Posts with the tag violence

Generation Wipe Out? By Cristina Hamilton

BudnCris09 — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 09:01:52 EDT

After reading up on murders of children that happened in the past two weeks alone, I am wondering how can we change this. I got several Tweets and updates from Kandi former member of the female singing group Escape. Her family has been hit with a tragedy that may have been intentional not to mention she is also remembering her brother who she lost in high school.

I got a call this morning from Phillip O'Barry Academy just as I was leaving to take my son to school and the other end the recording said "hi parents we are calling to inform you of a death of one our students" this young man died Friday 10/2/2009 due to complications from an enlarged heart, he was on the wrestling team and an honor student. My, I send his parents my condolences.

What can we do? Just recently a man was charged right here in North Carolina for kidnapping and molesting his two adopted daughters one of which was pregnant. What can we do people? Our community needs attention, our children are crying out for our affection. Then almost two weeks ago a pregnant fifteen year old was shot and killed at the bus stop waiting to go to school. Now she is gone her child left with no mother. People we got to make some major adjustments.

I think about the mother of the Chicago honor student, Kevin Miller, who was beaten and killed by four other teens and we still don't know or understand the motive. Why are our children so angry? Then just yesterday a 13 year old was shot and killed at a car wash in Queens, NY. He was also a honor student, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and now he is gone, another statistic that won't make to see 25. What can we do people? As parents, friends, teachers, mentors. We have to find a solution. We are losing our children at alarming rates, and the world just continues to move as if there is nothing wrong. Our current condition needs serious recognition.

In God We Trust! Bring him back into our schools. Allow our children to pray. Teach our children to befriend one another, teach our children to look out for one another. Change starts from within our children micmic what they see on TV, hear on the radio and what they learn at home and in school. We have the power to change this people. I challenge you all to promote positive change! Starting today!!

Click the links below to follow some of the stories on the killings I mentioned;

http://globalgrind.com/content/1041313/UPDATE-Kevins-Family-Needs-Our-Support-For-His-Funeral/

http://hellobeautiful.com/your-world/exclusive-kandi-speaks-on-death-of-fiance-aj/

http://globalgrind.com/content/1034001/Minister-Farrakhan-On-Derrion-quotA-Special-Young-Manquot/

http://globalgrind.com/content/1022209/LITTLEMISSDIVASWORLD-Chicago-Teen-Derrion-Albert/

http://globalgrind.com/content/1035225/He-Has-A-Name-KevinMiller-13-Year-Old-Shot-In-Head/

Violence Is A Dead End

Khaidji — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:40:42 EDT

What ever we do, if we are to be on the path to world peace, equal rights or more civic unity then the answer is not violence. Wars were fought years ago to settle any differences or misunderstandings between groups of people with conflicting beliefs and loyalties. We have in history a war fought because of something as trivial as an ear. President Barack Obama in his speech at Cairo today demonstrated the many similarities in people who think themselves so different. Why then are we fighting? And if we are destined for progress why choose violence? Violence is a Dead End.

Violence Is A Dead End

Very many listened from many countries too

I watched as again he sculpted history in his Cairo debut

Obama is never surprising but my admiration grows

Learning each time the wisdom of what he knows

Experience is a great teacher but faith is best

No doctrine has every superseded its test

Countries in their pursuit of freedom and rights

Exterminate other countries in brutal fights

Islam and Christianity have similar belief

So why do these religions sustain so much grief

As a young boy in Indonesia where people were predominately Muslim

Didn’t prohibit the Christian few from their worship, didn’t stop him

Even though he was but a boy he fully understood

A people shouldn’t be stopped when their values are good

Do on to others as you would have that they do onto you

Explains the paths of these religions and there are others too

No future lies ahead when religions are identified by cruel trend

Defined by bloodshed, not when Violence Is A Dead End!

Get an easy Download or a Hardcopy of
” Path To The White House”
Acrostic Poetry on Barack Obama
By Khaidji
The Bajan Poetry Society

NIHILISM, WILL WORDS ALWAYS BRING YOU TO

caring_independent — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:17:06 EDT

does fear of flying or death take us there
to know life older than any witness
and now past, may have eyes forseen our dare
to greedily seek for our uniqueness
once tearing free from our primitive root
more fragile than the tree, to think and will
could humanity take us from dispute
or will violence feed us our fatal pill?

concern not for another's attendance
who keeps to assuage intellectual pride
as captains map amoral contrivance
of right, but confess a just course abide
they'll speak with no doubt of true direction
while more, appeasing perceived mutinies
than terms imbibed in common religion
could we know truth from man's hypotheses?

coroners will define life from its death
and vision life's divination by line
like rings of trees never reveal its breath
will Horus' eye remain bounded in trine
fingers and symbols just point back at you
like breath is not caught in your reflection
Nihilism, will words always bring you to
why, do we accept nothing over One?

Written 3/17/2009, Copyright ME Wilson

LAW ENFORCEMENT NEGLIGENCE IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MUST STOP! LED TO THE DEATH OF 2 BROTHERS IN ILLINOIS. PLEASE JOIN US IN THE CREATION OF "DUNCAN & JACK'S LAW" MOBILIZATION NEEDED

Please Help Missing Children — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:38:11 EDT

LinkedInMyra Spearman has sent you a message.

Date: 3/31/2009

Subject: CALL TO ACTION - PLEASE FORWARD

Hello Everyone: Today, I spoke with Illinois State Representative, Robert Pritchard. He is a long time proponent of abating domestic and family abuse. He needs to hear from everyone. I asked him to author legislation called, "Duncan and Jack Law" which would only allow "Supervised Visits" to non-custodial parents who have either
1). Violated Orders of Protection and/or
2). Received a Guilty Conviction stemming from domestic and or family violence.

Before ordering visitation, a judge needs to make sure that there was no abuse in the home. If abuse is determined, the non-custodial parent should either be granted Supervised Visitation or No Visitation Previlidges at all. Please email him and let him know that you're in support of this legislation or similiar legislation.

bob@pritchardstaterep.com
If you have something better to add please feel free... anything helps...

Duncan and Jack are the 2 little children that lost their lives this week at the hand of their father. You can read the story at:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/ news/local/chi-missing-boys-dead-31-...

Below is a copy of the letter I sent to the Illinois Rep. I'm going to be sending it to NYS as well.
There's not a Congressman, Senator, etc... that should say no to this.

Dear Sir:

I am creator and administrator of the web community Please Help Missing Children.
http://helpthesechildren.ning.com/

Sir, the loss of Jack and Duncan Connolly is beyond tragic. The actions of the law enforcement involved in this case was a detriment that led to their deaths. They did not take seriously the severity of their father's condition, nor did they act on the information they were given. The Amber Alert for the boys was far from long enough. This should NOT have happened. Had there been a law in effect designed to PROTECT our children in the event of a mentally ill parent, the deaths of Jack and Duncan may have been prevented.

PLEASE author legislation called, "Duncan and Jack Law" which would only allow "Supervised Visits" to non-custodial parents who have either

1). Violated Orders of Protection and/or
2). Received a Guilty Conviction stemming from domestic and or family violence.

Before ordering visitation, a judge needs to make sure that there was no abuse in the home. If abuse is determined, the non-custodial parent should either be granted Supervised Visitation or No Visitation Previlidges at all.

Someone that may be a strong supporter of this would be Congressman Gary Miller.

Sincerely
Kathryn Comstock
Administrator
Please Help Missing Children

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Diane Tikacs, a former neighbor of the Connolly family when they lived in Algonquin, signs a poster for Duncan Connolly at a memorial in the northwest suburb. The boys were killed by their father who then took his own life. (Tribune photo by Nuccio DiNuzzo / March 30, 2009)

BATTERED EXAMINING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

2 boys found dead; mom rips the courts
After 3-week search, boys are found dead with their dad in central Illinois; mother decries system that OKd unsupervised visits
By Jo Napolitano, Carolyn Starks and Joel Hood | Tribune reporters
March 31, 2009

Amy Leichtenberg worried this day would come, and she begged the judicial system to prevent it.

In court documents dating back to 2005, she detailed her estranged husband's threats against her family and fought unsuccessfully to keep him from having unsupervised visits with their two sons. Michael Connolly violated the orders of protection against him six times, police records said, and he often vowed to kill himself rather than be separated from the boys.

Connolly, 40, disappeared with Duncan, 9, and Jack, 7, on March 8, prompting a nationwide search. Their bodies were discovered Sunday near a Christmas tree farm in a remote area of Putnam County.

Police described the deaths as a double homicide and a suicide, but released few details about the killings. The boys' bodies were found in the back seat of their father's 1991 Dodge Dynasty, while Connolly's body was discovered about 60 yards away.
Leichtenberg declined to comment Monday, but she issued a statement lashing out at the judicial system that allowed Connolly unsupervised visits.

"No parent should have to bury their babies," she said. "Duncan and Jack, Mommy loves you to the heavens and back.

"I feel that the judicial system failed me," she said. "I pray that the courts listen to the warnings from other parents like me."

Though Connolly and Leichtenberg lived in northwest suburban Algonquin for several years, much of their bitter custody battle took place in LeRoy, a small town near Bloomington where Leichtenberg moved with the boys after ending her marriage. She received orders of protection against Connolly there, including a current order, barring him from contact with her.

Connolly, an unemployed pharmaceutical salesman, violated the order six times but was only charged with four misdemeanors between July 2006 and October 2007, McLean County State's Atty. William Yoder said. He met with Connolly for an hour a few months ago at Connolly's request and believed him to be "unbalanced," Yoder said.

He declined to discuss his office's specific involvement in the custody battle.

"This was a tragic event," Yoder said. "This had the worst possible outcome."

Police began a search for Connolly and the boys three weeks ago when he failed to return them after a scheduled visit. McLean Sheriff Mike Emery conceded there was a delay in the Amber Alert about the abduction, saying the department's initial attempt did not meet all of the criteria required for the notification. Pressed to discuss the delay, the sheriff said he would not criticize the investigation.

