Posts with the tag rights

How long will I continue to remain in this fantasy world?

ellend20 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:55:45 EDT

This is a world where no one is smart enough to say "hello" to me without directions. (All interactions with me - not involving unpaid work, are set up by the U.S. government).

This is a world where sex is a prerequisite for employment (as determined by the men in charge) and all phones are wiretapped.

This is a world where E.N.D.A.(even if it is passed) will never be enforced.

This is a world where a suit is more important than a brain.

Obama: Gay and Civil Rights; The State shouldn't discriminate,,u r free to choose your religion

Unknown user — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:51:40 EDT

Maybe Obama will win another Nobel Prize based on Civil Rights too.

Gay and Civil Rights; The State shouldn't discriminate and as for religion, you're free to choose your religion.

Children´s rights, defined by the UN

MyDocAngel — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:15:46 EDT

President Obama loves children. We love children, they are our future. They will define the world, when grown up. But their understanding depends from their own life - from their democratic life!

Democratic systems als liberty live from free information!

We want to point out, that in many democratic countries children´s rights are hurt. They are hurt especially in the Pope´s dictatoric catholic system, called as "foundations to protect" and guided by US - Sisters and US - lawyers. These children are held as modern slaves.

But they do not know this. Directors avoid to inform them about their rights by huge physical and psychological walls - like in dictatorships. They are not allowed to enter in internet, write emails and get emails.

Opposite: Doing this, they are threatend with child labour, discrimination, organ trafficking, child trafficking and this makes them scared to death (see: MyDocAngel in Youtube and CNN)

Please help to inform those children whereever you know christian organisations, so that it can´t happen, what happens in the US, Ireland, Bolivia and Germany in the 20th and 21st century still!

Inform them aboout their rights:

Declaration of the Rights of the Child

The child must be given the means requisite for its normal development, both materially and spiritually.
The child that is hungry must be fed, the child that is sick must be nursed, the child that is backward must be helped, the delinquent child must be reclaimed, and the orphan and the waif must be sheltered and succored.
The child must be the first to receive relief in times of distress.
The child must be put in a position to earn a livelihood, and must be protected against every form of exploitation.
The child must be brought up in the consciousness that its talents must be devoted to the service of its fellow men.

These rights are hurt in the "Fundacion Amanecer", Cochabamba, Bolivia, lead by US-American people.

We ask: Kids and adolescents in the 328 foundations to protect children in Cochabamba have the right to be informed about their rights!

The Declaration of the Rights of the Child is the name given to a series of related children's rights proclamations. The first was drafted by Eglantyne Jebb and adopted by the International Save the Children Union, Geneva, on 23 February 1923 and endorsed by the League of Nations General Assembly on 26 November 1924 as the World Child Welfare Charter.[1]

The original document, in the archives of the city of Geneva, carries the signatures of various international delegates, including Jebb, Janusz Korczak, and Gustave Ador, a former President of the Swiss Confederation.

The SCIU merged into the International Union of Child Welfare by 1946, and this group pressed the newly formed United Nations to continue to work for war-scarred children and for adoption of the World Child Welfare Charter.

On 20 November 1959 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a much expanded version as its own Declaration of the Rights of the Child, with ten principles in place of the original five.[2] This date has been adopted as the Universal Children's Day.

The initial 1923 document consisted of the following stipulations:

STEAL THIS

Fredrich from Roanoke, VA — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 02:42:23 EDT

We should have a rally titled "Take My America Back" ~Basically, instead of protesting, we have workshops...a workshop on how to manage your finances with credit cards--taught for free, by pros; workshop for easy how-to's to create less of a foot print on earth--all under 100 dollars (easy 'go green' meets HGTV); workshop on hospital terminology--so we can understand what doctors are actually telling us, now, and make better future decisions, now!; workshop on CPR--....enough said really; workshop on cooking for a family of 4--under 50 bucks a day; workshop titled 'xxnumber of ways to start losing weight--tomorrow' (take the steps, stretch more, really tho. Why do we only stretch when we have or anticipate the idea of future pain due to our own out-of-shapeness?;is that a real word?; workshop on being a new driver--partially taught by teens from that very same community; workshop titled 'not for me'-- workshop for young adults planning for their futures (only own what you can afford!); workshop on indentifying financial leakage--we dont 'need'...eeeeverything!; workshop on real third world countries--a humbling lesson learned when you see how good we really have it; and finally (cuz I really could go on forever)a workshop titled 'explain, please?!'--help people understand how to effectively utilize their cell phones (explain things like social networking/SMS/MMS/BBM/AIM/Apps/WAPs/GPS/VVM...wow!)

The Catch:

1)...I dont want to organize it by myself LOL 1.5) its FREE for all! 2) I would love to have each 'rally' have at least one local person in each and every workshop = dedicated AMERICANS giving up their free time to help other PEOPLE...and yes, I meant PEOPLE, all of them. 3)Ideally: head to toe voluntary...no one gets paid, its all voluntary!; not the sponsors, not the organizers, not the appearences, not the musical acts, not even the clean-up crew...I mean really...we have a ton of unemployed people sitting around with countless degrees and experience and nothing else to do. Lets step up! 4) Lastly, if this ever came to pass, I would love to present a check to the President of the United States, that day, on the National Debt (cummulation of tax free donations created from these events, by people who believe in helping others for the sake of helping others) This is our country...we already own it, so lets own up to it! I owe it to YOU! This is me taking ownership of my America (insert picture of Uncle Sam--ironic) America, you down?!

The Liberal Bogeyman

Adam Z — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:52:05 EDT

If it's not apparent to you, you're not paying attention. The republican agenda, and philosophy of most modern American conservatives, is based entirely in response to new deal democrats. Oooh they hate us sooo much. How dare we force hard working executives to give back to those free-loaders down on the line. That's why they pick the Sarah Palins when a women loses, and Michael Steele when a black man wins. And this response has created a party that is disgustingly disillusioned, and dangerous to a progressive future.

Modern conservative thought flies in the face of all established belief amongst the greatest thinkers in history, including the lord of the religion they claim to follow. Jesus, Buddha, Mohamed, and Confucius; all agree that the way to an enlightened society is to strive for something bigger than ourselves.

To believe their mindless babble a conservative must go to great lengths to justify their greed and heartlessness. Lindsay Graham hates earmarks but uses them frequently. Rush Limbaugh has been divorced twice but rails in defense of marriage's sanctity. Gay bashers are gay. And worthless bank executives foreclose on thousands of homes but coming running when the hammer's coming down on them.

They don't stand for personal responsibility. They just don't want to be responsible for YOU. They don't stand up for smaller government. They don't want government helping the poor. They think poor is by choice and they are certainly not giving up their hard-earned money to help out those bums on main street. And for all their professed patriotism, they sure do seem close to secession... again.

I fear your revolution, patriot. You revolt against the brotherhood of man. Your is a reformation against knowledge. Your cause is self-interest, and your enemy is the universal right to the pursuit of happiness.

To the conservative it is a sin for companies to sacrifice a little short term profit to provide a quality product at a decent price. That's disloyal to the shareholders. Teachers are only in it to put forth a liberal agenda. Artists create works for the money. And unions should shut up and take pay cuts when the companies going bad, but executives need us to stand up for their contracts when they run it into the ground. Oh, wait, most house republicans ended up voting to tax the contracts anyway.

The neocon transformers want us liberals to be their bogeyman. They want to scare you with stories of socialism. But we will not apologize for a literate society, a 70 year life span, a car in every garage, and highways from New York, to San Francisco, and even to Freedom, Ohio. We take pride in Universal Suffrage, and we relish in the scientific revolution. Liberal spending put a man on the moon and it will one day mine asteroids and explore deep space. And we will not back down from that.

My Take

DMB4LIFE — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:52:57 EDT

I believe that as Americans, we should have the right to put in our own bodies what we will. It is clear that the war on drugs has failed us greatly. In this year already, we have spent over 12,000,000,000 dollars on the war against drugs with that number climbing in the tens of thousands with every few letters I type. This nonsense needs to end. By legalizing drugs, we could control them like we do any legal substance (alcohol, tobacco) today. We restrict their sales to people above a certain age, and we tax them. This would not only create money (and possibly jobs depending on how these substances were distributed/cultivated/dispensed), but it would mean that we would stop spending billions of dollars a year to feed a useless, highly destructive war. The current laws that control these substances are responsible for a few highly negative things: not only are we wasting billions of dollars in taxes, police/law enforcement funds, etc, but we are putting our money in the hands of criminals. Criminal organizations feed off of drug money, which the US government is essentially handing them given our current regulations. If substances were regulated y the government, rather than these criminal organizations, those organizations would be much less powerful. In addition to this, our law enforcement officers could spend much, much, much more time dealing with things of more importance.

Canada slaughters hundreds of thousands of innocent seals

Bernard — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:17:41 EDT

I was still shocked to learn that Canada slaughters hundreds of thousands of innocent seals for their fur every year. These animals, often babies who are just weeks old, have their skulls smashed in or are shot. Then they are skinned for their fur - often while they are still conscious. How can we still let this happen! As a American sports enthusiast, I cannot support the games in all honestly if this continues to go unnoticed. It's just like in China, where I learn the hundreds of thousands of innocent cats and dogs were and perhaps still being slaughers for their fur. Just like the "Wild Mustang Horses" http://www.wildhorserescue.org/, Example: Illinois bill threatens to re-0pen horse slaughter plant! http://www.wildmustangcoalition.org/id15.html

All eyes are on Canada, (I hope you are Pres. Obama) as it prepares to host the 2010 Winter Olympics. Please help end the seal slaughter immediately so that the reputation of the Vancouver Olympic Games won't be tarnished.

Thanks

Before Affirmative Action

Ivan from Christiansted, VI — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:57:21 EST

I can remember growing up in the 50’s, when our communities were more self-sufficient. To me, Affirmative Action divided and destroyed what semblance of togetherness we had as a people. Affirmative Action was designed to Window Dress, creating a crabs in the barrel black society.

Affirmative Action is kinda like the Pyramid schemes. Most of those educated and skilled, who understood the scam, took advantage of the opportunity. They were the ones, who were serving as role models, that began moving on up and out of the neighborhoods.

When Malcolm talked of self-sufficiency, he was accused of separatism. The reality is that within the 50 states we are many nations in one nation. During this presidential campaign it was made clear that family and social values were paramount in connecting with candidates. We African Americans are a family and it is time that we begin working toward our own families’ interests. “Charity begins at home”, is not separatism nor selfishness. The neglecting of ourselves and relying on others to provide for us, nurtures that negative perception other families have of our community.

Until we as a people take ownership of our own financial, political and social destiny we will be seen as not deserving of others’ respect. Today it is not a whole lot about fighting for our rights: it is more of how we should exercise our rights. For one, making sure that we are being treated fairly with the allocation of government contracts, loans, grants, scholarships, etc. and with the contracting of capital improvement projects. With a unified voice some of these infrastructure projects will be developed and buil[t]d by us in our communities.

This new world market, which can only expand, provides opportunities that abound; we have family and in-laws around the world, and when the companies and industries begin finding that potential clients and customers are looking to patronize businesses that are more reflective of their family members, those qualified will be in high demand and will be represented from the top executives to the receptionist.

Those of us who are more fortunate should become entrepreneurs in revitalizing our communities. We as a family need to get out of debt and pool our resources, and make our children, our elders and the legacy of our Ancestors, Proud!

Ivan Butcher II

Will You Reconsider?

Milton Lee Norris — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 12:47:20 EST

This article is about choice, and a dilemma facing President Elect Barack Obama. It speaks of the incendiary remarks that have been made by Rick Warren against gays. It shows his arrogance, and remarks that are condescending to gays; it also shows how said remarks can only be a slap in the face to the gay and lesbian community. Closing the author asks that President Elect Barack Obama to rescind his choice of Rick Warren. http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=44757826122&h=Yao6O&u=hwD7J

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

WEBMASTER — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:26:14 EST

The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.

Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.

Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when

individuals and organizations understand that alternative energy technology exists and
when people see the economic benefits of using alternative energy technologies

Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.

Alternative Energy
Source: David Apperson

url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy

From the desk of T. Boone Pickens: Will You Help?

James Everitt — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:39:18 EST

From the desk of T. Boone Pickens: Will You Help? From the desk of T. Boone Pickens: Will You Help?

T. Boone Pickens has a good program that will help all of us http://www.pickensplan.com/districtleaders/, if you are interested in being a District Leader for your Congressional District, email us at myenergy@pickensplan.com (please include your name, state and Congressional District in the body of your email). Pickens Plan District Leaders will take action in the following ways:

Be the point of contact for the official Congressional District group page on Push.PickensPlan.com.

Work with other members of the New Energy Army in your Congressional District to sign up 500 new members by Inauguration Day.

Host meet-ups with other members of the Army in your Congressional District to discuss ways you can take action and Push the Pickens Plan.

Get an op-ed or letter to the editor placed in your local newspaper telling everyone why you support the Pickens Plan.

If your Governor, U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative have not yet signed the Pickens Plan Pledge , then ask them to sign today!

From the desk of T. Boone Pickens
Boone here,

We’re six weeks out, and it feels like Inauguration Day is right around the corner. One thing’s for sure: our efforts are really starting to pay off. Let me give you a couple of examples.

Yesterday in New York City the Pickens Plan got another big endorsement. This time it was from the American Lung Association. Think about that. Here we’ve been talking about how developing renewable energies and using cleaner burning natural gas is good for our economy and creates jobs. Come to find out the Pickens Plan is good for your health! I love it. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was also on hand. He’s been a real leader in using renewables and compressed natural gas in his city. I’m glad to have him on our team.

I also want to bring up my visit to Washington last week where I met with the Obama Transition Team. Like everyone else, I’ve been impressed with the way the President-elect has been preparing for his new administration. My father used to tell me, “A fool with a plan can outsmart a genius with no plan any day of the week.” Let me tell you: the Obama team is smart, and they have a plan. The President-elect wants to get us off Middle Eastern oil in 10 years. There’s only one way he can do that, which is why I’m confident that the Pickens Plan will play an important part in the stimulus package he and his team are crafting right now.

I know President-elect Obama is ready to make some big changes. Let’s make sure Congress is too. The Army is 1.37 million strong. Now we need to get ready in every Congressional district, and I need your help.

Over the next couple days you'll be hearing from Team Pickens about the District Leaders project - I need members of the Army to play a leadership role in their own Congressional districts. Click here to learn more and to sign up to volunteer.

I want you to join me in leading the New Energy Army as we take the Pickens Plan to DC next year!

Exactly one month ago, you made history by giving all Americans a real opportunity for change.

Now it's time to start preparing and working for change in our communities. On December 13th and 14th, supporters are coming together in every part of the country to reflect on what we've accomplished and plan the future of this movement. Your ideas and feedback will be collected and used to guide this movement in the months and years ahead.

Join your friends and neighbors -- sign up to host or attend a Change is Coming house meeting near you.

Since the election, the challenges we face -- and our responsibility to take action -- have only gotten more urgent.

You can connect with fellow supporters, make progress on the issues you care about, and help shape the future of your community and our country.

Learn what you can do now to support President-elect Obama's agenda for change and continue to make a difference in your community.

Take the first important step by hosting or attending a Change is Coming house meeting. Sign up right now:http://my.barackobama.com/changeiscoming

To get our country back on track, it will take all of us working together.Barack and Joe have a clear agenda and an unprecedented opportunity for change. But they can't do it alone.

Will you join us at a house meeting and help plan the next steps for this movement?

Keep the Faith,
James Everitt

Will The Fairness Doctrine Silence The Conservative Voice?

James Everitt — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:33:32 EST

Will The Fairness Doctrine Silence The Conservative Voice?

Listen to the Ed Meese Radio SpotFreedom of Speech Our 1st Amendme...

I have just taken action to stop the attacks on our Free Speech Rights, and I'm asking that you join with me by clicking here: Will The Fairness Doctrine Silence The Conservative Voice?

+ + Will The Fairness Doctrine Silence The Conservative Voice? Will 2009 usher in a fanatical push to re-instate the so-called Fairness Doctrine? Such a move would effectively silence the conservative voice and remove the last conservative stronghold against a fast-moving liberal agenda.

James & Lydia, One need only read the words of Dianne Feinstein to see the true threat to conservative speech that is brewing on the horizon!"

Talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information ... I'm looking at the [Fairness Doctrine]... Unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way."

Recognizing this threat, the Media Research Center has created the Free Speech Alliance which is a coalition of organizations and citizens strongly opposed to any such move to limit or undermine our Free Speech Rights!

