kids."

A threat from the judge

PARENTAL-ALIENATION syndrome also popped up in Jean Johnson's battle with her ex-husband for custody of their daughter. Johnson (who asked that her real name and other names associated with the case not be used for fear of retaliation by the judge who presided over her custody litigation) believes that recognition of the syndrome pervaded her three-year battle in Plymouth Probate and Family Court for custody of her daughter Julia. Unlike Fink, Johnson, a 40-year-old attorney and Plymouth resident, won custody of her child. But her ex-husband, a man who the Massachusetts DSS insists assaulted the couple's six-year-old daughter, was awarded unsupervised visitation rights. And the March 2002 decision makes it clear that this arrangement will end if Johnson tries "to alienate the child from the Father" again. In other words, as she says, "I could lose my daughter at any time." Throughout these cases, Johnson adds, family-court personnel try to reason "around the abuse and turn it against you."

Johnson filed for divorce in fall of 1999. Within months of the filing, she says, her daughter seemed strange after visits with her father. One time, Julia, who was just three years old, asked her mother if she knew about the "woo-woo game" that she played with her father. When Johnson asked what the game entailed, her daughter explained that "you take off your clothes" and "Daddy sticks them up my bum," according to court records. Another time, Johnson walked into Julia's bedroom to find the little girl standing before a mirror squeezing her nipples. Julia's vagina and anus, Johnson noticed, looked swollen. Johnson took her daughter to a doctor, who chalked up the physical symptoms to stress. The doctor nevertheless filed a 51-A report with the state DSS, which didn't make much of the sex-abuse allegations. After a 10-day investigation, during which Julia didn't offer any incriminating details, the agency failed to substantiate abuse. Such a conclusion, explains DSS spokesperson Michael MacCormack, "means that we couldn't find credible evidence to support allegations, such as a disclosure from the child." He then adds, "It may be more difficult than you'd expect to find credible evidence of child sexual abuse."

While the divorce and custody trial proceeded, however, the DSS was again pulled into the case. In April 2000, Julia's therapist called the department to report that during a therapy session, the little girl had discussed the "woo-woo game" she had played with her father. This time, another 10-day investigation found Julia to be a telling witness. Her descriptions of the "woo-woo game," as well as the "beatle-bug game" and the "pajama game," are documented in court records as played when "taking off your clothes" and then "Daddy sticks them up my bum." As a result, the DSS concluded that Julia's father was molesting her. Johnson's ex-husband, a middle-aged scientist, has repeatedly denied the sex-abuse charges in court records.

By the time the couple's divorce went to trial at Plymouth family court, in October 2001, the evidence against Johnson's ex-husband seemed so credible that Johnson assumed that his attempt to gain custody "would go nowhere." The court, however, proved her wrong. According to court documents in the case, the Plymouth County judge issued a seemingly illogical ruling in March 2002 that shocks Johnson to this day. Not only did the judge downplay the DSS's conclusions, but he assailed Julia's therapist as "questionable." Thus the judge ruled that Johnson's ex had not actually molested his daughter, and that Johnson had pushed the bogus charges "solely [in an] attempt to get back at the Father." The judge also warned that if Johnson "alienate[s]" Julia from her father, "a change in custody may be the only remaining action that can be taken by this Court to protect the child."

The decision has left Johnson, who's filing an appeal, in disbelief. "I'm just devastated," she says. "I've been made to look like Mommy Dearest. I made up the allegations, and I harassed these professionals into investigating" the sex-abuse claims. She then offers, "All these social workers and therapists put their [professional] lives on the line just to make me happy? I don't think so."

'Which would you rather believe?'

ACCORDING TO a well-known 1994 national study of the incidence of child sexual abuse, one in five girls and one in 10 boys are molested before the age of 18 — and 70 percent of them are assaulted by their own fathers. These figures paint an ugly, uncomfortable picture. At the end of the day, it's probably far easier for people — including judges, GALs, attorneys, and evaluators — to believe that spiteful women will fabricate child-sex-abuse allegations just to gain the upper hand in court.

"Which would you rather believe?" asks Elizabeth Clague, the Brockton attorney who is also representing Fink and Johnson in their appeals. When handling these custody disputes, she has heard family-court officers, judges, and her own colleagues dismiss sex-abuse charges as cases of "he said, she said." Clinging to this stalemate, Clague theorizes, makes their lives less painful, less complicated. "If you think all these women are sitting on their front stoops and conjuring up lies," she explains, "you can go home, flip on the television, and not have to worry about child sexual abuse."

As the studies by California NOW, Wellesley Centers for Women, and Neustein show, what happened to Clarke, [name deleted], Fink, and Johnson occurs more often than you'd think. As Johnson notes, she simply assumed the courts would rule against someone the DSS had found to be a child molester. "I believed the family courts would listen to the facts and do the right thing because I had truth on my side," she says. "Who'd have thought that court [officials] would not acknowledge abuse and protect children?"

http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org

Tags: abuse, child, civil, constitutional, discrimination, domestic, human, rights, violence

The American Center For Judicial Excellence Video "Our Children At Risk"

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:18:04 EST

The American Center For Judicial Excellence Video "Our Children At Risk"

CJE Family Law Documentary
Family Court Crisis: Our Children at Risk
12-Minute Documentary Trailer Video

http://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org/cjefldocumentaryvnr.htm

The American Stockhom Syndrom (abused children(victoms))

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:16:15 EST

The Stockhom Syndrom (abused children(victoms))

People are often amazed at their own psychological conditions and reactions. Those with depression are stunned when they remember they've thought of killing themselves. Patients recovering from severe psychiatric disturbances are often shocked as they remember their symptoms and behavior during the episode. A patient with Bipolar Disorder recently told me "I can't believe I thought I could change the weather through mental telepathy!" A common reaction is "I can't believe I did that!"

In clinical practice, some of the most surprised and shocked individuals are those who have been involved in controlling and abusive relationships. When the relationship ends, they offer comments such as "I know what he's done to me, but I still love him", "I don't know why, but I want him back", or "I know it sounds crazy, but I miss her". Recently I've heard "This doesn't make sense. He's got a new girlfriend and he's abusing her too…but I'm jealous!" Friends and relatives are even more amazed and shocked when they hear these comments or witness their loved one returning to an abusive relationship. While the situation doesn't make sense from a social standpoint, does it make sense from a psychological viewpoint? The answer is -- Yes!

On ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />August 23rd, 1973 two machine-gun carrying criminals entered a bank in Stockholm, Sweden. Blasting their guns, one prison escapee named Jan-Erik Olsson announced to the terrified bank employees "The party has just begun!" The two bank robbers held four hostages, three women and one man, for the next 131 hours. The hostages were strapped with dynamite and held in a bank vault until finally rescued on August 28th.

After their rescue, the hostages exhibited a shocking attitude considering they were threatened, abused, and feared for their lives for over five days. In their media interviews, it was clear that they supported their captors and actually feared law enforcement personnel who came to their rescue. The hostages had begun to feel the captors were actually protecting them from the police. One woman later became engaged to one of the criminals and another developed a legal defense fund to aid in their criminal defense fees. Clearly, the hostages had "bonded" emotionally with their captors.

While the psychological condition in hostage situations became known as "Stockholm Syndrome" due to the publicity, the emotional "bonding" with captors was a familiar story in psychology. It had been recognized many years before and was found in studies of other hostage, prisoner, or abusive situations such as:

.. Abused Children
.. Battered/Abused Women
.. Prisoners of War
.. Cult Members
.. Incest Victims
.. Criminal Hostage Situations
.. Concentration Camp Prisoners
.. Controlling/Intimidating Relationships

In the final analysis, emotionally bonding with an abuser is actually a strategy for survival for victims of abuse and intimidation. The "Stockholm Syndrome" reaction in hostage and/or abuse situations is so well recognized at this time that police hostage negotiators no longer view it as unusual. In fact, it is often encouraged in crime situations as it improves the chances for survival of the hostages. On the down side, it also assures that the hostages experiencing "Stockholm Syndrome" will not be very cooperative during rescue or criminal prosecution. Local law enforcement personnel have long recognized this syndrome with battered women who fail to press charges, bail their battering husband/boyfriend out of jail, and even physically attack police officers when they arrive to rescue them from a violent assault.

Stockholm Syndrome (SS) can also be found in family, romantic, and interpersonal relationships. The abuser may be a husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, father or mother, or any other role in which the abuser is in a position of control or authority.

It's important to understand the components of Stockholm Syndrome as they relate to abusive and controlling relationships. Once the syndrome is understood, it's easier to understand why victims support, love, and even defend their abusers and controllers.

Every syndrome has symptoms or behaviors, and Stockholm Syndrome is no exception. While a clear-cut list has not been established due to varying opinions by researchers and experts, several of these features will be present:

.. Positive feelings by the victim toward the abuser/controller
.. Negative feelings by the victim toward family, friends, or authorities trying to rescue/support them or win their release
.. Support of the abuser's reasons and behaviors
.. Positive feelings by the abuser toward the victim
.. Supportive behaviors by the victim, at times helping the abuser
.. Inability to engage in behaviors that may assist in their release or detachment

Stockholm Syndrome doesn't occur in every hostage or abusive situation. In another bank robbery involving hostages, after terrorizing patrons and employees for many hours, a police sharpshooter shot and wounded the terrorizing bank robber. After he hit the floor, two women picked him up and physically held him up to the window for another shot. As you can see, the length of time one is exposed to abuse/control and other factors are certainly involved.

It has been found that four situations or conditions are present that serve as a foundation for the development of Stockholm Syndrome. These four situations can be found in hostage, severe abuse, and abusive relationships:

.. The presence of a perceived threat to one's physical or psychological survival and the belief that the abuser would carry out the threat.
.. The presence of a perceived small kindness from the abuser to the victim
.. Isolation from perspectives other than those of the abuser The perceived inability to escape the situation

By considering each situation we can understand how Stockholm Syndrome develops in romantic relationships as well as criminal/hostage situations. Looking at each situation:

Perceived Threat to One's Physical/Psychological Survival

The perception of threat can be formed by direct, indirect, or witnessed methods. Criminal or antisocial partners can directly threaten your life or the life of friends and family. Their history of violence leads us to believe that the captor/controller will carry out the threat in a direct manner if we fail to comply with their demands. The abuser assures us that only our cooperation keeps our loved ones safe.

Indirectly, the abuser/controller offers subtle threats that you will never leave them or have another partner, reminding you that people in the past have paid dearly for not following their wishes. Hints are often offered such as "I know people who can make others disappear". Indirect threats also come from the stories told by the abuser or controller -- how they obtained revenge on those who have crossed them in the past. These stories of revenge are told to remind the victim that revenge is possible if they leave.

Witnessing violence or aggression is also a perceived threat. Witnessing a violent temper directed at a television set, others on the highway, or a third party clearly sends us the message that we could be the next target for violence. Witnessing the thoughts and attitudes of the abuser/controller is threatening and intimidating, knowing that we will be the target of those thoughts in the future.

The "Small Kindness" Perception

In threatening and survival situations, we look for evidence of hope -- a small sign that the situation may improve. When an abuser/controller shows the victim some small kindness, even though it is to the abuser's benefit as well, the victim interprets that small kindness as a positive trait of the captor. In criminal/war hostage situations, letting the victim live is often enough. Small behaviors, such as allowing a bathroom visit or providing food/water, are enough to strengthen the Stockholm Syndrome in criminal hostage events.

In relationships with abusers, a birthday card, a gift (usually provided after a period of abuse), or a special treat are interpreted as not only positive, but evidence that the abuser is not "all bad" and may at some time correct his/her behavior. Abusers and controllers are often given positive credit for not abusing their partner, when the partner would have normally been subjected to verbal or physical abuse in a certain situation. An aggressive and jealous partner may normally become intimidating or abusive in certain social situations, as when an opposite-sex coworker waves in a crowd. After seeing the wave, the victim expects to be verbally battered and when it doesn't happen, that "small kindness" is interpreted as a positive sign.

Similar to the small kindness perception is the perception of a "soft side". During the relationship, the abuser/controller may share information about their past -- how they were mistreated, abused, neglected, or wronged. The victim begins to feel the abuser/controller may be capable of fixing their behavior or worse yet, that they (abuser) may also be a "victim". Sympathy may develop toward the abuser and we often hear the victim of Stockholm Syndrome defending their abuser with "I know he fractured my jaw and ribs…but he's troubled. He had a rough childhood!" Losers and abusers may admit they need psychiatric help or acknowledge they are mentally disturbed; however, it's almost always after they have already abused or intimidated the victim. The admission is a way of denying responsibility for the abuse. In truth, personality disorders and criminals have learned over the years that personal responsibility for their violent/abusive behaviors can be minimized and even denied by blaming their bad upbringing, abuse as a child, and now even video games. One murderer blamed his crime on eating too much junk food -- now known as the "Twinkie Defense". While it may be true that the abuser/controller had a difficult upbringing, showing sympathy for his/her history produces no change in their behavior and in fact, prolongs the length of time you will be abused. While "sad stories" are always included in their apologies -- after the abusive/controlling event -- their behavior never changes! Keep in mind: once you become hardened to the "sad stories", they will simply try another approach. I know of no victim of abuse or crime who has heard their abuser say "I'm beating (robbing, mugging, etc.) you because my Mom hated me!"

Isolation from Perspectives Other than those of the Captor

In abusive and controlling relationships, the victim has the sense they are always "walking on eggshells" -- fearful of saying or doing anything that might prompt a violent/intimidating outburst. For their survival, they begin to see the world through the abuser's perspective. They begin to fix things that might prompt an outburst, act in ways they know makes the abuser happy, or avoid aspects of their own life that may prompt a problem. If we only have a dollar in our pocket, then most of our decisions become financial decisions. If our partner is an abuser or controller, then the majority of our decisions are based on our perception of the abuser's potential reaction. We become preoccupied with the needs, desires, and habits of the abuser/controller.

Taking the abuser's perspective as a survival technique can become so intense that the victim actually develops anger toward those trying to help them. The abuser is already angry and resentful toward anyone who would provide the victim support, typically using multiple methods and manipulations to isolate the victim from others. Any contact the victim has with supportive people in the community is met with accusations, threats, and/or violent outbursts. Victims then turn on their family -- fearing family contact will cause additional violence and abuse in the home. At this point, victims curse their parents and friends, tell them not to call and to stop interfering, and break off communication with others. Agreeing with the abuser/controller, supportive others are now viewed as "causing trouble" and must be avoided. Many victims threaten their family and friends with restraining orders if they continue to "interfere" or try to help the victim in their situation. On the surface it would appear that they have sided with the abuser/controller. In truth, they are trying to minimize contact with situations that might make them a target of additional verbal abuse or intimidation. If a casual phone call from Mom prompts a two-hour temper outburst with threats and accusations -- the victim quickly realizes it's safer if Mom stops calling. If simply telling Mom to stop calling doesn't work, for his or her own safety the victim may accuse Mom of attempting to ruin the relationship and demand that she stop calling.