At LeRoy Elementary School, where Duncan was in 3rd grade and Jack was in 2nd, the brothers' desks had been left untouched since their disappearance. Blue and green ribbons, the boys' favorite colors, were tied to trees, and parents taped pictures of the missing brothers inside their car windshields.

"In small towns something like this affects the whole town, not just one pocket or one neighborhood," LeRoy Supt. Gary Tipsord said. "We had prepared for a lot of different outcomes, but I don't think any of us expected this."

Putnam County authorities discovered Connolly's car about 5 p.m. Sunday near a Christmas tree farm about 8 miles south of Hennepin. Police say they do not know of any connection between the family and the secluded site.

Police would not say how long the bodies had been there, if they suffered obvious injuries or whether a weapon was recovered.

Connolly's aunt, Joyce Connolly, said his family rarely saw him after the couple separated.

"I feel sorry for Michael," she said. "I know that sounds terrible, but he must have been so tormented."

Court records and police accounts portray Connolly as an abusive husband who tried to force Leichtenberg to stay in their marriage. He threatened to cut open her and her parents and once told Jack that he would find "a younger, prettier, nicer mama," according to court documents.

When Connolly sensed Leichtenberg was about to leave him in 2006, she said he pressured her to sign a paper giving him custody of the boys if they divorced. He also demanded his wife make a videotape in which she claimed to abuse her sons, Leichtenberg said. It's not clear she did either.

"He went into a rage again and told me if I didn't get home he would kill me. I went home, and he told me if I ever take his boys again he would hunt me down and kill me and my parents and cut us open," Amy Leichtenberg wrote in her petition for an emergency order of protection in July 2005 in McHenry County Circuit Court.

Neighbors realized something was wrong with the couple's marriage shortly after they moved into their Algonquin neighborhood in 2003. Friends described Connolly as "controlling" and "manipulative" toward his wife and sons. Leichtenberg often would use neighbors' telephones to call her parents because her husband didn't like her speaking with them.

"She could never live a normal life," former next-door neighbor Jim Gerardi said. "That's the sad part about it, because he was watching every single move she made."

While Connolly was out of town on a business trip in 2006, neighbors said they helped Leichtenberg pack her car, and she and the kids sought refuge at a domestic violence shelter.

Leichtenberg filed for divorce in May 2006 in McHenry Circuit Court. In her petition, she described hundreds of harassing phone messages her husband left for her and her family.

In the messages, Connolly outlined stipulations for the divorce: He wanted visitation with his sons alone and one day a week with Amy alone and promised not to hurt them, court documents said.

Leichtenberg withdrew the petition without explanation in December 2006. She returned to the family's home in Algonquin, but neighbors said she hid inside the house and rarely socialized after the reconciliation.

The couple separated again a short time later, and Leichtenberg moved to LeRoy, where a bitter custody battle ignited. She wrote in court documents in April 2007 that he had called her home and her cell at least 18 times.

In a Tribune interview after the boys disappeared, Leichtenberg said Connolly was granted unsupervised visitation rights in December. She said she begged the McLean judge to deny the request.

"All Michael would do is file his own motions, and the judge was basically tired of him and gave him what he wanted."

Tribune reporters Andrew L. Wang and Stacy St. Clair contributed to this report.

<a href="jnapolitano@tribune.com">jnapolitano@tribune.com</a>

<a href="cstarks@tribune.com">cstarks@tribune.com</a>

<a href="jhood@tribune.com">jhood@tribune.com</a>

<a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-missing-boys-dead-31-mar31,0,3316104.story?page=2">http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-missing-boys-dead-31-m...</a>

How we can revive the economy, and take gangs off the streets?

John from Milwaukee, WI — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:55:00 EST

The epidemic proportions of the drug problem in younger people are in direct correlation of the strict laws against alcohol. Alcohol is sold only by licensed merchants that require strict identification to purchase their products. When is the last time you saw an alcohol "dealer" on the corner? I'll give you a hint, it was just before prohibition was repealed. Young people who no longer have access to alcohol are turning to other more accessible drugs. The so called drug problem in this country is not because of the drugs themselves, but the laws that make them so lucrative to unscrupulous persons who are willing to do anything to sell their product. If drugs were legalized they would be regulated, keeping them out of the hands of children. PS A's could be aired on the dangers of harder drugs. Not to mention they could be taxed! Imagine this, a pack of cigarettes cost under a dollar to produce but often cost over $5 to purchase. Where does the extra $4+ go? TAXES! If drugs were legalized it would take drug dealers off the streets, squash dangerous gangs that thrive on illegal drug money, take them out of the hands of kids, and could pay for this "bail out" with the tax revenue in under 5 years. Not to mention creating jobs to make, distribute, and advertize different products. To me Sir it really seems like a no brainer. The likes of Al Capone in the 30's, Frank Lucas in the 70's, and Pablo Escobar in the 80's, made millions due to illegal drugs. I'm quite positive there are drug dealers still making millions that just haven't been caught yet. Prohibition didn't work then and it obviously doesn't work now. I hope that one day there won't be a drug problem in this country, but unfortunately that wont happen until it is properly distributed by licensed merchants.

"Marijuana" is NOT the proper name for Cannabis. Marijuana is a Mexican slang word for "weed". The use of the term was widely popularized in the 30's during the attempts to oust Mexican laborers who were taking American jobs in the depression. Please take note of this and stop using this derogatory term.

Rochester Youth Means Change

Sun, 04 Jan 2009 15:24:00 EST

Lets get started.

Violence in Boston !!

young lady who supports Obama and his dream — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:36:48 EST

I believe that with Obama the senceless violence going on will evidently stop. In my oppinion viloence is a serious thing that is going on in Boston, MA. The violence that has happened is the cause to my family's miseries. I lost my brother, Franklin Monteiro, to the senceless violence 4 years ago on November 7, 2004. To this day we still havn't found the person who killed him but I know that one day we will get justice. Violence is why I fear to go down my street without getting shoot. I can not get killed because of the violence because I am the oldest now and I have to be here for my mother. I know many people who would agree with me when I say that violence affects many of our lives and does not allow us to live our lives peacefully. What do you guys think about the violence going on in Boston, MA [ well mainly Dorchester, Boston ] ??!!??

-Ariana Depina

mobile phone corruption

Unknown user — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 07:01:49 EST

When one quarter of the computers are invectid by a virus the problems are so big you can't solve them without beeing angry!

When you get angry people will react in a way which is very predictable and will make mistakes again!

Thisis a way you can solve new corruption because corruption per defenition goes with terror, this is right wing terror!!

When you underestimate the terror you can't win this war against computercorruption!

It's gigantic and will go into history as a total human madness, sorry if you see me laughing.

Afghanistan - "the fierce urgency of now"

Charles from Royal Oak, MI — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:03:39 EST

Barack Obama often borrows from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. when he speaks of "the fierce urgency of now". In the following article the author looks at another of Dr. King's inspirational passages. Based on Dr. King's guidance, the author makes a case for U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/10-3

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

anti-american vs. pro-american violence

Kaz — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:33:44 EDT

Dear Barack supporters,
I have been really freaked out about the hate and hate speech that has surfaced in the last two weeks. Today, things have gotten more violent. We need leadership NOW. Questions about Obama's character and race, etc. have been thrown out there by McCain/Palin. Who answers those questions? McCain and Palin. The silent response, to what many Americans may think are legitamite concerns, is quickly filled by the media.

   A leader is going to have to put politics aside and treat ALL American's questions as legit, no matter how backwards, ignorant etc. the questions may be. It not only educates many people, but it also shows great respect for all American's. Not responding, like Gore and Kerry did, is because of a dated democrat party standard: we are above such pettiness. This is a patroning stance we can not afford. This is an opportunity to talk to all Americans, the so called ignorant ones and the elite ones! A more perfect chance, to reach the so-called hillbilly Americans, we may not get again. Not responding immediately and definatively, aids the speculation that is advanced through the media and undermines our unity and focus.
   I have never experienced this much incendiary hate speech in an election before, so I am looking to my community, which affects my response. Democrats, please find a new way to respond to smear tactics and outright lies, a way that actually works. I'm tired of republican rule and the old school, rise above tactic, has simply never worked. There are more than two ways to campaign. Where are our leaders?
   I also want to address the growing violence. This is a decisive moment for all humanity. Please do not resort to any unlawful acts. And please report all unlawful acts, even if you may think, oh, it's just a yard sign stolen. If you do not report unlawful acts, even if you think they are minor, you are in fact stealing evidence that could be used in a legitamite way. Yes, it's a pain in the butt, but every little things adds to our case in our fight against corruption in politics.
For example, if I recieved a vague complaint from a customer about my employee, I'd take it seriously and keep my eyes open. The second and third time I recieved a complaint about the same employee, I'd have to consider termination, even if the complaints were vague. Okay, maybe not after the second complaint. My point is that it often takes multiple examples of proof, the result of multiple pieces of evidence, to make a strong case. You never know when or where that evidence may be needed. The actual reporting of crimes, both petty and grand, if God forbid we need it, may be as great a contribution to democracy as a donation. Please report all unlawful acts relating to support of Obama, and pass on the message to your friends, family and communities.
   If you would like to investigate further, I have added these examples of the violence I am refering to, please read, they will shock you into action.

Oh! Get out the vote!

These are in response to a report that a McCain supporter was attacked by an Obama supporter.

"I Have a house full of firearms. I have a Weatherby 270, two 22 cal rifles, three shotguns “12 and 20 gauge” and a glock model 30 45 cal I carry everywhere. I have a conceal carry permit. Trust me, these obamatons are nothing but thugs and thives and crack whores. They are also weak liberal homosexual white men and lazy entitlement minded white women. Obama will lose on 11/4. The Joe the Plumber revelation which exposed Obama for the socialist he is will be his undoing. I plan on being loaded up after 11/4 and in prtection mode. I expect the blacks to riot because of ocurse they are all animals. Let them riot. I am not afraid. Big mistake to attack me is all I can say."

"unfortunately WallMart doesn't sell guns anymore otherwise. Otherwise I would buy one."

