A new way to help dads, starve them to death!!!!

For Immediate Release

Day 4
Fathers 4 Justice Spiderman still atop 125' crane – OSU Campus Police refuse to allow food or water to be raised for Donald Tenn aid

International Media Release
Columbus, OH

For Immediate Release –September 30, 2008
From: Fathers for Justice National Media Representative, Christine Smith

"Arnold Schwarzenegger used to be a hero of mine," says John Fowler, National Coordinator for F4J USA, "Now Donald Tenn and Paul Fisher are my heroes. Schwarzenegger is the villain. He needs to stop cowering to the radical feminists California and address the issue. By not doing so, he is ignoring the rights of California ’s children to have a loving relationship with both parents.” Why is it so difficult for an elected representative to make a simple statement stating our family law system may be broken, and we must find out how to fix it? This is the largest social justice issue of our time," says Fowler. "Governor Strickland likes to play Keno, well, he needs to stop gambling with the lives of our children and both Governors’ must address this issue. The gloves are off"

Now spending his forth morning on the crane, Donald Tenn, aka Spiderman, has not yet negotiated his descent. Spiderman is under a tarp to ride out the nasty weather, and the deafening silence of Governor Schwarzenegger.

Hungry, thirsty and exhausted, Spiderman, Donald Tenn, remains determined knowing the suffering of not seeing his daughter is far worse than any physical pain or discomfort he might experience atop his 125' perch at Ohio State University. During this morning’s telephone interview with Fowler, he expressed great concern for the safety and well being of Tenn. “Currently, says Fowler, Ohio State University Campus Police refuse to send food or water to Tenn and they will not allow any of us to send him aid either. Fowler says, Don’s health is at risk, I fear dehydration. Thank God he is anchored up there.”

Fathers for Justice members and supporters from members from all over the county
are calling F4J Board member for updates. Brian Holladay, an F4J board member says, “this extends way beyond just our members, other family rights groups across the United States have decided to suspend all other projects and focus on this issue until it is resolved. Right now we have families from different sides of the state headed to Columbus to lend support.”

Paul Fisher now aka Superman has descended and been taken into police custody. He is charged with vandalism and will appear in court this morning at am.

Paul Fisher agreed to come down under the exclusive watch of NBC news, who broke the story yesterday, and a safety crew from the construction site and campus security.


Christine Smith
F4J NationalMedia Coordinator
Tel: 440-749-2790 440-306-2444
f4jnationalmedia@yahoo.com

Stealing from the poor and giving to the rich!!!!

Here is a copy of a county resolution authorizing agreement between the NJ Dept. of Human Services and the Cumberland County, NJ Sheriffs Dept. to conduct child support raids throughout Cumberland County under the federal reimbursement incentive funding.



Cumberland County, New Jersey - Meeting Portal
Resolution Authorizing Agreement with the New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Family Development for Title IV-D Reimbursement ...


Cumberland County Welcome, Visitor
New Jersey
Home Search Calendar Media Notices Contact Us

Resolution Authorizing Agreement with the New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Family Development for Title IV-D Reimbursement
Information

Legislative File # RES-2008-417
Status Adopted
Department Sheriff
Meeting 8/28/2008 7:00:00 PM
Category Agreement

Vote
Jane Christy Voter Yes/Aye
Joseph Pepitone Voter Absent
Bruce Peterson Voter Yes/Aye
Douglas Rainear Voter Yes/Aye
Joseph Riley Seconder Yes/Aye
Jeffrey Trout Initiator Yes/Aye
Louis Magazzu Voter Absent


Financial Impact
Financial Impact Description Unavailable


History
Adopted 08/28/2008 07:00 PM


Attachments

WHEREAS, the New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Family Development desires to renew its program with the Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office for arrest services in Title IV-D cases in which bench warrants pertaining to child support and paternity cases have been issued by courts of competent jurisdiction; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the issuance of a bench warrant, the Sheriff’s Department will take the non-paying or absent parent into custody for purposes of court appearances for determining paternity and support obligations (including health insurance coverage) and/or the payment of support arrearages; and

WHEREAS, under the agreement, the State will reimburse the County for a percentage of the costs incurred for providing such services pursuant to collection performance standards provided for in said agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Sheriff of Cumberland County has recommended renewal of said agreement;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, as follows:

That the Director and Clerk of this Board are hereby authorized and directed to execute said renewal agreement with the New Jersey Department of Human Services, Division of Family Development for the purposes set forth in the preamble hereto, in the form on file with the Clerk of this Board.

Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Chosen Freeholders held at the Cumberland County Court House, Broad and Fayette Streets, Bridgeton, New Jersey on Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 7:00 p.m., prevailing time.

How many lawyers in Congress? Can anyone say "Oligarchy"?

According to the Congressional Research Service 170 members of the House and 60 Senators are lawyers.

Out of a total of 435 U.S. Representatives and 100 Senators (535 total in Congress), lawyers comprise the biggest voting block of one type, making up 43% of Congress. Sixty percent of the U.S. Senate is lawyers.
Enough said. 37.2% of the House of Representatives are lawyers.

There are 81 Republican lawyers in Congress who list "lawyer" as their profession. There are 123 Democrat lawyers in Congress that list "lawyer" as their profession. Some may have not told that they had a law degree or practiced law, because they were doing something else, e.g., doctor, industrialist, teacher, real estate agent/broker, etc. It seems that the medical and real estate professions are also heavily represented in Congress.


