Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Parental Rights Amendment Has 71 Sponsors and Growing

by Mark Godbey
March 31, 2009

The growing parental rights movement in this country has taken on new life over the past few weeks with the inclusion of the millions of Non-custodial Parents into the Parentalrights.org cause.

Originally introduced in June 2008 by Rep. Pete Hoekstra R. of Michigan's 2nd District, H.J. Resolution 97 died in committee last year from lack of support from Congress, but more importantly from the public. The resolution only had 31 sponsors last year

"At a time when government at every level seems to encroach upon the ability of parents to choose the best for their children," Hoekstra writes on his website, "it is important to preserve parental rights into the Constitution," said Hoekstra in a prepared statement from his congressional website.

Congressman Hoekstra along with Republican Senator Tom DeMint, S.C. are set to re-introduce the resolution, today, this time with 71 supporters in United States Congress. The plan is to move forward to an eventual co-sponsorship with Democrats to amass 290 votes in the House; and 67 votes in the Senate, the number needed for passage onto the States. From there, the States have 7 years to ratify or reject the amendment.

The growing threat of the ratification of the United National Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) by the Obama Administration and the increased government interference that it directly implies is pushing the amendment to get serious this time.


From the parental rights website: "The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, often referred to as CRC or UNCRC, is an international convention setting out the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of children. Nations that ratify this international convention are bound to it by international law. Compliance is monitored by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child which is composed of members from countries around the world. Once a year, the Committee submits a report to the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, which also hears a statement from the CRC Chair, and the Assembly adopts a Resolution on the Rights of the Child.

Governments of countries that have ratified the Convention are required to report to, and appear before, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child periodically to be examined on their progress with regards to the advancement of the implementation of the Convention and the status of child rights in their country. Their reports and the committee's written views and concerns are available on the committee's website. A notion which is supported by Senator Barbara Boxer D, CA pushing the treaty out of her committee for a Senate vote."

Also from the Parental Rights Organization website.

"Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC.

1. It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.
2. Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.
3. Children of other nations would not be impacted in any direct way by our ratification.
4. The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of our Supremacy Clause.
5. The CRC has some elements that are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation. Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.
6. The Courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.
7. Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.
8. A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.
9. Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.
10. Reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.

Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC.

1. Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
2. A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
3. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
4. The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
5. A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
6. According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
7. Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
8. Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.
9. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
10. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent. "

United States Parental Rights Amendment

On the other hand, US resolution is very simply stated:

The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.


No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

There is a growing collation of groups that support a Parental Rights Amendment, they include:

American Family Rights Association (AFRA)

Americans for Tax Reform

Children Need Both Parents

Children of God for Life

Christian Liberty Academy School System (CLASS)

Christian Medical and Dental Association

Citizens for Excellence in Education (CEE)

Citizens for Parental Rights

Concerned Women of America (CWA)

Dads Against Divorce Discrimination (DADD)

Defend the Family International

Eagle Forum

Families Best Interest, Inc.

The Fatherhood Coalition

Fathers' Rights Network

Focus on the Family Action

Get Your Justice Live (getyourjusticelive.com)

The Guardiannews.net

Gun Owners of America (GOA)

Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA)

Honk for Kids



Talk About Curing Autism

United Civil Rights Councils of America

Add to Technorati Favorites

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Hostile Agressive Parenting

What is Hostile Aggressive Parenting?

Hostile Aggressive Parenting (HAP) is defined as : A general pattern of behaviour, manipulation, actions or decision-making of a person (usually a parent or guardian) that either directly or indirectly; 1) creates undue difficulties or interferences in the relationship of a child with another person (usually a parent or guardian) involved with the parenting and/or rearing of the child and/or, 2) promotes or maintains an unwarranted unfairness or inequality in the parenting arrangements between a child’s parents and/or guardians and/or, 3) promotes ongoing and unnecessary conflict between parents and/or guardians which adversely affects the parenting, well-being and rearing of a child.

Hostile-Aggressive Parenting is most apparent in child-custody disputes and is used most often as a tool to align the child with one of the parents during litigation over custody or control of the child. However, HAP can be present in almost any situation where two or more people involved in a child’s life are at odds with each other over how a child may be raised or influenced by the parties. HAP can be present to some extent even when couples are still living together.

Although Hostile-Aggressive Parenting is often confused with Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a term coined by Dr. Richard Gardner, HAP and PAS are not the same. HAP refers to the behaviours, actions and decisions of a person, whereas, PAS relates to the psychological condition of the child. In the vast majority of cases HAP is the cause of PAS.

Hostile-Aggressive Parenting is not limited to the biological parents but also applies to any guardian - grandparents, extended family members, daycare providers and to any other person who may be involved in caring and rearing of a child. In some cases, it may even involve a parent in dispute with the child’s grandparents, sometimes the parent’s very own parent! Any form of interference to a normal, healthy relationship between a child and a person (most often one of the parents) caused by another person or agency having some control or influence over the child, is wrong and ultimately causes emotional and psychological harm to the child. Throughout this document the word “parent” shall be considered synonymous with “guardian”.

Hostile-Aggressive Parenting is a very serious and damaging form of abuse and maltreatment that parents and even other family members can engage in. HAP is most often identified in individuals with controlling and bullying personalities or those with mild to severe personality disorders. HAP can be a factor in all types of parenting arrangements including sole maternal custody, sole paternal custody and joint custody. Interestingly, it is sole custodial parents who are most often reported to practice Hostile-Aggressive-Parenting, especially in its most severe form.

In general, parents exhibiting Hostile-Aggressive-Parenting have not succeeded in getting on with their own life and remain, instead, controlled by their negative emotions and continue to exercise power and control over their ex-spouse's life, their ex-spouse's parenting and to a large extent, over the children of the relationship as well. HAP parents will blame everyone else except themselves.

High degrees of conflict during custody settlements and litigation are almost sure signs in these affected families. Hostile-aggressive parents are unable to appreciate the needs of their child and in many cases view their child as a possession belonging to them and no other persons have any right to the child, especially not the child’s other parent or other persons that the HAP parent does not like. Hostile-aggressive parents will use the child as a weapon against the other spouse and family members whenever they have the opportunity. A parent engaged in Hostile-Aggressive Parenting will also take comfort in that the community in general will choose not to get involved, probably because they don’t know what to do. Angry and vindictive HAP parents are often able to bring a reign of terror and revenge on to a non-custodial parent and their family, their goal being to get them out of the child’s life or at the very least to severely damage their child’s relationship with the other parent and other parent’s family.

Hostile-Aggressive Parenting is considered by many health care and legal experts unhealthy, anti-social, abusive behaviour which is emotionally damaging and contrary interest of a child. Simply stated, it is dysfunctional parenting, emotional child abuse parent who is the target of Hostile-Aggressive Parenting, a form of discrimination.


Add to Technorati Favorites

Friday, March 27, 2009

End the Welfare Marriage Penalty

OP-ED, The Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2008; Page A15

What if the federal government forced couples to pay 20% of their annual income just to get or stay married? And suppose a couple could avoid this tax if they either got a divorce or never got married in the first place?

Read the Background Brief

Does it sound like good public policy to force a couple earning, say, $60,000 a year to pay $12,000 just for being married?

That's more or less what we demand of millions of low-income Americans who receive government welfare benefits. For most couples on welfare, getting married is among the more expensive decisions they will face as newlyweds, because saying "I do" will reduce the benefits they receive, on average, by 10% to 20% of their total income.

We shudder to think what would happen to marriage in America if all of us, and not just the poor, faced such a pernicious incentive system.

Knowledge of the marriage penalty in poor neighborhoods is typically spread by word of mouth. This informal learning might actually increase the antimarriage impact of the penalty, by convincing nearly all poor couples that they will lose income if they marry, even though some (due to the complexity of the regulations) would not.