"My advice is, go to WalMart and buy a gun. Regardless of who wins this election trouble is going to erupt,particularly in urban areas.Don’t carry it around with you like some nut but keep it in your home in a secure place and learn how to use it to protect yourself and your family. Here in Baltimore the natives are already getting restless and agitated."

"God forbid Barak Hussein Obama becomes our president. If so it will only encourage these haters into more violence!"

"In all honesty - I’m afraid to have my Obama sign in my yard."

"The Obama campaign is the dirtiest and most racist in history."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-supporter-assaults-female-mccain-volunteer-in-new-york/2/

"In an television appearance that outraged Democrats are already describing as Joseph McCarthy politics, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann claimed on Friday that Barack Obama and his wife Michelle held anti-American views and couldn't be trusted in the White House. She even called for the major newspapers of the country to investigate other members of Congress to "find out if they are pro-America or anti-America."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Not paranoid enough?

Is Posse Comitatus Dead? US Troops on US StreetsOctober 07, 2008 | In a barely noticed development, a US Army unit is now training for domestic operations under the control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. An initial news report in …

http://www.democracynow.org/search

Take this one with a grain of salt, democracy now is very biased to the left. But there is audio of the commander of the army training unit you can listen to yourself, and the law was furtively changed to enable a martial law situation. Fact.

The Problem With Opening Pandora's Box in The 2008 Elections

Ms CYPRAH — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:39:11 EDT

I had a lovely, inspiring poem and comment in my mailbox from an Obama supporter and it got me thinking a lot of things. Reacting to the disgraceful behaviour at the recent Palin rallies, Sue Shields wrote:

"What worries me is that Pandora's box has been opened and once again people will feel safe in using prejudiced actions and words in their daily lives. Maybe not as dramatic as burning a cross on someone's lawn or burning a church, but feeling comfortable to use their fear and hate to alter the destination of others in their daily lives and life pursuits. We have to be aware that discrimination is broader than fearing one's color or religion or gender---it includes fearing one's creativity, enthusiasm, intelligence and even one's hope.

This type of behavior has been rampant within the walls of corporate America, within neighborhoods, within schools. The faster the world changes the more people fight to hold on to their status quo through any means neccessary...."

Her sad words rang a great bell inside my head because her comment is really about CHANGE and how we each individually deal with it. Change can often make us feel threatened, vulnerable, exposed, unprepared, and insignificant, make us do things we wouldn't even dream of doing to resist it. New initiatives, new situations and new leaders tend to bring out the worst reaction in us, making us needlessly defensive of our territory while firing our natural instinct to protect the status quo at all cost.

Keith Olbermann and Rep. Lewis Are My Hero's

Juli Norwood — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:02:05 EDT

For all of us folks who have had it up to here with McCain and Palin's intentional incitement of violence, hate and racism against Obama! Keith Olbermann gave a voice to our thoughts and feelings on national cable tv show called Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

See Video

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27188417#27188417

The text is below!

1:25 PM Eastern Time, today, in Scranton, Pennsylvania. During the warm-up act by a Red Meat Congressional Candidate aptly named Chris Hackett, Hackett mentions Obama and a Palin audience member shouts "Kill Him."

And Gov. Palin, as usual, does nothing about it says nothing to these thugs and psychos. She may not have heard this one. It is impossible to believe that by now she has not heard about the other ones. Her silence is deafening. Just as, Sen. McCain, you have done nothing when violence has been asserted. Correction. You have done one thing.

Asked why in real time you do not repudiate this hatefulness you act as if you are the victim. Speaking today to our NBC Station in Washington.

McCain: "Sure and I repudiated it as I have on several occasions. Unfortunately, Congressman John Lewis is an American hero who I admire who made the worst, most unacceptable statement a couple days ago that I have ever heard. He accused me and Sarah Palin of being involved in segregation, George Wallace and even made reference to a church bombing where children were killed. Senator Obama has not repudiated that statement. Senator Obama should do so immediately. Its the most outrageous thing that I have heard since in politics...it is disgraceful."

Disgraceful?

Obviously, Senator, you haven't heard your own speeches, and Gov. Palin's, and what people shout during them. And you haven't heard your state GOP Chair in Virginia, Jeffrey Frederick, giving talking points to 30 of your field-operatives heading out to canvass voters in Gainesville, Virginia. With a reporter present, telling them to try to forge a connection between Barack Obama and Osama bin Laden to emphasize bombings and terrorism. And you haven't heard those volunteers, your volunteers Sen. McCain, shout back "and he won't salute the flag" and "we don't even know where Sen. Obama was really born."

Sen. McCain, these people are speaking for you! And how dare you try to claim Congressman Lewis was linking you to Gov. George Wallace's segregation. He was linking you, aptly, to Gov. George Wallace's lynch-mob mentality.

"As public figures with the power to influence and persuade," said Congressman Lewis, "Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all."

Sen. McCain, your supporters, at your events, are calling Obama a terrorist and traitor and are calling for him to be killed. And yet you keep bringing back these same rabid Right Wing nuts to deliberately stir these crowds into frenzies. And then you take offense when somebody who remembers the violence in our political past, calls you on it. You, sir, are responsible for a phalanx of individuals who are shouting fire in a crowded theatre. There are some things to respect and honor about you, Sen. McCain.

But on this, you're not only a fraud, Senator but you are tacitly inciting lunatics to violence. If you want to again grand-stand and suspend your campaign here's your big chance. Suspend your campaign now, until you, or somebody else, gets some control over it and it ceases to be a clear and present danger to the peace of this nation.

Keith ya socked it to em! You did us proud!

Juli Norwood

The Talk of Little Children in a Small Town

C Jean — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:47:59 EDT

Today while canvassing on my neighbor to neighor contacts I walked past a little gang of about 7 to 8 five, six and seven year-old children. They were siting on and congregated around the front steps and sidewalk on a street called Spring Garden Street between 7th and 8th street. I heard one child say, "we'll kill Obama." Then another child said "yeah, we'll kill Obama."

I was really quite shocked to hear such words from such little children in this small Eastern PA town. And I started to think about the importance of education and how the words of these children spell out what is needed in our country. Our highest priority is our children and their education. Our children are our country's future leaders.

Barack Obama promises change and one of the areas that needs drastic change is our educational system. Barack Obama will bring the educational changes we need.

The most important time for education of children is in their first six years. So it is very important to bring excellent teachers into head start programs, day care programs, pre-school programs, and Kindergarten and First and Second grade programs. The most important education begins at these early ages and in these programs are the beginnings of a college education. College education doesn't start right before you go off to college. It starts when you are young and are developing sound values, beliefs, and attitudes.

And presidential candidates should pay attention to the young people when they make up their lies to put in disgusting ads on television for every child to watch. What are they thinking when they are giving young children at the age of five, six, and seven, the kind of values they are espousing in their ads. Young children are smart and hear and see everything. They absorb more than anyone thinks.

By influencing adults with lies and distortions, they are also influencing the children of these adults. What is that going to do for our country? Will that make us a better country?

I got home and listened to a new ad that talks of Obama's statement about people "clinging to their guns and religions." This ad was put out by a right wing organization that is worried that Obama is going to take their guns away. The Right wing has got it all mixed up about Obama's statement. Obama wasn't talking about hunting rifles. He was talking about keeping AK47 asault rifles out of the hands of people intent on committing criminal acts. You don't need an AK47 to go hunting with. But the NRA and the Republicans want ordinary folks to believe that Obama wants to take all their guns away, so they are dwelling on that statement, without any real knowledge of what the statement meant. Obama was talking about security. People feel more secure when they go to church and believe in God, or when they have a weapon to protect themselves. But they are not thinking about why people are so fearful and need this security. In everywhere across the country especially in the bigger cities, crime is excessive and much worse than it has ever been. Even in my own little neck of the woods - a small city, the worst gangs operate. We are only 80 miles from New York City and 60 miles from Philadelphia and oftentimes people come to areas like this seeking to hide out or go on a crime spree. And we also have our own homegrown crimes that are terrible.

And even years ago when my father was alive, he kept guns for protection out in the country on the farm, to feel more secure. He never had to use them. And even when it comes to hunting rifles way back when, I happened to live right down the street from a tragedy. The family had about six children and hunting rifles. Most all farmers have hunting rifles. Somehow one of the little boys got a hold of one of the rifles and killed his little brother accidentally. That was back about 55 years ago. So gun accidents are not new. It happened in my own back yard out in the country. But still Americans should have the right to bear arms according to our constitution, but here again education is very important. With better education at all levels, violence would decrease, gun accidents would decrease, spousal abuse would decrease, and even our economy would shape up. And certainly all people need a better education when it comes to government, the environment, and how things work in the 21st century.

Barack Obama has the vision and leadership to change our system for the better, with better schools, better teachers, more teachers, more educational resources, and better government all the way around - 360 degrees.

GOP's violence-laden "Big Lies" are anti-American

Martin Edwin "Mick" from Churchton, MD — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:50:17 EDT

The Time's Frank Rich is making the same point I made more than a week ago:

The GOP's use of Big Lie techniques("Ayers"--who was financed by a foundation set up by a Ronald Reagan friend--"the white flag of surrender," etc.) is fostering a vigilante mentality, something made all the more dangerous because it comes in the middle of an economic meltdown.

Particularly Sarah Palin's rhetoric has made her a candidate that generates not excitement, but incitement ... her slurs are both racially tinged and xenophobic and come at the worst possible time for our country.

It was just four decades ago that Robert F. Kennedy declared that to be an American is to have come to this country an outcast and a stranger, and that he who denies the outcast and stranger still among us also denies the spirit of America.

Compare those words to those of Palin, et. al.

We need to restore both individual freedoms and honest administration in the financial sector ... now!

Barack Obama will do that.

The Republicans will not.

THE NEW YORK TIMES

October 12, 2008

Op-Ed Columnist

The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama

By FRANK RICH

IF you think way back to the start of this marathon campaign, back when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender, then you remember the biggest fear about Barack Obama: a crazy person might take a shot at him.