Please take a moment right now to join the hundreds of thousands of Americans who oppose the Fairness Doctrine and all that it stands for by clicking here: Will The Fairness Doctrine Silence The Conservative Voice?

Thanks for joining with me.
Mr. & Mrs. James & Lydia Everitt

P.S. If the liberal voice in America has their way, the Fairness Doctrine will end conservative talk--including Rush, Sean, Laura, Mark, and a host of others. Take action today by clicking here: Will The Fairness Doctrine Silence The Conservative Voice?

Hey,

President-Elect Obama is hard at work getting this country back on track, but he’s counting on all of us to get involved.I just signed up to learn more about the presidential transition, and I thought you might want to do the same.

Just visit Presidential Transition, and enter your e-mail address in the top right corner.

Thanks.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment I, The Bill of Rights

Freedom of Speech - Our 1st Amendment - Our Sacred Right!

Posted by Better Home Business at 9:04 AM 0 comments Links to this post Labels: biden, blueprint, Bush, commercial, Congress, economy, Election, energy, gotcha, grassroots, independence, kennedy, McCain, News, Obama, outreach, palin, pickensplan, political, senate

DOesn't anyone think a church spending 40 million to Ban rights is WRONG

Ed from Fort Lauderdale, FL — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:47:40 EST

Why isn't anyone questioning the spending of 40 million dollars by the MORMON church to ban gay marriage. The IRS has established laws against this and here they are: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-41.pdf Second: Why is a church spending 40 million dollars to ban gay marriage when the money could have been used to feed the poor, help the homeless, pay mortgages for members losing there homes, pay or help in someones medical bills and the countless other ways to help people. Why is not a member of this congregation even questioning the use of 40 million dollars in this manner. As a Catholic, if my church spent 40 million dollars to ban gay marriage they would never see a dime from me FOREVER yet these people who give their church money are happy with the way it is being spent. IS this what following the bible is all about and YOU PEOPLE THINK it is ok for a church to be using its donations for this purpose? This is proof that these people are stupid ignorant brainwashed people who cannot think for themselves and this church's motives are political and NOT charitable and thus should lose their non-profit status immediately. LETS hit where it hurts in the pocketbook since the morons who belong to this church seem to be incapable of thinking rationally for themselves. WHERE ARE THE LAWYERS AND PROSECUTORS on this..THEY BROKE THE LAW

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

Swing the pendulum. Make history. Vote.

Douglas from South Gate, CA — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:38:12 EST

This is indeed a historic election, and for reasons more significant than its being the longest and costliest in U.S. history. Underlying it all is the almost palpable sense that after decades of abuse, we -- the people of the United States -- are reasserting our fundamental right to power. The pendulum, which swung to the Right -- and shifted the balance of wealth and power to the top -- with the election of Ronald Reagan, has begun to swing in a more liberating direction.

Democracy to Banana Republic in a Few Easy Steps

Dave — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:31:12 EDT

A reminder of all the things that went wrong over the last 8 years:
Democracy to Banana Republic in a Few Easy Steps

Healthcare is not a RIGHT!

Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:54:04 EDT

http://www.afcm.org/hcinar_video.html

Notice: The following article is Copyright 1993 by Leonard Peikoff and is being distributed by permission. This article may be distributed electronically provided that it not be altered in any manner whatsoever. All notices including this notice must remain affixed to this article. Health Care Is Not A Right by Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D. Delivered at a Town Hall Meeting on the Clinton Health Plan. Red Lion Hotel, Costa Mesa CA. December 11, 1993 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen: Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea -- which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical -- it does not work -- but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice. So I'm going to leave it to other speakers to concentrate on the practical flaws in the Clinton health plan. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan -- not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it -- to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance.

That word "Liberal"

Nanci — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:15:58 EDT

When did the word “Liberal” become a dirty word? I read articles in Letters to the Editor, and some people seem to think that merely labeling Obama as a “Liberal” ( insert shudder and gasps) is enough to make people not vote for him.

Well, I am a Liberal, I lean further toward things Liberals stand for: the common man, the American worker, labor unions’ right to exist, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, voting rights, and civil rights. The right of every person to be shown respect as a human being regardless of race, sexual orientation or religion. I believe in the individual’s right to decide how to live their life and what to do with their own body in their own privacy, and the right to access to medical and health care benefits, as do Liberals. I, as a Liberal, believe after working for 30 or 40 years and paying into a pension or 401K you have the right to collect a retirement. Liberals believe in fair taxes and expect fair taxes on the wealthy as well as the poor. We believe people don’t mind tax increases as long as they benefit all citizens and not just the top 10% of the wealthiest individuals and corporations. We believe tax cuts should be used judiciously and not just to win an election, but consider the current state of the country’s economy.

Liberals, myself included, believe in the right to voice an opinion, without fear of reprisal. We anticipate the hope to live in peace and not fear. We support policies that do not weigh our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren with our irresponsible fiscal policies and lack of oversight, putting them deeper and deeper into debt. We value the opportunity to make a living wage, and being able to walk down the street without the fear of being shot.

Liberals espouse recognition of the value of education in our country and backing up that recognition by funding education for every child in America, as well as recognition of the value of our elderly and our obligations to our elders. Liberals talk about being willing to stop the discarding of the elderly into homes unfit for any human being, or relegate them to poverty and illness at the end of productive lives based on the mighty dollar. Liberals believe in the right to health care that does not force a choice between bankruptcy and medical care. The examples are legion, but if you want to know, talk to your neighbor.

The values Liberals hold I hold: love your neighbor as yourself, choose peace over war whenever possible, hold life (every life) in the highest esteem, empathy, understanding, trust, individual rights, and the respect for the opinions of others. None of us are less, for we are all intertwined and rooted in the same tree. That tree is the Tree of America, and it stands on the Planet Earth. Therefore, we Liberals think globally, trying to work with, rather than against our neighbors. Last of all, Liberals think for themselves and do not believe everything said to them from the pulpit or the soapbox. Instead they look for truth. As individuals we are not perfect, but we are not ashamed of our label either. I am proud to call myself a Liberal.

For Barack Obama's beliefs and stands on the issues see http://www.barackobama.com/issues/.

VOTE FOR CHANGE!! VOTE FOR A NEW AMERICA!! VOTE FOR AMERICAN VALUES! VOTE FOR OBAMA!!!

NOW endorsement

Elise — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:32:30 EDT

I received the following from a family member who is a former board member of NOW, the National Organization of Women. I suspect it has been posted somewhere, but I have not yet seen it on the site despite being subscribed to 10 groups. So, at the risk of redundancy:

FYI: The National Organization for Women has endorsed the Obamba-Biden ticket for just the reasons listed below. They usually do not endorse, but in this case believed it was absolutely necessary to take a stand. If you agree, please pass this on.

Subject: Women and Sarah Palin

Friends:

We are writing to you because of the fury and dread we have felt since the announcement of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential candidate for the Republican Party. We believe that this terrible (?) decision has surpassed mere partisanship, and that it is a dangerous farce on the part of a pandering and rudderless Presidential candidate that has a real possibility of becoming fact.

Perhaps like us, as American women, you share the fear of what Ms. Palin and her professed beliefs and proven record could lead to for ourselves and for our present or future daughters. To date, she is against sex education, birth control, the pro-choice platform, environmental protection, alternative energy development, freedom of speech, gun control, the separation of church and state, and polar bears -- to say nothing of her complete lack of real preparation to become the second-(and possibly first)-most-powerful person on the planet.

We want to clarify that we are not against Sarah Palin as a woman, a mother, or, for that matter, a parent of a pregnant teenager, but solely as a rash, incompetent, and altogether devastating choice for Vice President. Ms. Palin's political views are in every way a slap in the face to the accomplishments that our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers so fiercely fought for, and from which we've so demonstrably benefited.

First and foremost, Ms. Palin does not represent us. She does not demonstrate or uphold our interests as American women. It is presumed that the inclusion of a woman on the Republican ticket could win over women voters.

We want to disagree, publicly. If you agree that Palin is an irresponsible, even dangerous, choice for VP, please consider participating in this drive. Gentlemen, send this to the women you know and care for. I know it's tough to understand the way this choice is impacting women, but I have never seen so many women so outraged, angry and distraught in my entire life. We'd like our voices heard.

If you agree, PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY! If you send this to 20 women in the next hour, you could be blessed with a country that takes your concerns? Seriously. Stranger things have happened.

Our Future: You Hold the Power!

Anne from Sausalito, CA — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:27:22 EDT

Don't just get mad, Organize!

Please help to raise awareness regarding the different worlds that would be created under the Obama vs. McCain administrations.

We are grateful for your participation:

1) Please Watch the video and post a comment on our blog --> http://www.youholdthepower08.com/

2. Please Spread the video to your networks of women --> http://www.youholdthepower08.com/

3) Moreover, Please engage in conversations with the women you know, especially in the battle ground states (Ohio, Penn, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada). We have attached 2 charts of talking points so you can feel well informed to engage in heart-full conversations about exactly what is at stake in this pivotal election.

In gratitude, Anne

Where do you stand, Barack? Rights have been obliterated and manipulated by the administration.

Tresa — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:29:56 EDT

Why isn't this being discussed by Barack?

This is a major concern. Our freedoms, our country are at stake.

I need to know what position Barack takes on these issues and as a Senator, that there was not complicity on his part.

By not speaking about this, it feels just like the actions of current administration.

I want to donate additional money, but , at this point I haven't heard all that I need and want to hear from Barack

Our government and our "representatives" have failed us.

Read about these under reported issue along with others at:

http://www. projectcensored. org/top-stories/category/y-2009

Peace

Report reveals Palin tortures daugher

Mikey — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:02:18 EDT

A report revealed that Palin plans to engage in cruel and unusual punishment of her daughter, by forcing her to carry a child to term. The report also revealed that Palin apparently refuses to consider having the child ripped to pieces and removed, even though it will be a viable option all the way up to the end of the pregnancy term. I ask you, do you want a woman to be in line for the presidency who would do a terrible thing like that? Isn't it totally heartless and cruel to do that to her daughter? Putting her grandchild's rights above her daughter's convenience. Tsk Tsk. Palin, the whole Obama Community frowns on you for that.

Bailout

Tim Schram — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:17:55 EDT

It is time to put the bailout on hold. Anything that is passed with the Pro-Greed ideologs will be so fundamentally flawed that it will have to be scrapped after the election. Focus on getting enough support in the new congress to pass a plan that has a chance of moderating the effects of this failed of ideology.

Make it one of the top 5 issues in the election as a referendum on the heading this country will take for the next 4 years or more. Use it to get a quorum in congress and the whitehouse and implement the reforms that will correct the effects of the last administration and the effects of Ronald Reagan and VOODOO economics.

The Issues should be:

1) Current greed market versus regulated free market

2) Dependence on fossil fuels and big energy versus energy independence and price stability

3) National aggression and arrogance versus diplomacy and community of nations

4) Military fatigue and overextention versus military preparedness and judicial multilateral use

5) The hypocrisy of an ideology that believes businesses are innately good and right, while individuals are innately immoral and degenerate and need big brother to regulate their choices involving their bodies, bedrooms, and faiths.

It is time to connect the bankruptcy of their social ideology with the finacial bankruptcies taking place on Wall Street as a result of their economic ideology.

EVERY VOTE DOES COUNT! LIFE VS. CHOICE and GAY RIGHTS

Davina Prill — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:20:12 EDT

EVERY VOTE DOES COUNT!

OK, so in the past I wasnt very active in politics and/or voting but, I deffinately believe whole heartedly that NOW IS the time for change...here is the scoop, on me...what I strongly believe as a person, I am not a member of ANY political party BUT, I do believe I HAVE the right to write this email JUST AS MUCH as YOU HAVE the RIGHt to disregard it...this election is HIGHLY crucial...PLEASE, VOTE FOR OBAMA!

While, many,..political parties seem to be the answer...here are a few things I perosnally have considered in my own tactic of voting...I believe WE ARE the vote that counts...so, please, KNOW the facts and dont vote for MCCAIN simply because he is 'PRO-LIFE' (First off thats just what he is 'trained' to say as a Republican it doesnt necissarily reflect his own personal and private view of pro life vs pro choice)...that is just a Republican tactic to get your vote...

Abortion?)

It seems Republicans could care less if the girl dies in an illegal abortion in an alley...or if hundreds of thousands of unwanted children are brought into this world and deprived of an opportunity at 'LIFE' simply because they were born to unwed mothers who had no REAL means of supporting their children and therefore are FORCED to rely on state aid such as welfare...this IS NOT something ALL of them WANT to do...it is simply ALL they knew to do in their paticular situations....some may do it for the simpleness of 'using the system' but, the sad sad truth of it is that MOST of them do it because of dead beat parents, poor education in the family planning and sex ed department...and because they were raised to belive that abortion was undoubtedly and undeniably WRONG...I myself would NOT give up being who I am with the children I have, yet I see the mistakes in society for what they truly are....FAMILY PLANNING and SEX ED SHOULD be an enforced education curriculum...as well as many other things that may or may not prevent early or unwanted pregnancies such as...SELF ESTEEM workshops that are REQUIRED...(Of course no one WANTS to admit they need help in this area...but a large portion...if not ALL of the young teens and women who have EARLY Intercourse that leads to Early and Unwanted Pregnancies HAVE LOW SELF ESTEEM due to various reasons ...the most common being various abuse/s as a child and lack of education for the less fortunate and battered children of todays society that not always but, commonly leads to the addiction of NEEDING to feel loved and/or believing that we HAVE to be in a relationship to be 'WHOLE' another commonly pronounced view society has placed on us...)

Also, while I am on the fence about abortion laws...I personally do not belive that persons who have been raped...especially by family members should have to mentally deal with the fact that they had a child of incest inside them...much less that they should have to deal with the fact that they brought a child of incest into this already clearly disfunctional world...Think about it in terms of yoursefl or your sibling...think...what if...I had been raped by a father or brother and was pregnant with my brother and my son or my nephew and my son...would I REALLY WANT to have that child? That answer is up to you personally as it is a CHOICE...and should be if not always...atleast in certain surcumstances...thats my own peronal opinion....

GAY RIGHTS)

Whether you are straight or gay...whether you agree with homosexuality or not - on a personal level...maybe it is time to think...on a RIGHTS level...

I personally, do not expect everyone or many, of the peoplewho read this ...to agree with me in part or whole...what I do hope for and expect is for them to respect MY RIGHT as an American to be open about my own beliefs and opinions...I do however...and let me make this clear TOTALLY RESPECT THAT YOU TOO HAVE A RIGHT TO YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION...and I can whole heartedly and non judgementally agree to disagree...with that said...I will continue on my personal belief...lol

I believe that the gay community should have LEGAL RIGHTS...I can budge with the religious community and give on the word 'marriage...go ahead and have that...even if the majority of the gay community disagrees with that...what I CANNOT agree with is that they should not have the RIGHT to a LEGAL UNION...even f that is what it is decided it should be technically called to satisfy the religious community...I can give that much...really I can...but, the fact remains, whether or not you agree with homosexuality in any form...the Gay community will as always and increasingly so...continue to live their lives as they have the RIGHT to do...'BANNING' Gay Marriage or a 'LEGAL UNION' WILL NOT STOP the gay community from being gay...NOTHING EVER WILL...so, as human beings and Americans...why can we not embrace the idea that the Gay community ALSO has RIGHTS...just like the hetrosexual community...For example say you have been in a relationship a yr or two and decide to get married...hetrosexuals...In most areas of the US...LEGALLY by law are entitled to split half of everything aquired during their marriage (technically A LEGAL UNION) and or in the event there is a death of a spouse the living spouse is entitled to everything...My, point is this...If hetrosexuals have this right then the Gay community should also have this RIGHT...to a LEGAL UNION... and in closing i would just like to say that if we are 'A FREE COUNTRY' why is it that so many of our freedoms have been and are currently being taken from us?.....Once again, ...this may not be something you agree with or WANT to hear...but its deffinately something to think about and maybe it will get you to thinking....

I also support pretty much all of the issues Obama supports ... except one or two maybe but, for the most part, I support democratic style politics...even though i am still an individual who claims NO political party.

PEACE and HAPPINESS to us ALL, Davina

'There has never been anything false about hope'
Barack Obama '08

Gun Rights, and Capitol Punishment.

Braydon — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 03:40:09 EDT

One of the few things I disagree with most democrats about is Gun Control. I am against gun bans, and overly ristricting gun laws. I, and my family own guns and use them safely and wisely. I refuse to give up my guns because there are those out there who use them for evil. Just because they can be used as a weapon, doesn't make it so. If the government takes away guns how long before they start taking away knives, axes, scissors, or even gardening tools because they can be used as weapons. If someone breaks into my house it is my responsibility to do whatever necissary to protect my property, my family, and myself. Those who choose to break into houses lose the right to their safety when they make the choice to put my family in danger.