Now we know what the problem is, what do we do to start getting these clowns thrown out of office because of separation of Judiciary and Legislative (and Executive) branches under the Separation of Powers Clause.

As the primary elections are coming up is is interesting to note that so many of the contenders are lawyers, something that is also true of the members of Congress, where I believe half are lawyers. Why are so many US politicians lawyers? It seems odd considering that

A) Legal training seems unnecessary for performing the main job of a politician, regardless of whether one takes that to be courting public opinion or governing the country. And there is hardly any deficit of lawyers in Washington to ask for advice if legal knowledge turns out to be needed.

B) Being a lawyer isn’t very prestigious as far as I know. Being a military, doctor, police officer, businessman or perhaps even a academic would surely be regarded by many voters as more respectable professions than being a lawyer.

C) Other countries don’t have nearly the same over-representation of lawyers in their parliaments as the US does.

Too Many Lawyers in Congress

When a majority of one profession constitutes a legislative body, the laws produced by that body tend to favor their majority group. A congress composed of too many lawyers makes laws that benefit primarily other lawyers. Of course, other beneficiaries of laws made by these readily corrupted people in Washington are those who pay the lawyers to get what their groups want. These special interests are called lobbies and unfortunately are not illegal. The result is what is called government subsidies and corporate welfare, all of which hurt the rest of the people.

A recent news item was a statistic that the United States had dropped from having the lowest auto mortality rates in the world 30 years ago to ranking only 9th in the world today. No reason was proffered, but it is not hard to discern. Ecological psychopaths would be ignored by a common sense government. But when the lawyer-dominated government saw a chance to profit the legal profession, laws were made and enforced through the EPA to force production of "government cars", aka econo-coffins. The price of these econo-coffins has risen dramatically, so the cars are economical only at the gas pump. The cost in injury and loss of life cannot be calculated, except by the lawyers who profit by it. They profit immensely through accident cases and suits by survivors of those whose lives were lost. The daily highway carnage is so bad that TV no longer reports the statistics on holiday weekends. Such statistics would dwarf the daily mortality reports coming from Iraq.

Since EPA standards had become more strict every year for the past 25 years, car makers have had to reduce the size and steel of autos to a level that has become shockingly lethal. After accident mortality rates rose more than three-times higher than in the days of large cars, air bags were rushed in to try to reduce the highway carnage. Recent studies show air bags have little effect and actually contribute to the deaths of many smaller adults and children. Few people complain of the econo-coffins, but the loony left blames the larger SUV’s, which are safer. It is the age-old rule of left-wing wackos – don’t help the weak get better, bring down the better to a lower level. In education it is called "dumbing down". In autos it means get rid of the large and safer SUV’s so that everyone has an equal chance to die in a speeding vehicle wrapped in foil.

What of the trucking industry? I haven’t seen a smaller 18-wheeler or a big diesel that doesn’t spout black, foul-smelling exhaust. To have a collision with one of these behemoths when driving the standard econo-coffin is certain annihilation. Guess why the EPA permits trucks to pollute the air and get bigger instead of smaller. You guessed it, the Teamsters Union is one of those powerful lobbies in Washington.

Another consequence of too many lawyers are the ever-present TV commercials urging us to sue for whatever happens in our lives. Make money from having a child born not perfect, a minor auto accident, a surgical operation or a medical outcome that is less than perfect. This in turn creates a malpractice crisis in which many doctors find it financially advantageous to work in another state or take an early retirement. Malpractice insurance becomes higher than a doctor’s income. Lawyers laugh all the way to the bank, then publicly say it the doctor’s fault for not knowing their jobs.

At one time in our history, the legal system was used to obtain justice. Now most Americans use it to get rich. Many juries are very willing to award multimillion dollar settlements for almost any injury, whether self-induced or not. Smart shyster lawyers know how to play on the sympathies and vicarious greed of juries. One day, the jurists think, they may have their chance to sit in the witness chair wearing a cervical collar and a lugubrious expression while retailing the history of their accident. But the shysters’ dirty secret is that they get the lion’s share of the reward.

We have the best government money can buy, a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers. The lobbyists know this, so their job is to ante up the money to get more lawyers reelected so they will send some of the take their way. This is why we have the Internal Revenue Service. It is the redistributor of wealth for the lawyers in Congress. The tax code is massive because each new item signifies a gift of money, a subsidy, or financial advantage to some special interest group who helps a lawyer get elected in perpetuity.

How can this be stopped? It won’t be easy. The great majority of Americans want term limits for elected members of Congress, yet Congress will never vote themselves out of office. Getting a law passed to limit the number of lawyers or any special interest group will be impossible unless a grassroots effort is led by a charismatic leader. Another Adolf Hitler maybe? He was considered a very charismatic leader that changed his country and the face of the earth in less than 20 years.

Somehow a wave of idealism must return this country to its roots of freedom and liberty. Otherwise, the corruption will continue and America will slide further into the abyss.

Goldsmith Says Too Many Lawyers Hurt Anti-Terror

Jack Goldsmith, the former Justice Department attorney who went to war against elements in White House to reign in surveillance and detention policies, spoke more to his conservative tendencies than to his scathing criticisms in his opening statement to a Senate committee Tuesday.