Some voters told reporters that they didn’t want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history — in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries.

“I’ve got the best protection in the world, so stop worrying,” Obama reassured his supporters. Eventually the country got conditioned to his appearing in large arenas without incident (though I confess that the first loud burst of fireworks at the end of his convention stadium speech gave me a start). In America, nothing does succeed like success. The fear receded.

Until now. At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option.

All’s fair in politics. John McCain and Sarah Palin have every right to bring up William Ayers, even if his connection to Obama is minor, even if Ayers’s Weather Underground history dates back to Obama’s childhood, even if establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform. But it’s not just the old Joe McCarthyesque guilt-by-association game, however spurious, that’s going on here. Don’t for an instant believe the many mindlessly “even-handed” journalists who keep saying that the McCain campaign’s use of Ayers is the moral or political equivalent of the Obama campaign’s hammering on Charles Keating.

What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today.

That’s a far cry from simply accusing Obama of being a guilty-by-association radical leftist. Obama is being branded as a potential killer and an accessory to past attempts at murder. “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” was how a McCain press release last week packaged the remembrance of a Weather Underground incident from 1970 — when Obama was 8.

We all know what punishment fits the crime of murder, or even potential murder, if the security of post-9/11 America is at stake. We all know how self-appointed “patriotic” martyrs always justify taking the law into their own hands.

Obama can hardly be held accountable for Ayers’s behavior 40 years ago, but at least McCain and Palin can try to take some responsibility for the behavior of their own supporters in 2008. What’s troubling here is not only the candidates’ loose inflammatory talk but also their refusal to step in promptly and strongly when someone responds to it with bloodthirsty threats in a crowded arena. Joe Biden had it exactly right when he expressed concern last week that “a leading American politician who might be vice president of the United States would not just stop midsentence and turn and condemn that.” To stay silent is to pour gas on the fires.

It wasn’t always thus with McCain. In February he loudly disassociated himself from a speaker who brayed “Barack Hussein Obama” when introducing him at a rally in Ohio. Now McCain either backpedals with tardy, pro forma expressions of respect for his opponent or lets second-tier campaign underlings release boilerplate disavowals after ugly incidents like the chilling Jim Crow-era flashback last week when a Florida sheriff ranted about “Barack Hussein Obama” at a Palin rally while in full uniform.

From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes.

McCain, who is no racist, turned to this desperate strategy only as Obama started to pull ahead. The tone was set at the Republican convention, with Rudy Giuliani’s mocking dismissal of Obama as an “only in America” affirmative-action baby. We also learned then that the McCain campaign had recruited as a Palin handler none other than Tucker Eskew, the South Carolina consultant who had worked for George W. Bush in the notorious 2000 G.O.P. primary battle where the McCains and their adopted Bangladeshi daughter were slimed by vicious racist rumors.

No less disconcerting was a still-unexplained passage of Palin’s convention speech: Her use of an unattributed quote praising small-town America (as opposed to, say, Chicago and its community organizers) from Westbrook Pegler, the mid-century Hearst columnist famous for his anti-Semitism, racism and violent rhetorical excess. After an assassin tried to kill F.D.R. at a Florida rally and murdered Chicago’s mayor instead in 1933, Pegler wrote that it was “regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara shot the wrong man.” In the ’60s, Pegler had a wish for Bobby Kennedy: “Some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow falls.”

This is the writer who found his way into a speech by a potential vice president at a national political convention. It’s astonishing there’s been no demand for a public accounting from the McCain campaign. Imagine if Obama had quoted a Black Panther or Louis Farrakhan — or William Ayers — in Denver.

The operatives who would have Palin quote Pegler have been at it ever since. A key indicator came two weeks after the convention, when the McCain campaign ran its first ad tying Obama to the mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Rather than make its case by using a legitimate link between Fannie and Obama (or other Democratic leaders), the McCain forces chose a former Fannie executive who had no real tie to Obama or his campaign but did have a black face that could dominate the ad’s visuals.

There are no black faces high in the McCain hierarchy to object to these tactics. There hasn’t been a single black Republican governor, senator or House member in six years. This is a campaign where Palin can repeatedly declare that Alaska is “a microcosm of America” without anyone even wondering how that might be so for a state whose tiny black and Hispanic populations are each roughly one-third the national average. There are indeed so few people of color at McCain events that a black senior writer from The Tallahassee Democrat was mistakenly ejected by the Secret Service from a campaign rally in Panama City in August, even though he was standing with other reporters and showed his credentials. His only apparent infraction was to look glaringly out of place.

Could the old racial politics still be determinative? I’ve long been skeptical of the incessant press prognostications (and liberal panic) that this election will be decided by racist white men in the Rust Belt. Now even the dimmest bloviators have figured out that Americans are riveted by the color green, not black — as in money, not energy. Voters are looking for a leader who might help rescue them, not a reckless gambler whose lurching responses to the economic meltdown (a campaign “suspension,” a mortgage-buyout stunt that changes daily) are as unhinged as his wanderings around the debate stage.

To see how fast the tide is moving, just look at North Carolina. On July 4 this year — the day that the godfather of modern G.O.P. racial politics, Jesse Helms, died — The Charlotte Observer reported that strategists of both parties agreed Obama’s chances to win the state fell “between slim and none.” Today, as Charlotte reels from the implosion of Wachovia, the McCain-Obama race is a dead heat in North Carolina and Helms’s Republican successor in the Senate, Elizabeth Dole, is looking like a goner.

But we’re not at Election Day yet, and if voters are to have their final say, both America and Obama have to get there safely. The McCain campaign has crossed the line between tough negative campaigning and inciting vigilantism, and each day the mob howls louder. The onus is on the man who says he puts his country first to call off the dogs, pit bulls and otherwise.

SARAH PALIN BRINGS INCITEMENT, NOT EXCITEMENT, TO THE 2008 CAMPAIGN

Martin Edwin "Mick" from Churchton, MD — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:40:27 EDT

What will be the effects of Sarah Palin's racially-tinged Big Lie techniques--claiming the Democrats wave "the white flag of surrender" when the country is at war, and that Barack Obama "pals around" with terrorists?

Violence on the part of gun-toting crazies?

Obama's safety

Laurie — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:06:06 EDT

I hope that I am just being paranoid, but my concern for Obama's safety is growing. I'm disgusted with the rhetoric coming from McCain- Palin lately, I think they've crossed a line & are inciting violence. If they have any honor or decent character, after hearing their supporter react by shouting "kill him", they will tone it down. I desperately hope for the sake of my country that there will be a backlash against McCain & Palin for stooping so damn low. As a responsible adult, if I were giving a speech to an audience & someone shouted "kill him" in response to something that I said, I would be startled & would make it known that violence, & remarks about violence are unacceptable. But there has been no response from McCain, Palin or any of their reps.

When the primaries began I remember thinking that I liked Obama & his ideas, but I thought there was no way in hell he would win. I also remember thinking that some crazy right wing nut job would attempt to take his life, but I never said that out loud. Later during the primaries I read that Obama was getting extra protection & security, so I stopped thinking about the possibility of assassination. I felt that we had learned from the past & would take the unfortunate but necessary action to prevent the loss of another great leader. But after the reaction from McCain-Palin supporters yesterday I began having concerns again.

I couldn't understand why a police officer in uniform was allowed to introduce Sarah Palin by smearing Obama - "Let's send a message to Barack Hussein Obama....." And while I think that any person trying to cast doubt about Obama because of his middle name looks a bit foolish, I was angry that an officer would do so in uniform. That's unprofessional & shouldn't be tolerated, he can say whatever he wants when he's not in uniform. As an officer of the law, he should be required to set a positive example for others while on duty. I was waiting for the white hoods to appear, and at this point I almost expect it.

I really hope that America does not reward John McCain & Sarah Palin for their behavior, in fact, I really hope that America lets them know on election day just how shameful their rhetoric is. I will be really proud of my country if the message is loud & clear that their rhetoric & deceit will not be tolerated.

A violent subtext?

Martin Edwin "Mick" from Churchton, MD — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:52:45 EDT

What will be the effects of Sarah Palin's Big Lie techniques--claiming the Democrats wave "the white flag of surrender" when the country is at war, and that Barack Obama "pals around" with terrorists?

Incitement to violence on the part of gun-toting crazies?

A Tiny Ripple Of Hope (Audacity)

NTodd — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:29:36 EDT

In which NTodd looks at the chaos of now and then through the words of RFK. (23:55)

Features: Allman Brothers, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, Animals, Doors. And don't forget PaxLive Friday at 3pm Eastern!

ntodd

(x-posted at Pax Americana)

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.

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.

Candidate's foot soldiers encounter name-calling, vandalism, bomb threats

Winston Riley — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:47:17 EDT

My niece's house was the target of vandals last week, when their Obama signs were destroyed and acts of senseless destruction left their yard littered with For Sale signs and garbage. It actually appeared to be a small war zone.

Vandals were a tribe which invaded the Roman Empire and according to Wikipedia, their actions "led to the association of the name of the tribe with persons who cause senseless destruction, particularly in diminution of aesthetic appeal or destruction of objects that were completed with great effort."

What a Hero is.

Jedidiah Palosaari — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:44:28 EDT

I must confess that I am somewhat in a moral quandary. I am adamantly against engaging in war in any form. Thus, a candidate who has been to war and bombed others does not appeal to me, on this basis if no other. Yet, McCain is considered a hero not for his bombing but for his steadfastness. And yet, this steadfastness is supposed to have made him able to effectively wage war, and engage in battle, and lead troops.

I totally get how impressive it is that McCain stood up under torture for those many years. I don't support his lying to his captors, but I think it totally laudable and inspiring that he persevered. Suffering, after all, is a central tenant of Christianity- it builds endurance, character, and finally hope- as long as we approach our tormentors with love.