The other big thing I disagree with democrats about is Capitol Punishment. I believe in using the death penalty in 3 types of criminal cases. Murder, Serial Rape, and Child Molestation. First of all those who choose to take someone elses life deserve to lose theirs. To say that a murderer still deserves life, is to give moral equivalence to the lives of The Innocent, and to that of The Guilty. All humans are born with four unalienable rights that should never be violated. Life, Liberty, The Ownership of Property, and The Pursuit of Happiness. Murder violates the first right most of all but violates all the others too. For the safety of the innocent, and the proper use of taxpayers dollars Murderers deserve death by the quickest and cheapest means. Serial Rape; The only reason rapists dont deserve The Death Penalty is because they can change, and the likelyhood of them escaping is so small. Rape by it's very nature changes the victim. They will never be the same, allways inside of them is a madness that stays in the back of their mind for the rest of their life, allways it will eat at them untill they face it. If they win they become a better person with a new outlook on life. If they lose then it gains more control over them. The reason Serial Rapists deserve The Death Penalty is because they by once again commiting that horrible crime have shown the rest of the world that they will never change. For the safety of our women, and the proper use of taxpayers dollars Serial Rapists deserve death. Child Molesters deserve death because rape has worse psychological effects on children then it does to adults. Molestation to a child can have such horrifically profound changes to their minds that those who commit these acts deserve death. Those who do these things to children are not people. They are monsters who though they may look like us they are not. They have shown the rest of the world that they will do these things and most likely will not change. For the safety of our children, the safety of the future of the world, and the proper use of taxpayers dollars Child Molesters deserve death. Some of those who are agianst the death penalty like to say "How can we stop the killing, by killing? The answer to that question is a simple yet terribly sad one. The killing will never stop. No matter how advanced society gets, no matter how advanced religion gets, no matter how advanced technology gets, no matter how advanced our concept of right and wrong becomes, there will always be those who oppose it. There will always be those who take rather than earn, there will always be rapist, there will always be murderers, there will always be molesters, and there will always be evil. To allow evil to live is to put those of us who oppose it in danger. We must never give up fighting for they never will.

Have ovaries, will vote

Theresa — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:06:43 EDT

Since the appointment of Ms. Palin as the Republican Candidate for Vice President Women’s issues have been brought to the forefront of the race.

As many of you are probably aware, the NOW (National Organization for Women) have decided to support Obama/Biden for president.

http://www.now.org/press/09-08/09-16.html

Although this may seem contrary to a female rights organization to NOT back the ticket with a female candidate, they made the decision to back the ticket with the history of consistently advocating women’s rights. I think that this is a very important time for Gender Egalitarians. It shows that women are capable of seeing past gender in order to further equal rights and that men can be, and ARE, proponents of women’s rights.

As the web cast with Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton highlighted, Biden has a long history of civil and women’s’ rights behind his belt.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid900881681/bclid900480414/bctid1801254871

Many worried that he was "old government" but the truth is, even though he has been in politics since the 1970s he has consistently shown compassion for his fellow Americans by supporting and writing laws that focused on equality. A particular act that speaks very dearly to my heart is his writing of and continual support of the VAWA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

It is important to note that this act helps fund domestic violence shelters and create an environment where victims feel safe to turn to and to escape the trappings of abuse. As a survivor of such instances, and a witness to my own mother’s entrapment for years, this strikes a chord within me.

In the same vein, I am also struck by a news article I read on CNN today. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/index.html

I am so sickened by this article. This coupled with her staunch stance against abortion in rape and incest cases disturb me to the very core.

How can I, a young mother, a survivor of domestic and sexual abuse stand by and let Senator Palin become the voice and face of American women? I can’t.

I want everyone to know. Senator Palin does not represent me. She may be an impressive woman with the strength to raise a large family and hold a high profile job, but she does not have the love and respect for women that is needed to claim to be our voice.

Really Funny Parody

Paisano — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:40:51 EDT

http://yourmortgageoryourlife.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/your-mortgage-or-your-life-the-upside-of-being-down%e2%80%a6-priceless/

"Wasting their true talents at Columbia Business School? I challenge anyone to find a better spoof of the FED…

I know, I am probably the only person who has not seen this yet, given that it is from 2006!

Are these guys amazingly prophetic, or what? If anyone knows where they landed, please let me know so I can invest heavily…"

Graphs - Not Laughs - From the FDIC Report

Paisano — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:34:03 EDT

http://yourmortgageoryourlife.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/graphs-not-laughs-from-the-fdic-report/

"Here are some of the FDIC graphs released yesterday along with links that will provide you with more insight into exactly what they mean… Comments are welcome!"

Housing Woes Drive Desperate Measures, Heartbreak

Paisano — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:30:47 EDT

http://yourmortgageoryourlife.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/housing-woes-drive-desperate-measures-heartbreak/

“The foreclosure filings piling up across the country are taking a toll not just on banks and Americans’ personal finances, but on their mental state as well…The related stress can lead to an increase in unhealthy behavior, like not eating or sleeping properly, self-medicating with alcohol or drugs, and damaging personal relationships or employment. Some have even taken their own lives.

“One couple facing foreclosure in Prineville, Ore., left their car running to kill themselves and their three dogs, according to a USA Today article. ABC News reported that another woman in Massachusetts fatally shot herself after faxing her mortgage company a note saying that “by the time you foreclose on my house I’ll be dead.”

“While these may be extreme examples, there is no doubt that the economic downturn is causing mental anguish for Americans across the board, and that those who are in danger of losing their homes are likely to be hit the worst.”"

About Anthony…

Paisano — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:25:48 EDT

http://yourmortgageoryourlife.wordpress.com/about/

About Anthony…

Anthony is a researcher, analyst and freelance writer living in beautiful Eugene, Oregon. Anthony covers the finance industry - particularly mortgage related topics - and is a fervent advocate of both freedom and accountability. All fish are catch and release.

Anthony accepts all TIPS and guarantees 100% anonymityanthonymfreed@gmail.comAs a Research Analyst, I worked as part of a talented team who developed competitive market intelligence for the banking and finance industries.I worked directly with and for senior members of product development, secondary and capital markets from the largest financial institutions in the country, including Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan, Washington Mutual, Countrywide, Wachovia, Fifth Third, IndyMac, GMAC, SunTrust, and many more.I have extensive experience in research, data collection, analysis and custom report design, as well as long term project and client management. I continually locate, develop and maintain high level resources and contacts in the finance industry in order to maintain regular access to competitive intelligence that may not be available through traditional channels.I have lead high profile projects from conception to development and through implementation, and I have been extremely fortunate to continually have worked with a culturally diverse team of colleagues who posessed unlimited talents, and who worked tirelessly to ensure the highest standards of quality in client staisfaction and product quality.In my position as a Research Analyst, I was also primarily responsible for the bulk of the Special Studies commissioned by our clients. Various research methods in combination with multiple sources of data were employed to prepare studies and reports that were tailored for use by the executive teams of the major lenders.The primary types of data sought and utilized for these reports consisted of proprietary underwriting guidelines, base rate and adjuster databases with APRs, production metrics and market analytics, fee schedules and internal company communiqué.This data was nearly worth its weight in gold, and extremely difficult to secure on a regular basis. Even our own clients would bar access to the majority of their data through the official channels, but we always managed to get our hands the best data.During the housing bubble the hunger for product and market intelligence that was driven by the desire to gain market share was so great that executives at nearly all of the lenders were willing to barter almost anything, but not necessarily with anyone. That is where I did my best work.The crux of my position relied on my ability to establish and develop relationships based on trust and discretion with senior level contacts at major lenders who could provide me with regular access to intelligence of the most sensitive nature.Effectively managing and further developing these resources required a great deal of diplomacy and finesse, as the contacts were well aware that my clients included their biggest competitors.Prior to becoming a paid analyst, I founded Everybody’s Holding Company, LLC buying, remodeling and marketing investment properties in Eugene, Oregon. I have experience in all aspects of small business operations, accounting and finance.This when I really caught the finance bug, and started my business education in earnest. Prior to that I have had most every job you can imagine, from staffing a group home for adult developmentally disabled clients to manager of a sports bar - and everything in between.(BTW - This is not me -> Tony Freed - just in case there was any confusion on the matter. Rock on!)Photos © Anthony M. FreedAll Rights Reserved

The Upside of Being Down.. Fun with Politicians

Paisano — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:20:28 EDT

http://yourmortgageoryourlife.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/the-upside-of-being-down-fun-with-politicians/

"I highly recommend playing them both at the same time: Obama’s is half as long, so just click replay really fast (1x) when it when it ends, to get the full effect…"

Why Lehman Brothers Will Survive and WaMu Won’t

Paisano — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:17:40 EDT

http://yourmortgageoryourlife.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/why-lehman-brothers-will-survive-and-wamu-won%e2%80%99t/

"The JP Morgan - Bear Stearns deal was the tell tale sign that the Feds have already decided who they will support through a crisis of liquidity and who they will allow to fail - only those institutions that will maintain a level of marketable viability in the aftermath of the housing bubble will be saved.

Bear Stearns was saddled with the same toxic MBS garbage that is killing Lehman and WaMu. And Lehman - like Bear Stearns but unlike WaMu - has something that others would want regardless of the fate of their rapidly decomposing commercial mortgage portfolio - namely Neuberger Berman - a division that is still highly profitable and structured in such a way within Lehman that it’s value and operations can be rescued from the rest of the troubled company."

AIG, Lehman, Merrill - What it All Means to You

Paisano — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:15:23 EDT

http://yourmortgageoryourlife.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/aig-lehman-merrill-what-it-all-means-to-you/

Excerpt:

"Say goodbye to the profits from over-leveraging in a fantasy market scenario where assets never lose any value. We may see the pendulum swing back toward more regulation and away from the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that was passed about 10 years ago, and that opened the door to the incestuous relationships between Consumer and Investment Banks. Also watch for GE’s numerous mortgage-based money-pits start popping up in the headlines, and dragging down the giant.

So, by years end we may see the end of the stand-alone investment bank, as Goldman and Morgan Stanley are the last holdouts. We can probably expect them to find a distressed bank or two to pick up and diversify their capital base with the retail banking depositsthat have kept other financials out of any immediate liquidity problems."

Courts Could Derail Fannie and Freddie Bailout Plan

Paisano — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:11:16 EDT

http://yourmortgageoryourlife.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/courts-could-derail-fannie-and-freddie-bailout-plan/

Excerpt:

"Each share of Fannie and Freddie amounts to a vote in the GSE’s governance. These votes have been effectively seized illegally in violation of both the Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

In a case of Illegal Seizure of property by the Government, it would be highly likely that the Courts would order that the Government to compensate those damaged by the seizure with the fair market value of the seized property."

Joe Biden - Our Ladies' Man

Amanda Thompson — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:03:04 EDT

Great article on how Joe Biden has truly impacted the lives of women & championed our causes.

Ladies' Man

The backslapping, bloviating hero of women's rights.

Fred Strebeigh, The New Republic

Published: Wednesday, September 24, 2008

In January 2000, when the Supreme Court assembled to hear oral arguments attacking a pivotal section of the Violence Against Women Act, Joseph Biden was front and center. VAWA legally protects women from domestic abuse and gender-based violence, and Biden has proclaimed it the "most important legislative accomplishment" of his Senate career. But, long before the law had reached a congressional vote, Chief Justice William Rehnquist had attacked the "Civil Rights for Women" section, with which Biden sought to define gender-motivated crimes as bias or hate crimes.

As Rehnquist prepared to open the morning's first argument, Biden did not sit somberly. Rather, the senator swiveled in his seat (conspicuous to most of us in the court's press section), smiling cheerily and talking with nearby allies, including numerous female attorneys who had helped him shape the bill. Although Biden had no official role, he sought to signal that--in what he described that day as a "titanic struggle"--neither he nor the women around him would go quietly in defeat.

These days, many women voters are more likely to perceive Biden as a spoiler than as a supporter. Since his selection last month as Barack Obama's running mate, Biden has been pitted against women, first taking the job that many Hillary Clinton supporters felt was her due, then facing off against another historic woman, Sarah Palin, who could become the first female vice president of the United States. With his 30-plus years in the Senate, Biden can sound like the member of a male-only club, an impression reinforced by old-boy gaffes--from joking that his wife's doctorate "is a problem" to referring to Palin as "good-looking."

But the irony of this assessment is that Biden has some of the best feminist bona fides around. The mostly untold story of Biden's fight to support the "Civil Rights For Women" section of VAWA provides a window into his work for women, its origins, and how the defense of women's rights fits into his political worldview. Women voters may yet find something to cheer: In fighting for the legislation, Biden showed he was willing to trust the guidance of women activists and women judges, and then to contend against fierce and mostly male resistance in Washington, particularly from the Supreme Court.

In the spring of 1990, a new staffer in the offices of the Senate Judiciary Committee received a surprise project from her boss. Joe Biden wanted her to figure out what Congress should do to reduce violent crimes against women. Victoria Nourse, the staffer, was then just six years out of law school and unaware of Biden's past efforts along similar lines. In 1981, as he recalls in his 2007 memoir, Promises to Keep, Biden had pushed for a provision opposing laws that treat rape within marriage as a lesser crime than other rapes. Biden's effort led to a rebuff by Senator Jeremiah Denton of Alabama, who replied, "Damn it, when you get married, you kind of expect you're going to get a little sex."

The late '80s, Biden noticed, showed a rise in violent crimes against young women. Then, in December 1989, a man walked into a university classroom in Montreal with a hunting rifle, divided the students by sex, yelled that the women were all "a bunch of feminists," and killed 14 of them. Biden's aide Ron Klain handed the Senator an article in the Los Angeles Times by a friend who had clerked with Klain the year before at the Supreme Court, Lisa Heinzerling (now professor of law at Georgetown). Heinzerling connected that murder of "feminists" to a gap in U.S. law. Federal law tracking hate crimes targeted only, she wrote, a "victim's race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation." Thus, she argued, "if a woman is beaten, raped or killed because she is a woman, this is not considered a crime of hate"--a legal loophole "welcome to no one but the misogynist."

Biden posed a challenge to Nourse: figure out what Congress should do, and start by looking at the marital-rape issue he had tried to tackle a decade earlier. In the legal reading room of the Library of Congress, Nourse found a twist that shocked them both. Some states had extended the marital-rape exemption to become a date-rape exemption that downgraded a rape charge if a woman was a man's "voluntary social companion." One state that had done so was Delaware, where Joe and Jill Biden were raising a young daughter.

In 1972, Biden's first wife, Neilia, and infant daughter, Naomi, had died in a car crash, and, afterward, he had made a decision, despite his political career, to raise his children in their home state. From this point on, for Biden, a big part of politics became personal. Now he was learning that his daughter was legally more vulnerable to date rape in Wilmington than in, say, Washington or Arlington. When Nourse reported this to Biden, she saw a "look of horror on his face."

Looking for a solution, Nourse drafted a proposal for the "Civil Rights for Women" section of what would become VAWA. (The bill's other two parts, "Safe Streets for Women" and "Safe Homes for Women," proposed funding and legal support to assist law enforcement and protect women from domestic abuse.) The goals of the civil rights section were grand: make women "free from crimes of violence motivated by the victim's gender." But its method was more modest: give victims of such violence the right to sue their attackers in federal court. Nourse grounded the section constitutionally both in the equal-protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment and in the Commerce clause (partly via language echoing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, itself upheld by the Court under the Commerce clause).

Even before Biden introduced VAWA at Senate hearings on June 20, 1990, Nourse began seeking allies among women's groups in New York and Washington, D. C. Both she and Biden recall that"inside the-beltway women's groups" did not leap to assist. In Promises to Keep, Biden quotes one group member replying, "Oh, Victoria, you're a nice little girl, but you work for Joseph Biden. Why should we believe you?" Such distrust, he thought, came because he was not "pure" in his support for abortion--opposing federal funding of abortion though supporting a woman's right to choose.

Fortunately for VAWA, Nourse found a significant ally in the association of attorneys called the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund and particularly with a staff attorney named Sally Goldfarb (now a professor at Rutgers School of Law-Camden). Goldfarb set out to form a coalition to gather broad support for the bill.