In severe cases of Stockholm Syndrome in relationships, the victim may have difficulty leaving the abuser and may actually feel the abusive situation is their fault. In law enforcement situations, the victim may actually feel the arrest of their partner for physical abuse or battering is their fault. Some women will allow their children to be removed by child protective agencies rather than give up the relationship with their abuser. As they take the perspective of the abuser, the children are at fault -- they complained about the situation, they brought the attention of authorities to the home, and they put the adult relationship at risk. Sadly, the children have now become a danger to the victim's safety. For those with Stockholm Syndrome, allowing the children to be removed from the home decreases their victim stress while providing an emotionally and physically safer environment for the children.

Perceived Inability to Escape

As a hostage in a bank robbery, threatened by criminals with guns, it's easy to understand the perceived inability to escape. In romantic relationships, the belief that one can't escape is also very common. Many abusive/controlling relationships feel like till-death-do-us-part relationships -- locked together by mutual financial issues/assets, mutual intimate knowledge, or legal situations. Here are some common situations:

..p://blog.myspace.com/PicExportError" width=11> Controlling partners have increased the financial obligations/debt in the relationship to the point that neither partner can financially survive on their own. Controllers who sense their partner may be leaving will often purchase a new automobile, later claiming they can't pay alimony or child support due to their large car payments.

.. The legal ending of a relationship, especially a marital relationship, often creates significant problems. A Controller who has an income that is "under the table" or maintained through legally questionable situations runs the risk of those sources of income being investigated or made public by the divorce/separation. The Controller then becomes more agitated about the possible public exposure of their business arrangements than the loss of the relationship.

.. The Controller often uses extreme threats including threatening to take the children out of state, threatening to quit their job/business rather than pay alimony/support, threatening public exposure of the victim's personal issues, or assuring the victim they will never have a peaceful life due to nonstop harassment. In severe cases, the Controller may threaten an action that will undercut the victim's support such as "I'll see that you lose your job" or "I'll have your automobile burned".

.. Controllers often keep the victim locked into the relationship with severe guilt -- threatening suicide if the victim leaves. The victim hears "I'll kill myself in front of the children", "I'll set myself on fire in the front yard", or "Our children won't have a father/mother if you leave me!"

.. In relationships with an abuser or controller, the victim has also experienced a loss of self-esteem, self-confidence, and psychological energy. The victim may feel "burned out" and too depressed to leave. Additionally, abusers and controllers often create a type of dependency by controlling the finances, placing automobiles/homes in their name, and eliminating any assets or resources the victim may use to leave. In clinical practice I've heard "I'd leave but I can't even get money out of the savings account! I don't know the PIN number."

.. In teens and young adults, victims may be attracted to a controlling individual when they feel inexperienced, insecure, and overwhelmed by a change in their life situation. When parents are going through a divorce, a teen may attach to a controlling individual, feeling the controller may stabilize their life. Freshmen in college may be attracted to controlling individuals who promise to help them survive living away from home on a college campus.

In unhealthy relationships and definitely in Stockholm Syndrome there is a daily preoccupation with "trouble". Trouble is any individual, group, situation, comment, casual glance, or cold meal that may produce a temper tantrum or verbal abuse from the controller or abuser. To survive, "trouble" is to be avoided at all costs. The victim must control situations that produce trouble. That may include avoiding family, friends, co-workers, and anyone who may create "trouble" in the abusive relationship. The victim does not hate family and friends; they are only avoiding "trouble"! The victim also cleans the house, calms the children, scans the mail, avoids certain topics, and anticipates every issue of the controller or abuse in an effort to avoid "trouble". In this situation, children who are noisy become "trouble". Loved ones and friends are sources of "trouble" for the victim who is attempting to avoid verbal or physical aggression.

Stockholm Syndrome in relationships is not uncommon. Law enforcement professionals are painfully aware of the situation -- making a domestic dispute one of the high-risk calls during work hours. Called by neighbors during a spousal abuse incident, the abuser is passive upon arrival of the police, only to find the abused spouse upset and threatening the officers if their abusive partner is arrested for domestic violence. In truth, the victim knows the abuser/controller will retaliate against him/her if 1) they encourage an arrest, 2) they offer statements about the abuse/fight that are deemed disloyal by the abuser, 3) they don't bail them out of jail as quickly as possible, and 4) they don't personally apologize for the situation -- as though it was their fault.

Stockholm Syndrome produces an unhealthy bond with the controller and abuser. It is the reason many victims continue to support an abuser after the relationship is over. It's also the reason they continue to see "the good side" of an abusive individual and appear sympathetic to someone who has mentally and sometimes physically abused them.

From- http://counsellingresource.com/quizzes/stockholm/index.html

Tags: abuse, abuses, child, civil, constitutional, discrimination, domestic, human, rights, violence

They're Making it Hard, but Stand Up and be Counted on Election Day

RK — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:11:36 EST

In many States, especially the battleground states with expected record turnout, and inefficient election apparatus, the American people, mainly Democrats have been denied extended hours of voting, and maldistribution of voting machines. But hang in there, arrive at you polling place early and prepared for a wait. It's trivial republican politics that hinders the peoples right to vote, but stay in line, and give the Republicans your line item veto. Support CHANGE, and kick the bums out !

Human rights & peace in the middle east - Arabism & Islam discrimination on the "other"

Unknown user — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:21:06 EDT

Human rights & peace in the middle east - Arabism & Islam discrimination on the "other"

[Analysis] Peace will prevail when economic, social and cultural rights are granted to all ...

The Middle East... conflicts...

For example:

* the Israel and [so called] "Occupied Territories" (Palestine) issue

* the conflict between Hamas and the Fatah; the Iraq conflict

* the conflict in Afghanistan

* conflicts within Saudi Arabia

* the security concerns, especially the nuclear threat, that Ahmadinajad's Iran poses

* the Kurdish situation with serious discrimination from Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq with very limited support from any powers

* the Lebanon conflict

* the rise of Islamic militancy in Egypt and Algeria

* the suppression of any opposition in Saudi Arabia and most of Middle East countries

*
the spread of fundamentalist Islam -- Wahabbi style -- and the attempt
to suppress any modern civil secular democratic voices in the Middle
East region

* and not to forget the problems in Sudan where civilians are being massacred in Darfur by the government and the military.

[...]
Islam is at the center of all social order and of the moral and
intellectual values of Middle Eastern Muslims. In fact, it is the
official religion in most Arab and Islamic countries. Considering
Arabism and Islam as synonyms embodies discrimination against various
ethnic and religious groups in the Middle East. [...]

Conclusion

Most
regimes in Middle East are authoritarian, if not dictatorships, ruling
for decades by fear or reward. The elites who rule in Middle East
countries used religious faith with ideology of nationalism for
blinding people and controlling them ... conflicts in the Middle East
all look different, but the real cause root is related to human rights
abuses.
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=&no=383905&rel_no=1

California: Vote NO on Proposition 8

Mark C. Eades — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 01:19:42 EDT

Proposition 8 is a California Nov. 4 ballot measure aimed at changing the California Constitution so as to eliminate the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry in California, and to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that previous statutes limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, and held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As of this date, consequently, the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry in California is constitutionally protected. Proposition 8 would effectively overturn the California Supreme Court's decision, writing discrimination into the California Constitution.

Prominent Californians including Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger, congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, mayors Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, and Jerry Sanders of San Diego, and California Superintendent of Schools Jack O'Connell, have all expressed opposition to Proposition 8. Proposition 8 is opposed also by every major newspaper in California, including the the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register, Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News, Contra Costa Times, Redding Record-Searchlight, Riverside Press-Enterprise, Napa Valley Register, Palm Springs Desert Sun, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, and Fresno Bee. Barack Obama has called Prop 8 "divisive and discriminatory."

California voters should visit the No On Prop 8 website, contribute if possible, spread the word, and vote NO on Proposition 8.

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

Racism Still Alive & Well...

Scott S. — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:32:52 EDT

This is a sick article. I caught this on my morning news search. It's interesting that it occurred at a predominately white Christian school. I thought all Christians were supposed to be tolerant and accepting of all. What is even more sickening is that police are NOT treating it as a hate crime but simply as an "expression of free speech". This harkens back to the 50's and 60's. If we vote in religious nut jobs like Palin, we'll face more of this same type of incident.

OBAMA/BIDEN '08

Discrimination & Same-sex unions

Scott from Las Vegas, NV — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 01:49:28 EDT

Instead of continuing to fight this issue in a reactionary manner, we should instead seek a broader, more definitive solution. To that end, I'd like to propose the following idea (and perhaps I'm not the first to have this idea, regardless however, I'd still like to see it moved forward).

I support a U.S. Constitutional Ammendment that echoes the anti-discrimination language of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (unlawful to discriminate...because of
such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin...)

Unfortunately, this wording, while excellent, only seems to cover the general scope of employment law and little else. I believe though, that if we were to adopt a formal Constitutional Ammendment that laid out this language in a broader pattern, so as to envelop the conduct of all levels of government within our nation, we would be a giant step closer to putting this issue to rest permanently.

This would affect all marriages/civil unions performed by the government. Our Constitution would then prohibit the passage of any subsequent legislation seeking to outlaw same-sex unions, even at a state level, because doing so would clearly be discrimination based on sex. After all, in "conventional" marriage, there is a man and a woman. In a same-sex marriage, the ONLY difference is that the gender of either ONE of the participants is reversed. To me, that's a clear matter of discrimination based on sex. Extending Title VII to a Constitutional Ammendment should go a long way in resolving this abuse. Additionally, it's simply good protection for everyone in our country, as it would disallow unfair, governmental discrimination.

Besides, I think it would be quite difficult for someone to stand up and say "I don't support this legislation, I think there should be some avenue of discrimination which remains open to the government in order to afford future abuse."

Autism families need more than a helping hand from the community...

Emily from Grand Rapids, MI — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:52:05 EDT

I found this text on the web regarding Obama's inclusion of helping children with Autism.

Support Americans with Autism. More than one million Americans have autism, a complex neurobiological condition that has a range of impacts on thinking, feeling, language, and the ability to relate to others. As diagnostic criteria broaden and awareness increases, more cases of autism have been recognized across the country. Barack Obama believes that we can do more to help autistic Americans and their families understand and live with autism. He has been a strong supporter of more than $1 billion in federal funding for autism research on the root causes and treatments, and he believes that we should increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to truly ensure that no child is left behind.

More than anything, autism remains a profound mystery with a broad spectrum of effects on autistic individuals, their families, loved ones, the community, and education and health care systems. Obama believes that the government and our communities should work together to provide a helping hand to autistic individuals and their families.

I am a strong supporter of Obama, but as a mother of a 4 year old daughter with autism we need more than a "helping hand from the community." These children can retain anything they learn before the age of three. When my daughter was 20 months old I quit my job to learn to do the therapy that I could not afford and spent five hours a day teaching her everything I could knowing it was a race against time. Today, professionals all agree that without the intense intervention she would never be where she is today. But because health insurance does not cover therapy I had to quit my job and learn myself. Many others are taking out 2nd and 3rd mortgages or have lost their home all toghether to pay for anything that will help their child. There is hope but you need to react quickly with these children. Research is good, but there are very EFFECTIVE therapies that we need RIGHT NOW.

Obama, please speak to the parents of children with autism.

This is not just a health care issue but an education issue as well. I dare say as well that this is not just health care and education, but the research may clearly show us some day that it is an ENVIRONMENTAL and FOOD issue as well. These increased cases are just beginning to hit the elementary schools and the public schools are not ready for educating the increasing number of students with this disability.

I sincerely believe that you have the ear and potential vote of families dealing with autism (1 out of every 150 children and their relatives) to give hope to. Please take the opportunity to address us, tell us how you can help our children before the election. It is more than helping us "live with autism", it is about helping us not go bankrupt because of the discrimination by the health insurance companies. It is about the race against time in doing interventions before three, not just evaluations (evaluations are not covered either). There is help out there but we can't get too it because we cannot afford it.

Muslims Believe Hijab Snub Not Obama’s Fault

funkfresh01 — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:34:31 EDT

http://www.hbindependent.com/articles/2008/07/16/blogs_and_columns/soulfood/hbi-soulfood071008.tx

Source: Huntington Beach Independent

Author: Michèle Marr

For nearly two years detractors have accused Barack Obama of being a Muslim. Ultra-conservative commentators have referred to him as B. Hussein Obama and deliberately likened his surname to bin Laden’s first name Osama.

He has defended himself while also condemning the prejudice toward Muslims these acts reflect. As a presidential candidate he has stumped relentlessly on unity, equality and justice.

So to hear of him snubbing two Muslim women at a Detroit political rally in June rang dissonant. In case you missed the incident, I’ll explain.

Reports of Mosque Surveillance Concerns Muslims

funkfresh01 — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:00:53 EDT

http://religion.info/english/articles/article_385.shtml

Source: Religioscope

Author: Richard Cimino

While there have been allegations in the past of government investigation of mosques on issues relating to terrorism, the recent report, first featured in the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper, is said to be the first confirmation that surveillance is taking place.

An article in the Los Angeles Times (May 29) reports that information about the alleged spying surfaced in a case about classified files concerning terrorism that were stolen from a secure office used by military and civilian law enforcement officials at Camp Pendleton. Some of these classified records referred to the surveillance of Muslim communities in Southern California, specifically, the Islamic Center of San Diego. The records alleged that the mosque had been monitored as part of a federal surveillance program targeting Muslim groups, according to the Union-Tribune article.

The FBI's Plan to ‘Profile’ Muslims

funkfresh01 — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:03:03 EDT

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/10/muslim_profiling/index.html

Source: Salon

Author: Juan Cole

The U.S. Justice Department is considering a change in the grounds on which the FBI can investigate citizens and legal residents of the United States. Till now, DOJ guidelines have required the FBI to have some evidence of wrongdoing before it opens an investigation. The impending new rules, which would be implemented later this summer, allow bureau agents to establish a terrorist profile or pattern of behavior and attributes and, on the basis of that profile, start investigating an individual or group. Agents would be permitted to ask "open-ended questions" concerning the activities of Muslim Americans and Arab-Americans. A person's travel and occupation, as well as race or ethnicity, could be grounds for opening a national security investigation.