In recent years, Congress has made substantial progress in reducing the marriage penalties paid by middle and upper income couples because of the tax system. But lawmakers have done little to address marriage penalties facing the poor through the benefit system.

Why should we care about this issue? For starters, consider the children. A wide range of studies have found that children whose parents are married are significantly less likely to use drugs, have emotional problems, drop out of school, or get into trouble with the law. Studies also consistently find that married adults tend to be happier, healthier and ultimately wealthier than their unmarried but otherwise similarly situated peers.

So when we penalize poor couples for getting married, we are giving them a strong incentive not to take advantage of an institution that would likely help them lift themselves out of poverty over time. Being married gives couples a greater capacity to build assets and economic stability, which could help get them off of welfare for good.

For these reasons, it's time to eliminate the marriage penalty for low-income Americans. Our proposal is simple: Don't make them pay it. We should allow newly married couples to continue to receive all of their benefits for the first three years of marriage, thus mitigating the marriage penalty currently paid by lower-income couples. This adjustment should give newly married couples a sufficient grace period to realize the economic benefits of marriage – and save some money to stabilize their financial situation – before government benefits cease.

When that day comes, the government's message to low-income Americans will have changed dramatically. We will be saying: Your marriage matters – for you and for all of us. We will no longer penalize low-income Americans who wish to marry.

Liberals ought to support this idea, because it means more money for the poor. Conservatives ought to support this idea, because it is pro-marriage, and because it may help to reduce welfare dependency over the long run. Everyone ought to like this idea because it could help reduce the suffering that so frequently accompanies family fragmentation and divorce.

What's the next step? We need to test this idea. In five or so lower-income communities across the country, we need local leaders and public officials to work together to design programs to reach out to low-income engaged and married couples, make sure they know that they will not pay a marriage penalty for the first three years of their marriage, and help them to calculate their savings from this program.

Ideally, such outreach programs would be one part – the financial part – of broader community-based efforts to strengthen marriage. The results of these pilot projects would be carefully evaluated by independent scholars. Do marriage rates increase? Does the well-being of women, men and children improve? If the answers are yes, this idea could be extended to the nation as a whole.


Add to Technorati Favorites

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Briefing Report: The Failure of the Single Parent Family

How to Really Close the Achievement Gap and Help Kids
It is time to recognize that there is another form of inequality in the circumstances of growing up and getting educated: It is whether a child grows up with two parents in the home, or one.
- “The Family: America’s Smallest School”, Paul E. Barton and Richard J. Coley


It is often said that society should not punish children for the mistakes of their parents, yet that is exactly what we do by our unwillingness to address honestly the abandonment of children by their parents. It is time to face facts.

The Family Portrait is Torn

In the United States today, too many children are left behind – not by government, but by those who should care for them. In 2003-04, 44 percent of births to women under 30 – about one million babies – were to unmarried women. Among African-Americans, over three-quarters of births were to single mothers.1 (Lest one pin all the blame on the mother, note that the most significant factors predicting whether an unwed mother will marry the father are the father’s supportiveness of the mother and his positive attitude toward marriage.2) Moreover, over 30 percent of children are being raised in single-parent families; among African-Americans, only 35 percent of children are being raised in two-parent homes. Most disturbing, the figures are getting worse for children across all ethnic groups. 3

The Single-Parent Family Movie: Some Scenes May Be Disturbing

The portrait of the fractured family is one thing, but when put in motion, the grim consequences of unmarried motherhood and fatherless families are made clear.

  • On average, children with married parents have higher grade point averages and test higher than those in other family structures, the lowest being among children with divorced parents.4
  • High school graduation rates for children from two-parent families reach 90 percent, while for children from never-married-mother families only 69 percent graduate.5
  • Children in divorced families are nearly twice as likely to be expelled from school than those in married families, and children in single-parent, never-married families are over four times likely to be expelled.6
  • Rates of incarceration among those raised by one parent only are twice as high as for those raised in intact married-parent families.7
  • Both substance abuse and early sexual activity are associated with a single parent upbringing, and women from single-mother families have about twice the chance of having a child out of marriage by age 20 than women from two-parent families.8
  • Compared to adults raised in two-parent families, those raised in single-parent families earned, on average, $5,015 less per year than their peers.9

Clearly, children raised in two-parent families tend to exhibit behavior that better prepares them to be positive contributors to society, and this is borne out by comparisons of adults based on family structure.

Some will take issue with the notion that family composition significantly influences academic and behavioral changes. They will point to exceptions, and most everyone knows someone who defies the trends. But the data shows that these success stories are indeed exceptions and those who have defied the odds are likely exceptional individuals raised by an exceptional parent. Unfortunately, this is a relatively rare circumstance, and to deny it is to deny years of empirical data and deliberate research.

Others will assert that it is not family structure, but other factors – family income and parental education, for example – that exert the most influence. It is true that researchers have not sufficiently isolated all the variables to say definitively that single-parent families result in less successful children. Nevertheless, this failure to prove causation does not mean the cause does not exist, only that it has not been proven.10 Yet when looked at holistically, it is impossible to deny a strong correlation between family structure and children’s well-being, and difficult to conclude anything other than that children raised in two-parent married families fare better than children raised in other circumstances.

Whatever their relationship, a variety of negative factors are associated with single-parent families. For example, single parents tend to be less educated and to have fewer financial resources than married parents. In fact, among women under 30 with less than a high school diploma, more than 60 percent of births were outside marriage.11 Not surprisingly, more than two-thirds of children in single-parent families were living in poverty – a rate five and one-half times greater than for children being raised by their married parents.12 For children in a single-parent family, these circumstances frequently converge and form a dangerous intersection. While reading to preschool-aged children has been shown to lead to higher reading achievement and social development, a less educated parent is less likely to read to a child, as is a less wealthy parent, as is a single parent.13

A Model for Change

Out-of-marriage births, father absence, and divorce are personal choices and legal, but detrimental to a child’s well-being and the nation’s general welfare. How do we reverse the trend? One way is through a campaign to shift societal norms, an effort with which the nation has had recent success.

In 1964, 50 percent of American men and 35 percent of American women smoked. That same year, the Surgeon General reported on smoking’s harmful effects. Slowly, smoking became more widely acknowledged as a health hazard, first to smokers themselves, then to others. By 1985, former Health, Education, and Welfare secretary Joseph Califano called it not just “slow motion suicide,” but “slow motion murder.” California’s Department of Health Services sought to “denormalize” smoking such that it became “an abnormal practice.” By 2003, smoking was “considered a deviant behavior.”14

It may be neither desirable nor necessary to conduct a campaign stigmatizing single mothers and absent fathers as deviants. It may be more effective, rather, to promote marriage and the idea that submission of the self to the responsibilities of raising one’s children into a better life is among the highest and most noble of callings. This will take work, but it is no more impossible than the societal mobilization that has so reduced smoking and its deadly consequences. Moreover, a failure to even attempt to address family structure as it pertains to child well-being calls into question the values of a society that so often claims to place before virtually all else the interests of children. Demanding ever more money for schools and universal preschool may make some feel good, but it is misplaced, because while another generation is being born into fractured or never-were families, and another generation of kids will be left to cope with a social disease we are unwilling to cure.


1 Barton, Paul E. and Coley, Richard J. “The Family: America’s Smallest School.” Educational Testing Service. January 2007.
2 Fagan, Patrick F. and Johnson, Kirk A. “The Map of the Family.” Heritage Foundation.
3 Barton and Coley.
4 Fagan and Johnson.
5Sigle-Ruston, Wendy and McLanahan, Sara. “Father Absence and Child Well-being: A Critical Review.” October 2002.
6 Fagan and Johnson.
7 Ibid.
8 Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Barton and Coley.
12 Fagan and Johnson.
13 Sigle-Rushton and McLanahan.
14 Bayer, Ronald and Stuber, Jennifer. “Tobacco Control, Stigma, and Public Health: Rethinking the Relations.” American Journal of Public Health. 2006; 96:28-31.