Biden, in the meantime, held a second Senate hearing on violence against women in August 1990. As he listened to a recent graduate of the University of Pennsylvania (where his son Beau was still a senior) talk about efforts to help victims of acquaintance rape, Biden became energized. After hearing the woman say that some male students had harassed her with "nightly phone threats," Biden launched into what Goldfarb believed was an unplanned but revealing narrative. He told of trying to convince his wife Jill, who drove to night school for her graduate degree classes, to park in a place that was safer but illegal. In response, he said he got "almost a punch in the nose." Trying to work out why, he spoke of his wife's "frustration and anger" that she should need to take precautions no man would take. He linked her anger to her sense of "lost control."

Goldfarb felt she was hearing a man grasp a fundamental understanding about "the lack of control that is experienced not only by women who are themselves victims, but by all the women who have to constrain their daily activities to avoid becoming a victim." Biden was expressing, she thought, the "basic insight of the civil rights provision--that violence against women deprives women of equality."

Biden, too, portrayed himself as a man surprised by new knowledge. In Delaware, he found that victims of rape were beginning to "literally stop me in the street" to tell their stories and give thanks for VAWA. More than half, he said, spoke of a "need to regain control," which Biden evidently understood. The loss of safety, home, and control that he had felt himself when he lost his first wife and daughter was something that these women had also been forced to grapple with in the wake of their rapes.

For Biden and his staff, the great surprise came when VAWA--and particularly its civil rights section--came under fire, long before any congressional vote on the bill. In the summer of 1991, Chief Justice Rehnquist appointed a four-judge ad hoc committee to report on VAWA to an administrative body that he chaired, the Judicial Conference of the United States. The conference soon challenged the civil rights section on a variety of grounds, including the dubious projection that the federal caseload might double if even a tenth of domestic complaints became VAWA cases, causing "major state-federal jurisdictional problems and disruptions." Trying to stave off condemnation, Biden replied fiercely in a letter to the committee's chair: "I will not mince words: As author of the legislation, I have stated that ... the bill does not federalize divorce law or domestic relations cases any more than any other civil rights law does."

Undeterred, Rehnquist attacked VAWA in his 1991 "year-end report" opposing congressional additions of work to his courts unless "critical to meeting important national interests." In early 1992, he made clear to the American Bar Association (ABA) that he was pressuring Congress against vawa and added, "I urge your attention to this issue also." If Rehnquist could sway the ABA, Biden feared, congressional support for VAWA might evaporate.

At this point, the coalition of women Biden was working with realized that they needed to get judges on their side. Goldfarb and a colleague reached out to the one group, only about a dozen years old and far from radical, that might offer a counterbalance, the National Association of Women Judges (NAWJ). After spirited debate--one judge reportedly warned her colleagues that if they supported VAWA they would be seen as an adjunct for the National Organization for Women--the association's board voted to present a resolution supporting vawa's civil rights section to its full membership. A few months later, the ABA voted down an anti-VAWA resolution.

Soon, female judges working to save Biden's civil rights initiative began working to reshape it. They pushed Nourse and Goldfarb into accepting language that would assure detractors that VAWA's civil rights section would not overburden federal courts and would pass constitutional muster. The judges urged that the civil rights section apply only to crimes that were also "due, at least in part, to an animus based on the victim's gender." The key term "animus," or purpose, served to ground vawa more strongly in early civil rights law and the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of equality.

With that language in place, VAWA easily passed Congress in 1994. Contrary to fears mongered by the chief justice, the law did not cause cases to flood federal courts, perhaps partly because a woman's case had to meet the limiting language of "animus." The animus requirement helped defend VAWA against legal challenges also, and, by the end of 1999, the civil rights section had been upheld as constitutional in 17 of the 18 district courts that ruled on the question.

But, in 2000, one of these cases, Brzon-kala v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, finally reached the Supreme Court. Two male college students had allegedly raped a freshman named Christy Brzonkala within 30 minutes of her meeting them. When the first man finished raping her, he allegedly warned her that she "better not have any fucking diseases." A while later, in a university dining hall, he allegedly said that he "liked to get girls drunk and fuck the shit out of them." Strong "animus based on the victim's gender" seemed present, and Brzonkala brought suit under VAWA. Her assailants then challenged the law as unconstitutional.

During the years VAWA had begun its route to victories in lower courts, Rehnquist had extended what commentators have described as his "federalism revolution"--an effort to diminish the reach of the national government. The Court first undercut congressional authority to make law under the Commerce clause in a controversial 1995 case called Lopez that overturned a law passed by Congress to keep guns out of schools. Then the Court undercut congressional authority to make law under the Fourteenth Amendment in a 1997 decision about religion called City of Boerne v. Flores. By the time Biden faced off with Rehnquist at the Court, the civil rights section was in trouble.

On January 11, 2000, Biden stood without cheer in cold rain on the steps of the Supreme Court. He had just heard Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose vote he viewed as key to the survival of the civil rights section, suggest that the Court might have been "helped" if VAWA had contained a better "hook" to interstate commerce--an ominous and even ironic request, since the VAWA of 1994 was hooked solidly to the Commerce clause before 1995 when Lopez made the clause harder to hook to.

Standing beneath an umbrella that carried the seal of the Senate, Biden made an argument for women's equality that VAWA's defenders could not make inside the Court because the Court did not wish to hear arguments based on the Fourteenth Amendment. "Men don't choose not to take jobs" for fear of gender- motivated violence, Biden said, but "women do alter their life patterns." Then he returned to his own stake in the law--adopting a "personal is political" stance close to the heart of Biden's political values as well as much feminism. The effort to protect women against gender-based violence, he argued, "empowers my daughter and granddaughters."

The civil rights section's effort lost, however, by a vote of 5-4 in the Court after Rehnquist reportedly lobbied O'Connor for her vote. Although the rest of VAWA remained law, it had lost the part that Biden most valued--the part that strove explicitly for equality.

Joe Biden may have lost in a titanic struggle to expand the civil rights of women. But, along the way, he showed himself ready to follow the lead of female attorneys and judges. As Victoria Nourse told me in a recent e-mail from her desk at Emory Law School, where she is now a professor: "[I]n a day and age when Senators were still fondling interns in the Senate elevator, he not only protected me, he listened to me, my legal advice, and by extension, all the women who talked to me."

No one can pretend that getting Biden as vice president lifts women's spirits as high as they may go with the election of the first woman president. But no one will doubt that, on that wet day on the slippery Supreme Court steps, beneath his senatorial umbrella, Joe Biden was there--trying to stand tall for the rights of women.

Fred Strebeigh teaches nonfiction writing at Yale University. This article is adapted from Equal: Women Reshape American Law, forthcoming in February 2009.

The more things change the more they remain the same

ac_bloger — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:18:17 EDT

I am writing this message from Germany. There are certain things about Obama's electoral policy which deeply distress me. That can be summed up in one word: "MEN".

Obama has no programmes for men, no review of the country's biased and unequal laws against men. No policy on improving or supporting educational and social needs of males in general and no word on ensuring that "fair employer" does not mean "pro women anti men employer". (Why does he overlook that in NY young women earn more than young men?) There is no policy to review the fact that men pay more premiums on all kinds of insurance. Instead of ensuring that men are able to make their lives better, that they develop their own sense of identity, they are being told to do things so as to make life better for women. That will not happen, never.

Obama wants black fathers to take more responsibility. But has he talked about society giving fathers equal recognition and respect? Has he talked about fathers getting equal custody rights of children? The answer is a big NO! I somehow have the feeling that the more he talks about change, the more he is intent on keeping things the way they are. What he terms as change is nothing but 'reverse' discrimination. For that he is not required. If he really wants change then he should address issues affecting men. Address Israel by tackling the Jewish lobby head on. Otherwise he should stop talking about change.

Thank you, Senator Biden

Deborah — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:05:26 EDT

First, let me say, thank you, Senator Biden. You are very courageous to share your personal belief in regards to when life originates and how a pluralistic society needs to regard the subject. I am especially sensitive to the issue of choice. Not because of abortion, but because reversing Roe vs. Wade would jeopardize IVF. In vitro fertilization offers a lifeline to many couples (such as my husband and myself--who suffered 8 years of undiagnosed infertility) desperate to conceive. Because embryos may be destroyed in the process of IVF, my concern is that with the election of McCain/Palin and their subsequent election of anti-choice Supreme Court Justices, that valuable inferitility treatment along with every other reproductive choice will be removed from the U.S. Constitution. In March 2000 a ban on in vitro fertilization occurred in Costa Rica, whose constitution extends full citizen rights to human embryos, becoming the only country in North or South America to do so. Were it up to ultra conservatives, whose ideas on the origin of 'personhood' differ from my husband's and mine, our three healthy, beautiful children would never have gotten the chance to be born.

Slippery Slope to a Theocracy

Mary L — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:25:18 EDT

You might think the term Theocracy is extreme or inflamatory when used in the context of American government. Here's the brief definition from the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:

1 government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided

George Bush believes he is guided by God and is doing God's will. Hence the need to war against evil, not against particular peoples, governments or factions. That sounds like a theocracy to me.

Based on Sarah Palin's religion (Pentacostal) and her previous statements, I would expect her to also believe that God has bestowed on her the "gift" of wisdom and knowledge. As a leader I expect she does what she believes is "God's will". That sounds like a theocracy to me.

From what I know about John McCain, he's more a rainy day Christian - he'll take shelter under that umbrella when it's convenient. Barack Obama seems to have strong beliefs, but he also seems to respect other people's beliefs and is conscious of the need to serve the greater good.

As an individual, we all follow our "inner guidance" whether we call it God, Conscience, society's rules or "Clyde". However, when we are in positions of leadership, positions where we are making decisions that affect other people's lives, we must be extremely careful that we not impose our personal beliefs on others. That's why we have laws - rules that we as a society agree are for the greater good, not our personal good. That's why we have regulations, rules, standards; that's why we pursue scientific inquiry, that's why we challenge our leaders and ask tough questions. Our leaders MUST NOT forget that they are servants of the people of our society - ALL the people. If they want to be servants of their God - they can become religious or spiritual leaders and people can choose whether to follow their guidance or not. In a democracy, our leaders must serve and represent not just the people who voted for them, but also the people who did not vote for them.

States rights vs. Federal Constitution

Jonas — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:10:31 EDT

States rights vs. Federal Constitution

License of Marriage vs. Union of Same Sex

Only when the political tide shifts to elections and seekers of public station come out to beg for their next employment, do they look towards the masses. When all other ideas, feats, fads and communications fade away, do they look towards that ‘one simple idea’ to gain the so called trust of the masses.

Odd how, when up against a wall of negativity, those clamoring for a seat upon a royal pillow will turn all this negative energy towards a group of people they think are below their social circles in nationality, sex, religion, race, origin and now, sexual orientation. The popular belief of the day will dictate which group of people will be against another group of people. It will be clan against clan or father against son with no end in sight.

Ask the Native American whose lives, land and families were either killed or torn apart for the benefit of a few. Ask those women were not afforded the opportunity to vote in the last century. Ask those of faiths other than the most popular in any given century and the wars that have killed many in any of the lands around the world. Ask those who involved in the Civil Rights protests in our not so distant past. And, ask those who were not able to wed because they were of different races but opposite sexes.

So, this century will be remembered for the rights of those who love someone who is of the same biological sex than their contemporary counterparts. It has started in the lands north of us, Canada. It has begun to take shape in isolated states in our own land. In this country of ‘opportunity and freedom’, these States united with each other are now being torn apart because love, commitment and family are not recognized equally.

Our country, in all of its self-righteousness and elevated crime, fear and hatred, is far from understanding that the differences in people are what makes not only our country strong in culture, history and language, it also is the land where others risk their lives to come to in order to have what we take for granted everyday. Fear and misunderstanding are the primers of the few to confuse and instill an invisible hatred that feeds upon the flesh of nay uncommon thought like a cancer growing unchecked.

Food, shelter, water, clothing, medical care and education are the things we are born into and others must fight and die to achieve. Love, commitment and family are part of the human genetics. For centuries, mankind has struggled to survive. It was only achieved when humans had the love and commitment of their family to achieve and work through its struggles. This support system is something that has been inherent within every one of us.

Turn your television to any cable network station. See the shows where ‘bedding and wedding’ are considered entertainment. This is what the American idea of marriage is all about? Someone must be watching these shows. Or else they would never have gone as long as they have.

Reality TV was an idea to gain ratings. It has done that. But, what part of this reality is real? Children are starving in our own country, the land of ‘milk and honey’ is real but you don’t see a TV show around that. Babies are born addicted to alcohol and controlled substances is real but you don’t see that either. A person’s view of the world around us is truly warped if viewed only through the median of moving pictures in a box in your living room. Yet, many people do believe what is told to them through such a median or similar medians like newspapers, videos, radio and even the internet. Truth is believed through experience and/or education. Fear can drive anyone to hate anything is scared enough to go there. Belief in such is harder to obtain when you have experienced it yourself or have been educated to understand it.

What you see and hear is not always true just because someone in the elected public says it is so. Experience it or educate yourself about is so that the fear and dread fed to you is understood and either accepted in your own mind or rejected by you. Never allow others to drive fear in your heart nor into your thoughts. Think for only yourself and each thought will gain a new presence in your being.

Sanctity of Marriage???

How many times have you heard on the news or a political debate, “A marriage is between a man and woman for the raising of children”? The divorce rate in opposite sex marriages will not be written about now. It takes the idea of marriage and family in a whole other direction.

The following situations are all around us. You may be involved in one such relationship.

When celebrities and ‘everyday people’ marry on a whim, they have immediate rights to their spouse’s property, livelihood, and decision making in legal and healthcare situations.

Those who marry for convenience, insurance benefits, military benefits, to gain property or status with or without children are living through the so called “Sanctity of Marriage”?

When two people marry and are unable to have children – are they legally married because they are unable to produce children of their own?

When older adults marry in later life after having raised one family, they really can’t be married because they have no children to raise?

When a man and a woman marry and together decide not to have children, should they lose their rights and have the marriage annulled?

Turn the tables around for a moment. In your mind, think of the reverse situation for a moment. The world and countries living their lives as they believe are ‘justifiable’ in the eyes of the law of the land.

Only same sex couples had rights to adopt children. Only same sex couples had protection equal under the law of marriage, employment, and housing. Law makers have decided that couples of different sexes would have no rights or limited rights and only if they paid an attorney hundreds if not thousands of dollars to achieve as the same sex couples get outright in every day law. Opposite sex couples hiding their love, commitment and families from everyone around them. Knowing that at any time they could lose their jobs, their housing and even their own lives because of hatred and fear.

Now, turn the tables back to the present day in which you live. Those are the realities that are being afforded to those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender in identity. Fear of the unknown and different can be enough fuel to ignite the being of contempt.

Same sex couples want only the same rights as opposite sex couples already have: The right to have property together, the right to pay taxes together, the right to healthcare decisions, the right to legal consideration equally under the law. Under the law…seems split between church and state. Arguments for and against same sex couples marrying are varied under the blanket of the gospel and the content of the written law.

Law makers and those of political power who understand and have educated themselves to understand what same sex couples are wishing to have the same rights for their family as opposite sex couples are only going so far to accomplish this. The word “Marriage” and all the reveal that goes with that word are hard for a lot of them to fathom. Civil Unions, Certificates of Union (makes it sound like you just completed a six month program at the local community college), and any other of a half-dozen terms used to describe a lawful if not holy binding commitment between two loving individuals of the same sex do not afford this couple the same right across the states. It is good until you get to the border of the country or state or city that performed the marriage-like ceremony or, thanks to MA, a wedding/marriage. Same sex couples would have more rights and legal protection within loving couple if they had enough paperwork signed and money to complete the transaction. How romantic is that? Opposite sex couples can marry in any country or state and have protection for themselves and their spouses without question. Be it a quick trip to a Vegas drive-thru wedding chapel or a half-a-million dollar ceremony and celebration with friends and family.

Be careful of the platform and ideas that are current in today’s thinking. Once settled and affirmed, the next popular belief may impact you and your ideas of life, liberty and freedom. Never say its not so. Educate your fears so that you are one step ahead of the next revolution. It not you and your family, it’ll be someone you and respect. Love, commitment and family are inside of us all. Let us strive to keep it there and protect it under the law, equally.