The rumored changes have provoked protests from Muslim American and Arab-American groups. The Council on American Islamic Relations, among the more effective lobbies for Muslim Americans' civil liberties, immediately denounced the plan, as did James Zogby, the president of the Arab-American Institute. Said Zogby, "There are millions of Americans who, under the reported new parameters, could become subject to arbitrary and subjective ethnic and religious profiling." Zogby, who noted that the Bush administration's history with profiling is not reassuring, warned that all Americans would suffer from a weakening of civil liberties.

IMMIGRATION BAN AGAINST HIV/AIDS CONFERENCES

Jos� F. Col�n L�pez — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:50:44 EDT

July 10th, 2008

An important provision which repeals the HIV travel and immigration ban is part of the Senate’s PEPFAR legislation. Unfortunately, there may be an amendment to strip out the repeal when the legislation is on the Senate floor.

Below is an organizational sign-on letter opposing any attempt to remove this critical provision from the Senate’s PEFPAR legislation. Please join this important effort to reject discrimination and stigma towards people living with HIV/AIDS and add your organization’s name to the letter by emailing adamf@immigrationequality.org by Friday, July 11th at 12pm (noon) EST.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Adam Francoeur via email at adamf@immigrationequality.org or call 917.573.3773 x 21. Or contact Dena Wigder Feldman at dena.feldman@hrc.org or 202.216.1574.

Dear Senator:
We, the undersigned organizations, write to voice our strong support for Section 305 of the Tom Lantos & Henry J. Hyde U.S. Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 (S. 2731). This important provision removes the statute which permanently bans people living with HIV/AIDS from entering the U.S. or obtaining legal permanent residency and restores authority to HHS to determine, based on sound medical and public health reasoning, whether HIV status should be grounds for inadmissibility. We strongly urge you to oppose any attempt to remove this critical provision from the legislation.
Congress first adopted this policy in 1987 through an amendment directing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to add HIV to the list of medical conditions barring visitors and immigrants to the United States. In the early 1990’s, when, after careful consideration of the public health consequences, HHS sought to loosen these restrictions, Congress reacted by codifying the ban in our nation’s immigration laws. To this day, HIV is the only medical condition listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act as a basis for inadmissibility. By contrast, the admissibility status for any other disease is left to the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, based upon the risk the illness poses to the public health.
This draconian policy has negative consequences for our nation. Medical professionals, researchers, and other exceptionally talented people have been blocked from the United States. Since 1993, the International Conference on AIDS has not been held on U.S. soil due to this policy.
In addition, the United States is out of step with the international community and most other countries. The International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights, produced jointly by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNAIDS, state that “there is no public health rationale for restricting liberty of movement or choice of residence on the grounds of HIV status.” In June of this year, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called for an end to discriminatory travel restrictions based on HIV status. The U.S. is one of only 12 countries in addition to Armenia, Colombia, Iraq, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Sudan, and Yemen to have such harsh travel restrictions on people living with HIV/AIDS.
Removing this discriminatory ban from our nation’s statutes is a crucial step towards strengthening our nation’s leadership in the global fight against HIV/AIDS an important goal of the PEPFAR program. We understand that the manager’s amendment includes an offset for this provision ensuring that no additional costs will be associated with its inclusion in the legislation.
We strongly urge you to reject discrimination and stigma towards people living with HIV/AIDS by ensuring that this important provision survives Senate consideration of PEPFAR reauthorization fully intact.
Sincerely,
(List in Formation)
AIDS Action Council
The AIDS Institute
Gay Men’s Health Crisis
HIV Medicine Association
Human Rights Campaign
Immigration Equality
National Immigrant Justice Center
National Minority AIDS Council
Pacientes de SIDA pro Política Sana
San Juan, Puerto Rico

Stop FOX's Smears Against Obama Sign the petition

Jacob Fran�ois — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:08:55 EDT

Subject: See this? FOX smears Obama

Hi,
FOX's smears against Obama are out of control--have you heard about them? I just signed a petition telling FOX that their use of racism and prejudice is not okay. Would be great if you signed too.
First, a paid FOX commentator accidentally confused "Obama" with "Osama" and then joked on the air about killing Obama. Next, a FOX anchor said a playful fist pound by Barack and Michelle Obama could be a "terrorist fist jab." (Seriously!) And then, FOX called Michelle Obama "Obama's baby mama"--slang used to describe the unmarried mother of a man's child.
Nearly 100,000 folks have signed a petition that will be delivered to FOX. Can you sign too? The more names, the bigger the impact. Here's the link.
http://pol.moveon.org/stopthesmears/?r_by=-8227227-28svssx&rc=paste

What about discrimination in faith-based organizations

Larry A. from Los Angeles, CA — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:38:08 EDT

This fact sheet says that Obama's plan for faith-based organizations
includes the requirement that they do not discriminate in hiring.
http://i.usatoday.net/news/mmemmottpdf/obama-faith-fact-sheet-july-1-2008.pdf

Obama's speech today mostly follows this memo but does not
mention this point quite as specifically.

The AP story says that an anonymous Obama aide says that
churches will be able to discriminate for religious reasons,
which is a contradiction of the PDF document above.

Which is it?

This is a very important point for me. Will some church be able
to take federal money but fire capable gays and atheists?

I like Barack but this could be a deal-breaker.

LAT

Shortage of Psychiatrists

Sadiqah — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:23:29 EDT

In my hometown, there was a report of the closing of an inpatient mental ward for a weekend because the psychiatrist went on vacation. This is not a small town, this is a town with over 80, 000 people. A man with bipolar disorder that was in a suicidal state could not get admitted because there was no room for him at the local hospital and at the hospitals in a 60 mile radius. This type of situation would never be tolerated in another health specialty. What if all the cardiologists went on vacation and the people who were having heart attacks were told: sorry, we are closed this weekend please go find another hospital to help you. This is the essence of mental health discrimination. People in dire need being turned away or not given the help that they need whether it be financial or on a fundamental human level. Something must be done so the 20% of the entire population of the USA who suffer from mental illness can be legitamately recognized and helped.

http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200806080422/APC0101/806080532

Racism in Lane County Oregon

Mr. Bussey — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:20:56 EDT

We lived in Lane County Oregon. We were renting on a State of Oregon version of "section 8" housing program. We called the State of Oregon department that runs the "HOME TBA" program when our caseworker told us to "just sign the papers. The county (Lane County Board of Commissioners) will backdate them." The papers were lease forms that would go eventually to the State of Oregon. This sounded strange that the Lane County Board of Commissioners would be "back dating lease agreements" for federal funds. We called the State of Oregon Department and told them what we were told. The next day we were told, "you stirred up a hornets nest with your call to the state, now you are going to have to pay." We then went through 5 months of harassment to get us removed from the program. We contacted our County Commissioner, Faye Stewart. He was a former board member of the "not for profit" that was servicing our HOME TBA case. He refused to help. The actions of the Lane County Board of Commissioners, Nancy Glines, Nancy Waggoner, David Flores directly led to our Landlord shooting at us 14 times with a shotgun over a 10 day period. We have video tape of shots being fired, the pellets hitting the house and the attorney for Alvin Johnson stating, yes, Mr. Johnson shot at your house but didn’t think it would hit your home. Sheriffs came 3 times, 911 calls with shots in background, DA has tape and reports but refuses to prosecute. We were told that he was " waiting to see what else would happen."

New York Muslim’s Struggle for Justice in America

funkfresh01 — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 16:08:55 EDT

http://atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/4016/32/

Source: Atlantic Free Press

Author: Stephen Lendman

Yassin Aref is a 37 year old Albany, New York resident and one of many Muslim victims of police state justice in post-9/11 America. They've been hunted down, rounded up, held in detention, kept in isolation, denied bail, restricted in their right to counsel, tried on secret evidence and trumped-up charges, then incarcerated as political prisoners or deported to where they face possible arrest and torture.

Because of his faith and ethnicity, Aref was victimized by US "justice" in a post-9/11 climate of fear. He's an Iraqi Kurd who emigrated to the US as a UN refugee in 1999 with his wife and three young children. He's now in federal prison but committed no crime. He's also the author of a poignant memoir/autobiography titled "Son of Mountains: My Life as a Kurd and a Terror Suspect." He wrote it in custody at Troy, New York's Rensselaer County Jail after his wrongful conviction in October 2006.

Muslim Activists Seeking Probe of Reported Surveillance

funkfresh01 — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:18:08 EDT

http://www.pe.com/localnews/rivcounty/stories/PE_News_Local_C_muslim30.426eaa8.html

Source: Press-Enterprise

Author: Paige Austin

A civil-rights group and a coalition of Muslim activists headed by a Corona man called on Congress this week to investigate a report that military and law enforcement officials stole surveillance records of Southland Muslims from Camp Pendleton.

The request stems from a news report that military officials and law enforcement members of the Los Angeles County Terrorist Early Warning Group illegally took the top-secret documents from the base's Strategic Technical Operations Center.

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, Marine Gunnery Sgt. Gary Maziarz has been court-martialed and convicted for his role in the thefts.

While the details of the surveillance and the alleged theft remain largely unknown, the incident provides confirmation that the military and law enforcement groups have been gathering information about local Muslim communities, said Michael German, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington Legislative Office.

Florida Muslim Leaders Testify at United Nation Racism Hearing

funkfresh01 — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:59:14 EDT

MIAMI, FL, 6/4/08) - On June 2, 2008, Florida Muslim leaders met with Doudou Diène, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, at a Miami hearing to discuss Islamophobia and anti-Muslim discrimination.

For photos of the event: http://picasaweb.google.com/bedier/UNMiamiHearingOnRacism

Special Rapporteur Diène is visiting several cities across the United States to "gather first-hand information on issues related to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia."

Reuters: U.N. racism investigator to visit U.S.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL16843098

Ted's Tumor & the Caramel Colored Kennedy's Blues

Alex van Ommen — Wed, 21 May 2008 09:04:50 EDT

Ted Kennedy has a brain tumor while Obama is gearing up to need him most. Trying to avoid being labeled a misogynyst, Obama ignores Clinton and plows his way to November, where McCain Republicans eagerly wait to roast him over the flames of foreign policy inexperience.

National Institute of Mental Health Report: Mental Disorders Cost Billions in Unearned Income

Jerod Poore — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:21:14 EDT

Untreated brain cooties result in a conservative estimate of $193 billion dollars a year of lost income. It'll take more than Medicare Part D(efraud) to fix this problem.

See the extended text for the full-on rant.

Campaign--take on Rev. Wright again but in a different way

Beth from ColoradObama — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:21:43 EDT

It's clear that the media and detractors and pundits won't let this issue die. It's sad that we have media and an electorate that enjoy making mountains out of molehills. Well, isn't turnabout fair play?

Voters Respond: Wright Is Not the Issue in Election

V, aka VCubed/Virginia V — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:17:28 EDT

Nothing is more disheartening than the media assault that ties our Senator Obama's ideals with Rev. Wright's perceived ideas - distorted by the barely minutes-long media "coverage". Long articles are written, but they consist of quoting themselves and each other - no new information, no analysis of the history of black churches, no question of how they are feeding into threats to the pastor and the congregation.

My gift has been voters' and supporters' letters and comments in response to this pathetic media feed frenzy. They inspired me to write my own, but first, their encouraging words:

I am a soldier reading all this from Iraq. I cannot tell you how disturbed I am at this moment. I have spent 34 of the past 48 months in battle or training for battle... and all my country can do is squabble about Jerimiah Wright. I believe in Barack Obama. Not just his policies, but the process in which he will go about implementing those policies. Unity, sitting down at the table, transparency, diplomacy, empathy... and all I see are my fellow citizens behaving like children, fighting for the tablescraps of power. I understand what a McCain presidency will bring... another tour here, sigh. I understand what a Hillary presidency will bring. 4 years of partisan bickering, more stories of Bill, mudslinging from the Right and on and on and on. This is almost like a movie, a living nightmare that won't end. Everything is topsy turvy. I'm losing faith in our political system. I have yet to hear a single hate word spew from Sen Obama's mouth. Not one. I have not heard a single hateful character bash come from his words, not one. I have read his books. Beautiful, sound, in depth, visionary, truthfull, articulate... sigh. I am this close to resigning my commission. Our government IS broken. I no longer feel inspired to serve my country. Why am I fighting here? Why are we fighting at home? We can elect George Bush twice, and yet sling this amazing American possessed with tremendous talent in the garbage. If Obama is not elected, we get what we deserve. Either more war, or more of the same Rush Limbaugh bickering. April 28, 2008 4:05 PM Link

More below the fold.

McCain pressed on 'Islamic' terror label

funkfresh01 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:28:53 EDT

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080421/NATION/438135169/1001

By Rowan Scarborough

A coalition of American Muslim groups is demanding that Sen. John McCain stop using the adjective "Islamic" to describe terrorists and extremist enemies of the United States.

Muneer Fareed, who heads the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), told The Washington Times that his group is beginning a campaign to persuade Mr. McCain to rephrase his descriptions of the enemy.

"We've tried to contact his office, contact his spokesperson to have them rethink word usage that is more acceptable to the Muslim community," Mr. Fareed said. "If it's not our intent to paint everyone with the same brush, then certainly we should think seriously about just characterizing them as criminals, because that is what they are."

An aide to Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee who is counting on his pro-Iraq war stance to attract conservative voters, said the senator from Arizona will not drop the word.

The Muslim myth still dogging Obama

funkfresh01 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:24:38 EDT

http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19501048&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=6

BY ROJA HEYDARPOUR, STAFF WRITER

Source: Times Tribune

It’s been said many times: this is an election year of firsts. The first viable woman presidential candidate. The first viable black presidential candidate.

But the first Muslim presidential candidate?

One in 10 Americans believes that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is a Muslim, according to a Pew Research Center News Interest Index survey taken in March.

Mr. Obama is, in fact, a practicing Christian, as underscored by the debate over the controversial sermon delivered by his pastor after Sept. 11, 2001.

The same survey found that 79 percent of the general public had heard rumors that Mr. Obama is Muslim, while 38 percent had heard “a lot” about it.

Indeed, rumors have circulated on blogs and comment boards since the fall, spurred by pictures of Mr. Obama in a turban, by talk of childhood time spent in Indonesia — a Muslim country — and by his middle name, Hussein, among other things.

4/23 Articles.

EMK — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:11:23 EDT

Border Fence

Virtual fence scrapped.

Patreus

I'm not military, but Petraeus is now the Chief of Central Command (Cencom). What does that mean?

Pay Discrimination

Senate may consider unequal pay bill

Globalization

This is an interesting take on it, factoring the underground economy, but I wouldn't consider it the sole contributing factor: Globalization’s Aftershocks.

EMK

The Obama Name Games Painful to Muslims

funkfresh01 — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:51:05 EDT

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89766811

Author: Jamie Tarabay

Barack Obama is not a Muslim, but a recent survey found that about 10 percent of Americans believe he is. That perception has been fueled by a campaign of rumors and innuendo. It's a campaign that has caused pain in many Muslim communities, including one in Pennsylvania, which holds a key presidential primary Tuesday.