It is hard to overstate how scary it is to read the threat reports every day.

Because the government doesn't always have the tools to check the threats in the threat report.

This leads the administration -- this is true of any presidency - to do anything they can to prevent a terrorist attack, including going right up to the edge of a law.

If there is another attack there will be another 9/11 Commission that will find a needle in the haystack that the administration missed

The problem isn't a lack of lawyers, according to Goldsmith, who says lawyers are in every meeting. In fact there may be too many lawyers.

At the same time administration has pushed to stop the attack it finds it bumps up against laws. There is a fear of violating the law, of going to jail and being investigated later.

This is not a problem only for this presidency. This is problem that a lot of presidents have faced and one the next president will face.

I typed in 'How many lawyers are there is the US Congress' in Google.

After about one minute my computer vomited on the desk.

Bill of Rights-Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


It is so simple a 5th Grader can understand it!

DIVORCED FATHERS COMPARED TO THE HOLOCAUST (History repeats)

"Misandry and the persecution of divorced fathers represents a central tenet of the Feminist ideology. In their agenda, National Organization of Women and other party members publicly declared their intention to segregate divorced fathers (and most other fathers) from society and abrogate fathers' political, legal and civil rights. Feminist leaders, e.g., US Congressional Marxist Democrats Ubergruppenfuehrers Joe Biden (of Violence Against Women Act infamy), Barack Obama, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Kathleen Sibelius (D-Gov.-Kansas), Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, et al.) have made good on their pledge to persecute American fathers soon after their assumption of power. Fathers (& men in general) have felt the effects of hundreds of decrees and regulations that restrict all aspects of their public and private lives.
Many of these laws are national ones issued by the Marxist Democrat administrations (e.g., Carter, Clinton) and affect all men. But state, regional, and municipal officials, on their own initiative, also promulgated a barrage of exclusionary decrees in their own communities. Thus, hundreds of individuals in all levels of government throughout the country were involved in the persecution of divorced fathers as they conceived, discussed, drafted, adopted, enforced, and supported anti-father legislation. No corner of America (or Canada) is left untouched."

The quoted paragraph I just cited to you comes with a few minor changes. First of all, this paragraph, with the exception of my minor modifications comes from the website of the UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM. ( www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?ModuleId=10005681). The paragraph is actually entitled "Anti-Jewish Legislation In PreWar Germany". Second,I changed the word "divorced fathers/fathers/men" from "Jews". Thirdly, I changed Nazi or Nazi Party ideology or members, to Feminist or Marxist Democrat ideology or members.

HERE IS THE TRUE QUOTE FROM THE USHMM:

ANTI-JEWISH LEGISLATION IN PREWAR GERMANY

RELATED LINKS



Antisemitism and the persecution of Jews represented a central tenet of Nazi ideology. In their 25-point Party Program, published in 1920, Nazi party members publicly declared their intention to segregate Jews from "Aryan" society and to abrogate Jews' political, legal, and civil rights.

Nazi leaders began to make good on their pledge to persecute German Jews soon after their assumption of power. During the first six years of Hitler's dictatorship, from 1933 until the outbreak of war in 1939, Jews felt the effects of more than 400 decrees and regulations that restricted all aspects of their public and private lives. Many of those laws were national ones that had been issued by the German administration and affected all Jews. But state, regional, and municipal officials, on their own initiative, also promulgated a barrage of exclusionary decrees in their own communities. Thus, hundreds of individuals in all levels of government throughout the country were involved in the persecution of Jews as they conceived, discussed, drafted, adopted, enforced, and supported anti-Jewish legislation. No corner of Germany was left untouched.


NOW READ THIS AND COMPARE TO DIVORCED FATHERS TODAY:

1933-1934

The first wave of legislation, from 1933 to 1934, focused largely on limiting the participation of Jews in German public life. The first major law to curtail the rights of Jewish citizens was the "Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service" of April 7, 1933, according to which Jewish and "politically unreliable" civil servants and employees were to be excluded from state service. The new Civil Service Law was the German authorities' first formulation of the so-called Aryan Paragraph, a kind of regulation used to exclude Jews (and often by extension other "non-Aryans") from organizations, professions, and other aspects of public life.

In April 1933, German law restricted the number of Jewish students at German schools and universities. In the same month, further legislation sharply curtailed "Jewish activity" in the medical and legal professions. Subsequent laws and decrees restricted reimbursement of Jewish doctors from public (state) health insurance funds. The city of Berlin forbade Jewish lawyers and notaries to work on legal matters, the mayor of Munich disallowed Jewish doctors from treating non-Jewish patients, and the Bavarian Interior Ministry denied admission of Jewish students to medical school.




At the national level, the Nazi government revoked the licenses of Jewish tax consultants; imposed a 1.5 percent quota on admission of "non-Aryans" to public schools and universities; fired Jewish civilian workers from the army; and, in early 1934, forbade Jewish actors to perform on the stage or screen.




Local governments also issued regulations that affected other spheres of Jewish life: in Saxony, Jews could no longer slaughter animals according to ritual purity requirements, effectively preventing them from obeying Jewish dietary laws.