Jonas Barrett Read

GOP Seeks to Challenge Voter's Rights in Michigan

Carrie S. — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:53:36 EDT

I would like to bring to attention a movement in Michigan by the Republican Party that seeks to disallow those who's homes have gone into foreclosure from voting in the election. This is a direct attack on the rights of every American and absolutely must be stopped.

http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote

It's an intentional ploy by the GOP to stop angry citizens from voting for change this November. Please repost this article, and contact any legal channels you feel are appropriate. I personally contacted several news stations and the ACLU.

why I support Obama, not why I dont like Mccain

Strength in ink — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:40:43 EDT

why I support ObamaYou know, for the longest time I have been talking about why we should elect Obama over mccain in the context of why mccain isn't right for our country. There are many reasons why he is not right for this country at this time in our lives, and there are even more reasons surprisingly enough why Palin isn't the right person to even be close to being president. But what most of us don't write about in our comments, blogs and emails is why we support Barack Obama and Joe Biden and I think its about time that I put this down on paper. Below are just some of the reasons why I, as a voter and a democrat, am putting my efforts behind Obama/Biden 08

He understands that all of us have rights, and that includes gay and lesbians
He knows that a womans right to choose is important to continue
He believes in stem cell research and the rewards that this avenue will potentially hold
will double cancer research funding
knows there is a separation of church and state
Obama has shown an understanding and empathy for those that are not in the upper echelon of our society
He understands that our economy has to be strong as a whole, not just parts of it.
He will give tax breaks to those that need it now and that have gotten he raw end of the deal lately.
Wants to help the US get back to the forefront of the world in terms of education and the benefits from being a smarter, more productive society
Health care system will be overhauled to allow for more people not only to GET coverage, but to afford it as well.
He will make sure that small businesses have incentives to start up and become successful. Small business are owned by middle class people, which means they need to have stability to start those businesses.
Knows constitutional law (was a teacher of const. law), which means he will uphold the constitution and what it means
Had the judgment to oppose the war in Iraq and saw it for what it was, wrong war, wrong time, wrong blank check
He will return the focus of the "war on terror" to where the attackers from 9/11 really are
Will lead us to a better generation of energy, not DRILL DRILL DRILL

There are others reasons of course, and I can go on in some detail about all the topics above, but this was meant to just show that there are multiple reasons due to policy, ideology and direction as to why I support Obama. Mccain and others will try to say that we are just getting caught up in a movement, that we don't know anything past "change" and "Hope" Well say that to the people that were in the civil rights movement with Dr king, say that to the people that heard JFK speak, Or to women of this country that wanted the right to vote. These were all movements that were based on hopes for a better life. They weren't easy goals, people resisted and people wanted the opposite of what these great people stood for. But in the end, hope and change reigns over lies and doubt. Obama gives us that, Obama gives us the hope that politics and the politicians that are apart of it, will once again look at the amercian people and say " I will fight for you" Not just fight you. In that same statement, he gives us the change we need from the politics we experience at this time in our lives, with the destruction our current administration has created or sat idly by and let happen, there isn't much else I could do but support some like Obama. But in the end, im very proud to be apart of this time in history, for not only the obvious history making aspects, but because if we elect Obama, we will have started a new direction for our children. And if you don't support Obama, why? Is it because all you have heard is how he is wrong for your country? Too inexperienced? Is it because he is black? Is it because they have tried to say he is muslim, or his wife doesn't love her country, or he is a socialist? Is it you really think that he will raise your taxes? Is all of it so complicated you will just vote for the establishment? I ask you to ask yourself this, is there a reason, or 2 or 3 that you DO support the other candidate? Are there reasons, based on specific ideals, policy views or accomplishments that you feel warrant granting Mccain the power that will be given him as president? Because from what i've watched and read, I assume Mccain has a policy platform, but I haven't heard about it from him. Ive heard that this is now the personality contest and lets face it, I think Obama wins that one hands down, but this is more about issues than it has ever been and he is just telling you to trust him…he wont be like Bush, he will rage against that machine…well I don't buy it, as well as Im buying into what Obama stands for. I hope once the dust settles, we can all look at it like a step in the right direction, not two steps back. Obama/Biden 08!

Equal Rights and not Special Rights!

Marie — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:23:17 EDT

A Word from Amanda:

Let us encourage Sen. Obama to start using this line!

Equal Rights and not Special Rights!

Make this post go viral

Believe in Equal Rights! Not Special Rights!

Also listed in: 9 groups

This is what I am sure is on each Obama supporters mind. I BELIEVE IN EQUAL RIGHTS, NOT SPECIAL RIGHTS! Since when did being a woman give a person a special right notto face the press or answer questions that may seem a little tough? Senator Obama you need to use this line as often as possible! As a white woman of 58, I have experienced some male preferential treatment in the workplace but I also saw how some women use their gender to whine about not being treated fairly. Sen. Biden has children and he too had traveled each and every day as a single Dad but he still gets the hard questions. She accepted the nomination for Vice President and should expect to be treated equally by THE PRESS as you or Joe Biden. There is no special treatment in Politics. It is like war. If Palin is ill equipped to fight the fight then she needs to ask for a replacement. In the meantime, this is the very first time I have seen the media cow down to a woman who claims she believes in equal rights but still wants to be treated like a poor little girl being picked on by the big boys. Equality means Equality and to give in to this Scarlet O'Hara ploy ismanipulation at it's finest. Don't expect your two young girls to have true equality in the future if this campaign falls for this Rovian trick which is INEQUALITY in reality. You cannot have it both ways Governor. You cannot have it both ways Rick Davis and John McCain. Hands off with tough policy and character questions not equality. It reminds me of a bully woman who will hit a man in the lower extremities and then cry foul, they are picking on me when she getspushed away. She wanted equality. Give her equality. Or did she just want special treatment which takes the Women's Movement back 100 years?

STAY ON MESSAGE AND DO NOT BE FOOLED ! Thanks Amanda!

What Happens with Forced Pregnancies?

jean in Raleigh,NC — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:38:24 EDT

Tell All your Pro-Choice Friends to get busy for this election. WOmen's lives are at stake! Is this how we want our daughters to be treated?

From Feministe

quoted from PostWa r

italics mine

In 1966, to increase the population — a traditional ‘Romanianist’ obsession — [Ceausescu] prohibited abortion for women under forty with fewer than four children (in 1986 the age barrier was raised to forty-five). In 1984 the minimum marriage age for women was reduced to fifteen. Compulsory monthly medical examinations for all women of childbearing age were introduced to prevent abortions, which were permitted, if at all, only in the presence of a Party representative. Doctors in districts with a declining birth rate had their salaries cut.

The population did not increase, but the death rate from abortions far exceeded that of any other European country: as the only available form of birth control, illegal abortions were widely performed, often under the most appalling and dangerous conditions. Over the ensuing twenty-three years the 1966 laws resulted in the death of at least ten thousand women. The real infant mortality rate was so high that after 1985 births were not officially recorded until a child had survived to its fourth week — the apotheosis of Communist control of knowledge. By the time Ceausescu was overthrown the death rate of new-born babies was twenty-five per thousand and there were upward of 100,000 institutionalized children.

Do I think that the Republican party and anti-choice organizations give one hoot about “life”? Nope. Not when their policies bring a whole lotta death. Do I think they give one hoot about decreasing the abortion rate? Nope. Not when they oppose policies which do just that.

end quotes-----

Amen Sister

a vote for the current republican presidential ticket is a step towards loosing America's most precious freedoms.

David from Glendale, CA — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:34:05 EDT

I would like to see Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden or Ms. Obama point out that the big government the republican party claims the democratic party is prescribing (which I do not believe they are) is far preferable to the controlling government the republicans always try to place on Americans. I would take a big government as opposed to a government that takes away one of our greatest freedoms; freedom of choice. If it were up to republicans I would not have the freedom of choice for my body (abortion), the freedom of who I marry (gay rights issue), what I read (Sarah Palin's desire to have the government control what books are in my library as opposed to having parents decide what is best for their children), freedom to choose what religion my children are taught in public schools (republican party's desire, Sarah Palin in particular) to see creationism taught in public schools instead of allowing parents to decide what religious teachings my children are exposed to. The republicans even claim giving anyone anywhere access to any gun is a freedom. I see this as more of the reverse to be true. The knowledge that anyone anywhere without any type of screening could posses any type of weapon is frightening. The republican party and the government over all cannot raise my children and cannot take away my freedom to choose. They cannot take away what makes America free, successful and a leader in the world - the right to choose, the right to raise my children the way I see fit. Please make sure the democratic party does everything they can to get the message out that a vote for republicans brings us another step closer to loosing these things.

Palin for president of the flat earth society

March4health4All — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 09:32:55 EDT

Sarah Palin scares me to death; she is a dangerous, populist, reactionary zealot. Her ideology is so backwards, the only presidency she is qualified for, is that of the Flat Earth Society.

How is she ever going to take the oath of office? she openly announced, at the convention speech, that she does not believe in the Fifth Amendment (the snide comment about prisoners at Guantanamo), we know she has issues with the First Amendment, separation of state and church is not her theme, banning books from the local library is not in the spirit of freedom of speech, and her prolife goals, undermine the Fourteenth Amendment; what is she going to say? “ I promise to uphold the Second Amendment and some of the laws of the United States of America”.

Please send this woman back to the middle ages, she would be happier there, and we would all be safer here.

Pop Gun Palin. . .

AC Parker Northern California--East Bay — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 02:18:49 EDT

a lot of noise. They are not even trying to win this race. Is there a crew or commitee or something ensuring that states and local communities will and can safeguard the rights of voters? How is headquarters being proactive in taking steps to thwart what might be the last resort of the JM campaign? What can I do? I would appreciate hearing from anyone who can speak to this.

Only 27 States allow Unaffiliated/Independents, WHY?

Unaffiliated/Independnet Voters Center — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:20:32 EDT

Below is an open letter to the candidates:

An open letter to all the candidates from the Unaffiliated/Independent Voters all across the United States.

Where is the fairness is what millions of law abiding American Citizens are asking today.

Are you aware that we Unaffiliated/Independent Voters in this country are the only group which has no uniform political rights?

Only twenty seven states allow us, and the major political parties can limit us at their whim.

Yet we are the fastest growing group of voters in the country, are the swing vote in almost all elections and are considered some of the most informed of voters.

This upcoming historic election you are in is about choice, change and new ways of solving problems.

That is why we Unaffiliated/Independent Voters ask for the following:

Standard laws covering the protection and rights of Unaffiliated/Independent Voters in all the voting states and territories.

You will find we do not want to create a third party. but only want to be able to hold our vote and cast it for someone for whom we have researched and decided deserves our vote.

In other words we think our country would be best served if you gave all Americans the rights we have told others in the World this country is all about. In our opinion this means the right to vote as an Unaffiliated and Independent Voter under the equality of all laws all across our country.

We ask you to send your promise giving us our rights by sending me your commitment at Larry@DoesMyVoteCount.com

Larry Bumgarner

Chairperson Unaffiliated/Independent Voters Center

“Not a Color, Just a Voter!”

www.Unaffiliated.us

202-242-0166

1-866-931-VOTE

We are the National Unaffiliated/Independent Voters Groups of America; some call us the Unaffiliated/Independent Voters Center, but never make the mistake of calling us a color, or even a third, fourth or whatever party!As a Think Tank for Voters we provide and help build what can be described as homes for Unaffiliated/Independent Voters Groups all over the country to come together so all our concerns and questions can be answered before any ONE of us commits our vote

We never endorse a candidate, run a candidate, nor will we sway your way of voting on an issue. Voters from all across the political spectrum will be able to discuss an issue in an open format, hopefully, helping to give you the full story to assist you in making your decision.

Why are we always cleaning up the values mess?

frankpatton — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:09:19 EDT

Government in the hands of people who want to drown it in a bathtub, who want to turn it into doing one thing and one thing only - keeping by enforcement the privileges of the few over the many, is not what government should, could or might be.

Why is it that people get convinced that government is something that is against their own values? Because they are told it is and the only way to a line their values with government is to take the parts they don't agree with and destroy those parts. No matter how it would affect other people who might benefit from value choices that were made in the past that benefited those people, who up to now, had no way to advance their values and concerns.

We live in a continuous conflict of values that are either recognized or ignored, it’s the continuing struggle that has no end yet does have a beginning, a political system that has to struggle with that dilemma - forever.

In this blog I want to concentrate on this dilemma, please contribute!

ACTION: 25 days to protect women’s health services

RhOrdway — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:51:25 EDT

I just sent HHS my comment urgint them to stop efforts to block women's access to basic reproductive health services. You can do the same here: http://action.aclu.org/hhs_comment

Travel Quiz - DHS True or false?

RhOrdway — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:45:10 EDT

I just took a short quiz to learn about the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to “protect us” when we travel. I was very surprised by what I learned. If you travel frequently, you should take this quiz: http://action.aclu.org/travel_quiz

THE SADDLEBACK FORUM DISCUSSIONS: BARACK OBAMA, JOHN MCCAIN & RICK WARREN

Friends of President Barack Obama — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 03:04:18 EDT

PLEASE SEE ASAP. . .

CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

MontgomeryCountyMDforBarackObama

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/MontgomeryCountyMDforBarackObama

EDUCATORS FOR BARACK OBAMA

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/EducatorsforObama

MOMS FOR OBAMA

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/MomsforObama

THE DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6652270

THE HUFFINGTON POST:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

True Religious Freedom

David from El Dorado Hills, CA — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:27:35 EDT

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. There are some like Bush/McCain and some Christians who say they believe in religious freedom, and may be sincere, but what they are really promoting is their freedom to live according to their personal religious morals(which is consistent) and their freedom to use our constitutionally secular government to force their citizen neighbor to also conform to their personal religious morals (this is inconsistent with true religious freedom)! The fruits of this false religious freedom, millions of religious and non-religious citizens potentially repressed and forced to convert and/or conform to a self-righteous groups personal moral doctrines or be put in prison, are proof of its error. Bush/McCain have chosen to follow the example of the Islamic terrorists by declaring that “you are either for us or for the enemy!” Yahshua ha Mashiach, Jesus the Christ, experienced the results of this thinking and predicted that others in the future would too. John 16:2 ……. yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. Barack believes in true religious freedom as our founding fathers envisioned and God inspired. The constitution prevents the government from selecting a religious group and its associated personal religious morals and making them the law of the land. The fruits of promoting this God inspired wisdom are not anarchy but maximum personal freedom which leads to true peace and a mutual respect for diversity with social accountability and responsibility.

May God continue to bless the U.S. of A. by allowing Barack Obama or Ron Paul to be President of the U.S. of A.!

Motivational Note

Friends of President Barack Obama — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:19:02 EDT

Even though it may not look like it or feel like it, you are making progress.

Continue working towards progress instead of perfection.

Nothing or no no one is perfect.

Just keep taking steps.

Keep making those phone calls.

Continue following your plan.

Remain focused on your goal.

Do what you have to do right now to get to the next level.

Complete every task.

Keep every promise and commitment.

Don't look back.

Stay on track.

Let no one weaken your walk of faith and determination.

Remain teachable.

Place yourself in a blessing position by associating with people on-the-grow.

Talk with teachers.

Walk with winners.

Climb with champions.

Study successful people.

Something great is about to happen for you!

Start giving thanks right now before you can even see the outward manisfestation of your prayers and desires.

Everything you do from this day forward will take you further away or closer to your potential for successful living.

-by Dr. Jewel Diamond Taylor, Motivational Speaker & Author

Action: Protect Women's Health - add your voice

RhOrdway — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:04:07 EDT

Can you imagine living in a place where birth control is considered an "abortion" and health insurers won't cover it? Where even rape victims are denied emergency contraception?

I just signed a message to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, whose department is considering this rule change, telling him: "Contraception is NOT abortion." Can you add your voice to this cause? Click here to sign the message: http://pol.moveon.org/contraception/?r_by=13468-9214852-E877iKx&rc=confemail

WHY OKLAHOMANS SUPPORT OBAMA

Diana Hall — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 03:19:09 EDT

I WANT TO LIST REASONS THAT OKLAHOMANS HAVE TOLD ME THAT THEY SUPPORT OBAMA. TODAY SOMEONE TOLD ME THAT OBAMA'S BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE IS FINE BUT THAT HE KEEPS A MUCH SHORTER LIST OF REASONS WHY HE SUPPORTS OBAMA. TOO BAD WE DID NOT HAVE TIME TODAY TO DISCUSS HIS REASONS! BUT I'M GOING TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT THAT SHORT LIST AND SHARE THOSE REASONS HERE.

ANOTHER PERSON TOLD ME THAT HE WANTS THE WAR IN IRAQ TO END AND BELIEVES THAT OBAMA CAN DO THAT SOONER THAN MCCAIN.

ANOTHER PERSON TOLD ME THAT HE HAS A DOMESTIC PARTNER AND WANTS TO HAVE SIMILAR LEGAL RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO HIS COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP AS PERSONS HAVE WHO ARE LEGALLY MARRIED.