Obama had a Muslim stepfather. As a child, he learned about Islam and sometimes went to mosque. Nevertheless, he's a devout Christian.

But his middle name, Hussein, has been used by opponents to imply that he's a Muslim. . .

The trickle-down effect of such messages over radio, TV, the Internet and e-mail can be felt in West Philadelphia, in the city's Muslim community.

'No Shame to Be a Muslim'

"We felt sad," says Abdul Musaitif, who runs a Muslim pizzeria in Germantown. "It's no shame to be a Muslim."

Musaitif, a Palestinian from Ramallah, is now a naturalized U.S. citizen. He decries the idea that a reference to Obama being a Muslim could be seen as an accusation. But he says this is just the latest piece of negativity he has witnessed.

He adds: "They say this is a [democratic] country."

Musaitif also owns the butcher shop next door. His employees are all Muslim, and all the meat he serves, including pizzas, burgers and bacon, are halal — pork-free and Islam sanctioned. Despite everything though, Musaitif says he still feels very American.

"I've been here 24 years; my kids [were] born here," he says. "Everything I own is here."

Standing beside him is Khalil Abdul Jabbar. An African-American convert, he now wears the sort of garb — a long black tunic, prayer cap and unkempt beard — that singles him out as a devout Muslim. He says he's not surprised that labeling Obama a Muslim is considered a smear

~::~ Strange Things... Indeed ! ~::~

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:58:12 EDT

~::~ I am experiencing a bit of frustration.

I created a group when I joined this website...

but it has not even been *approved* yet.

I have sent in the request 3 times for my group

to be approved... *Nothing!*

The name of my group is 'All Green Enlightenment Beings For Obama.'

This group is for persons trying to live the wholistic green lifestyle,

animal rights, and persons who like meditation and

yoga towards becoming Enlightened... who support

Barack Obama! But, I am being completely ignored

by the Staff here. WHY are they discriminating against

me, and other like~hearted Barack Obama supporters? WHY???

There are many 'very unique' groups here for fans of specific TV shows and movies,

and cartoon characters, purple people, cats and dogs, marijuana, etc... and I am

glad that they are *approved groups*. But, WHY is my group not *Approved*???

I feel quite hurt... Should we create another way to organize, talk and share...

and perhaps create meaningful like~hearted friendships? Yahoo Group? ~::~

~::~ Strange Things... Indeed ! ~::~

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:58:12 EDT

~::~ I am experiencing a bit of frustration.

I created a group when I joined this website...

but it has not even been *approved* yet.

I have sent in the request 3 times for my group

to be approved... *Nothing!*

The name of my group is 'All Green Enlightenment Beings For Obama.'

This group is for persons trying to live the wholistic green lifestyle,

animal rights, and persons who like meditation and

yoga towards becoming Enlightened... who support

Barack Obama! But, I am being completely ignored

by the Staff here. WHY are they discriminating against

me, and other like~hearted Barack Obama supporters? WHY???

There are many 'very unique' groups here for fans of specific TV shows and movies,

and cartoon characters, purple people, cats and dogs, marijuana, etc... and I am

glad that they are *approved groups*. But, WHY is my group not *Approved*???

I feel quite hurt... Should we create another way to organize, talk and share...

and perhaps create meaningful like~hearted friendships? Yahoo Group? ~::~

~::~ Strange Things... Indeed ! ~::~

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:58:12 EDT

~::~ I am experiencing a bit of frustration.

I created a group when I joined this website...

but it has not even been *approved* yet.

I have sent in the request 3 times for my group

to be approved... *Nothing!*

The name of my group is 'All Green Enlightenment Beings For Obama.'

This group is for persons trying to live the wholistic green lifestyle,

animal rights, and persons who like meditation and

yoga towards becoming Enlightened... who support

Barack Obama! But, I am being completely ignored

by the Staff here. WHY are they discriminating against

me, and other like~hearted Barack Obama supporters? WHY???

There are many 'very unique' groups here for fans of specific TV shows and movies,

and cartoon characters, purple people, cats and dogs, marijuana, etc... and I am

glad that they are *approved groups*. But, WHY is my group not *Approved*???

I feel quite hurt... Should we create another way to organize, talk and share...

and perhaps create meaningful like~hearted friendships? Yahoo Group? ~::~

Kansas Muslim Attacked with 'Molotov Cocktail'

funkfresh01 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:38:06 EDT

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 4/17/08) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today asked local and national law enforcement authorities to bring appropriate hate crime charges against the alleged perpetrator of a March "Molotov cocktail" attack on a Kansas Muslim.

A clerk at a Lenexa, Kan., gas station told police that a man came into the store and asked the clerk if he was Muslim. When the clerk replied in the affirmative, the man reportedly started harassing him.

Soon after the man left the store, a Molotov cocktail incendiary device was thrown through the front window of the store. A similar incident occurred at another store in area. A 26-year-old man was later charged with two counts of criminal use of explosives and one count of criminal damage.

SEE: Molotov Cocktail Hurled At Gas Station (KCTV)

http://www.kctv5.com/news/15721008/detail.html

"We ask that local authorities and the FBI file any appropriate hate crime charges against the alleged perpetrator in this case," said CAIR Civil Rights Manager Khadija Athman. "The additional charges would send a clear message that bias-related attacks will not be tolerated in Kansas or anywhere in America."

Earlier this week, CAIR's Minnesota chapter asked the FBI to investigate reported threats against the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy charter school in that state as possible hate crimes.

SEE: Muslim Civil Liberties Group Seeks FBI Probe of School Threats (Star Tribune)

http://www.startribune.com/local/17673284.html

The Kansas assault and the threats to the Minnesota school came following other recent incidents such as a fire-bomb attack on a Minnesota Muslim-owned business and an arson attack on a Tennessee mosque by three members of the white-supremacist "Christian Identity" movement.

SEE: MN: Investigators Say Fire Could Be Hate Crime

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=24208&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1

SEE ALSO: CAIR Applauds Arrests in TN Mosque Arson

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=24197&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1

CAIR is urging Muslim individuals and institutions nationwide to review security procedures using advice contained in CAIR's "Muslim Community Safety Kit."

SEE: CAIR Muslim Community Safety Kit

http://www.cair.com/ActionCenter/CommunityToolKit.aspx

CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

CONTACT: CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper@cair.com; CAIR Strategic Communications Director Ahmed Rehab, 202-870-0166, E-Mail: arehab@cair.com; CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin, 202-488-8787, E-Mail: arubin@cair.com

Discrimination

Dexter Gilbert — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:29:37 EDT

Yes sir, I am bitter!

The subject if my inquiry is discrimination. I am not speaking of the most recognized forms of discrimination, yet one that does contribute to all the known forms of prejudice in our society. This form of discrimination is easily ignored and camouflaged in the name of unregulated capitalism. I have never heard this issue even discussed or reported on in the press, yet Martin Luther King, Jr. touch on it in his strive to win economic equality for all Americans. The discrimination I am speaking of is “Price Discrimination”.

IRAQ AWAITS CRITICAL FATWA

funkfresh01 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:04:00 EDT

Date Posted: Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Posted By The Media Line Staff

IRAQ (The Media Line) April 8, 2008 — Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki announced on Monday he would ban a powerful Shi'ite parliamentary bloc from running in the next local elections unless it disarmed its 60,000-strong armed force.

The 'Sadri parliamentary bloc, led by Muqtada A-'Sadr, responded by saying it would disarm its armed force, known as the Mahdi Army, only if the Shi'ite religious authorities ordered them to do so.

"The Mahdi Army does not accept its orders from anyone except A-'Sadr and the religious authorities with whom he consults. If the religious authorities would ask him to disarm the Mahdi Army, he will definitely execute their demand," spokesman for the 'Sadri bloc, 'Salah A-'Ubeidi told reporters.

Should Obama distance himself from U.S. black leaders?

Stephen — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:00:23 EDT

Senator Obama is not really African American, as this description was originally intended for those who are black (or part black) decendants of U.S. slaves. And over the last few years, many if not all of the U.S.'s black leaders, continue to be controversial and out of step with mainstream views.

So - in order to avoid a possible negative voter fallout from remarks from today's black leaders, should he distance himself from them? Or - has he already done so?

What many of today's black leaders fail to understand is that the voting process is a free and private expression of one's views and beliefs, and that voters cannot be pressured in a manner that NBC was last year in their broadcast of the Don Imus Show. Should the GOP raise such concerns of an Obama presidency, it could well cost him the election.

Over the next several weeks, Senator Obama will be asked again to be more clear on where he stands with many of today's black leaders. It will be a defining moment in his candidacy. His earlier speech on race relations was merely an Introduction and Chapter 1. I encourage him in subsequent speeches to describe how millions of (non-minority) Americans, for reasons not of their own, face discrimnation in employment, benefits, and a long list of everyday opportunities, and that such discrimination only serves to weaken this great nation.

Ten things to know about Senator John McCain

funkfresh01 — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:54:51 EDT

For all the coverage this week of Senator John McCain's background, you will not learn some important things about him from the TV networks. His carefully crafted positive image relies on people not knowing this stuff—and some of it might surprise you.

Please check out the list below, and then forward it to your friends, family, and coworkers. We cannot rely on the media to tell folks about the real John McCain—but if we all pass this along, we can reach as many people as CNN Headline News does on a good night.

Click here to tell us how many people you can pass it on to—and to see our progress nationally:

http://pol.moveon.org/mccain10/?id=12407-5077189-XKR_ot&t=231

Ten things you should know about John McCain.

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he has continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban Waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."4

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5

6. He is one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.6

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he is too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than McCain has any of the other presidential candidates.8

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a zero—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10

John McCain is not who the Washington press corps make him out to be. Please help get the word out—forward this email to your personal network. And if you want us to keep you posted on MoveOn's work to get the truth out about John McCain, sign up here:

http://pol.moveon.org/mccaintruth/?id=12407-5077189-XKR_ot&t=232

Thank you for all you do.

–Eli, Justin, Noah, Laura, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team

Saturday, April 5th, 2008

Sources:

1. "The Complicated History of John McCain and MLK Day," ABC News, April 3, 2008

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-complicated.html

"McCain Facts," ColorOfChange.org, April 4, 2008

http://colorofchange.org/mccain_facts/

2. "McCain More Hawkish Than Bush on Russia, China, Iraq," Bloomberg News, March 12, 2008

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aF28rSCtk0ZM&refer=us

"Buchanan: John McCain 'Will Make Cheney Look Like Gandhi,'" ThinkProgress, February 6, 2008

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/06/buchanan-gandhi-mccain/

3. "McCain Sides with Bush on Torture Again, Supports Veto of Anti-Waterboarding Bill," ThinkProgress, February 20, 2008

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/20/mccain-torture-veto/

4. "McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned," MSNBC, February 18, 2007

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/

5. "2007 Children's Defense Fund Action Council® Nonpartisan Congressional Scorecard," February 2008

http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_learn_scorecard2007

"McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion," CNN, October 3, 2007

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/mccain.interview/

6. "Beer Executive Could Be Next First Lady," Associated Press, April 3, 2008

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-S1sWHm0tchtdMP5LcLywg5ZtMgD8VQ86M80

"McCain Says Bank Bailout Should End `Systemic Risk,'" Bloomberg News, March 25, 2008

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHMiDVYaXZFM&refer=home

7. "Will McCain's Temper Be a Liability?," Associated Press, February 16, 2008

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4301022

"Famed McCain temper is tamed," Boston Globe, January 27, 2008

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/

8. "Black Claims McCain's Campaign Is Above Lobbyist Influence: 'I Don't Know What the Criticism Is,'" ThinkProgress, April 2, 2008

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-black-lobbyist/

"McCain's Lobbyist Friends Rally 'Round Their Man," ABC News, January 29, 2008

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4210251

9. "McCain's Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam," Mother Jones Magazine, March 12, 2008

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html

"Will McCain Specifically 'Repudiate' Hagee's Anti-Gay Comments?," ThinkProgress, March 12, 2008

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/mccain-hagee-anti-gay/

"McCain 'Very Honored' By Support Of Pastor Preaching 'End-Time Confrontation With Iran,'" ThinkProgress, February 28, 2008

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/28/hagee-mccain-endorsement/

10. "John McCain Gets a Zero Rating for His Environmental Record," Sierra Club, February 28, 2008

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/77913/

Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.2 million members. We have no corporate contributors, no foundation grants, and no money from unions. Our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. If you would like to support our work, you can give now at:

http://political.moveon.org/donate/email.html?id=12407-5077189-XKR_ot&t=241

PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/

Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

DISCRIMINATION..? :: Child with autism charged, others same age NOT..

Cindy Sue Causey — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:06:00 EDT

Regardless of how one looks this over, under, upsidedown, yetc, somehow, some way the child with autism has been discriminated against.. Yes, no..?

Disclaimer :: Or am I just that tired that I've discomboobulated all the facts this afternoon..?

That said.......

THANKS to that I am again back at the keyboard 24/7 as of this very past weekend, I just caught the following via a post over at Georgia Childrens Network (GCN) in tandem with only the second ever WSBTV weekday news alert I've ever received.. Fate being what she has been for me of late, these came within, say, an hour of each other today..

+++

Story #1 from the Tifton Gazette (Tifton, Georgia) :: Autistic child charged with biting teacher: Student arrested for selling bogus drugs in seperate incident:

"An eight-year-old student at Horizon Academy school bit his teacher Thursday morning and was charged with battery."

*LOVE* how they tied the two stories together there, by the way, even though they are unrelated.. :frown:

+++

Story #2 from WSBTV (Atlanta, Georgia) :: 3rd-Graders Allegedly Plotted To Attack Teacher..

"The nine students are too young to be charged with a crime under Georgia law, a prosecutor told the Times-Union of Jacksonville, Fla. They include girls and boys, ages 8 and 9. Authorities withheld the Center Elementary School students' names."

+++

Cool, huh..?

Exact same ages.......

Exact same state.................

DIFFERENT laws...........................

Anyone catch my....... drift..? :raises left eyebrow:

United In Advocacy..

Compassion

Sue — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:45:42 EDT

WHY DONT YOU SEE?

Not everyone has the hand you were dealt

Not everyone has found the strength inside himself

Some have been bombarded with "You're no good"s

These messages invaded their souls and selfhood

Don't discount the very real pain they feel

Cause if you don't care their hearts continue to conceal

Hiding the hurt and angst and fear

They stay in a place they're accustomed to

Cause the worldwise steer clear

Take them into your heart and care

Repeat over and over to them how they can dare

To be the very special someone

That they've kept hidden in there

US ELECTION DIARY - THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

funkfresh01 — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:07:56 EDT

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E4C51233-2D21-4FBB-85FD-7D7F5AF173D9.htm

By Rob Reynolds in Columbus, Ohio

On the road to clinching the Republican Party nomination for president, John McCain worked hard for the endorsement of influential Evangelical Christian ministers.