1935

At their annual party rally held in Nuremberg in September 1935, the Nazi leaders announced new laws which institutionalized many of the racial theories prevalent in Nazi ideology. These "Nuremberg Laws" excluded German Jews from Reich citizenship and prohibited them from marrying or having sexual relations with persons of "German or German-related blood." Ancillary ordinances to these laws deprived them of most political rights. Jews were disenfranchised (that is, they had no formal expectation to the right to vote) and could not hold public office.

The Nuremberg Laws did not identify a "Jew" as someone with particular religious beliefs. Instead, the first amendment to the Nuremberg Laws defined anyone who had three or four Jewish grandparents as a Jew, regardless of whether that individual recognized himself or herself as a Jew or belonged to the Jewish religious community. Many Germans who had not practiced Judaism or who had not done so for years found themselves caught in the grip of Nazi terror. Even people with Jewish grandparents who had converted to Christianity could be defined as Jews.

The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 heralded a new wave of antisemitic legislation that brought about immediate and concrete segregation: Jewish patients were no longer admitted to municipal hospitals in Düsseldorf, German court judges could not cite legal commentaries or opinions written by Jewish authors, Jewish officers were expelled from the army, and Jewish university students were not allowed to sit for doctoral exams.

Other regulations reinforced the message that Jews were outsiders in Germany; for example, in December 1935, the Reich Propaganda Ministry issued a decree forbidding Jewish soldiers to be named among the dead in World War I memorials.

"Aryanization"

Government agencies at all levels aimed to exclude Jews from the economic sphere of Germany by preventing them from earning a living. Jews were required to register their domestic and foreign property and assets, a prelude to the gradual expropriation of their material wealth by the state. Likewise, the German authorities intended to "Aryanize" all Jewish businesses, a process involving the dismissal of Jewish workers and managers, as well as the transfer of companies and enterprises to non-Jewish Germans, who bought them at prices officially fixed well below market value. From April 1933 to April 1938, "Aryanization" effectively reduced the number of Jewish-owned businesses in Germany by approximately two-thirds.

1936

In the weeks before and during the 1936 Winter and Summer Olympic Games held in Garmisch-Partenkirchen and Berlin, respectively, the Nazi regime actually toned down much of its public anti-Jewish rhetoric and activities. The regime even removed some of the signs saying "Jews Unwelcome" from public places. Hitler did not want international criticism of his government to result in the transfer of the Games to another country. Such a loss would have been a serious blow to German prestige. Likewise, Nazi leaders did not want to discourage international tourism and the revenue that it would bring during the Olympics year.

1937-1938

In 1937 and 1938, German authorities again stepped up legislative persecution of German Jews. The government set out to impoverish Jews and remove them from the German economy by requiring them to register their property. Even before the Olympics, the Nazi government had initiated the practice of "Aryanizing" Jewish businesses. "Aryanization" meant the dismissal of Jewish workers and managers of a company and/or the takeover of Jewish-owned businesses by non-Jewish Germans who bought them at bargain prices fixed by government or Nazi party officials. In 1937 and 1938, the government forbade Jewish doctors to treat non-Jews, and revoked the licenses of Jewish lawyers to practice law.

Following the Kristallnacht (commonly known as "Night of Broken Glass") pogrom of November 9-10, 1938, Nazi leaders stepped up "Aryanization" efforts and enforced measures that succeeded increasingly in physically isolating and segregating Jews from their fellow Germans. Jews were barred from all public schools and universities, as well as from cinemas, theaters, and sports facilities. In many cities, Jews were forbidden to enter designated "Aryan" zones. German decrees and ordinances expanded the ban on Jews in professional life. By September 1938, for instance, Jewish physicians were effectively banned from treating "Aryan" patients.

The government required Jews to identify themselves in ways that would permanently separate them from the rest of the population. In August 1938, German authorities decreed that by January 1, 1939, Jewish men and women bearing first names of "non-Jewish" origin had to add "Israel" and "Sara," respectively, to their given names. All Jews were obliged to carry identity cards that indicated their Jewish heritage, and, in the autumn of 1938, all Jewish passports were stamped with an identifying letter "J". As the Nazi leaders quickened their preparations for the European war of conquest that they intended to unleash, antisemitic legislation in Germany and Austria paved the way for more radical persecution of Jews.

Fathers camped on the crane in Columbus make demands

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Columbus, Ohio – September 28, 2008 --Fathers camped on the crane in Columbus make demands to Governor Strickland and Governor Schwarzenegger.

Still camped a top a crane near Ohio State University, Fathers 4 Justice members Paul Fischer , of Ohio and Donald Tenn of California released their demands. The dad's, dressed as super heroes released their demands to Ohio's Governor Strickland and California's Governor Schwarzenegger.
The fathers say, they will come down when the Governors from both states agree to a non partisan investigation into the family court system in their respective states. They insist that the investigation answers the questions; why is there gender bias in the family court system and why is there no perjury for false allegations?

"These fathers want and deserve answers," says,
Fathers 4 Justice, national board member, Brian Holladay, "They are up there making a statement for everyone who has suffered at the hands of the family courts. Nobody recognizes that fathers can't see their children. Ridiculous visitation schedules, un-enforced court orders and parental alienation along with false allegations create the problem. We need to stop this now."
When asked to comment, John Fowler, National Coordinator for F4J said, ”These fathers have waited years for change. Their pleas have fallen of deaf ears. All they are asking for is to be able to love and raise their children. Why should children be denied the right to have two loving parents?”