Somehow, though, this has been transferred into McCain being more ready to lead, and more ready to lead the military. Don't get me wrong. I'd totally love a guy who wasn't capable of leading the military, except for leading them to withdraw, except for leading them to disband. (Wishful thinking, but I'm an Idealist.) But McCain's approach towards the military was to bomb civilians and soldiers from afar, and to be shot down, and be caught. As far as the whole being-a-good-soldier thing, he failed. And rather magnificently. He lead while in the camp, as Obama has lead as a community organizer and in running a campaign, as both have lead as Senators- none of that being the kind of leadership necessary to win battles or win a war, per se. This says nothing about McCain's abilities as a human being, for often times excelling as a human is diametrically opposed to excelling as a soldier.

So he was a bad soldier, and bad at warfare, and limited in his ability to lead. What of the results of his time in internment under torture?

Suffering builds endurance, endurance character, and character hope- but it's not guaranteed. That happens only depending on how we approach the suffering and torture. Is McCain a hopeful man? Is he more filled with love and hope because of his time under torture?

I fear the opposite. I do not know if he went into therapy after his time of torture. I know that he should have, as should anyone in those circumstances. I fear greatly if he did not, and seeks to be President. And, if I assume he did go into therapy, I am still given pause. Years of imprisonment and torture can have a great toll on a man. Nelson Mandela and Ghandi came out ahead on that score, because of the way they approached their captors. They were men seeking justice, reconciliation, and peace. Is McCain such a man?

I think we can all say, shouting from the mountain tops, a resounding, "No!" We saw this in the Rick Warren Ambush, where McCain galvanized the troops at Saddleback Church in his calls to war and to totally defeat the enemy. This is not a longsuffering man, who has learned the value of patience and love and turning the other cheek. (This is not to say he does not forgive at times, or has not forgived his captors in Vietnam.) I have this deep and growing fear that this is a man who has taken all of the wrong lessons from his captivity. McCain has learned that violence works. He has learned the value of torture.

Walter Wink speaks of the Principle of Violent Mimicry: that we become that which we hate. Thus the Israelis return the same actions upon the Palestinians that were perpetrated on the Jews by the Nazis. Thus America engages in the civilian bombings it once condemned under those same Nazis. Thus a man who once heroically stood up under torture in Vietnam learns to approve the same principles to torture others, but no longer calling it torture.

A hero is not one who kills in war. A hero is not one who bombs civilians in the air. A hero is not even one who stands up under torture. A hero is the one who stands up under torture, learns to forgive and love, and learns the value of never again resisting those who do evil, but rather learning to find the common ground in all, and that of God in all.

What we need is a hero.

Judgment defined - a different view of Georgia

Don Thompson — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:35:25 EDT

In a column for the British newspaper, The Guardian, Jonathan Steele offers a starkly different view of the conflict between Russia and Georgia than the filtered one we get in North America. Of course, his opinions are coloured by the fact that he is in the vicinity and has been since 2001.

Steele notes that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has been waging an interesting campaign of lies, his biggest in this case being: "...his attempt to airbrush the fact that he created the crisis by launching an artillery barrage on the South Ossetian capital, which killed scores of civilians and 15 Russian peacekeepers."

Steele compares the Russian response to Georgia's opening to NATO's response to problems in Kosovo. He notes: "Instead of confining itself to Kosovo in seeking to protect Albanian civilians from ethnic cleansing, NATO bombed deep into Serbia proper. What Russia did to Georgia was disproportionate, but less so than NATO on Serbia a decade ago."

There is also a good analysis of John McCain's "judgment". "One of the grimmest aspects of this crisis was the degree to which John McCain emerged as an undiplomatic hawk. Before the crisis he was on record as calling Putin "a totalitarian dictator" and saying Russia should be expelled from the G8. As Russia came in to defend South Ossetia, he demanded it pay a "serious negative" price." Clearly McCain is a man with a single approach to foreign relations. War.

Referring to his own government as 'poodles', Steele asks can they not see "...the next potential US president, Barack Obama, is more nuanced? He called on Georgia, as well as Russia, to show restraint."

Wow! Restraint. Asking for sanity from both sides. Now who should be answering 3:00 am phone calls?

The whole article is well worth reading and is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/25/georgia.russia.

Smears & Thought Pollution

Jacquelyn 4 Obama — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:39:31 EDT

While writing my letter to editors about the unfortunate Mr. Corsi, I realized that, like any form of violence, the effect of unscrupulous smears is that they affect all the people involved; those who create them, those who are targeted by them, and all who come in contact with them.

Immersion in the practice of violent misrepresentation of reality tends to impair rational thinking, and disable one's capacity to define the difference between truth and lies, and in losing our capacity for honesty, eventually makes honesty irrelevant.

In any systematic and institutionalized infliction of violence, all are inevitably tainted and alienated. Robert Heinlein, a science fiction writer who was himself a Naval Academy graduate observed that, "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent." a thought that has stayed with me for many years.

Perhaps that accounts, in part, for the failure of administrations that achieve elected office by smearing all opponents while fooling themselves into accepting that a good end justifies getting there by bad methods.

We don't eat rotten food because we know it makes us sick, so why choose to think rotten thoughts and use rotten words?

Must we accept the premise that campaigning for office must be a "blood sport" with voters analogously filling the stadium to sort lions from gladiators? Does the tragedy of Hamilton and Burr require incessant smears merely because some superannuated adolescents justify bad conduct as if it were a patriotic tradition given to us by our Founders?

Watch CNN "Afghanistan,Lifting The Veil"

Madera Strong - Team Co-ordinator For City of Madera — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:26:49 EDT

This is what "success" the war has bought. Men hate women. Men force women under the berka again, where faceless, the women can be treated with hostility, beaten and killed...without remorse. The men need to see the faces and pain of the women. The women must be humanized. Women need to spend time raising better children, not sitting on the street all day, begging and getting degraded constantly. This is a culture of hatred and must be changed if we ever expect peace and value for human life to prevail.

As hatred simmers in Afghanistan,and we have made the Taliban stronger by making more people want to enlist with the Taliban. The pot waits to boil over. We must intervene without military, as possible, and give women more of a voice in the country. Financial independence for women, education and no berkas.

Dysfunctional men raising kids leads to more violent kids. Kids who think it is normal for men to beat their mothers have a value system that is incongruent with American life and values.

Iraq Escalation Called A Failure - Again

Charley James — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 09:20:25 EDT

This won't make John McCain or Joe Lieberman very happy and they must be positively fuming over at The White House (or in Crawford or whereever Dubya is vacationing this week).

Colin Kahl of the Centre for a New American Security (CNAS) says things are not nearly as rosy as John McCain is portraying them on the campaign stump or Bush is saying in the Rose Garden. Kahl recently returned from Iraq and held a press briefing this week

Kahl reports that US civilian and military officials in Baghdad are genuinely worried that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has become "over-confident" about his military capabilities, explaining his demands to the US over the proposed status of forces agreement on the rules governing US troops in Iraq. Al-Maliki appears to have won some internal battles in the Iraqi government in the past six months, so he now firmly controls the intelligence apparatus and has military operation centres under his authority throughout the country.

Even worse, Al-Maliki is not only refusing to incorporate the Sunni Arab Awakening Councils or "Sons of Iraq" into the Iraqi security forces, he seems to be planning to fight them. These are Sunni Arab militias, many former Salafi or nationalist guerrillas, who act as US mercenaries by fighting Qutbist vigilantes who call themselves “al-Qaeda in Iraq.”

Kahl said of the 103,000 Sunnis belonging to those militias, the Iraqi government had promised to take only about 16,000into the security forces. But in fact, it has approved only 600 applicants thus far, and most of these turned out to be Shi’a, not Sunni militiamen.

The Awakening Councils are the biggest threat Baghdad faces and that after Americans are drawn down in Iraqi, al-Malaki’s allies say it will be necessary to "take care of them.”

Bush is so mad at al-Malaki’s stance on US troop restrictions and his demand for a withdrawal timetable that he sharply warned al-Maliki that without a SOFA he would have to pull out US troops by Jan. 1, 2009. US troops operating in Iraq with no agreed legal framework would be constantly open to murder and other serious legal charges.

Muqtada al-Sadr is turning his Mahdi Army into a civilian social-work force under strong Iranian pressure. The Iranians seem to be convinced that the Mahdi Army was becoming a pretext for the US to stay in Iraq – understandable since the Bushies are blaming Iran for everything Muqtada did. In fact, Iran is mainly allied with Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and his Badr corps paramilitary, which has become the backbone of al-Maliki's security forces; Iran thus has multiple reasons for trying to get rid of the Mahdi Army as a military force.

But there may be a third reason Iran pressured al-Sadr. Reports – rumours, mostly – keep circulating that there is a secret, informal agreement between Bush and Khamenei that if the Mahdi Army quietens down, the US will talk to Iran, refrain from bombing the nuclear facilities at Natanz and will forestall an Israeli attack, as well.

Kahl's information is another challenge to the propaganda that the Bush’s escalation "worked." Among the things that "worked" were Iran becoming even more influential in Iraq and al-Maliki getting hold of his own government.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reports that Georgia and other allies with relatively large troop contingents in Iraq are leaving, making it difficult for the US to draw down its troops at the rate Petraeus originally envisioned for this year. US forces will likely have to step in to replace Georgian troops in Kut and British soldiers in Basra.

At the same time, the newspaper reports that the al-Anbar desert is still very dangerous and full of seedy operators: Insurgents and smugglers. This is one reason why a Marine was killed Thursday in al-Anbar. The mostly-unreported return of violence in the big, dangerous province has delayed the planned turn-over of security duties to Iraqi security forces there by the US military.

Hopefully, someone from the campaign attended the briefing or read accounts of it so Barack can come out swinging tonight in the first "debate" of the race.

Picturing Casualties

Chinni — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:38:38 EDT

Picturing Casualties nytimes

Zoriah Miller, the freelance photographer who took this image and others of marines killed in a June 26 suicide attack and posted them on his Web site, was subsequently forbidden to work in Marine Corps-controlled areas of Iraq. Maj. Gen. John Kelly, the Marine Corps commander in Iraq, is now seeking to have Mr. Miller barred from all United States military facilities throughout the world. Mr. Miller has since left Iraq...