The ministers are helping shore up McCain's support on the party's right wing, which has always been skeptical about whether the Arizona senator is a true-blue conservative.

But one of those minister's beliefs about Islam and Muslims raise disturbing questions.

Rod Parsley, the pastor of a large and profitable Ohio mega-church, calls Islam a false religion. He says Allah is a demon spirit and that Muslims are bent on world conquest.

Parsley endorsed McCain in February, praising him as a "strong, true, consistent conservative".

Sharing a Cincinnati, Ohio, stage with Parsley, McCain said: "I am very honored today to have one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide, Pastor Rod Parsley. Thank you for your leadership and your guidance. I am very grateful you are here."

He certainly had reason for gratitude - a week later, Parsley's support helped McCain win the important Ohio primary.

Evangelist

Reverend Parsley, who often holds services in which people are supposedly cured of disease by divine intervention, runs the sprawling World Harvest church near Columbus, Ohio.

World Harvest has a 12,000 member congregation, a bible college, and a television studio, which broadcasts his sermons.

A frequent theme of those homilies is the threat to Christian values posed by gays, liberals, and Muslims.

In his book, Silent no More, Parsley says the United States was ordained by God to defeat Islam.

In one chapter, titled The Deception of Allah he writes: "I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfil its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."

We asked Parsley for an interview, but through a church spokesman, he declined. We also sent him written questions, but he did not respond to those either.

Dividing communities

Abukar Arman, a Muslim community leader, says Parsley's remarks are threatening.

"It has a psychological toll on Muslims in central Ohio and beyond, that you are not part of the society that America was founded, in his words, to obliterate Islam," says Arman, president of the Central Ohio chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

McCain and other politicians should "distance themselves from the politics of hate and polarization", Arman said, noting that rhetoric that marginalizes American Muslims only contributes to poor relations between communities.

"In the grand scale of things," he says, "it hurts even the national security of this country because it fuels anti-Americanism."

Media interest

Interestingly enough, Parsley has been largely ignored by the US media, in sharp contrast to the intensive scrutiny given to sermons by Jeremiah Wright, Democrat Barack Obama's pastor.

Wright's homilies were widely criticized as unpatriotic and racially inflammatory, and have been replayed over and over on cable TV news channels.

Obama rejected Wright's remarks, but McCain has not denounced Parsley's comments about Islam, nor has he sought to distance himself from the minister.

In fact, some of McCain's campaign rhetoric virtually echoes Parsley's sermons. McCain, too, talks about a threat - although he focuses on extremism in Islam, not the religion as a whole.

"I'd like to talk to you for a minute about why I'm running, primarily," McCain told a Wisconsin rally on February 19.

"We face the transcendent challenge of the 21st century. That is the threat of radical Islamic extremism. My friends, I know you know that this is an evil of transcendent and unbelievable magnitude. You can see other times when our nation and our way of life were threatened, but this ranks among the greatest."

McCain's campaign told Al Jazeera that "... he [McCain] rejects politics that degrade our civics, and will be running a respectful campaign".

However, in seeking a path to the White House, it seems McCain is counting on the politics of fear and relying on a disturbingly belligerent spiritual guide.

Oklahoma Conference to Examine Islamic Perspective on Terrorism

funkfresh01 — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:42:03 EDT

(OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, 3/25/08) - On Saturday, April 5th, the Institute of Interfaith Dialog will host a day-long conference, "Denouncing Violence in the Name of God: The Case of Islam." Participants at the event will have an opportunity to hear Islamic scholars, academics, law enforcement officials, and journalists discuss the "Islamic perspectives on terror, especially terror that is associated with Islam."

WHAT: Institute of Interfaith Dialog's "Denouncing Violence in the Name of God: The Case of Islam"

WHEN: Saturday April 5, 2008, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

WHERE: Oklahoma City University, The Henry Freede Center (Southwest corner of 27th and Florida)

KEYNOTE SPEAKER: Dr. Cherif Bassiouni - Professor of Law at DePaul University College of Law and President Emeritus of the International Human Rights Law Institute

ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS: Robert Pape - University of Chicago; Muhammad Abu Laylah - Al-Azhar University, Egypt; Fred Von Der Mehden - Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University; Greg Barton - Monash University, Australia; Dr. Robin Myers - Oklahoma City University; Ekrem Dumanli - Editor of Zaman newspaper, Turkey; John Coyle - Special Agent of FBI, Oklahoma; Andrew Tevington - Daily Oklahoman; and Dr. Imad Enchassi – Imam of Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City (ISGOC)

CONTACT: Orhan Kucukosman, Phone: (405) 426 5425, E-Mail: osmanokc@gmail.com

The conference is free of charge and open to the public. Lunch will be provided.

Orhan Kucukosman, from the Institute of Interfaith Dialog, stated the reason for holding the conference in Oklahoma: "In the early days of Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995, there were speculations on individuals associated with a religion who might be responsible for the bombing.

As the truth was revealed, the bombing had no connection with any religion, but was a consequence of mentally challenged personality."

Sponsors include Wimberly School of Religion at Oklahoma City University, OU Religious Studies, Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism Texas, Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City and Mainstream Baptists, and the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-OK).

For more information goto:

http://www.interfaithdialog.org/

US deaths in Iraq approach 4,000

funkfresh01 — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:40:48 EDT

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080322/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb killed three American soldiers north of Baghdad on Saturday, pushing the U.S. death toll in the five-year conflict to nearly 4,000.

Also Saturday, Iraqi authorities reported that a U.S. airstrike north of the capital killed six members of a U.S.-backed Sunni group — straining relations with America's new allies in the fight against al-Qaida.

Two Iraqi civilians also died in the roadside bombing, which occurred as the Americans were patrolling an area northwest of the capital, the U.S. military said in a statement.

Two of the soldiers were killed in the blast and the third died of wounds, the statement said. The soldiers were assigned to Multinational Division-Baghdad, the statement said, but gave no further details.

The latest deaths brought to 3,996 the number of U.S. service members and Pentagon civilians who have died since the war began on March 20, 2003, according to an Associated Press count. Rocket or mortar fire killed one U.S. soldier and wounded four others Friday south of Baghdad, the military said.

Army Vet Speaks Against Mistreatment of Guantanamo Bay Detainees

funkfresh01 — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 18:52:54 EDT

http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2008/03/21/University/Army-Vet.Speaks.Against.Mistreatment.Of.Detainees-3278241.shtml

Author: Lee Ann Holman

James Yee went from being a decorated U.S. Army soldier serving in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to being accused of espionage, spying and aiding the facility's detainees.

He spoke to students about his experiences Thursday night at the UT Law School Auditorium.

When returning to the U.S. for vacation after serving 10 months as chaplain, Yee was arrested in secret and accused of having classified documents in his backpack. While being transferred to prison Yee was subject to sensory deprivation, a torture tactic. He was held in solitary confinement for 76 days without being charged.

He was exonerated and honorably discharged after deciding to quit the army.

Yee converted to Islam shortly after graduating from West Point. He said it was a way to solidify his monotheistic faith in one God. Yee was hand-picked to serve as a Muslim minister to facility detainees.

While ministering detainees, Yee said he advised commanders on proper religious practices. He made suggestions on treatment of the detainees and spoke out against soldiers violating prisoners' human rights. Yee said that though he never participated in interrogation tactics, he counseled prisoners on their treatment.

Yee said he witnessed the desecration of the Quran. Prisoners also spoke of sexual harassment by female interferometers and being put in a pentagram while being forced to renounce Allah.

This treatment will not win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world, he said.

"People in the military have a gross lack of misunderstanding of the Muslim culture, which is counterproductive," Yee said.

Kristine Huskey, a clinical law professor, has been representing Guantanamo detainees since 2002. She said she believes any new presidential administration will shut down Guantanamo Bay, because it is not helping the U.S. fight terrorism and is breeding more people who hate America.

Muslim Leader Has Opposed War

funkfresh01 — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 18:31:54 EDT

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/localnews/columnists/sblow/stories/032008dnmetblowcolumn.6a03f9a.html

Author: Steve Blow

We first sat and talked in those numb days right after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.We mourned together, and Mohamed Elmougy helped me understand a little more about what had befallen us.

I returned several times over the years to visit with the local Muslim community leader. And this week's fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq seemed a good time to once again glimpse the world through his eyes.

Mohamed, 49, owns the Pyramids Hotel in Allen. He's Egyptian by birth and American by choice.

He opposed the war from the start. "You will remember that I said getting out won't be nearly as easy as going in," he said.

I remembered, particularly since I had bought the argument that Iraqis would welcome us.

"We were fools to think we were going to be seen as liberators," Mohamed said. "We are seen as occupiers, and we always will be."

Mohamed agreed that Saddam Hussein needed to go but says he should have been captured in a surgical strike and put on trial in an international court, like Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.

Of course, hindsight is of little help at this point. I was most eager to hear his thoughts on what we should do now. And since the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates offer such divergent strategies, I asked the question in that context.

"Six months ago I had every intention of voting for John McCain," he said. "I felt he was very sincere, that he was speaking his mind, and I respected him as someone who really understands war.

"But after seeing how he has changed his tone to cater to the evangelical right, I just can't support him anymore. It would just be more of the same," he said.

He believes Hillary Rodham Clinton would be seen overseas as simply the return of the Bill Clinton administration, with whatever lingering baggage that involves.

After 5 Years, the Tragedy Continues

funkfresh01 — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 18:29:49 EDT

http://www.masnet.org/views.asp?id=4959

From the Desk of Ibrahim-Abdil-Mu'id Ramey, MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Directo

WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) March 18, 2008 — The conundrum of American primary politics, American Idol worship, and the fall from grace of the former Governor of New York, may have shifted the market-based media focus from the story, but for those who may otherwise be unaware, March 19, 2008 marks the fifth anniversary of the most recent U.S. invasion of Iraq - yet another tragic date in U.S. history that will live in infamy.

What, exactly, has been the cost of the U.S. adventure in Iraq? We are now careening to the number of 4,000 American combat deaths and 40,000 seriously wounded troops. Many of the wounded have been abandoned by their government to a fate of permanent disability and mental distress from the psychological wounds of combat. But this number is dwarfed by the devastation suffered by the Iraqis themselves: 650,000 to one million dead; 400,000 persons displaced from their homes; and the bitter reality of a raging sectarian civil war that has left the nation terrorized and divided.

The recent U.S. troop "surge" has been a useful diversion for the proponents of the war, who now claim some hollow "victory" because of ephemeral military gains in the combat operations against Al-Qaeda and other assorted armed insurgents. But the fundamental contradictions and divisions in the country remain. And Iraq, for all the horrors of it's own history of dictatorship and war, is a far more dangerous and oppressive place that it was under the rule of Saddam.

In the meanwhile, the Iraq war has not only divided U.S. citizens, it has also consolidated world opinion against this nation in a way that no one could have anticipated five years ago. Blatant torture of Iraqi captives, attacks on the civil liberties of Muslim individuals, institutions, and charities in America, and countless violations of both domestic and international law have become the hallmark of the arrogant and recalcitrant regime in Washington that continues the prosecution of the war.

But the conflict in Iraq has also resulted in countless casualties at home, measured in increased domestic violence, family disintegration, alcoholism, and drug abuse suffered by returning U.S. combatants.

War, in every case, results in the massive transfer of wealth from one social class to another. The war in Iraq is no different.

But what is different is the reality of the naked ambition of the global energy and arms oligarchies that have feasted on the $1.2 trillion dollars spent by American taxpayers on the war to date. This violence continues, despite the deepening economic crisis in the nation and the devastation of the national social infrastructure.

In Washington, DC, activists from 40 states plan to gather to mark this tragic anniversary, and in some cases, to engage in non-violent direct action in opposition of the war in Iraq. We must continue to press for the demand to end the war, even if the Democratic Congress lacks the will to oppose the Bush regime's war machine.

The popular tide of resistance to the war will—and must—continue, until the war is ended, and the massive damage to both the United States and to the people of Iraq is fully repaired.

For more information about upcoming events and gatherings, please visit:

www.5YearsTooMany.org

Racism is Not Simply Black & White

Soldierette!! (CENSORED) — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:45:25 EDT

Racism is Not Simply Black & White

Racism is Not Simply Black & White, it's all colors really. I am temporarily living in the midwest, but was born and raised in Washington, D.C. and lived all of my adult life (I'm 44 now) in Maryland, Prince George's County to be specific. PG, as its called, is predominantly black, for the most part, but has the largest concentration of blacks making more than $50,000 per year... or so its said. Hell, I was poor there just like I am here in the midwest. LOL But it doesn't matter what your income level is there; racism is still prevalent.

For example, back home (PG County, MD), there is a "chinese food" store within a short distance from just about anywhere. I miss the food, by the way. But when you, as a black person, walk into a chinese food store, everything is behind glass, probably bulletproof glass. When you place your order, they want the money first, not after, and they won't touch your hands, if as to avoid catching something. Many times I have said to the clerk behind the counter, "Do not throw my money down. I handed you my money in your hand and I expect the same level of respect." Then, conveniently, they don't understand what I'm saying. They understand how much I'm paying them though.

I thought of this on the way home from a run to the local convenient store with my son. Upon returning to the car, my son said, "That guy in there is gonna get robbed one day." I said, "Why do you say that?" He said, "Because he doesn't watch the store. Anybody can just come in there and take whatever because he could be in the back somewhere or whatever." So I told him, "This is the midwest; it's different from back home." He said, "Yeah, people out here trust you more. The guy told me one day, "We are not Arab-owned." I said, "What? What does that mean? Oh! That they don't watch you when you come in?" My son said, "Yeah. You know how when you go in one of their stores, they'll follow you all around the store." Then it dawned on me, how true this statement is, at least in my own experiences. That happens back home, in the DC/MD/VA area, as well as here in the midwest. So my thought was this, "How did people who are new to this country come to have a racist view against people of color in particular? I came to the conclusion that either another Arab-born person told them to "Watch out for the blacks." or a white person told them, because I am almost sure that a black person didn't tell them that. This is across the board in neighborhood stores, all small businesses.