I'M NOT GOING TO IDENTIFY ANY PERSONS WHOSE REASONS ARE OFFERED HERE UNLESS THEY ARE MY OWN REASONS. ONE COMMON ELEMENT THAT I HAVE OBSERVED IS THAT PERSONS WITH WHOM I SPEAK ARE ALMOST FEARFUL OF SPEAKING ABOUT SUPPORTING OBAMA BECAUSE OF THE HOSTILITY THAT THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED WHEN THEY HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR SUPPORT IN THE PAST.

THIS IS ONE REASON WHY I SUPPORT OBAMA: I BELIEVE THAT HE WILL FACILITATE OPEN DISCUSSION OF ISSUES AND WILL GOVERN WITH RESPECT FOR THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH HIM. GEORGE W. BUSH SUPPORTERS HAVE COME TO ACT AS THOUGH THEIR VIEWS ARE SUPERIOR TO THOSE OF OTHERS BECAUSE GEORGE W. BUSH TOLD THEM THAT THEIR VIEWS WERE SUPERIOR. I HOPE THAT OBAMA WILL RE -CREATE AN ATMOSPHERE IN WHICH WE CAN RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER AGAIN WITHOUT FEAR OF EMBARASSMENT OR RETRIBUTION.

What Obama says about our brave troops:

Aloha Obama - Lisa Rey — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:55:52 EDT

Obama says, "Our nation's service members and veterans have sacrificed so much for our country on the battlefield that we cannot allow them to fight another battle here at home for the benefits and rights they deserve," said Senator Obama. "Whether Americans are abroad serving in the Armed Forces, or recovering and living in VA facilities, it is critical that we ensure these brave men and women can exercise their right to vote. It is unacceptable that some veterans in VA facilities are not allowed access to voter registration services. I am proud to join Senators Feinstein and Kerry in their efforts to reverse the VA's current policies, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and quickly move it forward."

Obama for Vetrans

Aloha Obama - Lisa Rey — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:43:46 EDT

Of course Obama was well recieved by our troops in Iraq. He has been fighting for them at home while the troops are sacrificing overseas. Here is an example of what he says about our troops "Our nation's service members and veterans have sacrificed so much for our country on the battlefield that we cannot allow them to fight another battle here at home for the benefits and rights they deserve," said Senator Obama. "Whether Americans are abroad serving in the Armed Forces, or recovering and living in VA facilities, it is critical that we ensure these brave men and women can exercise their right to vote. It is unacceptable that some veterans in VA facilities are not allowed access to voter registration services. I am proud to join Senators Feinstein and Kerry in their efforts to reverse the VA's current policies, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and quickly move it forward."

First Amendment Rights at Risk

Ron Booth Adams County Colorado — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:19:13 EDT

In addition to the erosion of the 4th amendment that we have seen with FISA, once again as has been the case in the past several election cycles we will see some draconian restraints placed on the 1st amendment rights of activists who wish their voices to be heard by the Democratic party.

Make no mistake, in addition to the 20,000 or so credentialed delegates and special guests there will be equal or even greater numbers of representatives/activists from a wide number of special interest groups in the streets seeking to have their voices heard in addition to which. because the acceptance of the nomination will now be held at a 75,000 seat stadium, we can likely expect an even larger influx of “non-credentialed persons” hoping to gain access to INVESCO Field at Mile High.

If the media decides to focus on conflicts between protesters and an overly zealous “security forces” then the mainstream media coverage will detract from our candidate’s message, detract from the party’s platform and possibly alienate people from the party itself.

Under the guise of ‘security’ we have seen the development of “Free Speech Zones” that isolate the voices of our citizens rather than embraces them. The very idea of “Free Speech Zones” flies in the face of everything our party and this country are about.

Historically, those who have elected to not be herded into “Free Speech Zones” like cattle and have instead chosen to fully exercise their first amendment rights have been subjected to tear gas, mace, beatings and arrest. The drama of these actions are quite fully covered by the mainstream media while the substance of the issues that these activists try to bring to the attention of convention delegates go largely ignored.

Additionally, when activists rebelling against the abhorrent concept of “Free Speech Zones” become the focus of media attention our candidate and our party’s platform dissolve into the background rather than being at the forefront.

Whether you are a grassroots supporter who will be watching the 2008 DNC & RNC Convention from afar, an Obama supporter who is also an activist of whatever stripe or a delegate to the DNC you have the opportunity to help create a new kind of atmosphere for the upcoming convention.

Currently Denver authorities are gearing up for 1,200 arrests per day. Shy of people voluntarily allowing themselves to be herded into “Free Speech Cages” authorities also are withholding information from activist groups as to what sort of activities might instigate an arrest or what sort of activities might result in an escalation of physical force/violence on the part of the police making it impossible for activist to be able to judge what forms of speech or expression will be permitted without the person’s action resulting in arrest or a possible wide spread sweep by the police. In the past these sort of scenarios have resulted in not only activists and protesters being swept up by police but by-standers and even delegates. The authorities in Denver in conjunction with Federal authorities are creating a scenario where the only safe way to exercise freedom of speech is to volunteer be imprisoned in a cage a considerable distance from the convention site blocked from sight by the area where the media will be set up.

The hope is that collectively we can develop ideas which will create a safe and just environment for freedom of speech to take place and a respectful atmosphere overall during the course of the convention for the country and world to witness.

Footnote: Yesterday a personal friend of mine who is a local attorney attended a special training for lawyers who are willing to provide legal assistance to activists arrested for attempting to exercise their 1st amendment rights. One of the things that became abundantly clear is the perception that the Denver Police Department has that they have been led to believe intent of protesters is primarily to create chaos and disruptions including flinging feces and urine at the police. Obviously this perception does not bode well for the mindset being created within the police department. Also of note is the fact that the various groups that are operating under the umbrella of Recreate68 have been undertaking non-violence trainings in preparation for possible conflict while at the same time reaching out to Denver authorities to create some common understandings and dispel the many myths and rumors floating around about the intent of organizers and participants, so far those attempts have fallen on deaf ears.

Our First Amendment Rights At Risk

Ron Booth Adams County Colorado — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:16:46 EDT

The Convention and the 1st Amendment

Ron Booth Adams County Colorado — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:14:27 EDT

A Legal Aberration Called "At Will Statute"

Richard Charman — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:43:13 EDT

I have a profile at www.myspace.com/net_tronic and I was writing about my intention of asking Senator Obama to add, as part of his campaign on behalf of the American workers, the abolishment of the “At Will Statute”, a legal aberration that has no place in a country that is facing the challenge of competing on a global economy against other countries with more advanced legislation on labor law matters and which, at the beginning of the 21rst century is positioned as a world potency.

I understand that this would be a revolutionary CHANGE that would provide Job Security to million of American Workers and that could enhance the employer/employee relationship. As I decided to take a break by looking at some of the most popular blogs on myspace I posted a comment on one of the blogs that called my attention. http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=20117338&blogid=409528738&page=5

Later on, I got some replies showing interest on my writing and I decided to send a friend request to them, to make sure that I could reply to them, since I have the bad habit of losing track of my comments on others blogs (not a problem on mine since only a few souls bother to comment on it randomly).

The following is one of the most remarkable, as it is related to the issue that I am focused on.

----------------- Original Message ----------------- From: Paul says you just don't get it! Date: Jun 29, 2008 2:51 AM Thank you! I have accepted. I am interested in the display name you have chosen, can you tell more? Btw, wifey, and I, have sat here for a couple of hours digging the music on your player, a nice rounded choice of music....

Marriage Equality - a documentary film coming soon!

David Rothmiller — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:52:51 EDT

Senator Obama is to be lauded for his declaration to strike down D.O.M.A. - and end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", two divisive Republican ploys that discriminate against Americans for the sake of Religious zealots and the politicians who love them.

Coming soon is a documentary film on the importance of Marriage Equality called "for my wife..."

Please see the trailer at:

www.formywife.info

It will premiere in Seattle in October and around the country in time for the coming election.

Anger over Obama's support for FISA

Carlos from Long Beach, CA — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:12:33 EDT

SHAME ON YOU!

I can't believe that Sen. Obama has willfully violated the protections enshrined in the Constitution by voting for the FISA bill. Sen Obama earlier had promised to work against this bill.

Actions speak louder than words.

Federal Faith, Your Rights, and Shiney Objects.

Mike — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:23:24 EDT

The people in a given state don't always agree with their legislators. Nor do the state legislatures agree with the majority of people within their states. The United States was created with this in mind when they created both houses within Congress. One elected by the people, the other by the legislatures of each state. When the U.S. Constitution was created, only the essential powers necessary to carry out its reason for existing were granted to each branch of the Federal Government How is it that Congress can violate the Constitution? Good Question. I'm still trying to figure out when accepting a bribe became legal. But here is some information as to why a violation of power occured.

During the Conventions of 1787, many wise and noble men were appointed by each state in order to amend the Articles of Confederation. Upon review of the Articles, it was found that in order to accomodate the objective before them, they would need to make drastic changes. These changes, in order to be binding, would need the approval of the same body that approved the Articles of Confederation, though there had been no provision for this method of handling.

The Preamble of the Constitution begins with "We the people of the United States" and continues to state the intentions of the Constitution. Justice, domestic Tranquility, providing common defense, promote the general welfare, secure liberty, to ourselves and future generations. Expressing the individual reasons for creating the U.S. Constitution establishes intention, or motive, and gives affect to what follows. In Contract Law, (a constitution is merely a contract between two parties, in this case, the contract is created for the establishment of a Federal Government by the people amongst the several states.) the parties who formed the agreement, or are formed by the agreement, are obligated to fulfill the obligations therefor mentioned. In order to make changes to a contract, the parties affected by such change must give consent. As an example, the Bill of Rights were passed by the legislatures of the states. By ratifying the amendments, they agreed to honor them in accordance with the Preamble.

Article V. of the Constitution allows for 2 modes of ratifying amendments. I have broken down the paragraph to show logic to its purpose. It is mentioned that form is important, but not as important as the substance itself.

The Congress shall call a convention for proposing Amendments.
a. whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary.
b. on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states.
In either case: shall be valid to all intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution
a. when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several states
b. by Conventions in three fourths of the several states
as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.
Provided that no state shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

It is important to think about how much power had been granted by the "People" of the United States to the Federal Government. First, are the acts of the Legislative, Executive. or Judicial branches meeting the purpose the Constitution was created for?

Within the jurisdiction, does the act provide:
a. Justice - the exercise of authority in vindication of right by assigning reward or punishment.
b. domestic Tranquility - Do you feel at ease with such acts?
c. providing common defense - Do these acts ward off attacks or protect the common people and their rights?
d. promote the general welfare - Do these acts further growth or progress of the people as a whole?
e. secure liberty - do these acts secure the liberties of the people?

When establishing the constitution, certain powers were specifically denied to the federal government by the "People" and can only be granted by the same through a state convention. States were only allowed Direct Taxation of the people if their Constitutions (which were also formed by the people of the settlements) allowed for such. Forming a Corporation is done under similar principles, which create laws and bylaws, often consists of an 'Executive Sfaff' and a Board whose supposed interest is suppose to be relative to the common shareholders. While the executives may have relatively free reign, certain circumstances require votes in order to change any corporate bylaws or other circumstances that may affect the value of the company. In a sense, Tax Payers invest in the U.S. Government when they pay taxes, though Unconstitutional, and besides funding the general expenses of the Federal Government, other appropriations of Federal funds must meet the standards set forth above.

In the Federalist No. 85, Paragraph 11 refers to the amendment process through until the end of that publication. Hamilton wrote, "By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged "On the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States, which at present time amount to nine, to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by convention in three fourths thereof. The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress 'shall call a convention." Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air." He goes on to ask, "Can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people? We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." So what happens now?

Not only have our rights been violated, the rights of people worldwide have been violated. We the people have no right to spread democracy. Democracy is what the U.S. Constitution replaced. It was found that Total Democracy continually failed time after time. Since the start of the Great War, Government has used tax-payer money to spread patriotic propaganda. Seems the Germans picked up on this. They supposedly used the same techniques in World War II. Part of the American Declaration of Rights sent to the Crown in England to express grievances. If you read up on it, you'll realize that American Independance was fought for the same reasons we're seeing now. The only reason I can conclude we actually got involved in WW I, was that the U.S. had been the primary source for weapons and supplies, and ultimately the only reason they weren't conquered for so long. But when they began to lose, it was realized that they would never be paid for much of the supplies which were on the Credit of those soon to have been conquered.

Everything I have stated is information available to anyone who looks for it. I highly recommend if you care about your future, look it up before dismissing my statements as false. The most alarming part of my research is that most of Congressman have law degrees. I firmly believe that a person with a degree in law should have been able to recognize of these encroachments. Instead, the federal government speaks of what it is doing for the people, and give tax breaks, etc, etc... but what they are really doing is keeping your mind off of what you might disapprove of. Everything said by a Presidential candidate is malarky. The President can suggest laws to Congress. But Congress is the true holder of any power. We've already let the government get out of control. We can't let it continue until nobody is left. If the Government is empowered solely by the people, then the people are responsible for the actions of the government. Continuing on as we are, we are only welcoming another attack.

FISA - constitutional?

Alexander from Philadelphia, PA — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:41:20 EDT

Does this new FISA law not contradict our Fourth Amendment rights under the Constitution? If passed, what chance do us American citizens have that the Supreme Court will strike down the legality of this bill as being unconstitutional? Didn't our forefathers fight a revolution to establish a nation governed by laws instead of by men?

FISA = Obama's "I Voted for the Iraq War" Moment

Ron — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:18:08 EDT

Senator Obama is about to make the biggest mistake of his campaign, his candidacy, and his career in supporting the FISA Bill in any form. Senator Obama is about to willfully and knowingly walk into his own "I voted for the Iraq War" moment. Supporting the FISA "compromise" is a farce at best as nothing is gained in this compromise. All that is compromised is a portion of the fundamental rights afforded to our citizens.

I cannot express more the need for Obama to denounce this "compromise" openly, publicly, and unequivocally. Speak out against this pandering to the failed policies of George W. Bush. This is an egregious infraction against the 4th Amendment of our constitution. The FISA bill currently in place, already modernized through its own amendments, provides the means to gather the intelligence needed to protect our nation within the boundaries of the law.

With Senator Obama, I was excited and inspired for a political candidate beyond selecting the lesser of two evils for the first time in my adult life. I had a candidate I believed in. If he supports FISA, that belief will be shattered, and Mr. Obama will lose all credibility as a candidate representing "a new kind of politics" and "change." This is despicable.

I'm terribly disappointed because I really believed he was different. Shame on me. I hope I'm not disappointed.

FISA (30 Years)

SeaClearly — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:20:01 EDT

While it is appreciated that Barack Obama has responded to the outpouring of concern from his supporters in relation to FISA and Retroactive Immunity, the issue has not been resolved. FISA was passed thirty years ago, and remains in effect (to this day, and thereafter). In relation, it was not necessary for a rush to acquiesce in the Bush administration's desires for Retroactive Cover of their Illegal activities - five months before the election. This battle was won. A new majority was in place, and had withstood Bush's propaganda campaign against them for doing so. Further, it was already clear to the public that what Bush orchestrated (secretly bypassing FISA and putting everyone under surveillance) was an impeachable offense - by itself. So, what's the reason for giving in so abruptly? Are the real reasons hidden because of more (Orwellian) State Secrets?

Remember your base, and how many millions of us were singing along with Fired Up and were ultimately inspired by Yes We Can on You Tube? We weren't just watching and listening; we were also becoming deeply involved in activism for a candidate, a cause, and Change We Could Believe In. Why? Because we were led to Believe that you would stand up for Us, for our Rights (and what was Right), for Justice. You inspired a Movement - not seen for at least forty years.

Live up to it. Don't let us down. You stated that you would "support a Filibuster of any legislation that contained Retroactive Immunity provisions" for the telecoms that engaged in illegal surveillance. We ask you to Honor That Pledge. But moreover, we ask you to engage yourself in that filibuster. Stand on the floor of the Senate and fight with Senators Dodd and Feingold - to the levels of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. Retroactive Immunity cannot stand - if there is anything meaningful left to our system of (supposed) Checks and Balances. Again, Retroactive Immunity cannot stand - yet you, the one who inspired millions in a Movement to Hope, to Believe, can.

We are waiting.
The world is watching.

Dodd, Feingold Statement on Senate Consideration of FISA:
http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/4473

Related: Bush's Supreme (Court) Hypocrisy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU_MSxCoAW4

Response to Obama's FISA Statement

no one — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 05:11:25 EDT

Obama's Statement on FISA http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rospars/gGxsZF along with a response from constitutional law and civil rights litigator Glen Greenwald http://utdocuments.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamas-new-statement-on-fisa.html

Obama: "The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court."