Fisher and Tenn want answers, but they know the problems within the family courts extends throughout the United States.

The news of the situation in Columbus has spread across the US and Canada like wild fire. Web sites and blogs are flooded with pictures from the scene and comments of support for the fathers.

Chris Smith, US Media coordinator for F4J said, "My phone is ringing off the hook and my e-mail is swamped with agencies who want the most up-to-dated information from the scene.



Contact Info:
Chris Smith
Media Coordinator
Tel: 440-749-2790
http://us.mc657.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=csmithconnect@yahoo.com
John Fowler
National Coordinator
Tel: 614-309-5572
f4jnational@ aol.com For more information go to:http://www.fathers-4-justice.us/

Feminists against Palin - shame on you

By Phyllis Schlafly

Sunday, September 21, 2008

The nomination of Sarah Palin for vice president is a big step forward for women, but a long backward step for the movement we have been taught to call feminism.

That is obvious from the anguish, indeed the fury, of feminist commentators. They are so intemperate in their criticism that they are incoherent. Men who are clueless about feminism naively think all women should be cheering. Sarah Palin is a woman who has done it all; she has a successful and even more promising career, five children and a supportive husband.

She crashed through the ultimate layer of the feminist fiction -the "glass ceiling" - and she joined those very few women destined to be known only by their first names. What more could any woman want?

The denunciations of Sarah can't be only because she appears to be a conservative Republican, and the feminists want only liberal Democrats to win. In this era of independent voters and respect for a maverick, surely the milk of bipartisanship should soften feminist angst about Sarah.

But, no. Feminist anger against Sarah has exposed the fact that feminism is not about women's success and achievement. If it were, feminists would have been bragging for years about self-made women who are truly remarkable achievers, such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, or former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, or Sen. Elizabeth Dole, or even Margaret Thatcher. Feminists never boast about these women because feminism's basic doctrine is victimology. Feminism preaches that women can never succeed because they are the sorry victims of an oppressive patriarchy. No matter how smart or accomplished a woman may be, she's told that success and happiness are beyond her grasp because institutional sexism and discrimination hold her down.

When Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to get the Democratic nomination for president or vice president, she and her allies rained a torrent of tears all over the media about the injustice of it all, ranting that rampant sexism denied her the nomination she was due. The aging Gloria Steinem opined on CNN that it is "clear that there is profound sexism." She whined that Hillary couldn't crack the "glass ceiling" because there are "still barriers and biases out there."

Oh, the unfairness of it all! Steinem bemoaned that women find it so "difficult to be competent and successful and be liked." Au contraire, Hillary and women like her are not disliked because they are competent and successful, but because they are chip-on-the-shoulder feminists, living in an unhappy world of their own making and spreading their discontent like a virus. Feminists convey a notion of entitlement, as though they deserve special privileges today because of wrongs in past years that no one any longer can remember, such as women not having the right to vote. The bad attitude of victimhood is indoctrinated in students by the bitter feminist faculty in university women's studies courses and even in some law schools. Victimhood is nurtured and exaggerated by feminist organizations using their tactic called "consciousness raising," i.e., retelling horror stories about how badly some women have been treated until small personal annoyances grow into societal grievances. The feminists resent Sarah because she's the exact opposite of Hillary Clinton. When the liberal media sharpened their knives against Sarah, some chivalrous McCainiacs cried foul about media unfairness, but we didn't hear any whining from Sarah. Sarah has been successful because of hard work and perseverance, not because she's a woman, and she's not going to pull any crybaby act now. Sarah didn't need any Equal Rights Amendment, which Hillary is still promoting even though it was declared dead by the Supreme Court 26 years ago.

The feminist tirades against Sarah are mostly so tiresome, but one line of their complaints is really funny. After 40 years of telling wives and mothers to get out of the home (which Betty Friedan called "a comfortable concentration camp"), put their children in day care (tax-funded, of course) and join the workforce, these same feminists now tell Sarah to stay home with her children.

Sarah doesn't need feminist approval for her lifestyle; the only person whose OK she needs for her double career as mother and politician is her husband's, and he seems very happy with Sarah.

Sarah Palin is an exemplar of a successful, can-do woman, and the feminists simply don't know how to deal with her. I hope she will usher in a new era where conventional wisdom recognizes that feminist negativism is ancient history and American women are so fortunate to live in the greatest country on Earth.

Phyllis Schlafly is president of Eagle Forum, an attorney, and the author of 20 books, including "Feminist Fantasies." Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/21/IN5U13026F.DTL

This article appeared on page G - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Dead-Broke Dads and the Challenges to Parenting

by Jeffery M. Leving
2008-09-24


"Deadbeat Dads" has been the headliner of multiple stories in multiple newspapers for decades. Cook County launched "Operation Father's Pay"; Butler County in Ohio put faces of these so called deadbeats on pizza boxes; and the Los Angeles County District Attorney announced their "Most Wanted Delinquent Parent" list. Several other states have begun similar campaigns to collect on un-paid child support. All of these humiliating campaigns launched against these fathers would have us believe that the men targeted are insensitive deadbeats who are selfishly stiffing their children; however, research contradicts this.