Then our conversations grew to trying to pinpoint the different types of racism out here in the midwest; at least in this little midwestern town. Africans was a group that I mentioned, because I've heard a couple of people say something about "It's always a bunch of damn Africans in there.", referring to a particular department store (Walmart, to be specific.) My son chimes in and says, "Yeah, they hate Africans out here. You always hear them say stuff about Africans here." I said, "That's different from back home. Africans are different from black people in both places, but at home, I've never heard nobody talking about them like they do here. Why do they hate them like that out here? When I see them, it's not no whole big crowd of them or anything. It's usually just a family shopping or something." "I don't know, they say that all the time though.", said my son.

So my thing is this, if blacks are discriminated against by chinese, arab-born (for lack of a better word), and whites, what group actually does NOT discriminate against us? African-Americans, or black as I prefer to call us, are different from any other group of black-skinned people, ie, African, Ethiopian, or whatever other culture. And from my experiences, Africans don't think too highly of blacks born in this country either, which is a shame and actually makes no sense. That may be a stereotype, but my own experiences tell me that, for the most part, this experience reflects an accurate view.

Can anyone explain to me where this comes from and how do we stop it? It's ugly and divisive and it's growing.

McCain's ‘Spiritual Guide’ Says Destroy Islam

funkfresh01 — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:19:31 EDT

McCain's ‘Spiritual Guide’ Says Destroy Islam

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html

Author: David Corn

Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a "strong, true, consistent conservative."

The endorsement was important for McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in McCain's effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide."

Students Stage Die-In to Protest War

funkfresh01 — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:15:21 EDT

Students Stage Die-In to Protest War

http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2008/03/14/News/Students.Stage.DieIn.On.Quad-3269402.shtml

Author: Paolo Cisneros

Thursday morning was an unusual one for Karen Medina, graduate student in library and information sciences. Instead of studying for exams or sitting in class, she was chalking body outlines on the Quad.

Medina and dozens of other anti-war activists took to the streets Thursday morning to stage a march and "die-in" protest as a way of demonstrating their discontent with the upcoming fifth anniversary of the Iraq war.

"We're calling it a 'condemoration' because we're both condemning and commemorating the war," Medina said.

The two-hour event was organized primarily by the Campus Greens and University chapter of the Campus Antiwar Network.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, Students for Justice in Palestine, Champaign-Urbana Citizens for Peace and Justice and the College Democrats co-sponsored the event.

The cooperation of the groups was a large part of the morning's success, said Jeremy Polacek, senior in LAS. "We (Campus Antiwar Network) don't have a monopoly on the anti-war effort by any means," he said. "The collaboration of these groups was really important."

The demonstration began at roughly 11 a.m. Activists gathered to chant anti-war slogans before marching down Green Street to Fifth Street and then back around the Quad.

Many held signs condemning the war as others provided vocal support for the cause.

"This war has been going on for five years now, and, at this point, most people are against it," said Mark Mallon, junior in LAS. "We need to stop spending billions of dollars on this illegal and immoral war."

War's Costs Will Be Felt for Years

funkfresh01 — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:10:50 EDT

War's Costs Will Be Felt for Years

http://www.dailybulletin.com/ci_8620269

Author: George Watson

The cost of five years of the war in Iraq can be seen in almost any community in the United States.

Families whose loved ones were killed or wounded struggle to put their lives back together. The economy teeters, thanks partly to what a renowned economist projects will ultimately be a $3trillion war bill. Gas prices soar. A political landscape that cost many Republicans their seats in Congress continues to fuel anti-American sentiment outside the nation's borders.

Despite substantial political and infrastructure improvements directly attributable to U.S. involvement in Iraq, few observers believe that as of today - the fifth anniversary of U.S. bombs first falling on Baghdad - an end to America's presence there is in sight.

The consequences of a continued stay, they say, will be felt in Americans' bank accounts and in politicians' ability to govern. . .

From the perspective of Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Los Angeles chapter, the war's cost has been multifaceted.

Ayloush is an American with school-age children, and he worries about the state of their education, given California's budget crisis, cuts to education funding and teacher layoffs.

He, too, worries about the economy, the cost of gasoline, and the future of health care.

The war has other, less tangible costs, he noted.

"The biggest nonfinancial, nonmaterial casualty is the damage to our credibility and moral standing in the world today," Ayloush said. "When we issue reports on human rights, which the State Department does, people laugh at it now. They say, `Be quiet."'

Ayloush, who visited Syria and Jordan recently, said he was struck by how angry people are at the United States. The war in Iraq has displaced 2.4million people and induced another 2million to live abroad, primarily in the two countries he visited. Before the war, 500,000 Iraqis lived outside the nation's borders.

"We have caused misery to thousands of their lives and we haven't accepted responsibility," Ayloush said. "We expect neighboring countries to carry that burden without any financial help."

CAIR-LA Rep Speaks at Anti-War Protest

funkfresh01 — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:05:55 EDT

CAIR-LA Rep Speaks at Anti-War Protest

Author: Mike O'Sullivan

Protesters in several US cities held anti-war rallies Saturday to mark the fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, March 20th. More rallies are planned in coming days in other U.S. cities. Mike O'Sullivan reports, several thousand joined an anti-war protest in Los Angeles.

Marchers chanted and some carried flag-draped coffins as speakers demanded that U.S. troops come home.

Sharaf Mowjood of the Council on American-Islamic Relations says the continued presence of American troops is worsening conditions in Iraq, and diverting attention from domestic U.S. problems, including rebuilding New Orleans. The city was devastated by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

“We need to pull out immediately. That's the main thing right now we need to do. It's a conundrum as it is," he said. "So it's in a situation where the best viable option is to pull out because you have a lot of these internal problems you have to deal with, health care, sub-prime mortgage crisis, Katrina, all that. We need to work on those issues first."

Members of religious, labor and community groups joined the Los Angeles demonstration. Madelyn MacKay, a Quaker, says the protests are sending a message to the candidates in the November 4 presidential election.

United States Mosque Used by Iraqi Refugees Vandalized

funkfresh01 — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:58:46 EDT

United States Mosque Used by Iraqi Refugees Vandalized

http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080318/NEWS01/803180345

Author: Cheryl Wittenauer

Neighbors in the tidy, middle-class Southampton neighborhood in south St. Louis said Monday they barely noticed the comings and goings of one of their enclave's newest arrivals.

Nothing out of the ordinary anyway, aside from a steady stream of Iraqi cab drivers and other workers, and women and children, arriving for evening prayer services at the Islamic mosque.

The Islamic religious and community center, housed in a nondescript storefront building, was vandalized over the weekend. It was the second such incident since the Imam Hussin Foundation building opened last April.

"If someone is trying to send us a message," with this act, "we receive it," said Salah Ajmi, the mosque's imam and a businessman. "But we do everything right and legal. This is wrong."

Vandals damaged seven large glass windows with a blunt object sometime between midnight and 10:30 a.m. Sunday, police said. Vandals struck the first time last summer, and Ajmi said he suspected teenagers. This time the damage was more extensive.

Police took fingerprints and are investigating. They wouldn't say whether they consider it a hate crime. The FBI declined to comment.

Concerned now on his deeper thoughts on Race issues

Working professional — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:36:26 EDT

The latest developments with the Reverend have revealed a hidden aspect to Obama that really troubles me. You cannot sit for 20 years and absorb the material from the Pulpit and then shed the source in an instant. I knew there was a bit too much of a racial agenda in the issues column here on the website, but I figured I would wait to see as more details revealed themselves. Now that some are, doubts are cast that cannot be ignored. Also for someone who spoke to focus on moving forward, Obama dwells too much in the past. Slavery is over and done with, centuries ago, and discrimination has been beaten into submission to a great degree. How about speaking solely to what to do moving forward to finish the job in action than bringing up past racially based rhetoric?

Isms, in my opinion, are not good: An examination of ableism in American society

Meg — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:18:29 EDT

I was half-watching a show on TV the other day about a massive fire that killed several people and left one woman burned and blind. She recovered from the burns, but the scarring and blindness are permanent. The narrator commented, "What is the meaning of conquering death when you are still robbed of anything meaningful?" and "[The injured woman] lives a ghost-like existence... she can no longer pursue her passions of reading, writing, or painting."

I sat there in utter disbelief. Alright, she lost her sight. No one who was born sighted would want to lose it. And with that, she probably lost her ability to paint (though there are blind painters). And given how she was injured, she may well have PTSD. Tough stuff by any measure. But "robbed of anything meaningful?" Really? When you lose your sight, life is meaningless? And you become illiterate? I know some blind folks with screenreaders who would beg to differ on both points. These days, you don't have to learn Braille to read or write.

I would excuse comments like these if they had been made by the injured woman herself. When you're able-bodied and become disabled, there is a natural grieving process that often includes statements of that nature. You're plunged into a brand new world and have to relearn almost everything, and it's frustrating. As one who was born with cerebral palsy and acquired rheumatoid arthritis, I have found dealing with *loss* of function much more emotionally taxing than dealing with the function I never had in the first place. You can't miss what you have no reference point for.

So new gimps are entitled to say such things, offensive as they are. (To someone born disabled, the statement "Disability makes life meaningless" is similar to "being black makes life meaningless" or "being a woman makes life meaningless." Does it present challenges? Sure, sometimes. But meaningless?)

Economic Solutions

Dexter Gilbert — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:56:33 EDT

The economy is going to be a major issue in this general election. It seems to me, that all the major economic gurus lean just a little too far to the right. They have made people look over the root issues that cause our economy to stagger by convincing everyone that they are the economic experts and the issues are much too complicated for the average Joe to understand. Well, this simply isn’t true. The fact is, the so-called experts are the ones that really don’t understand how to run an economy. Now these experts might be good at running a casino because the odds are always in their favor. Running an economy like a casino does not always leave the odds in our nation’s favor. There are just a few adjustments that we can make to our system that would decrease energy usage, increase small business viability and turn our small towns into their own self sufficient bustling economies. This is just one of those adjustments.

We need to outlaw “Price Discrimination”. I define ‘Price Discrimination’ as; charging one customer for the same product or service yet charging a discounted price. Discounts given due to contract or purchase volume should be outlawed. This would allow small business entrepreneurs to compete with large corporations. They could open their own computer assembly operation because the hardware and software for their machines could be purchased at the same price that Dell or Gateway pays. This would create local jobs for products that service and support the local communities. In turn, we would get better quality products and local service for those products. Less energy would be consumed because work commutes would be drastically reduced. This would be true for many other types of businesses, smaller on scale than the big companies, yet just as profitable based on the size of the business. These comparable profits would allow for wages and benefits comparable to large companies.

In turn, the American Dream would be available to all the people of a nation designed to be ‘Of the People, By the People and For the People’.

reaction to advocate article: obama dominating LGBT endorsements

jonathan | cvg — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:12:01 EDT

there is not doubt that obama offers the honest, CONSISTENT, more progressive record of leadership as well as policy toward LGBT issues. in fact, i have three blogs saying so!

what i doubt is no targeted activity or reinforcement of prior messaging to capture LGBT votes in ohio, considering the dense population in franklin county. clinton, technically weaker on the issues, acted quickly in a targeted message which is one of the stark differences in support of obama. (point #2 of my last blog)

late january, clinton distributed an open letter and it was quickly disseminated among individual voters via social networks and email distribution lists.

lead like sheep into the slaughter house. in turn, i published my rebuttal in blog form on february 6, and then scripted an abridged version which i sent to my personal contacts and OHIO HQ.

however, i did not see an open letter from OBAMA FOR AMERICA until just before the ohio/texas primaries. yes, obama has given many speeches and made better proposals... but this time, somehow, clinton was beating obama via peer contact and new media. how can this be... or more importantly, why are lesbians and homos quick to fall in line under clinton? it's a misitake by gays, and i am only human to speculate that a significant percentage of lesbians are also feminists and that a significant percentage of homos are associate with a mother-figure.

holy freudian slip-up batman! but, before anyone sends me hate mail, let it be known i've heard many rebuttals in favor of clinton resorting to her gender and the idea of wanting a woman in office... all logic be damned.

fortunately, obama won franklin county... home of columbus (dense LGBT population). yet, i am not convinced he won the gay vote. obama faired well in each metropolitan area, winning three of ohio's largest counties such as franklin.

furthermore, i'm pretty disappointed in the official obama LGBT myspace. there's been no activity since before super tuesday. no one has approved comments or circulated the open letter among the thousands of people listed with the site. tragic oversight. that's how clinton set off a domino effect among gay-friendly ears.

i get it. bigger fish to fry? but alas, perhaps this advocate article signifies better targeting in the future.

~ j

OBAMA is stronger on LGBT issues

jonathan | cvg — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:57:48 EDT

i sent this summary of my earlier blog to OHIO HQ and my contacts in february:

CLINTON = political calculation to meet the popular opinion
OBAMA = moral calculation to meet the consistent greater good

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

presumably, you sympathize with equal rights, punishable hate crimes, and no discrimination.

barack obama is your candidate!

1 . . . Defense of Marriage Act was signed by bill clinton and supported by the first lady. today, obama and clinton oppose federally sanctioned "gay marriage" but both support federally sanctioned "civil unions" providing identical rights. in fact, only obama attends a christian denomination that recognizes gay marriages!

DOMA stands as the most significant legislative obstacle to achieving marriage equality. hillary still defends most of DOMA with a "states' rights" argument, allowing state discrimination.

hillary clinton is on record for only supporting repeal of section 3 of DOMA. however, barack obama has been a leader in civil rights and fully supports a complete repeal of the DOMA.

2 . . . obama speaks about civil rights and equality for the LGBT community in many highly visible speeches. these include obama's first presidential speech as well as the eloquent speech to thousands at ebenezer church on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

hillary has not brought LGBT issues to the forefront, waiting for gay-friendly ears.

3 . . . it's true clinton co-sponsored bills like Early Treatment of HIV Act and increased funding for Ryan White Care Act. but, it's also true that obama lead on these and many others hillary could list.

4 . . . hillary counts 8yrs as first lady towards "experience." she cherry-picks/disassociates with compromises or positions not popular today. they leveraged LGBT compromises to build christian support.

5 . . . obama wants to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." while clinton now agrees with obama, she supported it when her husband signed the law.

hillary still asserts it was progress. bill clinton sanctioned as long as we are in the closet, we can serve. thus, bill and hillary's promises proved empty during the 90s.

like barack says, it's important to be right on day one.

6 . . . when hillary speaks of marching in gay pride parades, let's remember that obama has marched in his fair share also. after all, his state is home of "boys town."

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

barack obama is clearly honest, CONSISTENT, and more progressive with the change he proposes for us.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

trust the below list of LGBT organizations and leaders who endorsed barack obama even before super tuesday!