Greenwald: "The exclusivity provision has been the backbone of FISA for 30 years. There is no reason to believe that saying it a second time would have any positive effect."

Obama: "In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people."

Greenwald: "Right, which is why the present system was set up; under that system, the Bush administration admitted that there had never been a situation in which the present system did not allow for sufficient wiretapping authority. The guy making that statement should know; it was his job to ask the FISA court for warrants."

Obama: "As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility."

Greenwald: "No, that's what the present system does. The new bill says that the FISA court will only be allowed to determine whether the wiretapping program violates civil liberties, not whether particular wiretaps do."

Obama: "And in case anyone is worried that the current authority is insufficient for emergencies, I'd refer you first to the link from above, where the administration admitted that it was fine, and would also point out that FISA (as amended by the PATRIOT Act) allows for 72 hours of wiretapping before consulting the courts, which should be plenty of time in an emergency."

Greenwald: "The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation (PDF) uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report."

Obama: "I don't know enough to comment on it; but 1) this sort of report could be obtained without immunity and the other bad provisions and 2) if the bill is passed, we'll lose the Constitution's most important mechanism for accountability, which is the courts."

Greenwald: "Even if the IG report eventually uncovered wrongdoing, Congress wouldn't act on it; if they were interested in acting on it, they would have by now (and they wouldn't be on the verge of passing this bill)."

Obama: "With regard to classification, we have mechanisms for that, and it hasn't been a significant hurdle for any of the three cases that have already been heard at the Federal level."

Greenwald: "I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer."

Obama: "The orders that will expire are the ones he voted against, as he said at the start of his post. He should be glad they're expiring."

Greenwald: "The orders that will expire are the ones he voted against, as he said at the start of his post. He should be glad they're expiring."

Unions and Workers Rights

William from San Francisco, CA — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:15:01 EDT

I am a big supporter of Unions. The anti-union rhetoric I hear is actually anti-family and anti-community.
No one should ever disparage or doubt a person for trying to protect their economic rights. There is nothing selfish about wanting a living wage or asking for a raise.
I grew up in Michigan. I have heard all the anti-labor and anti-worker rhetoric there is out there. The facts, however, are clear. The majority of American workers have not had a real wage increase in a long time. CEOs, CFOs and board members have received the bulk of the economic gains since the 1970s. 'Non-working rich' shouldn't be the only people in this country who are economically secure.
I have recently heard the new anti-teacher-union arguments. Teachers perform an extremely valuable service to our nation and they should be paid well for the work they do. This idea that there are thousands of unqualified teachers is not, in my opinion, the real point. If they are not performing well train them- do not fire them. Many of these 'unqualified' teachers have families- what do you think will happen to their children's educational future if they do not have jobs or resources?
I live across the street from public housing. The city requires public housing because police officers, firefighters, teachers and many other kinds of workers are not paid enough to live in the city without subsidized housing. Should they be punished for the fact that their work is undervalued and under appreciated?
Unions help everyone. They have helped push for greater rights and protections for all workers. They also help protect the environment.
People who want to work should be able to get a job. People who work should be able to live comfortably. People who work should get health-care. People who work should not have to worry about financial ruin.
Please share your thoughts.

LAY OFF OBAMA!

Nia "Hussein" J. — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 05:44:52 EDT

Lay off Obama, Don't take November for granted by dawnt

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/2/164430/9517/585/545554

Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 02:27:05 PM PDT

I've been reading with dismay the messages on the newest, fastest-growing MyBO group, SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA. Many (not all) of those people are really taking things too far. They are withdrawing all support from Obama and even asking for refunds for all previous donations made to the Obama campaign.

I am appalled. Who in their right mind would rather see a President McCain who would strengthen and expand spying programs and invade more and more of our privacy. There are many ways to put pressure on Obama, but threatening to put in office someone who is much, much worse on the very issue you are upset about... well, that's just stupidity.

Let's get real here, people. Obama is supporting a compromise. You know you've got a compromise when people on both sides are unhappy... and, well, that's what we've got. People on both sides are definitely unhappy. I'm unhappy, a lot of people on this site are unhappy, conservatives are unhappy. Meanwhile, McCain is laughing and loving this.

Obama's central platform has always been compromise versus gridlock. He has told us over and over that he will compromise rather than allow gridlock to rule the day. Did these people not listen? Or did they just choose to ignore that. Obama has told us over and over that the pursuit of perfection is the enemy of improvement. Entrenchment is the enemy of progress.

This bill is a first step, not the end game. It's up to us to ensure that we keep moving forward on this issue. Now, I'm not saying that I like this compromise, but I am saying that moving forward an inch by electing Obama is much better than moving backwards by a mile by electing McCain.

I think the reason we're seeing so much opposition is because Democrats are feeling too comfortable about November. People are taking it for granted that Obama is doing so well now that he is a shoo-in (as a matter of fact, many of the FISA activists are saying so explicitly). But he is not a shoo-in. This race will be much closer than it appears now. Remember the Republican primary when everyone thought McCain's candidacy was dead? Heck, remember when everyone thought that Hillary was inevitable? Remember 2004 when everyone thought that the hatred for Bush was so wide and so deep that he had to lose???

Many presidential candidates have been considered inevitable and then lost. Many times a candidate has been way ahead and then America had buyers remorse close to the election. Many things could also change between now and then to make Americans more fearful, more willing to accept a war-monger like McCain. We need to be building a lead, a cushion of support, if you will -- not taking it for granted that we can do whatever we want right now and still win in November.

If Obama gets into office, I believe we will see movement in the direction we want on this issue. But I also believe with all of my heart that if McCain gets into office, we're going to see movement in the opposite direction. Do we really need to be reminded of all of the things that are different about Obama and McCain, including FISA?

Obama is in a no win situation right now, and it is unreasonable supporters who have put him there. If he did not compromise on FISA, he would have lost support from Independents and moderates who he needs to win in November. At the same time, he is being treated by some purity trolls as a traitor (or worse) for compromising.

The best way to get support for the position we want on FISA is to change public opinion. Obama made the compromise he made because public opinion is what it is. You can have an opinion, but so can the rest of America. And guess what... numbers matter most!

So, the bottom line... do what Obama has asked of you all along: Get out there and work to make change, don't expect him to do all of the heavy lifting without support and involvement from the grassroots. How many times has Obama said he can't do it without us? Did you really understand what that meant? Give it some thought. Much of the work and support he was talking about was about changing public opinion and putting pressure on other elected officials to support these very positions.

Obama told us what he needs us to do so that he can accomplish the goals we set forth. Instead of doing that, some people have chosen to attack him instead, even asking for donations to be refunded from months and months back.

Well, I will be donating as much as I can scrape together this month to make up for those who are resorting to such nonsense. Who's with me?

* My words*

Have we become so imature, selfish and politicaly unethical that if we don't get what we want we vote outside of everything we believe in? Remove our support and donations? How is it "a win" if your losing big time? That being the case self distruct on your own. Don't try and bring Obama down with you. In my eyes you were never truly for his vision, positins or policies to begin with. Real Obama supporters, please stand up against those looking to destroy us from within for thier own selfish short sited agendas!

I'm utterly appauled by adults who act like children and refuse to compromise on an issue that isn't even on the list most effecting Americans today. Is this FISA bill going to put gas in my car, food on the table, keep me employed, bring down the cost of health care, bring home our troops? NO! Has anyone even read it in full or is everyone just jumpin on the "I hate Obama because he isn't doing what "I" want him to do toaday" band wagon?!

While you guys are throwing meaningless hissy fits McCain is chummin in up in Colombia with known terrorist sypothysers, deafulting on taxes he hasn't paid in three years on one of seven properties he owns, while doing another one of his famous flip flops on his ability to know somethig about how to run an economy; let alone managing his wife's hundreds of thousdand dollar spending sprees. I think your frustration is way off base. Get back on message and take your drama to your local congressman...it's their fault...oh wait they are on vacation...

Why Obama?

Molly W. — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:58:22 EDT

Many people are neutral on the upcoming election. And they all ask why Obama? Why someone with so little experience to which I say; first off experience has nothing to do with it. Kennedy became our president when he had just over the experience Obama has. He is known as one of the best presidents this country ever had.

Secondly John McCain goes up there and supports George W. Bush. The man who drove this country into the ground. And those of you who believe he didn't I will say this, 7.7 trillion dollars(in DEBT). No the figure isn't even in the billions anymore it's now in the trillions. I didn't even know that trillion was an actual number because when it gets that high it's hard to tell which ones are actual numbers and which ones preschoolers made up for emphasis. On top of that he supports the war in Iraq. And when he gives us updates on the war he so blindly supports, he smiles. He can't even fake depression that we are in this war or he doesn't know what he's saying and that is pretty scary. Lastly, I still can't get over the fact that when told the towers were going down on September 11th, he stayed with the toddlers reading picture books. Don't believe me? There's VIDEOS of him sitting there being told and staying there after being told. And McCain still supports him and wants to keep Bush's morals at heart.

Next off, the war in Iraq. I read somewhere that the war has a 19% support rate. People are constantly protesting, and yet McCain goes up there with every intention to keep the war going in his own words and I quote, "make it 100 years", "that's fine with me." FINE. He didn't say that sounds logical, or practical, no that's fine. I'm sorry that just bugs me, it sounds like he was saying "cheese on my burger sounds just FINE thanks." Like he's just going with the flow and the fate of this country wouldn't be in his hands if he won.

Faith can't be used as a wedge nor patriotism a bludgeon in the words of Obama himself at the second rally in MN to which I attended. Faith cannot be used to deny the right of scientists to develop in their research. Nor can it be used to discriminate against gay people, and deny them the right to marry and get the same rights as others. Because that my friend is prejudice and when you are prejudice that means you are willing to go to cruel lengths to be sure that the chosen group doesn't get their rights.

Last but not least I would like to say that to anyone who has a problem with Obama swearing in on the Koran(though he did not and it was a rumor)go out and learn some respect for other religions, because people with other religions can in fact be trusted.

And for all the Obama supporters who can vote but aren't registered, please register. Go out and make a difference in the world( as Obama would say: I'm not asking you just to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about change in Washington...I'm asking you to believe in yours.)But on this note I would like to sign off with one of my favorite quotes and then I will say bye.
Quote:
"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war".

Bye everyone (:

'Change' (yeah right): voting for FISA makes you one of the bad guys

no one — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:52:00 EDT

Don't get me wrong I still respect Obama for taking the high road on a lot of things in his campaign, but voting for FISA and promising Change that gives us back our rights don't mix - it's either one or the other.

This makes me wonder: so what is Obama all about- making false promises you can't keep, like every other Washington insider (of course there are good exceptions like Kucinich, R Paul, Dodd, Wexler, and Feingold); or actually delivering on Hope?

FISA Cave-in to Bush

Citizen — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 02:21:15 EDT

From “The Nation” June 20, 2008

Surveillance Bill: The Worst of All Worlds

“The bill is worse than granting absolute immunity: it is an effort to suborn the legitimacy of the federal courts by having a judge rubber-stamp the dismissal of cases against the telecoms without looking at the substance of what, in fact, was done. It reduces the separation of powers to a check-the-box exercise.”

(As to future surveillance programs):

“the bill then installs judicial review of such collection efforts--but the courts will not examine the actual surveillance programs, let alone individual cases of surveillance. Again, the bill interposes a certification requirement between the court and the facts.”

“This is a radical break from the FISA regime created in 1978, and risks severe harm to Americans' privacy interests. The most important break with FISA is the absence of any individualized warrant requirement: it is now whole collection programs that are authorized and reviewed. And the abandonment of discrete, individualized legislative authorization and judicial review is only the first of the bill's troubling features. “

The Covenant of a Nation

Adam Z — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:54:40 EDT

A nation is most easily defined as a diverse mass of people whom identify with each other based on various traits they share in common; language, religion, history, or like of a certain cheese. A pact is made amongst the individuals that they will provide for the protection of all the other members of that nation. Many, if not most, may not live up to that pact, and it may be very loosely defined what protection they will provide. But, nations whose people take active leadership, and whose leaders clearly define what protections they will provide, these are the nations that stand the test of time.

When the people of a nation stop directing the course of their own destiny, and their governments don’t provide them with the freedom to do so, their ability to keep pace with the other nations begins to decline. Many times as this happens, people begin to lose hope and give up their engagement, relying on the fear mongers to protect them from their perceived threats. And the cycle further progresses with more people losing hope and giving up leadership. One of the first pacts a nation should make is in making sure its citizens have the ability and desire to bring about the better world they crave.

This is what our nation did when they created our constitution. We were given the freedom to engage each other, to protect ourselves and our property, and to insure fair legal practices. Though there were things left out, or even not thought of that should have been in it, the constitution was a protection never seen in the world before. It assured that this nation would allow its people to stand up for themselves and actively promote a better world.

Over time, zealots and autocrats found ways to rework the system to benefit themselves. And though we have pushed them back time and again, we need once again to battle back the forces of tyranny. Nobody is content nor do they trust their government. And voting rates are almost worthless. It Is being said that it is time for change. But the change that is needed most is for the people to regain their power to lead themselves.

Adam E Zandarski

Why I'm Here and What I Want

Detroit Wobbly — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:58:45 EDT

Greetings, all!

I'm pleased to be here, and look forward to meeting many of you, online and in our communities.

First, congratulations to Senator Obama on being the "presumptive" nominee (when can we just say "nominee"?). Why anyone would want this job, given the gigantic pile of garbage we have to clean up after 28 years of conservative rule, I'm not sure. But props to him for his willingness to tackle it.

I want to be clear about something. While I support Senator Obama for President, my policy preferences tend to be much more libertarian/left than he is. I don't hold this against him; I understand that "official" American politics is much more conservative than in other countries (see the chart at www.politicalcompass.org), and in fact, more conservative than most American citizens (see this poll from the good people at PIPA).

My point is that I'm not here because I think he's the end-all, be-all of America. I'm not here because I love his speeches (although the man absolutely DOMINATES that stage, surpassed only by Michelle Obama). I'm not here because I have faith in the Democratic Party or liberals (as the saying goes, Democrats are "10 degrees to the left of center when times are good, 20 degrees to the right of center when it threatens their interests").

I'm here because our country is in shambles. Because wages and salaries have been stagnant or declined since 1970. Because our courts are increasingly acting on behalf of the elite, and not the people. Because Americans have little or no control over their economy. Because education is obsolete at the K-12 level, and unaffordable at the college level. Because our foreign policy is imperialistic and profit-driven. Because workers lack the basic human right of association - the right to organize.

I'm here because while one person can't fix all of these things, a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate will make it much easier for us to make these things happen. Every great change in American history, every expansion of democracy came not because our leaders woke up one day and decided, benevolently, to expand or protect our rights - it happened because we the people organized and struggled and MADE it happen. The greatest changes were in the 1930s and the 1960s, and it's no coincidence that Democrats controlled the government during both periods. It's easier for progressive citizens to get something done under Democrats than under Republicans.

With Obama in the White House, our job as citizens becomes a lot easier. That's why I'm here.

Focus on the Issues

Ben Everhart — Sat, 10 May 2008 11:48:14 EDT

Today I was browsing through comments on a CNN article about Hillary's lead in West Virginia. Naturally I expected Obama's supporters to say something unfavorable about the article and Hillary's supporters to rally around it. What I did not expect, however, was how poorly the Obama supporters conducted themselves. There were a lot of comments about how West Virginia does not matter, how the people there are rednecks, idiots, racists, etc. After about a page or two of that the Hillary supporters started changing away from comments about the article and towards comments about Obama supporters and their actions. They started posting at how such comments pushed them away and made them want to vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination. Honestly, after reading those posts, I can't blame them.

This campaign is supposed to be about change. We support this campaign because we want to change the way politics are done in this country. The core of that change is focusing on the issues instead of using smear tactics and dirty politics. We want our candidates to start looking at the big picture and not just focus on one state, one demographic but ALL states and ALL demographics. Yes, that change has to occur amongst the candidates but that change has to occur amonst ourselves as well. We cannot talk about how great it is for Obama to focus on the issues while we ourselves focus on degrading Hillary Clinton and her supporters.

One thing Barack Obama would never say is that ANY American's vote doesn't count. Whether a citizen is voting for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain or anyone else they wish to vote for their vote counts and their opinion matters. That is what this country is about. I do not support Hillary and I have the right not to support her but to claim that right I cannot deny the right of Hillary supporters to vote for her and not support Barack Obama. One of us may be making a bad decision. Neither a Clinton supporter nor an Obama supporter believes that they are the one making the mistake, otherwise they wouldn't continue in their support. However, that does not make either one an idiot, a racist, a sexist, or what have you. They may very well be one or all of those things but it simply is not logical to draw that opinion JUST on which candidate one supports and it isn't fair or nice to do so.