Add to Technorati Favorites

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

The Single Greatest Threat to the Socialists

by Mark Godbey
March 25, 2009

It’s not TeaParties, not Elections, its certainly not Republicans.

It’s the Family. The two-parent home. Children being raised by both parents. Whether the parents are divorced or married. Parental rights to rear children and a child’s right to both of his parents. (Grandparents are good, too. Sometimes better.) Where’s the AARP when we need them?

You want to Rebuild America? Emphasize Family Values. Support the Family. The family is the core of civilized society, the safe harbor for children.

Democrats are terrified of two-parent homes. The single-parent home is the largest breeding ground of criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts, unwed mothers, and suicides among children from such homes.

The Democrats could care less about the Republicans, the UN, and Rush Limbaugh. They are just a lot of hot air, no muscle. The mass of two-parent homes terrifies them. “Break ‘em all up” say the Democrats. Subsidize divorce. Pay incentive bonuses to HHS-funded CPS workers.

“Destroy the family, and you destroy society,” said Lenin. Guess what? We just elected the first Socialist President.

The destruction of the American Family is funded by the federal government. That’s right. The wholesale destruction of the black family was funded by the government. Now they want everyone else.

The federal government gives state huge block grants, big pots of money to disburse to single parent homes. Big Daddy government!

In effect the federal government is now Big Daddy. Fathers are not needed. In the eyes of the Democrats it takes only a single parent and Big Daddy to do the job.

Unfortunately, that has never worked. In fact, single parent homes produce more criminals, dropouts, unwed mothers, alcoholism and suicides than any other type of home. Didn’t I just say that?

And these homes are on the rise. Make no mistake. The federal and state governments want it that way. The feds give money to the states to make it that way. The state takes the money for jobs. Pays bonuses for stealing children.

HHS gives CPS workers $4-6K per child head, and $2K bonus for "special needs" kids. Sorta like a bounty on scalps? Might be too young to remember, that one, huh?

Ask the Indians. How many children were taken from their homes up until the Indian Child Welfare Act was introduced? Are the Indian Nations what they once were? How many black children have seen their father in the last year. Certainly not Barack Obama, our first "fatherles" president.

You Decide.

Support Parent’s Right…..The Only Right Left Out of the US Constitution. Let’s make it Right. Get involved. Support Rep. Pete Hoekstra and the Parental Rights Amendment. Become and 10-2 Volunteer.

Support ParentalRights.org


Add to Technorati Favorites

Parental Alienation: A Family's Heartbreak: A Parent's Introduction to Parental Alienation, a new book

by Mark Godbey
March 25, 2009

Just recently, I received a notification that a friend of mine has published a book on Parental Alienation. Because of the heinous nature of family court, and repercussions not only from the family court judge, but revenge from the alienator, my friend wrote the book under a pseudonym.

The book is available from his website, but can also be purchased on Amazon.com

Dear Mark,

We are pleased to announce that our book, A Family's Heartbreak: A Parent's Introduction to Parental Alienation, is finally out. For legal reasons, I wrote the book under the pseudonym Mike Jeffries.

In conjunction with the release of our book, we have also introduced a new website -- http://www.afamilysheartbreak.com. If you have our old Hugs to Heartbreak website bookmarked, in your contact information, or as a link on your webpage, please replace it with our new URL.

Anyone can order your book at http://www.afamilysheartbreak.com. The book is also available on Amazon.com, however people will receive it faster if they order it directly from our new website.

We wrote A Family's Heartbreak: A Parent's Introduction to Parental
Alienation to raise the visibility of an issue that as you know, affects
millions of parents, children and extended family members every year.
We're confident A Family's Heartbreak: A Parent's Introduction to Parental Alienation will families deal with their very painful situations and educate the legal and mental health professionals involved in your case about this very destructive family dynamic.

Just wanted to let you know.


m. "jeff" jeffries.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Monday, March 23, 2009

Parent's Rights - Federal or State Amendments ?

For those who support only a Federal Parental Rights Amendment, you need to consider who is President and Vice President. The first "fatherless" president and a VP who authored the VAWA !!


- First, support the Federal Parental Rights Amendmentt initiative by Rep Pete Hoekstra of the US Congress...

- Second, support legislation, state initiatives to support Shared Custody or Joint Parental Rights, not Shared Parenting. Support laws, initiate laws to support parents rights in every state, county and municipality.

Shared Parenting, Best Interest of the Child, and Tender Years Doctrine ??? These are policies, concepts, and legal attempts to mollify parents fighting in court. (Shared Parenting is a meaningless, pie-in-the-sky, feel-good, legally unenforceable concept.)

When someone asks you what you favor, say: "I am divorced, single now. I share custody with my ex and parent my children in my own home, as is my right. We no longer share parenting, since obviously we are divorced, but our children deserve both parents, and custody is shared since children need a mom and a dad."

Remember, it is almost next to impossible to have a federal Parental Rights Amendment passed to amend the US Constitution. For that to happen requires the US Congress to pass a proposed amendment to the states. Then 3/4 states must ratify.

The state governments would not pass it for one main reason: MONEY $$$$$

It would cut into their budget windfall from the federal government. As long as the federal government subsidizes state interference in family matters, the state governments will continue their atrocities against the people of their state and the children of their state.

However, state Parental Rights Constitutional Amendments would be passable and almost unchallengeable from state governments and agencies if it were based on federal court decisions and the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution supporting children's and parents rights.

The greatest problem now facing parents is the ratification by the Senate of the UNCRC, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. nuff said..

Proposed California Parental Rights Amendment

Section 1. The right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, and to the care, companionship and society of their children is a fundamental right.

Section 2. The right of children under age 18 to the care, companionship, and society of their biological parents is a fundamental right.

Section 3. The state of California, nor any administrative, judicial, executive or legislative act, directive, order or rule or ruling shall infringe upon these rights without demonstrating evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in a jury trial that such a fundamental rights be abridged except in cases of criminal neglect, abandonment or abuse. No governmental act or acts now in existence can be created to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Congressman Pete Hoekstra on Parental Rights

Parents' Rights

Parents have the responsibility to care for, love and nurture their children. Parents, and not the government, should determine how their children are raised and how they should be educated.

At a time when government at every level seems to encroach upon the ability of parents to choose the best for their children, it is important to preserve parental rights into the Constitution. Doing so would protect parents’ ability to raise their children.

I will be introducing a Parents’ Rights Constitutional Amendment this Congress which would protect parents’ rights to raise their children from unnecessary government intrusion.

I am maintaining a list of confirmed supporters who will be added as original co-sponsors when the resolution is introduced in the 111th Congress. You may find the list below.

Supporters of the Parental Rights Constitutional Amendment

* Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)
* Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN)
* Rep. Gresham Barrett (R-SC)
* Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)
* Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT)
* Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
* Rep. John Boozman (R-AK)
* Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)
* Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)
* Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN)
* Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI)
* Rep. John Campbell (R-CA)
* Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)
* Rep. John Carter (R-TX)
* Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX)
* Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY)
* Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK)
* Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)
* Rep. Trent Frank (R-AZ)
* Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)
* Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
* Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
* Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
* Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA)
* Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
* Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX)
* Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
* Rep. Jack Kingston (R-CA)
* Rep. John Kline (R-MN)
* Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
* Rep. Robert Latta (R-OH)
* Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
* Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Il)
* Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX)
* Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX)
* Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)
* Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC)
* Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA)
* Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS)
* Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
* Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)
* Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA)
* Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)
* Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH)
* Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)
* Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ)
* Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL)
* Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN)
* Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK)
* Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE)
* Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS)
* Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN)
* Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)
* Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY)
* Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)
* Rep. Robert Wittman (R-VA)
* Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)


Add to Technorati Favorites

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Support the Federal Parental Rights Amendment

Parents' Rights

by Congressman Pete Hoekstra (R) Michigan, 2nd District

March 18, 2009

Parents have the responsibility to care for, love and nurture their children. Parents, and not the government, should determine how their children are raised and how they should be educated.