Scapegoating

Dr. Mark Elrod — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:03:30 EDT

There's a good read in the Christian Science Monitor today about the Knoxville church shootings.

The crux of the article is that the attack was a combination of a marginalized human being, poor economic conditions and a vulnerable target: a "liberal" church.

Sadly, attacks like this one are becoming far too common in America.

Mr. Adkisson's is certainly not the first person to feel victimized by society but in this case, his vengeance was incredibly delusional...

To be sure, any direct connection between the shootings and the nation's economic woes is hard to verify, says Cecil Greek, a criminologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee. More likely, Mr. Greek says, Adkisson's alleged outburst may have been tied into suddenly jarred expectations – in his case, his ability to find a job and even stay on food stamps – at a time when a majority of Americans are questioning the country's course and many are feeling an economic pinch.

Several other reports have cited Adkisson's inability to stay on food stamps as something that triggered his attack on the Unitarian Universalist Church.

I think it is fair to say that food stamps are a product of "liberal" social legislation. If many of the conservatives I know had their way, Mr. Adkisson would never have seen a food stamp to begin with.

Because in some minds, poverty programs begin and end with "get a job."

So, in a sense, Adkisson attacked the very people who cared about him the most.

Crude Impact

Corinna — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 06:47:36 EDT

Any one who cares about the planet and wants to know whats really going on must watch Crude Impact' click on this link to You Tube you really need to know whats going on "

Film maker and environmentalist James Wood explores the interconnection between human domination of the planet and the discovery and use of oil. It also exposes our deep-rooted dependency on the availability of fossil fuel energy and examines the future implications of peak oil, which Wood describes as “the point in time when the quantity of oil extracted from the earth begins to irreversibly decline.”

“The ramifications of peak oil are terrifying,” Wood says, “and they reverberate all across the globe.”

Journeying from the West African delta region to the heart of the Amazon rainforest, from Washington to Shanghai, and from early man to the unknown future, Crude Impact chronicles the collision of our insatiable appetite for oil with the rights and livelihoods of indigenous cultures, other species and the planet itself.

Woods drew his inspiration for the film from his work with the Pachamama Alliance, whose mission is to preserve the Amazon rainforest by empowering its indigenous people and promoting a new global vision of sustainability.

This exclusive sneak peak of Crude Impact is a 60-minute excerpt from the 98-minute full-length feature film.

LEARN MORE:

Learn how to get Carbon Neutral in three easy steps here.
Join a petition urging the U.S. Congress to support meaningful global warming legislation here.
Support the proposal to list polar bears as threatened here.

Obama is for the healing of our home, Our Mother EARTH

Recent Union and Teacher deaths in Columbia

Inspired in Florida - a Recovering Republican — Tue, 27 May 2008 15:24:16 EDT

Carmen Cecilia Carvajal, member of the North Santander Teachers Association (TASINORT) was killed on March 4.

Leonidas Gomez, member of the Union Nacional de Empleados Bancarios (UNEB) and Central Unitaria de Trabajadores (CUT) trade unions was killed on March 5.

Gildardo Antonio Gómez Alzate, delegate of the Asociacion de Wenstitutores de Antioquia (ADIDA) and investigator for the Centro de Estudios e Wenvestigationes Docentes (CEID) was killed on March 7.

Carlos Burbano, member of the organization ANTHOC, was found dead on March 11.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights also reports that on February 28 there was a shooting against the house of Luz Adriana González, a member of the Permanent Committee for the Defense of Human Rights and a promoter of the March 6 event in Pereira.

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

Violence Against Women in Iraq & Worldwide

Dorothy — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:03:43 EDT

There is a conference in New Orleans today that is getting NO coverage except by NPR and Democracy Now!. Its central theme is the worldwide movement protesting violence against women.

The interview on DN! today was sickening. Iraqi women are being murdered, legally, under the Sharia-based constitution that WE, the UNITED STATES, has touted as being the 'most democratic in the Arab world'.

Hundreds of women a year are being murdered in Taliban-style mass killings, in so-called 'honor killings', in family disputes, for showing their ankles. Women have NO rights under this US-sponsored constitution. They are not allowed to work, go to school, walk alone, drive a car.

The militias that WE have created and continue to support are right-wing extremists that relegate women to less than second class - they are expendable. WE have created a new Taliban. And not one word has been said.

When Crocker and Petraeus made their vaunted reports to Congress, not ONE WORD was said about Iraqi casualties, the silent deaths of women and children due not only to the violence, but to water-born illnesses, because there are no public utilities, no clean water. There was no mention of the fact that an estimated 20% of remaining Iraqi women are being forced to beg on the streets or to prostitute themselves in order to feed their children, and knowing that either activity will get them killed immediately by their fellow Iraqis.

Yanar Mohammed is in New Orleans today speaking out about the plight of women and children in Iraq. You can go to www.VDay.org. You can urge your legislators to address the violence against women that we have helped to create. What price are we willing to make others pay for our cheap oil?

V iolence against women is on the rise worldwide. Rape is a primary tool of war and is on the rise.

I urge all women, mothers, grandmothers, husbands, brothers, friends of women to call your legislators to STOP THE FUNDING and to support Iraqi women and children.

I urge Michelle to make this a primary cause as First Lady.

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.

US ELECTION DIARY - THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT

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

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

By Rob Reynolds in Columbus, Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evangelist

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dividing communities

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

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

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

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

Media interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oklahoma Conference to Examine Islamic Perspective on Terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information goto:

http://www.interfaithdialog.org/

US deaths in Iraq approach 4,000

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

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

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer

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

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

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

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

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

Army Vet Speaks Against Mistreatment of Guantanamo Bay Detainees

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

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

Author: Lee Ann Holman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muslim Leader Has Opposed War

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

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

Author: Steve Blow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After 5 Years, the Tragedy Continues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.5YearsTooMany.org

Is America Ready for Gentleness?

PrayersForAmerica — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:05:26 EST

We have, in this country, an understanding of the power of force, the power of weaponry and of technology, the power of threat, the power of manipulation, but little if any understanding of the power of gentleness.

Force, weapons, threat, and manipulation all involve aggression - the utilization of the assertive, masculine side of the human psyche - not just the psyche of men, but the psyche of all souls in their embodied expression. The impulse to act, to assert, to move forward, to take charge, is part of this masculine aspect, an aspect which only becomes problematic when it is not sufficiently balanced by the feminine side - by the desire to unify, blend, harmonize, and seek cooperation.

Assertiveness and aggression are what marks governmental policy in certain eras, and also to a significant degree, defines the ways in which the public evaluates candidates for public office. Though little spoken of, the reliance of trust in public figures, despite America's desire for peace, is often trust in their capacity to make war, their capacity to be aggressive, their capacity to exercise their will, which, according to some interpretations, would be equal to the capacity to protect the nation from harm.

Along with this stance go certain body characteristics that in today's consciousness convey to the public the same impression of power and strength - square or broad shoulders, a firm jaw, a neck that is broad, but not too broad, proportional rather than elongated. These convey an overall impression of sturdiness.. Slim or narrow shoulders, an elongated neck, a small head, a soft, pointed chin rather than a square jaw - these are the characteristics associated with gentleness, with the capacity to be wrong, with softness, which in some interpretations is equivalent to weakness.

America desires peace, but is unwilling to seek that quality of peace and gentleness in her leaders. She fears aggression from without, and therefore seeks leadership that can embody a counter-aggression force in the face of potential threat. Beneath this preference is the belief that only might can sustain us, and that it is necessary to remain in the position of global dominance in order to insure safety.

If one were to take away commitment to this premise, however, if one were to no longer accept it as valid, where would that leave us?

It might leave us understanding to a greater degree both the value of cooperation and the value of gentleness - a quality that does not lack firmness and whose strength is inner, rather than outer.. It might lead us to understand how to value our uniqueness and the spiritual truths which lie at the foundation of this nation' and are part of her heart. It might steer us away from associating America's identity with power, while leading us toward compassion in relation to the world community..

Beneath the external overlay of power and aggression, America's heart remains wedded to the principles that are part of her founding. If one were to take away the need for dominance, there would still remain the capacity for leadership, but such leadership would be a moral leadership, based on the fundamental and universal premises, applicable to all peoples, of man's right to live freely upon the earth. There would also be the possibility for those to hold public office who represented not the capacity for dominance and assertion, but the capacity for negotiation and cooperation.

Such is the time that we are moving toward, for it is essential that all nations come together with a sense of the uniqueness of each and the equality of all, not just as a concept, but as a living, breathing economic, political, and social reality. Within this human family, America would no longer play the role of 'superpower' or overlord, but would finally have the opportunity to express her true potential as a catalyst for change and as a champion for the improvement of the human condition. Her allegiance to the principles of light and truth would be held as a powerful illustration of what is possible when the welfare of all, and justice for all, are the cornerstones of a nation's identity.

Julie Redstone is a teacher, writer, and founder of Light Omega, a center for spiritual teaching and healing in Western Massachusetts. The purpose of Light Omega is to create an understanding of the sacred transition into light that the Earth is presently going through. On a national level, these changes relate to the spiritual foundations of America once again assuming their rightful place in America's heart and consciousness. To assist with this process, see http://www.prayersamerica.org.

Reprinted from www.worldblessings.com

Where is this country heading?

RoboticService — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:43:08 EST

Is violence the answer in our society? You have Mitt Romney, former Republican candidate, saying the Demecratic candidates will help the terrorists. And then you see these headlines in the news and I wonder to myself...where are we heading?

Woman Kills 2 Students in Louisiana College Classroom, Takes Own Life

Gunman Who Killed 5 at Missouri Council Meeting Left Suicide Note

Teacher Stabbed by Husband at Ohio Elementary School; Husband Later Found Dead

coercive diplomacy and other oxymorons....

mikaelah "YES WE CAN" — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:38:17 EST

I watched the debate last night and several things struck me. One was the language that the candidates used. At the very beginning Clinton uses the phrase "plotting against us" and then later on "coercive diplomacy". My heart sinks when I hear such language from someone that wants to lead a country. They are small minded thoughts. It brings to mind the words of the current president when he says "evildoers" and yet cannot see how apt a description it is of himself. Clinton is giving us big clues into the kind of leader she will be with her emotional words that bring with them the promise of divisions and violence.