* Eric Stern, former political adviser to the John Edwards for President campaign, former National Stonewall Democrats executive director, former director of LGBT outreach for the Democratic National Committee (California)
* David Mixner, writer, Democratic Party activist (New York)
* Gloria Nieto, Former Vice Chair of DNC LGBT Caucus
* Linda Elliott, member of the board of directors for the Human Rights Campaign (Arizona)
* Evan Low, council member for the city of Campbell, Calif.
* David Garrity, vice chair of the Maine Democratic Party; former DNC Member
* Andy Szekeres, former Colorado Stonewall Democrats cochair, former Wisconsin LGBT field director, Kerry-Edwards (Colorado)
* Kyle Bailey, former board member, National Stonewall Democrats, LGBT Caucus vice chair of Young Democrats of America, Chair of Atlanta Stonewall Democrats (Georgia)
* Pam Cooke, National Stonewall Democrats board member; past president, Stonewall Democratic Club of Los Angeles (California)
* Bill Hedrick, president of Central Ohio Stonewall Democrats
* David Mariner, former Out for Howard Dean cochair (Maryland)
* Jason Lansdale, past president of Central Ohio Stonewall Democrats
* Daniel Hinkley, Nevada Stonewall Democratic Caucus president
* Misty York, communications director for the Kentucky Fairness Alliance
* Christopher Prevatt, chair of Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club (Orange County, Calif. )
* Jim Maynard, president of Memphis Stonewall Democrats (Tennessee)
* Daniel Graney, past president of Stonewall Democrats of San Antonio (Texas)
* Arthur Nunn, former Missouri for Edwards volunteer organizer and founder of LGBT for Edwards MySpace Group
* Brad Reichard, public pelations executive (Massachusetts)
* Michael Shannon, national security expert (D. C. )
* Les Krambeal, board member for the National Stonewall Democrats, cochair, Southern Arizona Stonewall Democrats
* Robert D. Horvath Jr. , member of the board of directors for the Mautner Project (D. C. )
* Patrick J. Lyden, LGBT community activist (D. C. )
* Jeff Prang,West Hollywood City Council
* Tom Ammiano, San Fran board of Supervisors
* Rich Tafel, Formerly of National Log Cabin Republicans
* Jeff Soukup, Board Member of Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, former President and COO, PlanetOut Inc. , and former Co-Chair National Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund
* Jeff Anderson, former Co-Chair of John Kerry for President National LGBT Finance Committee
* Bill Rosendahl, LA City Council
* Susan Belinda Christian, Co-Chair of Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club
* Patrick Shepherd, former President of Cleveland Stonewall Democrats; Board Member for the National Stonewall Democrats
* Joseph LaMonica, former board member of the San Antonio Stonewall Democrats.
* Brian Polejes,Vice President For Organizing Pride At Work

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Urgent, Clear Choice For Gay Voters: Obama
Andrew Sullivan
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"An interesting moment came when he was asked a question about LGBT
rights and delivered an answer that seemed to suit the questioner,
listing the various attributes -- race, gender, etc. -- that shouldn't
trigger discrimination, to successive cheers. When he came to saying
that gays and lesbians deserve equality, though, the crowd fell
silent."

So he took a different tack: "Now I'm a Christian, and I praise Jesus
every Sunday," he said, to a sudden wave of noisy applause and cheers.

"I hear people saying things that I don't think are very Christian
with respect to people who are gay and lesbian," he said, and the
crowd seemed to come along with him this time.

To hear someone defend gay and lesbian dignity and equality from a
Christian perspective and to do so in the context of a largely
African-American crowd, is much, much more than any candidate for the
presidency has ever done. It's a break through. If it were just words,
it would be one thing. But he has now done this repeatedly in front of
black crowds, when he didn't have to. And he has put his specific
commitments in writing in an open letter.

It's time to be candid about this - because gay voters, in my
judgment, could make the difference in Ohio and Texas and Vermont and
Rhode Island. There are very large gay communities in Texas' cities,
and Ohio has the sixth largest gay community in the country. A plea:
Do not sleep-walk into that voting booth with vague good feelings
about the Clintons. Walk into that booth with eyes open and see what
gay people have in front of them.

Now you may have many reasons not to vote for Obama, and no gay voter
should vote on one issue. But solely with respect to gay matters,
there is simply no choice here. Obama's positions, candor, courage,
generation and religious embrace of us are dispositive.

What Obama is doing on the gay issue has the potential transform it
and help us as a society to move past it. No, he's not a savior. No,
we shouldn't expect miracles. No, we should never delegate the work of
our equality to anyone else. We, after all, are the ones we've been
waiting for. But within the Democratic contest, the case for backing
Obama at this point in time is, to my mind, urgent, vital, historic.

Gay Americans must not throw this chance away.

Shame on you, Geraldine Ferarro.

Gina-Louise from Northampton, MA — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:43:02 EDT

Oops. Did I plagiarize, Mrs. Clinton?

While we were all agog about Eliot Spitzer, news broke that Geraldine Ferarro made a ludicrous and extremely offensive statement to the Daily Breeze.

"I'm on Hillary's finance committee. I've done a fundraiser for her here at my firm. And I went and worked the phone banks before Super Tuesday. I have to tell you, this is a very emotional campaign for me," Ferraro said.
When the subject turned to Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic Party nomination, Ferraro's comments took on a decidedly bitter edge.
"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Right. Because Black men hold such a privileged place in this country. So privileged, according to Ms. Ferarro, that they rank above White men in the advantages they enjoy in the United States.

Allow me to school you for a moment, Ms. Ferarro.

African American men, while only 13% of the population, comprise 49% of the prison population.
Due to this, and discriminatory disenfranchisement felony laws, 13% of African American men who are free cannot vote.
African American men's incomes have declined over the past 30 years.
50% African American men in their 20's were jobless in 2004.
African American men are less likely to go to college, and if they do have only a 35% graduation rate
In 2006, the poverty rate for African Americans was 24.3%, double the national average.
African American men have the worst health and the highest death rate of all races/ethnicities and both genders.
African Americans received the largest percentage of subprime loans, and will suffer the most foreclosures and loss of wealth due to the unscrupulous loans.

So you explain to me how it is that you think it is extremely easy for a Black man to become President of the United States, Ms. Ferarro.

Geraldine Ferarro, you should be ashamed of yourself. I understand that it might be hard for you to see the inequality from way up high on your post as principal to the Lobbying firm Blank Rome Government Relations LLS, and on the Board of Goodrich Petroleum, but it is there.

And Hillary Clinton, you're not off the hook. I call on you to "Reject and Denounce" this offensive, and factually insane statement.

[Originally posted on http://www.knittingliberally.com/?q=node/59]

CAIR Co-Sponsors Letter to Congress on Wiretapping

funkfresh01 — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:02:26 EST

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 3/6/08) - On March 5, 2008, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) joined other individuals and institutions who work to preserve civil liberties in sponsoring a letter to members of Congress commending them for refusing to pass the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 and urging them to allow it to expire.

The letter is as follows:

March 5, 2008

Dear Representative,

We the undersigned organizations commend the House for refusing to yield to administration fearmongering by passing the worst possible surveillance legislation - S. 2248, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2007. This bill would grant the administration unfettered access to all communications coming into or out of the United States without any meaningful court review or finding of wrongdoing and grant complete immunity to companies that cooperated with illegal wiretapping over the last several years.

As you go forward with negotiations, we ask that you leave the Protect America Act exactly as it is -- sunsetted. As House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and the Cato Institute noted, America is in no danger from the expiration of this unconstitutional law. Orders issued since last August remain in effect until their internal cease date, up to a year after issuance, ensuring that current surveillance programs will continue, in some cases, into 2009. These programmatic orders are not limited to individuals or facilities so that new targets can be tapped under existing orders. Of course, the government always has the option of tapping targets immediately and returning to court within 72 hours to obtain a court order under the FISA procedures that have served our intelligence community for nearly 30 years.

Barack Reaches Out to GLBT Americans: "A Call For Full Equality"

Byebye — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:39:33 EST

The good news is Barack is reaching out to GLBT Americans as posted by Radio Left. The frustration felt from members of the community is that the Open Letter was issued primarily in the Gay Press. I myself found very little in the platform pages, and then there was that incident with Donnie McClurkin as well last year that left a bad taste in many mouths.

Still, Down With Tyranny has an image from an Ad that is presumably from the Obama For America Campaign. I liked its sentiment.

The Open Open Letter has been received by mixed reviews:

Islamic discrimination, the witch hunt of our time

Randy — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:39:45 EST

Recently there has been a lot of rumbling about Sen. Obama's religious and ethnic background. Picture's have been posted of him in ethnic clothing, Conservatives have been overplaying his middle name, shame on them! This country was founded by people fleeing religious oppression, so why should Sen. Obama have to explain his Christianity? Why , as I read in the local newspaper today, are Muslims waiting years to get there citizenship's approved? Why are Muslim students getting bullied because of there faith? Yes, radicals do radical things but that doesn't represent the larger group. One apple really doesn't spoil the whole bunch! Yes we can be better then this, our Founding Fathers are counting on it!

What Do Smears Against Obama Say About Society?

funkfresh01 — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:31:18 EST

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-obamamuslim_thinkfeb24,0,6345949.story

Author: Ahmed M. Rehab

OK, we get the point. Barack Obama is not a Muslim. He has made that clear, time and again.

As well he should: The rumors are baseless, maliciously spun by political adversaries with the intention of taking votes away from Obama's promising presidential campaign run.

Obama is entitled to set the record straight. But that's not the end of the story.

The broader issue is: What does this attempt to smear Obama say about our society?

More personally, what does it say about my newborn nephew's standing in society? Is he entitled to the dreams of his Muslim father that the boy could grow up to be president if he works as hard as Obama and is as ambitious?

Obama has not gone far enough to challenge the notion that religious affiliation could disqualify Americans from serving their nation. Nor has Mitt Romney, a Mormon, Mike Huckabee, a Baptist, or any other candidate.

It's time for all of them to be quizzed on the meaning of citizenship as preached and practiced in this great democracy. As a voter, I would much rather know their stance on equal employment policies than which church they attend.

Whenever I address young Muslim audiences that may be struggling with identity issues, I remind them that this is their country, too. I tell them they should observe their civic duties, vote and, if it behooves them, run for public office and help bring about the positive reform they often passively expect of others.

Urge Congress to Halt Humanitarian Disaster in Gaza

funkfresh01 — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:37:38 EST

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 01/21/08) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on American Muslims and other people of conscience to urge their elected officials to immediately intervene to put an end to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

The crisis was triggered by an Israeli-imposed blockade Sunday evening, which forced the closure of the only electric plant that serves Gaza City's 400,000 residents and one third of the Gaza Strip's 1.5 millions residents. The blockade prevents the entry of fuel that is essential to the operation of the plant.

SEE: Gaza Dark Amid Israeli Blockade (LA times)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gaza21jan21,1,576321.story?track=crosspromo&coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=2&cset=true

Gaza is already suffering from economic hardship, which according to the World Bank, is primarily a result of being cut off from the rest of the world by Israel. Without power, hospitals, water facilities and other crucial lifelines may completely shut off and homes may be left without heat, plunging Gaza into disarray.

regarding 2 issues gays hold against barack

jonathan | cvg — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:32:04 EST

someone sent me a message regarding my previous blog, "voters who support LGBT equality should vote OBAMA."

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

"I am kind of leaning toward Obama. But I'm disturbed by the Gavin Newsom thing and by Obama's previous reaching out for support from some very anti-gay evangelicals.

Have you addressed those things directly? Other gay men I know tend to lean toward Hillary because she is perceived as more gay friendly, DOMA or not."

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

dimwits, they are. oops... did i go on the record with that?

as far i know, there has only been one "evangelist" figure who in addition to being a well-known award-winning gospel singer popular in the religious black south... he is also a reformed homosexual and is active in one of the organizations that try to reform homos. obama's camp asked him to entertain and assure fans that obama was a man of faith last year when there were rumors thanks to racism and narrow minds... and fox news... that obama was not christian and went to a muslim school.

the "reformed homo" was not there to talk about gays, but before the rally LGBT activists made obama's camp aware of this man's past and present anti-gay rhetoric. yet, the decision was not to divide based on opposing paradigms. and, as a man who enjoys laying with other men, i admire obama for his courageous stance. you don't have to agree with everything i believe, as long as you support obama and his platform, given that his platform is progressively in support of civil equality of LGBT people in comparison to clinton who has a history of comprising on matters specifically impacting us... in spite of the successes she might point to in funding research and prevention.

so yes, obama discovered that the guest speaker/entertainer was also one of the guys that reforms homos. however, i stand behind obama in his decision. yes, his organizers made an error by not thoroughly conducting a background check. you wouldn't think you would need a background check on an evangelist or popular gospel singer.. right?

again for anyone living under a rock: obama's movement is about bringing together people of all backgrounds and beliefs to unite for positive change based on the platform obama has outlined. obama's platform is more progressive on behalf of LGBT equality than clinton. i am more than happy to work along side the KKK or a homophobe if it means that the platform obama has outlined will finally change our country on civil equality, health care, the environment, foreign diplomacy, etc.

keep in mind, homos are just as guilty when they ask for obama to exclude a homophobe who speaks in his area of expertise and offers necessary credibility to obama's religion. in fact, not only is obama and his family christian and have attended the same church for (i think) for more than a decade... unlike clinton's denomination, obama's church does recognize gay marriage. if the homophobe will speak in favor of my candidate knowing that my candidate is the most progressive on LGBT civil rights... i welcome him.

if you would like to fact check me, refer to the advocate issue from early fall.

your friends are wrong to think clinton is more progressive or has a record that suggests she will fight harder for them without compromising her convictions... only one candidate has a track record of leadership like that...

and obama brings us to the forefront in his speeches in front of all listeners... not only those with a gay-friendly ear.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

REGARDING GARY NEWSOM: newsom numbnutts story is nothing more than a community rumor given that the story is circumstantial and NOT collaborated by obama or his spokespeople. the articles printed in the alternative press and mainstream media in california are editorially-written and quote people whom "think" they know what obama was thinking. most dub that unsubstantiated opinion and hearsay.

shame on any "news" organization that would put paper sales or internet hits above our community and its best chance for uncompromising change.

the articles i have seen each point to an alleged snub and the only credibility they offer are interviews with people connected to the mayor's office who think they know what obama was thinking... notice those articles do not interview or quote obama's team in the matter.

remember when obama supposedly snubbed clinton after the state of the union? she reached out, but he had his back turned to her because he was talking to someone on the other side of ted kennedy. not a snub. but fun to talk about for a week.

newsom numbnutts is nothing more. if it were a snub, which i allege is unlikely, we can rest assured the reaction has nothing to do with sexual preference. obama is too progressive and outspoken on our behalf to decide to disrespect or hate one homo based on the homo liking cock.

i'm not connected to obama's camp, but i would like to suggest that perhaps the lack of picture has something to do with newsom numbnutts having bad B-O. it could be that simple.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

i guess your friends believe "don't ask, don't tell" was progress as hillary still asserts. the truth is that bill clinton sanctioned something that was already happening. as long as we are in the closet, we can serve. with that and things like the DOMA, bill and hillary clinton's promises proved empty.

sure, bill and hillary have been great advocates for things like AIDS... etc... but let's be mindful that AIDS is not a "gay-problem" and, while an issue that does impact the LGBT community, AIDS also impacts communities around the world.