At a time when government at every level seems to encroach upon the ability of parents to choose the best for their children, it is important to preserve parental rights into the Constitution. Doing so would protect parents’ ability to raise their children.

I will be introducing a Parents’ Rights Constitutional Amendment this Congress which would protect parents’ rights to raise their children from unnecessary government intrusion.

I am maintaining a list of confirmed supporters who will be added as original co-sponsors when the resolution is introduced in the 111th Congress. You may find the list below.

Supporters of the Parental Rights Constitutional Amendment

* Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)
* Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN)
* Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)
* Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT)
* Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
* Rep. John Boozman (R-AK)
* Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)
* Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)
* Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN)
* Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI)
* Rep. John Campbell (R-CA)
* Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)
* Rep. John Carter (R-TX)
* Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX)
* Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY)
* Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK)
* Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)
* Rep. Trent Frank (R-AZ)
* Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)
* Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
* Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
* Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
* Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
* Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX)
* Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
* Rep. John Kline (R-MN)
* Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
* Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)
* Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Il)
* Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX)
* Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI)
* Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC)
* Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA)
* Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS)
* Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)
* Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)
* Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA)
* Rep. Tom Price (R-GA)
* Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH)
* Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)
* Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ)
* Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL)
* Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN)
* Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK)
* Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE)
* Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN)
* Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)
* Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)
* Rep. Robert Wittman (R-VA)
* Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)


Add to Technorati Favorites

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Why Do We Need a Parents Right Amendment?

A friend of mine pointed this out to me the other day. I quote:

"The U.S. Founding Fathers viewed a Father's Rights over his own children, so fundamental, basic, absolute, and inalienable, as endowed by the Creator, that such obvious and self evident rights were never considered necessary to spell out in an after thought Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," Paul Sielski on Facebook.

The necessity to fight for our Parental Rights was unheard of 100's of years ago, but this is the case. With federal funding of hundreds of programs that interfere with our ability to educate, rear, and instruct in our religious beliefs, it it time we put down on paper our Fundamental Rights.

We have the support of many, many federal court rulings, but until a parental rights amendment is passed both at the national level and at state levels (since marriage, education and religious freedoms are protected by state constitutions), the destruction of the Traditional Family will go on until we are just puppets of our government, and all of us Wards of the State.

Proposed California Parental Rights Amendment

Section 1. The right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, and to the care, companionship and society of their children is a fundamental right.

Section 2. The right of children under age 18 to the care, companionship, and society of their biological parents is a fundamental right.

Section 3. The state of California, nor any administrative, judicial, executive or legislative act, directive, order or rule or ruling shall infringe upon these rights without demonstrating evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in a jury trial that such a fundamental rights be abridged except in cases of criminal neglect, abandonment or abuse. No governmental act or acts now in existence can be created to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Tuesday, March 17, 2009


I received this email from a friend of a friend and pass it on to you as is, Mark:



The latest issue:

I live in Maryland. My case is DV-2000-5967 in the circuit court of Pulaski County, Arkansas 15th Division. Through an unfavorable divorce, my daughter resides in Arkansas. My ex-wife's attorney claims that I am three months past due and have requested that I be I be incarcerated.

Every summer, I fly my daughter to Maryland for her 8-week stay at a cost of $300 per week day camp and I still faithfully pay child-support while I have her. If I am found to have even unintentionally missed a single child-support payment, the judge will issue a warrant for my arrest, incarcerated, and fined any unlimited amount.

They sent me no letter that I was behind in child-support. Just court papers on 14FEB09 to travel over 1000 miles to appear in an Arkansas Court for a hearing and sentencing on 23MAR09. Her attorney, Michael Knollmeyer at 2525 John Harden Drive, Jacksonville, AR 72076, 501-985-1760, 501-985-1924 fax claims that I am 3 months past due in child support just to get it to court before the judge and is running a crusade to have another PROFESSIONAL African-American male unreasonably put in jail.

We need to stand behind each other, because we are slowly being taken out one-by-one. A measly 30 days is not a reasonable time to correct matters involving interstate child custody or child support.

Just like thousands of other African-American men whom have obeyed their parent, gone to school, graduated with degrees, going to church, just to be rail-roaded be the Judicial Branch of "our" own govenment. Similar to these men, whom are doing the right thing, if I am sent to prison, you would not even know it. The NAACP ain't what is used to be.

* I began a new job on 15SEP08.
* I was getting paid bi-weekly on August 27, 2007. As of 15SEP08, I get paid monthly.
* I did receive a final pay check in October from the former employer showing that the automatic withdrawal of child support was made. This was for work performed in September.
* In November 2008, I voluntarily registered on-line with the Arkansas Office of Child Support Enforcement.
* In November 2008, I made one on-line payment of an amount equal or greater than 2 bi-weekly child support payments.
* In December 2008, I submitted an affidavit of financial means to the Court and my ex-wife.
* My pay check for the months beginning in December 2008 reflect an increased deduction. The increase in child support is based on the current monthly pay.
* The child support payments are deducted from each monthly pay check.
* The small discrepancy amount in child support does not raise to the level that interstate nor is court action reasonable.
* I have not been given reason time or information in writing to perform ant corrective action. In all UIFSA matters, the Court and Office(s) of Child Support Enforcement grant 90 - 365 days to pay minor arrearage discrepancies.

Based on these FACTS, the court date should be changed to a date after the child ends her summer 2009 vacation. I should not be jailed or be adjudged in Contempt of this Court.

No stimulus plan for Black inmates

Published: Thursday, March 12, 2009 12:06 PM EDT

Wherever the American economy is headed, the American judicial system will have already entrapped Blacks. The New York Legislature, for example, passed its gradual emancipation statute in 1799. On the same day in 1799, the New York Legislature also established a statewide prison system. Coincidence?

After the ratification of the 14th Amendment, kangaroo courts were in full bloom, and the terms of the 14th Amendment were being routinely honored in the breach. The American economy still needed a bailout after chattel slavery. Blacks were pawns, and the nation's judicial system would punish any Black loiterer who refused to participate in volunteer slavery. Today, there are more Black men in prison than in college, and more than half of the Black men in urban centers are unemployed. It costs more to imprison a Black male than to send him to college. New York refuses to accord a Black inmate a college education. Black inmates are subject to Dred Scott. The average cost of incarceration is $29,000.
Terrorism thrives when Blacks seem to be making progress. It is worse in prisons. Attorney General Eric Holder is the nominal defender of the constitutional guarantees of Blacks. He is currently nursing bruises for, within reason, describing the state of race relations in the United States.

He described this country as a "nation of cowards." History has proven that this country is, in fact, a nation of racial racketeers and conspirators. Mr. Holder was being kind to white critics who advocate and perpetuate the notion of white superiority. These are racial zealots.

The First Amendment rights of first lady Michelle Robinson have already been checkmated. This is reminiscent of the gag rule against abolitionists in the U.S. Senate. If Mr. Holder is unable to exercise free speech rights, it is doubtful he can be of any assistance in ameliorating the plight of Blacks.

Like this country's banking system, the judicial system is also bankrupt and corrupt. Some of the victims of this banking system are on unemployment lines. The banking parasites are receiving bailout checks and Bernard Madoff is squirreling away his loot They are too white to fail.

While the economic system is plagued by greed, the judicial system is plagued by racism. In 1991, for example, a blue-ribbon commission described New York's judicial system as "infested with racism." Black leaders immediately stuck their heads in the sand. They have refused to come up for air. Judicial racism remains unchecked, despite exorbitant costs to Blacks.

Tavis Smiley's "State of the Black Union" exemplifies the problem. Racism, incarceration and poverty (RIP) are ripping the Black colony apart. A community, on the other hand, controls its politics and economics There were no poor people or ex-cons on any of the panels. None of the panelists had missed a meal. They are receiving white funds. A Black agenda is still an illusion.