The fact that many of these types of campaigns struggle to come up with alleged "deadbeats" who have an education or a middle-class job might give less zealous public officials cause to stop and pause. Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement data shows that two-thirds of those behind on child support nationwide earn poverty level wages; less than four percent of the national child support debt is owed by those earning $40,000 or more a year. According to the largest federally-funded study of divorced dads ever conducted, unemployment, not willful neglect, is the largest cause of failure to pay child support.

The "Most Wanted Deadbeat Parents" lists that are put out clearly illustrate this problem. Far from being lists of well-heeled businessmen, lawyers, and accountants, the vast majority of the men on these lists do low wage and often seasonal work, and owe large sums of money which they could never hope to pay off. Even a person with a college degree is a rare find on these lists. Nevertheless, the powers that be who create these lists say that the men on the lists are singled out for their "ability to pay".

Virginia's "Most Wanted" list was topped by a laborer, a carnival hired hand, and a construction worker. These men collectively somehow owed over a quarter of a million dollars in child support. A plumber topped the Texas "most wanted" list as the highest wage earner. Kentucky's list sported only one obligor with an education, and the most common designation for occupation was "laborer." Near the top of Arizona's list was a maintenance man who owed $90,223 and, best of all, a roofer who owed $240,581. One wonders what the financial condition of those who weren't "singled out" for their ability to pay is.

How did men of such humble means end up owing so much money? The arrearages are likely created in large part because the child support system is often mulishly impervious to the economic realities working people face, such as layoffs, wage cuts, unemployment, and work-related injuries. According to the Urban Institute, less than one in 20 non-custodial parents who suffers a substantial drop in income is able to get courts to reduce his or her child support payments.

Some of the fathers on Illinois' Department of Healthcare and Family Services'

"Wanted" list got there in the following manner—the wife or girlfriend ended the relationship, left with the kids, and then went to the state to get public assistance. Illinois DHFS then went after the father for child support to repay the cost of the assistance. The father–against whom no wrongdoing has been charged—has likely been deprived of custody of his kids and may not even have any visitation rights, and might not even know where his kids are.

While paying the state, the father also has to hire an attorney and fight his way through the courts just to attempt to see his children. Even if he is awarded visitation rights, recalcitrant mothers often flout these orders with impunity. Low and moderate income fathers frequently must choose between paying for legal action to obtain contact with their children and risk jail time for not paying child support- or paying child support and losing the ability to have contact with their children. These men are hardly "walking away" from their "families and responsibilities."

Sometimes a father in this situation has been paying the teenage children directly because the mother has been using the child support for everything but the children. Nevertheless, the father is saddled with arrearages and declared a "deadbeat." When he presents his stack of cancelled checks, the state says, "Sorry that money you paid is a gift—you still owe us child support to reimburse the cost of the public assistance." It is irrelevant that the money was used by the children to buy food, clothing and the necessities of life.

Even though dads are often the only ones targeted and criticized, according to US Census data, noncustodial mothers are actually 20% more likely to default on their child support obligations than noncustodial fathers. This is despite the fact that noncustodial mothers are less likely to be required to pay child support, and those with support obligations are asked to pay a lower percentage of their income in child support than noncustodial fathers.

While each of these "deadbeat" lists undoubtedly has men on them who willfully dodge their responsibility of child support, the larger problem lies not with non-custodial parents, but instead with the child support system. Arresting low-income parents or parading their names and faces in highly publicized media blitzes is neither fair nor useful. What's needed instead is an overhaul of the system, so that blue-collar workers aren't turned into criminals because they've failed to pay obligations which are beyond their reach.

Jeffery M. Leving is a nationally renowned attorney and fathers' rights advocate. He is the author of "Fathers' Rights" and "Divorce Wars" and the founder of dadsrights.com. Mr. Leving is also the Governor appointed Chairman of the Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood.

Casualties of War....NOT In the Child's Best Interest!

[Administrators Note: Here is another version of the "in the child's best interest" complete failure. Many stories are sent to me of vindictive parental alienation and the destruction of child/parent relationships happening everywhere, I am deeply saddened. I am going through it too and I understand, yet somehow I sometimes get a sense of relief when I hear stories that are worse than my own and then I find myself in a sort of paradox with my own pain. When it rains, I sometimes get the sense that raindrops are tears from God, the Creator. The Creator is weeping with pain and sadness watching down on his creations destroying one another. Then I ask myself, "How long will God continue to allow all this pain and suffering?" The human species seems to be an escalating failure in my eyes, what does God think?

Paul is just another cheated Father among millions, his daughter is just another abused child among millions...........Are we becoming de-humanized and turning into just statistics?

Paul, I am saddened by your loss and hope and pray that someday you will be reunited with your daughter and at least get to know each other again and that some amount of healing is accomplished. You are not alone and you and your daughter's experience and pain are not an isolated occurrence. I wish you some sense of peace in your pain and loss.]

How can this not be a crime of kidnapping?

Hi
my name is Paul and my daughter's name is Z'aira. This is our story.

11 1/2 years ago I broke up with a woman with whom I had been involved. I left her because of her dependency on drugs and alcohol and refusal to take any help or rehab I tried to provide. The final straw was local rumor she had been prostituting.

11 years ago this woman advised me she was pregnant. Upon the birth of my daughter 10 1/2 years ago I was told that if I didn't want the mother, I would never see daughter, and if I tried, mother would make my life a living hell.