Another strike to the senses last evening was her inability to admit she had made a mistake. She must know it. She voted to go to war. Stop trying to make it look different. You made a mistake. It takes courage to admit you made a mistake. She does not go there. She does not trust the American people or herself enough to just come clean and show herself as human and fallible.

Yes Folks, You Can Tell It's Election Time Again!

Ms CYPRAH — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:03:07 EST

I remember it well, though it happened over 40 years ago.

I was helping as a nursing auxiliary in the Kingston Public Hospital. It was just after 10 p.m and I stood there gently holding the hand of a man who was on a stretcher beside me. Every now and then I squeezed it to make sure he was alive, talking to him in a vain effort to keep him awake, to soothe his pain and acute discomfort. He was only 19 and would have been asking himself how he came to be that condition, if he was conscious to do so.

10 things I Hate About the World We Live In

Ms CYPRAH — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:40:05 EST

The things which annoy me tend to be those that rob us of our humanity, which do not build, but merely destroy, and which detach us from our world, like the following:

1. IGNORANCE...Lack of knowledge has the most debilitating impact on our world because, without knowledge, we are at a loss to develop our potential to fruition. Ignorance keeps behavior and appreciation of others at the most basic level and simply robs us of a life.

Obama intervenes in Kenya Strife

Nicki from California — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:24:20 EST

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/08/europe/obama.php

Great article. Obama's already working like a president! Go Obama!

Obama intervenes in Kenya strifeBy Jeff Zeleny
Tuesday, January 8, 2008

HANOVER, New Hampshire: As he campaigned for his party's presidential nomination Tuesday in the New Hampshire primary, Senator Barack Obama was following developments in Kenya and was working with the U.S. State Department to speak with President Mwai Kibaki of that country.

Nearly 500 people have been killed in Kenya in violence that followed a recent, contested election.

Obama, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee whose father was Kenyan, spoke Monday with the Kenyan opposition leader, Raila Odinga, asking Odinga to meet directly with the president without any preconditions, a spokesman for Obama said.

"He said the country would see the message that both you and Kibaki do not want chaos and that violence on all sides must stop," said the spokesman, Robert Gibbs. "If the country sees you talking and a willingness to resolve this political situation peacefully, a powerful message will be sent to the people."

For the past week, as he has campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama has been involved in talks between U.S. and Kenyan leaders. He spoke to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a week ago, aides said.

Obama, whose grandmother and other relatives live in Kenya, visited the country in August 2006 and met with several government leaders. He spoke directly to the Kenyan people late last week in an interview on Voice of America radio.

"Despite irregularities in the vote tabulation, now is not the time to throw that strong democracy away," Obama said in the interview. "Now is a time for President Kibaki, opposition leader Odinga and all of Kenya's leaders to call for calm, to come together and to start a political process to address peacefully the controversies that divide them. Now is the time for this terrible violence to end."

Who really can bring change?

Nicki from California — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:29:37 EST

Now every candidate is on the change bandwagon. It's an easy slogan to adapt and who could possibly be against it. But I disagree with Clinton's insinuations that rhetoric is meaningless. The debate host pointed out how every new president promises change, but usually only incremental change occurs at best. And here's where I think Obama is on to something. If you can inspire people to move, to work together towards something great, there is nothing that cannot be done. Take for example the sweeping changes in the JFK & LBJ admins. They were not brought on by just great leaders. They were built on the backs of millions, a movement of people in the civil rights movement. If you look back at the history of this country and indeed in any nation, significant change is created by the people and brought forth by leaders who are listening. (Or not listening and then you can have destabilization or violence). Obama has been able to tap into a large well of discontent and turn it into a fire of hope that is mobilizing people into action. The movement of the people will create the change. We work together, in tandem with the leader to reach our common goals. A politician alone cannot bring change. They have to have the people behind them, lifting them up and pushing them forward.

Chicago Defender: Senator Obama: 'Violence against women, at home and abroad, must cease'

Matthew Negrete — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:05:05 EDT

The following is an op-ed by Barack Obama titled, Violence against women, at home and abroad, must cease, for the Chicago Defender. You can also share Senator Obama's statement with family, friends, and others by filling the form.

The op-ed begins below:

What's going on in the Anbar province?

Michael Weiksner — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:57:46 EDT

Here is a video published by al jazeera and produced by BBC filmmakers that I highly recommend watching. The filmmakers have gotten the views of local US military commanders, local Sunni leaders and displaced Shiites. They have footage from the Anbar province that has been too dangerous for media to enter during this war. There isn't reliable information from US sources, but I find Al Jazeera's version quite plausible.

Check it out (you may want to skip to the first two minutes of introduction and go right to the documentary itself):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naJQc6vFlFY

And then you can also watch the second part here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsQ6twcWevY

Given the failures of the central government in Iraq, the Bush administration has taken a new tactic: working directly with tribal leaders. To tout the success of this new approach, President Bush himself went to Anbar province in early September and General Petraeus pointed to the decline of violence as evidence that the surge is working. But Sheik Abu Risa, the man who met with Bush and is credited for pulling together the local coalition, was killed yesterday by roadside bomb. What's going on?

The Bush administration version of the story is that Al Queda is responsible for his death. His death is a blow to our efforts, but it demonstrates why we can't let the terrorists win.

Al Jazeera has a different version of the story. Indeed, there has been remarkable peace in Anbar, but it has come at quite a cost. The local Sunni tribes have killed or displaced the 15,000 Shiite families that used to live there. According to Al Jazeera, Sheik Abu Risa was just a front man who has rise to power came from his role in dolling out US construction money. He was finally killed by real Sunni sheiks who resented his connection to the US. And Al Jazeera worries that the weapons that the US provides to the former insurgents will only add more fuel to an impending civil war in Iraq.

We need to be asking ourselves: how big is the refugee problem in Iraq? what is causing it? How can it be fixed? Is the surge a dangerous band-aid or the new solution touted by the Bush administration? I have to say that this report makes me even more skeptical about the success of the surge.

(Originally posted here on my blog, weiksner.com)

"The violence is unacceptable"

Sam Graham-Felsen — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:09:52 EDT

This year, the nation reacted in horror as 33 students' lives were taken at Virginia Tech. Yet few have mourned, or even seemed to notice, as over thirty young people in the Chicago Public Schools have fallen to gun violence the past school year.

Today, at the Vernon Park Church of God in the South Side of Chicago, Barack spoke on the need to limit gun violence through more stringent background checks, making the assault weapons ban permanent, and better enforcement of existing laws.

From the Chicago Tribune:

"Our playgrounds have become battlegrounds. Our streets have become cemeteries. Our schools have become places to mourn the ones we've lost," Obama told a standing-room-only congregation...
"The violence is unacceptable, and it's got to stop," he said...
Obama, who was often interrupted by audience members saying "amen" and one man who said "Speak to me, Mr. President," said Chicago is not alone in feeling the pain of gun violence.

"From South Central L.A., to Newark, New Jersey, there's an epidemic of violence that's sickening the soul of this nation," he said.

Last week, Barack also touched on the theme at the NAACP forum in Detroit, another city that has been wracked by gun violence. Watch the video:

Open letter to Mr. Obama about Energy Policy

Sun, 27 May 2007 21:18:28 EDT

Dear Mr. Obama,

My plan to meet our energy needs to is make ending our dependence on foreign oil a priority. Mr. Bush has used much of his presidency to attempt to spread freedom around the world. However, high oil prices allow dictators (Chavez, Ahmadinejad, etc.) in unstable nations to hold onto their power. In fact, one high-ranking member of the Taliban learned fundamental Islam at a madrasa funded by the oil revenue from Saudi Arabia. Thomas Friedman wrote in an article in the New York Times that the price of oil and freedom move in opposite directions. So, the best way to topple these autocratic regimes and reduce funding that could end up in terrorists' hands is not a war, but an energy revolution.

Mr. Bush noted in his State of the Union that "we are addicted to oil." However, he has done few concrete things to deal with this dilemma. I propose an initiatve that would mandate that half of our energy production be from sources other than coal, oil and natural gas by 2050. This mandate excludes coal and natural gas as alternatives to oil because we must also face the threat of Global Warming, and this initative seeks to solve both problems.

According to a report recently released by the the European Renewable Energy Council, alternative sources have the potential to meet 50% of our energy needs by 2050, all that's lacking is the will to do so. This initiave would create incentives to "go green," by:

1) Creating a carbon tax for all major polluting corporations, such as Big Oil and Motor Vehicle companies. My opponents will argue that such a tax will hurt American businesses. I disagree. According to the NY Times, Walmart is saving hundred of thousands of dollars by reducing the aount of plastic packaging they use, which requires oil to make, and they are already upgrading their fleet of vehicles to be more fuel-efficient, saving them millions. This tax would increase the incentive to adopt some of these green policies by saving companies that go green millions of dollars.

2) Creating a lottery, paid for by the carbon tax, that would install solar panels for free on the homes of winners. This would allow hundreds of thousands of Americans to save money by reducing their energy bill, it also takes those Americans off of the grid and reduces our total oil consumption. In addition, the lottery will drive solar panel development, allowing for more efficient and cheaper solar energy.

3) Installing solar panels of many Federal offices and buildings. By doing this, the government is leading the way and setting an example for the people to follow. In addition, there are very many government buildings and this program would save American taxpayers millions by reducing the Federal government's energy bill.

4) Significantly raising the mileage standards for cars and trucks. America has some of the lowest mileage standards in the world. Raising these significantly would force automakers to get serious about becoming fuel efficient. Some opponents will argue this would hurt business; I disagree. Most American consumers want to end the pain at the pump, the company that can best do this will see a huge profit.