If politicians and racketeers can propose the nationalization of banks, the Obama administration should be able to put all state judicial systems in receivership. They were never intended to manage the judicial affairs of Blacks in accordance with the Constitution.

Approximately eight million people in this county are under correctional control. While one in every 31 Americans is in the criminal justice system, the ratio for Blacks is one in 11. Half of the convicted persons in the correctional system are Black.

No country approaches the United States in imprisoning its residents.
In terms of Blacks, the separation of powers doctrine is inoperable. The three branches of government are acting in concert. When Blacks stand in the well of the courtroom, there are no checks and balances, and appellate courts routinely rubberstamp judgments of conviction.

One of the benefits of the prison-industrial complex for whites is the transfer of political power from Black urban centers to white rural areas. Prison inmates are counted in their actual residences and not in their domiciles. This means the transfer of Black political power is shifted to white areas where Black inmates are disenfranchised.

This is not the case in Maine and Vermont, however. I wonder why? The U.S. Supreme Court, this past Monday, ruled that some members of the Congressional Black Caucus should start packing their bags. This decision aids those racists who are using prisons to create a slave auction for private enterprise. Black leaders are unable to connect the dots.

States and the federal government are unable to meet their correctional expenses. This is putting the lives of Black inmates in jeopardy. Many of these persons are innocent or have been denied the right to a fair trial. Only half of the states allow for some semblance of compensation to wrongfully convicted defendants.

As the economic conditions of the states worsen, many inmates will be eating bread and water amid unsafe temperatures. The alternative is to release them. To make matters worse, Mr. Obama has failed to fashion a stimulus package for prison inmates, and Black politicians refuse to inspect these modern-day slave quarters.

Virtually every week, a wrongfully convicted inmate is released from prison because of DNA. At least six states prevent, outright, the release of wrongfully convicted inmates because of the exculpatory potential of DNA. Other states have cumbersome and flawed legislation regarding the release of wrongfully convicted defendants based on DNA.

A case in point was the wrongfully convicted defendants in the Central Park jogger case. Kharey Wise was the worst-case scenario. He spent 15 years behind bars. The minimum stay for these young men was seven years. The exculpatory results of DNA tests were of no assistance to them. Justice Thomas Galligan ignored their innocence.

Even though Blacks, Latinos and Asians occupy 25 of the 51 seats on the New York City Council, Council Speaker Christine Quinn is preventing them from representing historically oppressed persons. Whites are over-represented by nine members. A white minority runs municipal government. Black "citizens" have as much political power as Black inmates.

In the meantime, Mayor Michael Bloomberg will go back to the New York Legislature this spring to secure a renewal of his firm grip on public education in New York City. He also opposes compensation for these five Central Park victims, despite irrefutable evidence that they were framed and railroaded. If he harbors this unfounded attitude towards these five victims, why do we suspect that his attitude is any different towards the Black and Latino students in the public school system, which is already barring equal employment opportunities for Black children in New York City?

Black leaders are living in fear of white supremacists, but they are eating out of their oppressors' troughs. As the late Dr. William A. Jones would often say, "If you eat the king's meat, you must do the king's bidding." If you refuse to eat the king's meat, you will end up like me.

I will surely miss Wilbert "Bill" Tatum. Very few Blacks today will defend the First Amendment. With the losses of Tatum, Dr. Jones and attorney Louis Clayton Jones, Blacks are in dire straits in New York. Other Black leaders are accepting funds from white supremacists. See, for example, Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell, "Jena 6" and the New York Post.

I need your support and letters for filing a petition for writ of certiorari in Maddox v. Prudenti et al in the U.S. Supreme Court on the questions of two-tone justice in the United States and denial of free speech for Blacks.

Also, the invocation of the nocitation rule is threatening the doctrine of stare decisis. Send letters and support to Alton Maddox, 16 Court Street, Ste. 1901. Brooklyn, NY 11241.

March 18, UAM Weekly Forum at Elks Plaza, 1068 Harriet Tubman (Fulton Street) nr. Classon Ave. in Brooklyn at 7:30 p.m. Take the "C" train to Franklin Ave. Three blocks to Elks Plaza. Admission is free. March 22, Bus to Spectrum Dance Center, Halsey Street and Central Ave., Newark, NJ for the 25th anniversary celebration of African Echoes. Bus leaves from Slave Theater in Brooklyn at 2:30 pm.
April 25-26, UAM's "Egypt on the Potomac" field trip in Washington, D.C., and the Great Blacks in Wax Museum in Baltimore, MD. July 5-August 1, Freedom Retreat for Boys and Girls for children ages 7-15 in the Catskill Mountains. Call UAM at (718) 834-9034 for further information.
See: http://www.reinstatealtonmaddox.net/ for "Black Radio in NYC Requires Funding," "Blacks Say No to the 13th Amendment" and "Freedom Retreat Explores Underground Railroad."

Copyright © 2009 - New York Amsterdam News


Posted by Elihu Eli El at 12:10 on Fri, Aug 16, 2002
It took a lot of effort just to get my thoughts together. Some of us believe that the era of Civil Rights is over. There is still a continued need for unity. There is a trend across the country that we tend not to associate or communicate with each other unless there is something to be gained from it. I am not immune from this malady. I have found myself unconsciously doing this a few times. When I do catch myself acting like this, I remember these few principles that I TRY to live by:
Bear true faith and allegiance to my faith, family, and friends;

Fulfill my social obligations;

Treat people as they should be treated;

Face fear, danger, or adversity (physical or moral) for the advancement of my family (my daughter and me...I'm );

Live up to all the social norms and tenets;

...Moreover, do what is right legally and morally.

While attending college in the early 90's, I took a break, which turned out to be about 6 years. Last year, I returned to college and graduated with a B.S. degree in Computer Science. I was tired of having to beg for jobs. I would beg for the job and the anxiety of the lack of job security would quickly set in. During my two-year return to college, I held seven different jobs. Since 1990, I have been a member of the United States Army Reserve. On a couple of jobs, I trusted my employers and got shafted. On some jobs, there were class-scheduling conflicts. I also quit my UPS truck loading position in order to teach Mathematics at Sylvan Learning Center. I believed that this was an excellent opportunity to gain teaching experience. Well, 5 months later, the enrollment was down and we know what happened then.

I am now employed as a computer programmer. I program in visual Basic and Oracle SQL. It is an excellent position and I have been blessed. I say this not strictly based on the fact that I have a better job and increased income, but for the perseverance, education, wisdom, and intelligence that prepared me the job. I will continue to build upon these attributes, whether I am working in a "good" position or not. Jobs come and jobs may go. When we put faith in man, then there is always a chance that we may lose. Bare with me, but there are three facets of our lives that we must always strive to improve. These are our spiritual beliefs, intelligence, and physical abilities. Some may improve their spiritual lives by reading his or her holy scriptures. Others may help someone help him or herself. I personally believe that one reason why we are on Earth is to help someone else. I have been told that if someone reads passages and does not implement what she or he has learned, then the effort is of no value.

I am a member of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc. An older fraternity brother explained, to me, the concept of "reach one, teach one." If we, as African-Americans could strive to help one person at a time, then this world would be a better place for us. "Reach one, teach one" increases education as well as economic opportunities. I know that some people are not receptive to ideas such as this, but as long as each one of us does the best he or she can...it is all good. Do you feel me? We as members of a community, , and country will not go wrong by taking chances helping each other. There is not fulfillment in life without influence. There is nothing wrong with a Black man calling his Black friends and family when there is a job opening (economic opportunity...they do).