So please, if you are a Barack Obama supporter be mindful of what you say and what you do. Look at the big picture beyond winning the primary and even beyond winning the general election. We want to change politics not just for this election but PERMANENTLY so that our nation will stop being about hatred and start being about improving the lives of all American citizens.

After he wins...

Joshua from New York, NY — Thu, 08 May 2008 13:54:41 EDT

This story is pretty amazing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-stoller/obamas-consolidation-of-t_b_100783.html

Obama's campaign is a strong piece of political infrastructure in its own right, able to positively influence elections on a national scale.

But here's a question which goes right to the heart of what this movement is about: How is the Obama campaign planning to mobilize this network after he is elected beyond soliciting more donations? How will these new networks be used to enhance our democracy?

I am tired of political emails asking me more for money. What I want to do is to be able to contribute meaningfully to political goals I believe in. That is not about money. That's about discussion, debate, organizing. It's about inspiration and change and hope.

Other politicians might be licking their lips at the torrents of funding coming their way from Obama's campaign but that is precisely what repels me. What this 1.5 million strong needs to be is a force for change after the election not just a cow to milk.

I am new to the Obama campaign and I recently gave a modest amount...my first time ever for a political campaign. So I'm wondering what the community is thinking about where this is all going. What happens after November? Remember, Obama has said this is about us not him. We are electing the President of the United States who has extraordinary powers by himself. He isn't going to have 1.5 million co-presidents. What are we going to do keep Obama's ear once he's in the White House? I think I can trust Obama to listen but I also know never to take this for granted. We the people need a critical, skeptical and active relation to whoever is in power. We need to develop our voices and take advantage of our hard won rights. This is the only way the Bush legacy can be healed.

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.

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

Barack is right! We ARE bitter.

Wendy — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:09:00 EDT

He is absolutely correct!!!! He should not feel bad about what he said at all, it is true.

There are NO jobs in Michigan (especially for people over 50). I'm trying to live on $700 a month & it's not working. Will probably end up losing my home within the next couple of years as I won't be able to pay my property taxes.

People are turning to guns and religion. Heck, . . . if we don't watch out, our right to bear arms will soon be taken away. The Bush administration has been using fear to take our rights away.

The auto companies can't seem to figure out why no one is buying their cars. . . . . well, . . . . since the "free trade" agreements, all our jobs have been "traded" overseas in exchange for cheap goods.

This system is going to collapse. Why ARE we allowed to purchase goods from communist China, but not Cuba?

Bring our jobs back home!

The U.S. has always imported more than it has exported (not a good system). It's about time our government realized this and did something about it.

How many millions can the Bush and Clinton families spend in a lifetime?

I would settle for just being able to pay my bills and buy food.

OBAMA ADDRESSES the ALLIANCE for AMERICAN MANUFACTURING

Jill 4 Obama — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:35:32 EDT

Obama Addresses the Alliance for American Manufacturing

PITTSBURGH, PA — Senator Obama delivered remarks to the Alliance for American Manufacturing today in Pittsburgh, PA.

Senator Obama’s remarks follow as prepared for delivery.

Remarks for Senator Barack Obama

Alliance for American Manufacturing

Monday, April 14, 2008

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Being here in Pennsylvania with the primary coming up, I know that politics is what’s on a lot of people’s minds. But as I look out at this crowd, I also know that being here isn’t just about politics for me. It’s personal. Because it reminds me why I entered public service in the first place.

As some of you might know, after college, I went to work as a community organizer for a group of churches on the South Side of Chicago. The job was to help lift communities that had been devastated when the local steel plants fell on hard times. Thousands of folks had been laid off and some plants were closing down. And I can still remember the first time I saw a shuttered steel mill.

It was late in the afternoon and I took a drive with another organizer over to the old Wisconsin Steel plant on the southeast side of Chicago . Some of you may know it. And as we drove up, I saw a sight that’s probably familiar to some of you. I saw a plant that was empty and rusty. And behind a chain-link fence, I saw weeds sprouting up through the concrete, and an old mangy cat running around. And I thought about all the good jobs it used to provide, and all the kids who used to work there in the summer to make some extra money for college.

What I came to understand was that when a plant shuts down, it’s not just the workers who pay a price, it’s the whole community. I saw folks who felt like their government wasn’t looking out for them and who had given up hope. So I worked with unions and the city government, and we brought the community together to fight for its common future. We gave job-training to the jobless and hope to the hopeless, and block by block, we helped turn those neighborhoods around.

More than twenty years later, as I’ve traveled across Pennsylvania , and West Virginia , and Ohio , and all across this country, I’m still seeing too many places where plants have closed down and where folks are feeling like they’re not getting a fair shot at life, like their dreams are slipping further out of reach. And that’s partly because of the same kinds of global economic pressures that led steel plants in Chicago to close down in the 1980s.

But it’s also because George Bush has pursued policies that don’t work for working Americans. In recent years, we’ve seen more than 3 million high-quality manufacturing jobs disappear, and more than 40,000 factories close down. And more often than not, the few jobs that are being created pay less than the ones we’re losing and come without health insurance or a pension, which makes it even harder for families to feel secure about their future.

But we also know this is a problem that goes beyond the failures of George Bush – because for decades, through both Democratic and Republican administrations, we’ve seen the number of American-owned steel companies dwindle down. For decades, our economic policies have been written to pump up a corporate bottom line, rather than promote what’s right, without any consideration for the burden we all bear when workers are abused or the environment is destroyed.

It’s an outrage, but it’s not an accident – because corporate lobbyists in Washington are writing our laws and putting their clients’ interests ahead of what’s fair for the American people. The men and women you represent haven’t been getting a seat at the table when trade agreements are being negotiated, or tax policies are being written, or health care and pension laws are being designed because the special interests have bought every chair.

That’s not the America I believe in. That’s not the America you believe in. And that’s why when I’m President, we’ll make sure Washington serves nobody’s interests but the people’s.

You know, there’s been a lot of talk in this campaign lately about who’s “in touch” with the workers of Pennsylvania. Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are singing from the same hymn book, saying that I'm “out of touch” – an “elitist” – because I said a lot of folks are bitter about their economic circumstances.

Now it may be that I chose my words badly. It wasn't the first time and it won't be the last. But when I hear my opponents, both of whom have spent decades in Washington , saying I'm out of touch, it's time to cut through their rhetoric and look at the reality.

After all, you've heard this kind of rhetoric before. Around election time, the candidates can’t do enough for you. They'll “promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer.

But if those same candidates are taking millions of dollars in contributions from the PACs and lobbyists, ask yourself, who are they going to be toasting once the election is over?

I’m the only candidate who doesn’t take money from corporate PACs and lobbyists, and I’m here to tell you that you can count on me to stand up for you after this election, just as I’ve been standing up for workers all my life. That’s why I’m running for President of the United States.

Senator Clinton and Senator McCain question my respect for the workers of Pennsylvania . Well, let me tell you how I believe you demonstrate your respect. You do it by telling the truth and keeping your word, so folks can know that where you stand today is where you'll stand tomorrow.

The truth is, trade is here to stay. We live in a global economy. For America’s future to be as bright as our past, we have to compete. We have to win.

Not every job that has left is coming back. And not every job lost is due to trade –automation has made plants more efficient so they can make the same amount of steel with few workers. These are the realities.

I also don't oppose all trade deals. I voted for two of them because they have the worker and environmental agreements I believe in. Some of you disagreed with me on this but I did what I thought was right.

That's the truth. But let me tell you what else I believe in:

For America to win, American workers have to win, too. If CEO pay keeps rising, while the standard of living for their workers continues to decline, that’s not a win for America .

That’s why I opposed NAFTA, it’s why I opposed CAFTA, and it’s why I said any trade agreement I would support had to contain real, enforceable standards for workers.

That’s why I believe the Permanent Normalized Trade agreement with China didn’t do enough to ensure fairness and compliance.

Now, you can have a debate about whether my position is right or wrong. But here’s what you can’t do. You can’t spend the better part of two decades campaigning for NAFTA and PNTR for China , and then come here to Pennsylvania , and tell the steelworkers you’ve been with them all along. You can't say you are opposed to the Columbia Trade deal, while your key strategist is working for the Columbian government to get the deal passed.

That’s not respect. That’s just more of the same old Washington politics. And we can’t afford more of the same.

We need real change, and that’s what I’m offering. I’m offering a new, more transparent and more inclusive path on trade so we can help promote an integrated global economy where the costs and benefits are distributed more equitably. And it starts with a principle I’ve always believed in – that trade should work for all Americans.

That’s why we need to finally confront the issue of trade with China . As I’ve said before, America and the world can benefit from trade with China . But trade with China will only be good for you if China itself plays by the rules and acts as a positive force for balanced world growth.

Seeing the living standards of the Chinese people improve is a good thing – good because we want a stable China , and good because China can be a powerful market for American exports. But too often, China has been competing in ways that are tilting the playing field.

It’s not just that China is following the path taken by so many other countries before it, and dumping goods into our market while not opening their own markets, something I’ve spoken out against. It’s not just that they’re violating intellectual property rights. They’re also grossly undervaluing their currency, and giving their goods yet another unfair advantage. Each year they’ve had the chance, the Bush administration has failed to do anything about this. That’s unacceptable. That’s why I co-sponsored the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act. And that’s why as President, I’ll use all the diplomatic avenues open to me to insist that China stop manipulating its currency.

We also have to make sure that whatever goods we’re importing are safe for our families. We all saw the harm that was caused by lead toys from China that were reaching our store shelves. A few months ago, when I called for a ban on any toys that have more than a trace amount of lead, an official at China ’s foreign ministry said I was being “unobjective, unreasonable, and unfair.” But I don’t think protecting our children is “unreasonable” – I think it’s our obligation as parents and as Americans.

When it comes to trade, there's no one-size-fits-all approach. If countries are committed to reciprocity, if they are abiding by basic rules of the road, then we should welcome trade. Many poor countries need access to our markets and pose no threat to our workers.

But what all trade agreements I negotiate as President will have in common is that they'll all put American workers first. We won't ignore violence against union organizers in Columbia , or the non-tariff barriers that keep U.S. cars out of South Korea .

And we won’t just negotiate fair trade agreements, we’ll make sure they’re being fully enforced. George Bush has been far too slow to press American rights. That’s an outrage. When our trading partners sign an agreement with the Obama administration, you can trust that we’ll hold them to it.

Now, if we’re serious about standing up for American workers around the world, we also have to fight for you here at home. That means passing universal health care and making sure every American has insurance you can take with you even if you lose your job, and that a college degree is within reach, even if you’re not rich – because all our children should have the skills to compete in the global economy.

And it also means protecting the rights of our workers. It’s time we had a President who didn’t choke saying the word “union.” We need to strengthen our unions by letting them do what they do best – organize our workers. If a majority of workers want a union, they should get a union, no matter whether they’re full-time, or part-time, or contract workers. And that is why I will fight for and why I intend to sign the Employee Free Choice Act when it lands on my desk in the White House.

Here’s what else I’ll do: we’ll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I’ve been working on since I got to the Senate – so we can stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, and start giving them to companies that create good jobs with decent wages here in America.

And to those who think that the decline in American manufacturing is inevitable; or that manufacturing has no place in a 21st century economy; we say right here and right now that the fight for manufacturing’s future is the fight for America’s future. And that’s why we’ll modernize our steel industry, strengthen our entire domestic manufacturing base, and open as many markets as we can to American manufactured goods when I’m President.

We’ll also make necessary long-term investments in job-growth. Back in the 1950’s, Americans were put to work building the Interstate Highway system and that helped expand the middle class in this country. We need to show the same kind of leadership today. That’s why I’ve called for a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years and generate millions of new jobs. We can’t keep standing by while our roads and bridges and airports crumble and decay. We can’t keep running our economy on debt. For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America .

And we need to invest in green technology. We can’t keep sending billions of dollars to foreign nations because of our addiction to oil. We should be investing in American companies that invest in American-manufactured solar panels and windmills, and in clean coal technology. That’s why I’ve proposed investing $150 billion over the next ten years in the green energy sector. This will create up to five million new American jobs – and those are jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced. That’s a promise that we are making not just to this generation of Americans, but to the next generation of Americans. And that’s why this will be a priority in my administration.

Now, I know some will say we can’t afford all this. But let me just say this – if we can spend $10 billion a month rebuilding Iraq, we can spend $15 billion a year in our own country to put Americans back to work and strengthen the long-term competitiveness of our economy.

So make no mistake - the American people have a choice in this election. We can talk about our economic problems with trade all we want, but unless we change the broken system in Washington , nothing else is going to change. We can talk all we want about respecting workers and their way of life, but unless we have a President you can trust to listen and put working Americans first, nothing is really going to change.

And you can trust me. Because politics didn’t lead me to working folks; working folks led me to politics. I was standing with American workers on the streets of Chicago twenty years ago, and the reason I’m here today is because I don’t want to wake up one day many years from now and see that our companies are still getting hurt because foreign governments are still bending or breaking the rules, or that we’re still standing idly by while American jobs get shipped overseas, or that we still haven't made the investments in infrastructure and in training our workers that we desperately need.

The reason I’m here today is because I know what it’s like to go to college on student loans, and see a mother get sick and worry that maybe she can’t pay the bills. I know what it’s like to have to scratch and work and claw to build a better life for your family. And I don’t want to wake up many years from now and find that the American dream is still out of reach for too many Americans.

The reason I’m here today is because I believe that if we can just put an end to the politics of division and distraction, and reclaim that sense that we all have a stake in each other, that we rise and fall as one nation; if we can just unite this country around a common purpose – black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American; labor and management; Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – there’s no obstacle we cannot overcome, no destiny we cannot fulfill.

That’s the fundamental truth I learned on the streets of Chicago . That’s the idea at the heart of your Alliance for Manufacturing. And that’s the opportunity we have in this election. There is a moment in the life of every generation where that spirit of unity and hopefulness has to come through if we’re going to make our mark on history. This is our moment. This is our time. And if you will march with me, and organize with me, if you vote for me, then I promise you this: We will not just win this Democratic Nomination, we will win the general election and then together – you and I – we’re going to change this country, and we’re going to change this world. Thank you.

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

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.

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.

Barack Obama On Women's Rights

Jill 4 Obama — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:23:58 EDT

Barack Obama on WOMEN’S RIGHTS- Barack Obama is dedicated to improving the lives of women. Pay Equity- Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar men make. Barack Obama believes the government needs to better enforce the Equal Pay Act, fight job discrimination, and improve child care options and family medical leave to give women equal footing in the workplace. Small Business- Women are majority owners of more than 28 percent of U.S. businesses, but head less than 4 percent of venture-capital-backed firms. Obama encourages investing in women-owned businesses, providing more support to women business owners, and reducing discrimination in lending. Reproductive Choice- Obama supports a woman’s right to choose. He has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as president. Obama also supports expanded access to contraception, health information and preventive services to reduce unintended pregnancies. Preventing Violence Against Women- Obama introduced legislation to combat domestic violence by providing $25 million a year for partnerships between domestic violence prevention organizations and fatherhood or marriage programs. Obama also cosponsored and helped reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Education- Obama will fight to protect Title IX and make sure women have equal educational opportunities from pre-kindergarten through college. Fixing the Nation’s Health Care System- Obama is committed to ensuring that all Americans, including the 19 million women who don’t have insurance today, have health care coverage by the end of his first term in office. Obama is an original co-sponsor of Johanna’s Law, which will educate women and increase awareness of ovarian cancer, and has supported efforts to combat breast cancer. He also introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against HIV/AIDS. (ACTION- Issues)

Binding Arbitration Clauses vs. Class Action Lawsuits: Debate thread.

EMK — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:40:31 EDT

Apparently, AT&T is fighting the courts to keep a class-action lawsuit from being brought concerning their phone policies.

Here is the link to the article.

The cause of the issue is quoted below:

The nonprofit public advocacy group Public Justice is asking a federal court to set aside a provision in old AT&T wireless contracts that prevents consumers from banding together and filing class action lawsuits against the company. The future of class-action lawsuits might be at stake.

The 22 million customers of AT&T Wireless were given a Hobson's choice in 2004 when the firm was acquired by Cingular, according to Public Justice. The advocacy group says consumers had three bad options after the merger:
Continue using their old phones and face a new $5 monthly fee and degraded service; switch to Cingular and pay an upgrade fee; or cancel their service and pay a $175 early-termination fee.

What about other arbitration clauses? Consumer rights?

EMK