These are just the start on the Road to Energy independence. The "National Energy Initiative" (perhaps "50% by '50") would drive development in alternative energy, ease Americans' pain at the pump, and create a financial incentive to go green. All of this could solve two of the most pressing problems of our time, Global Warming and the turmoil in the Middle East.

Addiction!

William from Dayton, OH — Fri, 11 May 2007 15:27:20 EDT

America has a problem with drug addiction & flybenji has a lot of ideas about positive things that can be done about it now.

www.flybenji.org

Please check it out & do not forget to tell Mr. Obama to check it out!

WE can & will do something now!

Obama may have shot himself in his presidential leg

Rebecca — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:43:55 EDT

I am very concerned about the speech made in Milwaukee that led Obama to categorize Imus, outsourcing of jobs, and the mass murder at Virginia Tech in one lump.

I understand what Obama was trying to accomplish. He was saying we need to be careful of what we say and what we do. He also tries to make the point that we need to become more empathetic if we are going to stop the cycle of violence- "...there's a lot of different forms of violence in our society, and much of it is rooted in our incapacity to recognize ourselves in others."

This is absolutely true. But this goes back to parenting, of course. We teach each other to be violent. We teach our children to be racist, sexist. We teach them that one kind of person is superior to another type of person. We sensationalize violence on TV so that anyone trying to make their mark on the world sees that this is the most efficient root to becoming famous or making their point reach millions of people. It sure beats trying to make your point by campaigning, say. More people know what Cho Seung-Hui thought than know what Obama thinks and Obama (God willing) may run their country one day.

I think Obama and his speech writers need to make sure they drive their true points home and do not leave any ambiguity about their intentions when making statements. People will rip into you if you leave it open. They will say, 'how can you compare VT to outsourcing?' I have seen on Ben Smith's blog on poltico.com that people are changing their minds, possibly, about Obama because they do not understand the connection he was desperately trying to make between the different forms of violence.

We need to make certain we give them something concrete and not only the big picture and lots of 'abstraction'. I find it refreshing for a politician to look at the world like I do but not everyone understands it and you have to cater to everyone. Good luck.

Barack, Please Sponsor Legislation To Restrict Ammo Sales

Lynn, Sacramento, CA — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 03:10:14 EDT

I believe in our citizens' right to bear arms, but there is something wrong in our society, when you can cut someone down just as easily with a gun as you can with a stupid remark. Here are my thoughts on what needs to be done, and how Senator Obama can help.

Guns are part of the problem, but by themselves, they are inanimate objects. Someone wrote in the comments on the HQ blog, "The right to bear arms" seems to be taken as "the right to USE a weapon when you are really pissed off at someone." How does this happen? How does someone get a hold of two lethal, semi-automatic weapons, plenty of spare magazines, body-armor, etc. and unload on any and everyone in his way? Ironically, this person was almost as prepared as our poor troops in Iraq!" Congress needs to spend investigative time finding out the answers to those questions and craft ways to curtail it.

Legislation To Restrict Ammo Sales, Not Gun Sales

A person can walk into a store and buy large quantities of ammo with no questions asked. If I try to buy some over the counter-cold medicine, I have to sign a document, show I.D and can purchase it only in limited quantities. Why can’t we do the same for bullets? Why aren't there any safeguards in place that asked this person why he needed all those bullets? Why can't we do the same thing some states do for syringes and fill orders for bullets based upon a corresponding number of empty shells traded in? The second amendment protects the right to bear arms. It gives no one the right to fire them when angry. Restrict ammo sales, not gun sales and we will have no problems with the NRA gun lobbyists.

It is just as easy to track a person's ammo purchases as it is to track the books they read at the library or the pills they buy at a drugstore. There needs to be a national database for tracking all forms of ammo purchases. People would have the same 10-day waiting period before any bullets are handed to them. We would still have a record of which people own or use ammo for guns, and they will not be able to go around to dozens of stores buying batches of ammo to get around the quota rule. We would sure have a lot less bullet holes in the neighborhood traffic signs if people had to conserve their indiscriminate use of their ammo quota for times of emergency.

First-Responders And Self-Protection

Our nation cannot further delay coming to a consensus over the problem of gun violence and Constitutional rights to bear arms. All parties must be willing to tackle the issue on many different fronts. It is futile to demand the right to carry arms as a form of self-protection in these instances of mass violence. Who do the first responders shoot at when they first arrive on the scene, the crazy idiot who invaded the campus or workplace, or the crazy idiot defending himself by brandishing his own gun? What about the third guy who panics at the bullets flying in all directions and starts shooting his own gun at the both of them? How will the first responders know the difference between the good guy and the bad guy when split second decisions leave lives at stake?

People Count

It is futile to debate the balance between our right to have guns and the violence aided by gun possession without including access to quality healthcare, including mental and emotional counseling. The problems of school and workplace violence will not be solved until the broader culture of this society decides to reject the mentality that serves these acts. It will change when we decide to teach children that firing a gun at someone is not a solution for anger, and spend as much time caring for each other as we do our televisions and computers.

American Have You Had Enough Yet?

Lynn, Sacramento, CA — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 19:18:53 EDT

Enough of the occupation of violence in Iraq?

Enough of the occupation of violence in our communities and schools?

Enough of divisive, derogatory social commentary?

Enough of the excuses, distractions and no action?

Senator Obama, I've had ENOUGH! America needs you right now, today! We can't wait for 2008!

When will we ever learn. Guns, Violence and the Numbing of our Senses.

Val McCall — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:21:16 EDT

No doubt, anyone sitting in front of a computer -- or a television -- has been watching and listening to the chilling story unfolding on the campus of Viriginia Tech. A young male student entered the Virginia Tech campus this morning, armed with 9mm gun[s], killed 33 persons, including himself, and injured dozens of others. The loss of life at the height of it's most potent promise is numbing. Let us keep in our prayers those precious lives lost and their families whose grief tear at the fabric of our senses and our society.

When will we ever learn? There is a phrase in a song composed by Pete Seeger entitled "Where Have all the Flowers Gone." It is a song about young men being blindly lead off to war only to never return home alive. The song asks the question, "When will they ever learn?" It is long overdue for us to ask ourselves, "When will we ever learn?" What will it take for us to recognize that the current "gun control" system is just not working?

Violence is proliferating throughout every aspect of our society -- it has been nutured and cultured into a fine art that is marketed to the masses as a must-have commodity, whether through video games, music, movies, cartoons, "reality tv" and more. Guns, violence, and a thrist for the macabre is what our youth, and our society as a whole, are being bombarded with every nano second of the day. And when our senses go awry, and we start to loose touch with our humanity, there is always some new wave of "recently tested" pharmaceuticals, gauranteed to cure our ills, make us thin and keep us forever 21, side-affects notwithstanding. When will we ever learn?

It is Time to Stop the Corporate Violence. When will we have the courage to stand up to special interests groups, such as the pharmaceutical industry that all to often touts "Take this new drug ... it will cure you from sneezing too much ... please note that it might cause the membranes in the nasal cavity to erupt, loss of bladder control, loss of eye sight, brain tumors, and and a whole lot of other things too numerous to mention ... but it will stop you from sneezing. Might as well cut your nose off and be done with it. Anyone read the label of some of these "uptake inhibitors" that are supposed to help a person "deal with anxiety?" What a treat they are.

It is time for us to take the steps necessary to build a society that instills in everyone the ability to make choices based on creating value for themselves and those around them. First, we must recognize that life is the most precious gift of all. Then, we should nuture and savor this precious gift in every way, including the environment, our food chain, and ultimately each other. In this manner, we can stand up against injustice for those who lost their lives today at Virginia Tech, for their grieving families and for all the many victims of violence, whether by guns or any other means. All it takes is just one person to start a change.

The song I mentioned at the beginning of this post was written in the the late 1950s to early 1960s. We cannot afford to let another generation go by only to write another song 40-50 years from now, still asking, "When will they ever learn?"

Val McCall, Connecticut

Media Control

Joseph — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:53:11 EST

I believe that the biggest policy problem in my community is the lack of media control. As I look at the media that children digest on a daily basis, particularly music that promotes violence, degrading women, and a lifestyle that is unattainable to many, I can’t help but be saddened. My community is infiltrated with this filth on a daily basis, and unfortunately those gatekeepers responsible for filtering content aren’t doing their job. In order to ensure more media control I think that we should fine corporations like BET and MTV who poison our children’s minds.

Though cable stations are subject to less regulation than broadcast channels are, I think there comes a point when these corporations have to see that they are truly poisoning minds. Running videos for hours at a time that encourage us to, “make it rain on these ho*s” as Fat Joe and Lil Wayne instruct, or to approach women by saying, “aye shorty come here give me dem goodies,” as Southern group D4l so elegantly tells us to do, is not doing anything positive for the black community, or for that matter, society as a whole.

Though there are still some positive rappers around (Common, Talib Kweli, Mos Def, and Nas to name a few), the majority don’t do too much to uplift their communities. Their sole focus is on making money and catering to “what the demographic wants.” By doing this they promote a way of life that has absolutely no value and is not helping our generation to better itself.

I’ve seen the impact of media upon my community. Though I live in Prince George’s County, the most affluent African-American county in the country, many of my peers act as if they are living in the hood, when in fact they’ve been blessed to have opportunities to advance that many don’t. I have friends and family members who will sit around and watch BET spew out its garbage for hours on end. As they watch hours and hours of the Fat Joe’s, Lil Wayne’s, and 50 Cent’s of the world, I’m troubled because all they know is BET. They have no inclination as to what real life is like and develop a false expectation of the world. They believe that everything will come easily in life; that all they have to do is rap, sing, or make beats to become famous. So instead of focusing on more viable means of making money, many become consumed with “making it” in the industry. As African-Americans we need to be able to branch out into areas beyond sports, dance, and music, because we are an intelligent people capable of so much.

Just as CBS was fined for Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl incident, I think that anyone who airs filth that poisons children’s minds should be fined. If adults choose to listen to it, that’s their decision, but putting ignorant visions of ghetto success into children’s minds should not be a goal of entertainment.