There is nothing wrong with hiring another African-American in trainable positions, which ultimately could lead to 4 years of progressive experience once she or he graduates college. I hate it when someone trade a good running car in for $2000 when they could of sold it to a relative for the same price. R. Kelly, the singer, mentions that he does not see anything wrong with a little "Bump and Grind." Anyhow, I do not see anything wrong with a little "economic opportunity." We see what a little "Bump and Grind" can do. In most U.S. cities that I visit, almost no form of ownership is owned by African-Americans. How many skyscrapers in your town or city that are Black-owned? How many rims / dubs are Black-owned? I see more skyscrapers, tech firms like Microsoft and 3COM, airlines, and telemarketing companies, which the other man owns, than dubs that he is sitting on. Generally speaking...who is cleaning those skyscrapers, selling the retail products, loading the luggage, and bugging me all the time. Well you get the point. I have brought this up to both Black and White people. Their argument is that the African-American ownership is in proportionate with racial demographics. If African-Americans generally make up only 10-20 percent of the population of most U.S. cities, then why is it that we lead in almost every negative statistic in America? If there were a race in America called to Green people and they lacked economic opportunities, then they would be leading in negative statistics. Education and economic opportunities breed power and privilege.

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton

There will always be a gross imbalance if we continue along this path.

While in the field of Law Enforcement, I came across this statistic:

Imprisoned African-Americans Population in America's Jails

1969 27%

1995 89%

I am appalled by these numbers. It has always surprised me how most of us would go to college, earn a B.A. or higher in Sociology and not do anything to positively influence the social path that we are on. Whenever I turn on the local R & B radio stations and Black-oriented television networks, there are insinuations referring to dope, handguns, illicit sex, usury, wasteful spending, and conspicuous consumption. This trend is practiced throughout the United States. When we are influenced by these practices, then the other man gains more and more...and more power and more and more...and more privilege. I feel that this issue is not appropriately being because we are the majority going to jail. There is much is much money to be made by jailing folk. I have been told that most African-American Sociologist are too stressed out and busy trying to keep their heads above water than to address issues such as this. The "Bling-Bling" jewelry is usually of poor quality, looks shiny, and is wasteful. Most of the "Bling-Bling" may be sold by Black vendors, but generally, the manufacturing plants are not Black owned.

Economic opportunities start with education, but it does not end there. Most industry owners do not obtain success strictly from education. In that case, Don King would have a PhD. The Michael Jacksons, Michael Jordans, Master P's, and Oprahs all have success, but do they have significance? A person with a Lexus or BMW may be considered as being successful. With success, my motives may be selfish. With significance, my motives cannot be selfish. What is the difference between success and significance?

Success is when I add value to myself.

Significance is when I add value to others.

One mutual trait that CEO's have is that they are leaders and take people with them to the top. America needs more African-Americans that are significant. Are you significant? We do not have to be rich to be significant. We must also share information and ideas with each other for the success of the whole. I returned to college and earned my degree as an adult. Doors opened because of this. Communication is powerful tool to build economic opportunity. Pass on what you learn. Every day, take things that you learned and ask yourself...

"Where can I use this?"

"When can I use this?"

"Who needs to know this?"

It has been proven that the technical industry's mostly white and Asian makeup unfairly shuts out African-Americans and Latinos. It has also been proven that our skills must be twice as marketable in order to obtain an equal position as white counterparts. From 1997 to 2000, the number of racial discrimination charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against tech employers bounced around. It rose in 2001, after the tech wave had crested and later collapsed. Most of us are very familiar with the saying..."Last hired, first fired."

Technology based research projects and educational advantages are not readily communicated to African-American students. As a computer programmer, one of my goals is to develop gaming software. This is a very lucrative and rewarding field. This is another market, which is generally held by whites and Asians. Game development is an area of the tech industry where recent college graduates or novice programmers could be introduced to, be given the tools to do his or her job, and cultivate a rewarding and financially sound career while planning an early retirement. Most African-Americans and Latinos are being blocked from even having knowledge of such positions. Not all "good" jobs are placed in the local classifieds. My name is Eli. Thank you very much for taking time out to read this. After reading this, feel free to hit me up via email at eli_el@hotmail.com or telephone at 618-351-1109. A lot of us understand the problem, but we must first determine what can be done in my community to increase economic opportunities for all.

Identify companies that have unfair career promotion and polarized executive and non-executive structures.

Contact organizations such as the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering in order to identify community colleges, 4-year colleges, trade schools, and universities that provide adequate education opportunities outside of the classroom. Many of us are being left behind in this area. For an insight on what I mean, check this out:




Do not lie. Without trust, there can be no relationship.

Sacrifice for your children's success. Prepare them for the challenges that they WILL face. Teaching and guidance does not stop at 18 years of age. Instead of teaching his daughter, this person told her that once she turned 18, then she would learn. My daughter will always be my daughter no matter what ages we may be. She did not asked to be brought here, she was forced. Now that she is here, she is my responsibility. I would not accept anything less than the best my daughter is capable of doing...and she has the right to expect the best that I can do for her.

UNITE. Most individuals are afraid to jeopardize future job prospects by filing formal complaints.

Identify negative influences and be strong enough to speak out.

"Reach one, teach one."

"Water and fertilize the needs of research today if you want flowers to bloom in Black America tomorrow."

Add to Technorati Favorites

Monday, March 16, 2009

Parents Raising Kids to be Liberal Crybabies !!

Author: Parents to blame for America's 'liberal' drift
Kids trained to be dependent, covetous, ruled by passions, without self-control

Posted: November 17, 2008
11:42 am Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The big victory on Election Day by "liberal" Democrats shouldn't be a surprise, because American parents, even many conservatives, have been training their kids to be liberals for too long, says the author of a controversial new book.

Reb Bradley, author of WND Books' latest release "Born Liberal, Raised Right: How to Rescue America from Moral Decline – One Family at a Time," an expert on child rearing, says Rush Limbaugh is right about liberals – they are turning America into a nation of victims, dependent, covetous and incapable of the kind of self-government the nation's founding fathers envisioned.

Author of the previous best-selling book, "Child Training Tips," Bradley recalls listening to Limbaugh more than a decade ago and having an epiphany about the societal impact of permissive and indulgent parenting.

"I noticed that all of the societal ills Rush talked about were really manifestations of people who really never grew up – never matured," he explains. "Ultimately, that is what the worldview of liberalism is all about. And we won't escape its dire ill effects until we learn how to parent."

America is increasingly lacking in-self control, explains Bradley. He says adults no longer restrain themselves from destructive actions and behaviors, because they have not been taught to do so as children.

"A few decades ago, people were just as human as we are in this decade," he writes. "Like us, they got angry, they lusted, they coveted, and they drowned their grief by one means or another. But in one important way, they were different from us – they had greater self-control. Because they were more self-restraining, they did not allow themselves to be ruled by their anger; hence the murder rate was markedly less. They lusted, but they had greater sexual self-restraint, so had sexual contact with fewer people and contracted fewer STDs.

They coveted other people's money and possessions, but they had the ability to not act on their covetousness; hence fewer were compelled to steal. In the last 40 years we have lost the virtue of self-control. No longer is our society populated by individuals who can restrain or 'govern' themselves. To lack the capacity to control one's urges or passions is to lack what our nation's Founders called personal 'self-government.'"

Bradley contends that liberalism is the natural condition of the human heart and for people to be capable of self-government, they must be trained against their own nature.

"In this age of technology, one might say that liberalism is our 'default' operating condition," he writes. "Throughout our childhoods, our parents must work hard and change our settings to keep us from operating in our default mode. If parents are successful, we enter adulthood with our new settings fully locked in. Left untrained, all children would grow up liberal in their outlook."

Get "Born Liberal, Raised Right: How to Rescue America from Moral Decline – One Family at a Time." If you prefer ordering by phone, call our toll-free order line: 1-800-4-WND-COM (1-800-496-3266).

Listening to Rush Limbaugh describe what he saw as the traits of liberals led parenting expert Bradley to his conclusions that liberals were, in effect, children who never really grew up.

"Liberals are merely inadequately trained children who grew up and now lead using principles they gleaned from their upbringing," he says.

All people are born liberal, Bradley writes, meaning they are ruled first by their emotions and passions.