In the past 10 years I have spent over $75,000 on legal fees alone. Once even being ordered to pay for the mother's defense attorney when mother beat our 5-year-old daughter so severely that bruises remained from ankle to hip 9 days after the beating. I "succeeded" in court when at age 2 my daughter and I were granted equal time as mother. I didn't understand why it was so difficult to get shared parenting when mother had only recently been charged with prostitution and possession of narcotics equipment. But, I'm just a father, what do I know? Of course, mother had a license suspension for multiple D.U.I.'s so it was ordered the 400 mile round trip was to be made (and paid for) by me every two weeks.

From the time of my "success" in court to my daughter's first day of school we endured hateful phone calls, the typical scenario of child is nowhere to be found when I get there to pick her up, threatened with legal repercussions if I'm 10 minutes late dropping her off, you name it, right down to me getting my girl's hair styled in a salon without "consulting" mother, everything was used to threaten. Mother and I were in court approximately every three months. Of course, this took place in mother's county, always 200 miles from my house and always scheduled during the times my daughter was in my home. ALSO, of course, entirely at my expense, both my attorney and mom's, even though mother was filing complaints. And, did I mention that throughout all of this I paid full child support to the other household? Ahhh, but, of course.

My crime, as I've learned over the past 10 years is that I love my daughter. Her crime was that she loved me.

As of the first day of my daughter's public education, I began losing her. Oh, I still have all my rights, or, should I say the paper they're written on. My daughter has been slowly and systematically brainwashed, bribed, and threatened into believing that I never wanted to be in her life, that I 'endanger' her and that if she comes for her visits here she is only safe with an emergency cell phone to directly link her and mother 24/7. This is a child who just 2 years ago would cry and ask to please "can't you get Mommy to let me stay more?" Now, she says she doesn't remember any summers here, doesn't remember ever living with me before she started school, doesn't remember our family vacations. Only remembers Mommy. When I try to talk to her on the phone her stepfather limits the calls to 5 minutes. When I try to see her or force our visits mother advises her of the wonderful things she'll miss if she goes to Dad's. When I last tried to enforce a court order mother advised my daughter that I was a "piece of ----, ---hole trying to put your Mommy in jail so you'll never see Mommy again -- Is that what you want, You want Mommy to stop loving you. If you don't want Mommy to stop loving you, then you better call your ---hole father and tell him to go to hell." My daughter is a good girl. She did as she was told.

I still pay. I still hope. I still love my daughter. I miss her each and every day. I'll never stop loving her. Her mother will never stop the vindictive, hateful behavior that has destroyed our relationship. Why would she? She is the victor in a war whose sole purpose was to destroy me, and she considers any damage to our daughter simply a necessary casualty of that war.

The courts enabled mother's behavior by making it financially impossible for me to enforce the Judge's orders. But, doesn't that seem arbitrary to every thing we know to make it a citizen's responsibility to enforce orders from a court of law? It must be done this way in order to allow mother’s to make her own rules. If I even considered for one moment not complying with the child support order, which, by the way is in the same court order as my parental rights, I know exactly what would happen. How do I know, you might ask. Well, a certain mother made several false statements and with the help a court clerk who was either mother's friend or VERY incompetent (or maybe both) reported to State of Florida that I was delinquent in child support payments. (Get this, it took me two years to get, but I actually have a letter from Child Support Enforcement acknowledging they made a mistake.) During the course of this battle, I had to come up with $1,500 in a 2 week period of time to save my driver's license, I lost my fishing license, was denied my business license with the state of Florida and they denied my license plate renewal for my vehicles because with no lien holder they were preparing to force me to "surrender" them to mother as satisfaction of a "debt". They reported all these falsehoods to the credit bureau. The interest rates I had successfully kept low began to climb. ETC, ETC, ETC.

Now, I need to tell you, during all of this, the highest annual combined income for my wife and I was $52,000. But, we sacrificed what we needed to be there for my daughter, pay the child support, provide the transportation and I never once complained about any monetary issue.

So, my reward? I have no idea when I'll get to see my daughter again. I don't know how tall she is, or what music she listens to, I don't get hugs or get to give hugs. And all of these things are held against me - - -

Anyway, if I went on anymore you'd think I was a whiner or lying. I have two file cabinets full of documents and a bedroom where she used to sleep. Feel free to email me, I've got lots of time.


Paul

(zairazdad@aol.com)

Announcement from the office of GA senator Nancy Schaefer

Press release from Senator Nancy Schaefer.

Senator Schaefer will be in Washington tomorrow speaking on the corruption of Child Protective Services/DFCS.

Please support and pray for Senator Schaefer as she stands for these children and speaks out against the corruption in Child Protective Services.

Thank you.

GEORGIA CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES – 2006

© 2006 Karen S. Hindson, Hindson & Melton LLC

The Georgia Legislature passed House Bill 221 in the 2005 legislative session, which was signed into law by the Governor on April 22, 2005. The revisions to Georgia’s child support law were originally scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2006.

However, in its 2006 session, the Georgia legislature passed Senate Bill 382, which was signed into law by the Governor on April 28, 2006. The 2006 law made changes to the 2005 child support law and delayed the application of the new child support rules for six months, until January 1, 2007. The new rules will apply to all actions pending on or after January 1, 2007.