~ j

voters who support LGBT equality should vote OBAMA

jonathan | cvg — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:11:24 EST

we are the ones we've been waiting for:
this campaign for presidency of the united states of america is different

presumably, many of my friends are concerned with LGBT civil rights or sympathize with the idea that homosexuals are owed equal rights, hate crimes should be punished, and discrimination should come to an end.

if that describes you, then please research the candidates accurately. barack obama is your candidate. please read hillary clinton and barack obama's seemingly identical responses to the human rights campaign questionnaire for LGBT issues.

ultimately, it comes down to a single issue and the dedication to bring these rights to the forefront. the Defense of Marriage Act signed by bill clinton and supported by then first lady, hillary clinton. both candidates oppose federally sanctioned "gay marriage" but both candidates do support federally sanctioned "civil unions" providing the identical rights.

DOMA stands as the most significant legislative obstacle to achieving marriage equality in the future. hillary's argument is essentially a "states' rights" argument, allowing states to discriminate on what the supreme court said 40 years ago is a basic civil right.

hillary clinton is on record for only supporting the repeal of section 3 of the DOMA. however, the candidate that has been a leader in civil rights, barack obama, fully supports a complete repeal of the DOMA because it discriminates against our community not just in section 3.

i suspect this comes a suprise to many gay/lesbian clinton supporters who tend to rally behind the clinton dynasty mainly based on name recognition or nostalgia. what may also surprise you is that from obama's first presidential speech to the eloquent speech made in front of thousands at ebenezer church on martin luther king jr. day and many speeches in between and since then, obama is the only candidate left in this race that regulary speaks about civil rights and equality for the LGBT community.

hillary shares many of obama's views, but she only shows support when directly asked or speaking in front of gay-friendly crowds. she does just enough to get by "for the record" and maintain the undeserving support of many of my friends and many gays/lesbians elsewhere. she manages this allusion based on her experience in "fighting" for LGBT rights.

it's true that she has co-sponsored many bills such as the Early Treatment of HIV Act and increased funding for the Ryan White Care Act. but, it's also true that barack obama has equally shown leadership on the same acts and many others that hillary could speak in favor.

rememeber the "2 for the price of 1" campaign taglines from bill and hillary that helped them win the whitehouse originally? hillary wants us to count the eight years as first lady as "experience," then it is important for voters to understand what type of experience she has offered like i state in my blog "i'll vote republican before i'll vote clinton."

both clintons made hefty progressive promises, and among the compromises of their administration, one could assert that the LGBT community was betrayed first. as senator clinton has done on many of the issues, she cherry-picks/disassociates with compromises or positions not popular today. the LGBT community should remain cognizant that the clinton administration, being politically calculating, leveraged LGBT compromises to build christian support in the 90s. hillary could alledge that she secretly opposed "her husband's" questionable judgment, but then is it, in the same breadth, fair to lay claim to what we still view favorably?

at least some of the gay-related mud of the clinton years has to stick to her, too. in fact, hillary was the first lady when her husband signed the discriminating DOMA which even today she only wants to partly repeal. clinton was very outspoken in favor of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a "necessary transitional measure," although she now favors its repeal. obama has long supported it's repeal citing evidence and testimony proving his judgment is right on this matter like in many others.

like barack says, it's important to be right on day one.

oh, and when hillary speaks of marching in gay pride parades, don't you think obama has marched in his fair share as a proven leader on these issues and community organizer? after all, his state is home of "boy's town."

so why would anyone in favor of equality for the LGBT community vote for hillary clinton when barack obama is clearly the candidate who is honest, CONSISTENT, and more progressive with the change he proposes for us?

if you don't trust me... trust the below list of LGBT organizations and leaders who endorsed barack obama even before super tuesday!

~ j

Eric Stern, former political adviser to the John Edwards for President campaign, former National Stonewall Democrats executive director, former director of LGBT outreach for the Democratic National Committee (California)

David Mixner, writer, Democratic Party activist (New York)

Gloria Nieto, Former Vice Chair of DNC LGBT Caucus

Linda Elliott, member of the board of directors for the Human Rights Campaign (Arizona)

Evan Low, council member for the city of Campbell, Calif.

David Garrity, vice chair of the Maine Democratic Party; former DNC Member

Andy Szekeres, former Colorado Stonewall Democrats cochair, former Wisconsin LGBT field director, Kerry-Edwards (Colorado)

Kyle Bailey, former board member, National Stonewall Democrats, LGBT Caucus vice chair of Young Democrats of America, Chair of Atlanta Stonewall Democrats (Georgia)

Pam Cooke, National Stonewall Democrats board member; past president, Stonewall Democratic Club of Los Angeles (California)

Bill Hedrick, president of Central Ohio Stonewall Democrats

David Mariner, former Out for Howard Dean cochair (Maryland)

Jason Lansdale, past president of Central Ohio Stonewall Democrats

Daniel Hinkley, Nevada Stonewall Democratic Caucus president

Misty York, communications director for the Kentucky Fairness Alliance

Christopher Prevatt, chair of Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club (Orange County, Calif.)

Jim Maynard, president of Memphis Stonewall Democrats (Tennessee)

Daniel Graney, past president of Stonewall Democrats of San Antonio (Texas)

Arthur Nunn, former Missouri for Edwards volunteer organizer and founder of LGBT for Edwards MySpace Group

Brad Reichard, public pelations executive (Massachusetts)

Michael Shannon, national security expert (D.C.)

Les Krambeal, board member for the National Stonewall Democrats, cochair, Southern Arizona Stonewall Democrats

Robert D. Horvath Jr., member of the board of directors for the Mautner Project (D.C.)

Patrick J. Lyden, LGBT community activist (D.C.)

Jeff Prang,West Hollywood City Council

Tom Ammiano, San Fran board of Supervisors

Rich Tafel, Formerly of National Log Cabin Republicans

Jeff Soukup, Board Member of Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, former President and COO, PlanetOut Inc., and former Co-Chair National Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund

Jeff Anderson, former Co-Chair of John Kerry for President National LGBT Finance Committee

Bill Rosendahl, LA City Council

Susan Belinda Christian, Co-Chair of Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club

Patrick Shepherd, former President of Cleveland Stonewall Democrats; Board Member for the National Stonewall Democrats

Joseph LaMonica, former board member of the San Antonio Stonewall Democrats.

Brian Polejes,Vice President For Organizing Pride At Work

"Chromaticity"

L. Nicole Baker — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:45:18 EST

with multiple shades now
intertwining
we struggle to re-establish
life long learning
built on a history of isolation.
.separation.
in the most heinous form
families and society torn.
but in this time
differences go "unnoticed"
locked away and unspoken
because
our mouths have been bound
and eyes been blinded
no one left willing
to start another movement.

so with multiple shades now
intertwining
there are no conversations or acknowledgements
just
injustices
swept under the carpets.
some speak out
planting verbal seeds of change
tilling the soil
to reap a social reward.
but at the end of the day
we are back where we started
not much progress made
only the same old problems.
somehow left
uncharted
or even worse.
they have been forgotten.

with multiple shades now
intertwining
one will always think they are better.
.sheltered.
cause matter of fact
discrimination was first geared towards blacks.
but with border patrol
and the amount of oil
running out
it is time to take a moment to reflect.
correct
the errors of our ways
and make amends for our future.
it will take positive individuals to establish real unison.
if not now
then when
.later.
after everyone has erupted like volcanoes
and from the pit of their stomach's spewed hatred

so with multiple shades now
intertwining
life won't stop or be put on hold
simply because you refuse to focus on what will
unfold.
all the lies that have been told
are now replaced with truth.
what you do with it is up to you.

Does U.S. Tolerate Anti-Muslim Speech?

funkfresh01 — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:12:21 EST

Author: Omar Sacirbey

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1204/p02s02-usgn.html?page=1

Lu Gronseth listens regularly to WWTC, a conservative talk-radio station in Minneapolis, and even advertises his mortgage-loan business on the station. But when he learned that a nationally syndicated radio show host had told WWTC listeners that Muslims should be deported and made rude comments about what they could do with their religion, Mr. Gronseth pulled his ads from the station.

So have at least two other Minnesota businesses, at the urging of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, D.C., as have a handful of national companies, including OfficeMax, JCPenney, Wal-Mart, and AT&T. But the comments by host Michael Savage in October – and previous anti-Muslim speech – have not created the furor that knocked radio icon Don Imus off of MSNBC and CBS Radio after he denigrated a black women's basketball team. That leaves many Muslims-Americans – and non-Muslims like Mr. Gronseth – suspicious that Americans have a double standard when it comes to Islam.

Help to stop an endless occupation in Iraq

funkfresh01 — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:21:42 EST

Have you seen the news? President Bush is negotiating a deal with Iraq to keep our troops there indefinitely--it could include permanent bases and a massive military presence for years! Bush is trying to tie the hands of the next president.

Congress can stop him from setting up permanent bases in Iraq and block an indefinite occupation--but they need to hear a groundswell of pressure from us immediately and loudly so they act on this quickly.

I just signed a petition demanding that Congress stop the president from committing to a massive military presence in Iraq for decades. Can you join me?

http://pol.moveon.org/endless/?r_by=11723-5077189-Cf.Eao&rc=comment_paste

Thanks!

NORTH CAROLINA CHURCH SAYS ‘NO” TO MUSLIMS

funkfresh01 — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 19:30:15 EST

Source: Oriental Harbor

http://www.orientalharbor.net/hotoffthepress.html

Oriental's Episcopal Church has 'un-invited' a Muslim group that was to speak at the church to quell a parishoner revolt against '"non-Christians" and keep peace in the parish.

"Concern was expressed that non-Christians should not be given a voice in our church," Senior Warden George Robinson wrote in the church's October newsletter, The Moorings. "Others felt that to gain understanding, particularly about 'the enemy' was important."

The Muslim group was invited after a local Methodist congregation had them speak and thought it added to understanding between faiths, according to the newsletter. The Muslim group was invited to St. Thomas Episcopal Church as part of its "One God" series of seminars.

But some members objected, and at a September meeting at the church where both sides presented their cases, the church's Rev. Jeremiah C. Day apparently stepped in to quell controversy, saying the group would be un-invited, based on the newsletter.

The Muslim group was the idea of the church's Christian Education Committee.

"So what was the result of all the discussion? Father Day suggested that ministers in the community might have a forum for the whole community. Pat Webster, of the Christian Education Committee – the group suggesting a Muslim speaker – suggested we could spend some time together trying to develop a tolerance for diversity," Webster wrote on Page 5 of the October newsletter.

"Consequently, the Muslim speaker is not coming to St. Thomas, as Father Day noted, to keep peace in the parish.

Lynne Cheney Visits Exclusive Dallas Country Club That Has Long Record Of Racial Discrimination

John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:02:42 EST

ARTICLE- http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/05/lynee-cheney-dallas-country-club/

United State

Wemberg Carlo Estil — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:00:15 EDT

United State Must Have On Black President To Stop The discrimination

<<To Discriminate Only Generate hates>>>

A breath of fresh air!

rayray714 — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:33:38 EST

Mr. Obama is such an inspiration to moms like me. I have one son who is also African and Caucasian. I have seen a glimpse of how people of color have been treated, as I have had family members who have become astranged from me and have been fiercely judged from being in a bi-racial relationship and having a son from that relationship. It is astonishing to me that this level of discrimination still exists. I hope and pray that Mr. Obama is able to help this country reach a better existence of peace and equality. I also know that it is not just one sided racism anymore, though. Many colored people are anti-white now, too. I saw it first hand for myself. Not all white people are racist. There are many white people who have a love and respect for black history and for the struggle that many of today's minorities' relatives had to endure. There is a huge divide among the races of our country that Mr. Obama can help to bridge.

I respect the fact that he is not silent about his faith as well. This country needs its faith and strength in minding the laws of God. He is absolutely right to encourage faith as our country was founded of men whom placed all of their faith in God to help them acheive a seemingly unacheivable goal of independence. But God did see them through, and took the sacrifice of many people's lives to give us the best country on the face of this planet. We have to bring it back to its foundation. We have gone too far in the opposite direction.

And Mr. Obama is right about parents who are never involved in their children's lives! So many of these poor kids are not getting the attention and love they need. It's happening in families of every income level and background possible. It's not that the rich families pay more attention to their children or even give them a better chance at becoming someone great in their life. In fact, I believe that integrity comes from the struggle you endure and overcome. I hope that my son will see me as a mom who never gave up, who still went back to college again to acheive my dreams for me and him, and, despite financial hardships and the lowest of times of being a single, working mom going to school, he will learn the same strength is inside of him and know it's in others as well.

Come on America! If each one of us does more to get involved we can actually have a country that is BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE! We will continue to lose our liberty if we yield our votes and authority by making decisions to do nothing. Remember, if you STAND for NOTHING, you will FALL for ANYTHING!

Is Obama White?

Wes Shell — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:55:09 EST

Rush Limbaugh once again opened his mouth and to the amazement of no one inserted his foot. Last Week Limbaugh Implied that Barack Obama needs to admit he is white! Renounce his black haeritage and just become white was the message he pushed to america on his widly listened to talk radio show.

"Well, renounce it, then! If it’s not something you want to be, if you didn’t decide it, renounce it, become white!"

I ask, WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE! Has our country not yet overcome the barrier of race? Are we still stuck on an issue that has been visited over and over in this country slowly dividing us? The answer, I am afraid, is yes. The simple truth is the country still sees in black and white.

The good news is, times are changing, new tides are rolling in and the days of the past where black and white was a front page issue is slowly diminishing. On a recent poll I saw that more people in this country are caught up on religion then race.

Of people who were asked if they would vote for certain groups of people an amazing 94% said they could vote for a person who was black if they were the right person for the job. Only 45% would vote for someone who was atheist even if the right person for the job. This does not speak well for anyone who is unsure of their faith, but it illustrates a clear message about "Black & White".

Take this news Rush and reconsider your next public embarrassment. The issue of Black and White is fading, new generations are voting, old generations are adapting, and new powers are taking over. Times change Rush. Deal with it.

I wonder though, using the same logic, saying Obama is white because he had a white mother, should Clinton admit she is a man? After all her father to was a man! And Mr. Limbaugh, was your mother a women? Does this not make you a women? Or does the logic not work when applied to you?