"We come into the world determined to survive, and we vehemently express ourselves to get what we need: 'Waaa!' and Momma feeds us," he writes. "'Waaa!' and our diaper is changed' 'Waaa!' and we are put down for a nap. As infants, our strong will can keep us comfortable and alive – the more outspoken we are, the more our needs are met. However, as we start to grow, we no longer cry for our necessities – we crave pleasure, too."

These ideas are not really new, explains Bradley. They are just in need of rediscovery. He points out that in 1926, Minnesota Gov. Theodore Christianson established a state crime commission. At the end of its research, the commission concluded that criminal tendencies were not the result of poverty, education or environment. Instead, it made the following observation: "Every baby starts life as a little savage. He is completely selfish and self-centered, he wants what he wants when he wants it: his bottle, his mother's attention, his playmate's toys, his uncle's watch, or whatever. Deny him these and he seethes with rage and aggressiveness which would be murderous were he not so helpless. He's dirty, he has no morals, no knowledge, no developed skills. This means that all children, not just certain children but all children, are born delinquent. If permitted to continue in their self-centered world of infancy, given free rein to their impulsive actions to satisfy each want, every child would grow up a criminal, a thief, a killer, a rapist."

Bottom line?

"Liberals are like teenagers whose will-to-be-gratified was never subdued, and now cannot grasp the simple logic of what is being said to them," Bradley writes. "They are so emotionally obsessed with getting what their hearts want that they are unwilling to listen to reason. That is why liberals resort to personal attacks, name-calling, accusing, yelling, discrediting, or changing the subject. And that is why they use inflammatory and emotionally charged words like 'intolerant,' 'hateful' and 'racist.' Desperation ensues when passion rules. When passion rules, blindness sets in."

As a result, Bradley says "America is being governed by adults still in their terrible twos."

"Barack Obama is our King Saul," Bradley continues. "Like Saul, he has fooled people on a base, emotional level.
And when people can't see beyond their emotions, they are immature and incapable of the kind of self-government that has been the bedrock of America's freedom for the last two centuries."


Get "Born Liberal, Raised Right: How to Rescue America from Moral Decline – One Family at a Time" from WND's online store now! To order by phone, call 1-800-4-WND-COM (1-800-496-3266).

Add to Technorati Favorites

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Worst Fraud in US History Uncovered

They keep calling Bernie Madoff "America's Biggest Fraud"? What and incredible statement. Bernie made off with a mere $64.8 billion over the past 20 years.

"Child Abuse Prevention"
(a total fraud)

Costs $285 Billion per Year (in 2003)
through 97 different federal sources.
figures confirmed by Census Bureau


Add to Technorati Favorites

Monday, March 9, 2009

Make Parenting a Constitutional Protected Right

The Constitutional Right to Be a Parent

It is time for good parents, both mothers and fathers to unify to codify the rulings of state appellate and federal district courts and even U.S. Supreme Court rulings that affirm from one perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional rights to parent your children.

Consider a state constitutional amendment to codify parent's rights.

Here are some excerpts from case law.

  • The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).
  • The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38, (1985).
  • Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976).
  • Law and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or a heavy hand" was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).
  • Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982).
  • Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980). .
  • The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one's children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent's custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn. (1981).
  • Parent's right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL, (1977).
  • Parent's interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584, (1980).
  • The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that severance in the parent-child relationship caused by the state occur only with rigorous protections for individual liberty interests at stake. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 F 2d 1205; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1984).
  • Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of "liberty" as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973).
  • "Separated as our issue is from that of the future interests of the children, we have before us the elemental question whether a court of a state, where a mother is neither domiciled, resident nor present, may cut off her immediate right to the care, custody, management and companionship of her minor children without having jurisdiction over her in personam. Rights far more precious to appellant than property rights will be cut off if she is to be bound by the Wisconsin award of custody." May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533; 73 S Ct 840, 843, (1952).
  • A parent's right to care and companionship of his or her children are so fundamental, as to be guaranteed protection under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. In re: J.S. and C., 324 A 2d 90; supra 129 NJ Super, at 489.
  • The Court stressed, "the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." A parent's interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651; 92 S Ct 1208, (1972).
  • Parent's rights have been recognized as being "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free man." Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390; 43 S Ct 625, (1923).
  • The U.S. Supreme Court implied that "a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child" could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255^Q56, (1978).
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (California) held that the parent-child relationship is a constitutionally protected liberty interest. (See; Declaration of Independence --life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution -- No state can deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws.) Kelson v. Springfield, 767 F 2d 651; US Ct App 9th Cir, (1985).
  • The parent-child relationship is a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Bell v. City of Milwaukee, 746 f 2d 1205, 1242^Q45; US Ct App 7th Cir WI, (1985).
  • No bond is more precious and none should be more zealously protected by the law as the bond between parent and child." Carson v. Elrod, 411 F Supp 645, 649; DC E.D. VA (1976).
  • A parent's right to the preservation of his relationship with his child derives from the fact that the parent's achievement of a rich and rewarding life is likely to depend significantly on his ability to participate in the rearing of his children. A child's corresponding right to protection from interference in the relationship derives from the psychic importance to him of being raised by a loving, responsible, reliable adult. Franz v. U.S., 707 F 2d 582, 595^Q599; US Ct App (1983).
  • A parent's right to the custody of his or her children is an element of "liberty" guaranteed by the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Matter of Gentry, 369 NW 2d 889, MI App Div (1983).
  • Reality of private biases and possible injury they might inflict were impermissible considerations under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Palmore v. Sidoti, 104 S Ct 1879; 466 US 429.
  • Legislative classifications which distributes benefits and burdens on the basis of gender carry the inherent risk of reinforcing stereotypes about the proper place of women and their need for special protection; thus, even statutes purportedly designed to compensate for and ameliorate the effects of past discrimination against women must be carefully tailored. the state cannot be permitted to classify on the basis of sex. Orr v. Orr, 99 S Ct 1102; 440 US 268, (1979).
  • The United States Supreme Court held that the "old notion" that "generally it is the man's primary responsibility to provide a home and its essentials" can no longer justify a statute that discriminates on the basis of gender. No longer is the female destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace and the world of ideas. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7, 10; 95 S Ct 1373, 1376, (1975).
  • Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. 28 USCA § 2411; Pfizer v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532; cert denied 92 S Ct 2411; US Ct App MN, (1972).
  • State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. Gross v. State of Illinois, 312 F 2d 257; (1963).
  • The Constitution also protects "the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters." Federal Courts (and State Courts), under Griswold can protect, under the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" phrase of the Declaration of Independence, the right of a man to enjoy the mutual care, company, love and affection of his children, and this cannot be taken away from him without due process of law. There is a family right to privacy which the state cannot invade or it becomes actionable for civil rights damages. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, (1965).
  • The right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of fitness, abandonment or substantial neglect is so fundamental and basic as to rank among the rights contained in this Amendment (Ninth) and Utah's Constitution, Article 1 § 1. In re U.P., 648 P 2d 1364; Utah, (1982).
  • The rights of parents to parent-child relationships are recognized and upheld. Fantony v. Fantony, 122 A 2d 593, (1956); Brennan v. Brennan, 454 A 2d 901, (1982). State's power to legislate, adjudicate and administer all aspects of family law, including determinations of custodial; and visitation rights, is subject to scrutiny by federal judiciary within reach of due process and/or equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment...Fourteenth Amendment applied to states through specific rights contained in the first eight amendments of the Constitution which declares fundamental personal rights...Fourteenth Amendment encompasses and applied to states those preexisting fundamental rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment acknowledged the prior existence of fundamental rights with it: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The United States Supreme Court in a long line of decisions, has recognized that matters involving marriage, procreation, and the parent-child relationship are among those fundamental "liberty" interests protected by the Constitution. Thus, the decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113; 93 S Ct 705; 35 L Ed 2d 147, (1973), was recently described by the Supreme Court as founded on the "Constitutional underpinning of ... a recognition that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment includes not only the freedoms explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but also a freedom of personal choice in certain matters of marriage and family life." The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC § 1983, to visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely. Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, (1981).
  • In controversies affecting the custody of an infant, the interest and welfare of the child is the primary and controlling question by which the court must be guided. This rule is based upon the theory that the state must perpetuate itself, and good citizenship is essential to that end. Though nature gives to parents the right to the custody of their own children, and such right is scarcely less sacred than the right to life and liberty, and is manifested in all animal life, yet among mankind the necessity for government has forced the recognition of the rule that the perpetuity of the state is the first consideration, and parental authority itself is subordinate to this supreme power. It is recognized that: 'The moment a child is born it owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth, and is entitled to the protection of that government. And such government is obligated by its duty of protection, to consult the welfare, comfort and interest of such child in regulating its custody during the period of its minority.' Mercein v. People, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 64, 103, 35 Am. Dec. 653; McKercher v. Green, 13 Colo. App. 271, 58 Pac. 406. But as government should never interfere with the natural rights of man, except only when it is essential for the good of society, the state recognizes, and enforces, the right which nature gives to parents [48 Colo. 466] to the custody of their own children, and only supervenes with its sovereign power when the necessities of the case require it.
  • The experience of man has demonstrated that the best development of a young life is within the sacred precincts of a home, the members of which are bound together by ties entwined through 'bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh'; that it is in such homes and under such influences that the sweetest, purest, noblest, and most attractive qualities of human nature, so essential to good citizenship, are best nurtured and grow to wholesome fruition; that, when a state is based and builded upon such homes, it is strong in patriotism, courage, and all the elements of the best civilization. Accordingly these recurring facts in the experience of man resulted in a presumption establishing prima facie that parents are in every way qualified to have the care, custody, and control of their own offspring, and that their welfare and interests are best subserved under such control. Thus, by natural law, by common law, and, likewise, the statutes of this state, the natural parents are entitled to the custody of their minor children, except when they are unsuitable persons to be intrusted with their care, control, and education, or when some exceptional circumstances appear which render such custody inimicable to the best interests of the child. While the right of a parent to the custody of its infant child is therefore, in a sense, contingent, the right can never be lost or taken away so long as the parent properly nurtures, maintains, and cares for the child.
  • Wilson v. Mitchell, 111 P. 21, 25-26, 48 Colo. 454 (Colo. 1910)

Add to Technorati Favorites

Sunday, March 8, 2009

The Child Support Ponzi Scam

Your rights to parent your children free from government interference has taken a drastic step downwards on the disastrous fall toward Socialism. Lenin said, "Destroy the Family, destroy the country."

That is what our government has decided to finance. Family destruction. Yes, paid for with your tax dollars.

The most effective way devised yet by your government is the Child Support Ponzi Scheme.

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors rather than from profit. The term "Ponzi scheme" is used primarily in the United States , while other English-speaking countries do not distinguish colloquially between this scheme and pyramid schemes.[1]" from Wikipedia.

In this county, we began that Ponzi process around 1969 with the first no-fault divorce law passed. That was in California. Since that time, the welfare of children has become increasingly dependent upon the state, and in the 90s, under the Clinton Administration, states were dragged into the welfare racket by the federal government subsidization of "child support payments as welfare."

For many women on welfare in the 70s and 80s, proof of fatherhood gave them access to money, food stamps, etc. from "deadbeat" dads. These were those men who abandoned their responsibilities as fathers, since after all, the state was the "father of the child." But thing got drastically worse for "responsible dads."

To quote a friend of mine who put it spot on:

"Under the welfare reforms of the 1990's, state governments were drafted into the child support collection racket. The federal government began providing millions of dollars to state governments that met child support collection quotas. Because states are largely free to use this money to fund their budgets as they wish, child support collection became a very lucrative business. It came as no surprise that as states competed against each other for federal funds they began to impose outrageous child support orders against more and more men - thus increasing the pool of potential "deadbeats" from which they could demand money. Pulled into this Orwellian nightmare were millions of middle and upper class men who had never abandoned their children and had no history of abdicating parental responsibilities. The original intent of Title IV-D was now history, and no man was safe from the insatiable addiction of state bureaucrats to free federal monies.

Have you ever wondered why fathers lose custody of their children in more than 85% of all family court custody cases? Well now you know. The government, including family courts other parties in the divorce-for-profit industry, receives an avalanche of funding by systematically separating men from their children. The less time a man is given with his child, the more child support he is ordered to pay - and the more money that the government can forcibly collect from him."
said Jake Morphonios in his blog on the Liberty Tree. http://www.nolanchart.com/author232.html

There is much more to the scam than this, and that is exactly what it is, a scam. Children taken from home where 85 percent of the time, the father, who was a good, loving father was reduced to a criminal, forced to pay child support, not so much to support his children, but to give incentive to the state to grab more money from the federal government to enforce child support laws that destroy families.

It is a type of Ponzi scheme. Eventually, the state will run out of children to steal, and the system will collapse when marriage becomes obsolete.

As a Native American, I know it was not until 1978, the state government stopped stealing Indian Children from reservations to give money to foster homes, and instead left them in Indian "domiciles" with the passage of that portion of U.S.C Title 25, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). But that did not apply to divorce cases, just custody. And that too, is a failure since Indian children are still be stolen. Including mine.

Now they are going after the rest of America's children. God help us all.

Add to <span class=Technorati Favorites">

Friday, March 6, 2009

Parental Alienation is Real

by Mark Godbey
March 6, 2009

Why do some parents falsely accuse other of hurting their own children? And why is this abuse systemic in Family Court and Juvenile proceedings? As a fit parent, I know to call the police to investigate crimes against my child, but why do other only report these crimes to psychologists or Child Protective Services (CPS)?

Many reasons exists for a mom/dad to accuse the other parent of child abuse during divorce. Anger, hate, and rage over the divorce. And the most effective way to destroy a child's relationship with the other parent is to accuse the parent of a crime against the child or a crime against the parent.

In some municipalities, this initiates a long CPS investigation, in which the accused parent is stripped of his/her procedure due process rights, and the child is taken away, sometime for months or even years.

One of the more common causes of false allegations lie in a Borderline Personality Disorder (PD), or any other kind of PD in which therapy never corrects or alleviates. In many of these cases, the false accuser desperately attempts to alienate the child further, in what has been described as the Parental Alienation Syndrome, first proposed by Dr. Richard Gardner.

Parental Alienation is "is a disorder that arises primarily in the context of child-custody disputes. Its primary manifestation is the child's campaign of denigration against a parent, a campaign that has no justification. It results from the combination of a programming (brainwashing) parent's indoctrinations and the child's own contributions to the vilification of the target parent." to quote Dr. Gardner.

In the vast majority of cases, the allegations are unfounded, and as a result, criminal charges are never brought against the alleged perpetrator. But even more disturbing is the lack of criminal charges against the parent who makes the false allegation.

Many times, these false accusers are placed on supervised visitation and they rage against the world since in their mind (only) what they believe is true. They ally themselves with family and friends and other groups of similarly disturbed mentalities, to attack the world.

Ofttimes, the attacker focuses against the psychiatric evaluator, or Child Protective Services, for not taking their side and protecting the child. A close examination of the psychiatric testing reveals some disturbing personality disorders about the false accuser that makes him (or more likely her) , a real danger to the child.

What can be done to protect parents and children? A parental rights amendment, of course. This would give both parents and the children the right to a jury trial. In cases of allegations of abuse, the children would be treated like "real" witnesses and protected by law enforcement from further contamination by the accuser. The accused would have the right to bring in expert forensic witness to validate the claims of child or disprove them, and the extent of indoctrination or brainwashing by the other parent.

Add to Technorati Favorites