As a result, Georgia’s traditional child support guidelines based on a percentage of the income of the paying parent will stay in effect for all of 2006, and the revised child support calculations as passed in 2005 and modified in 2006 will take effect on January 1, 2007.

Under both the 2005 and 2006 versions of the new law, Georgia child support calculations and procedures will change dramatically. This article is not intended to be legal advice -- it is intended to provide an overview and selected information about the legislation. You should consult your attorney and the detailed worksheets as to how the law might apply to your specific factual situation.

Here are two links to websites with calculators and/or worksheets for the new child support calculation. Note that our firm did not prepare these calculators, and by posting this information on our website, we are not suggesting that you should proceed without an attorney. These links are provided for educational purposes only:

https://services.georgia.gov/dhr/cspp/do/public/SupportCalc

http://www.georgiacourts.org/csc/

This article will discuss only the 2006 version of the law unless otherwise specified.

The new child support law takes the incomes of both parents into account in establishing child support. The child support obligation table provides the basic child support obligation based on the combined adjusted income of both parents and the number of children to be supported. The amount from this chart will be rebuttably presumed to be the appropriate amount of basic child support to be provided by both parents, prior to consideration of percentage of income, health insurance, work related child care costs, and deviations.

Beginning in 2007, child support will be calculated as follows, using the worksheets developed by the Child Support Commission:

Step 1 – determine the monthly gross income of both parents. (Gross income may include imputed income if applicable.)
Step 2 – adjust each parent’s monthly gross income by deducting one-half of any self-employment taxes, any preexisting child support orders for current support for other children, and any theoretical child support orders approved by the court for other qualified children being supported (stepchildren are not qualified children).
Step 3 – add each parent’s adjusted income together to determine the Combined Adjusted Income
Step 4 – Refer to the child support obligation table to locate the Basic Child Support Obligation
Step 5 – Calculate the pro rata share of the basic child support obligation for the custodial parent and the noncustodial parent by dividing the combined adjusted income into each parent’s adjusted income to arrive at each parent’s pro rata percentage of the basic child support obligation
Step 6 – calculate the Adjusted Child Support Obligation by adding the additional expenses of the cost of health insurance and work related child care costs, prorating such expenses in accordance with each parent’s pro rata share of the obligation and adding such expenses to the pro rata share of the obligation.
Step 7 – determine the presumptive amount of child support for the custodial parent and the noncustodial parent by assigning or deducting credit for actual payments for health insurance and work related child care costs
Step 8 – If any deviations are approved by the Court, they would be subtracted from or added to the presumptive amount of child support.
Step 9 – Uninsured health care expenses will also be divided based on the pro rata responsibility of the parents unless the court determines otherwise.

The "presumptive amount of child support" means the basic child support obligation including health insurance and work related child care costs.

What is a "deviation"? An increase or decrease from the presumptive amount of child support if the Court makes findings of fact that justify a change from the presumptive amount. Deviations can be based on items such as high income, low income, travel expenses, alimony, mortgage, extraordinary expenses, special expenses incurred for the child, and parenting time.

The "final child support order" is the presumptive amount of child support adjusted by any deviations.

How is "adjusted income" determined for child support purposes? Deduct from that parent’s gross income one-half of any self-employment taxes being paid by the parent, and any preexisting child support order being paid by the parent for current child support (for the child of a different parent), and any theoretical child support order for other qualified children (if allowed by the Court). "Combined Adjusted Income" means the amount of adjusted income of both parents added together.

Who is the "custodial parent"? The parent with whom the child resides more than 50 percent of the time. If each parent spends exactly 50% of the time with the child, then the court designates the parent with the lesser child support obligation as the custodial parent.

What is a "parenting time adjustment"? An adjustment to the noncustodial parent’s portion of the basic child support obligation based on his or her Court-ordered visitation with the child.

What is the "percentage of income" and how is it used? The percentage of income for each parent is obtained by dividing each parent’s adjusted gross income by the combined total of both parents’ adjusted gross income. The percentage of income is used to determine each parent’s pro rata share of the basic child support obligation and each parent’s share of the amount of additional expense for health insurance and work related child care, as well as the amount of uninsured medical expenses that each parent must pay.

What is "split parenting"? When there are two or more children of the same parents, and one parent is custodial parent for one child and the other parent is custodial parent for the other child or children. No child will have more than one custodial parent. In a split parenting case, there is a separate calculation for child support for each child.

What if a parent’s other child or children are not under a preexisting child support order? The court can determine a "theoretical support order" as if an order existed for the child support in order to permit a credit for the support of that other child or children.

What are "work related child care costs"? Expenses for the care of the child which are due to employment of either parent. In an appropriate case, the court may consider child care costs associated with a parent’s job search or training or education of a parent necessary to obtain a job or enhance earning potential (not to exceed a reasonable time as determined by the court, if the parent proves that the job search, training, or education will benefit the child being supported.) Work related child care costs are projected for the next 12 months and averaged to obtain a monthly amount.

Can the amount of support indicated by the guidelines be increased? Yes, according to the best interest of the child and the circumstances of the parties, and considering grounds for deviation set forth in the law. The state policy is to afford to children of unmarried parents, to the extent possible, the same economic standard of living enjoyed by children living in intact families consisting of parents with similar financial means.

The Court will make a written finding of the gross income of the father and the mother as part of its order. The Court will also determine whether health insurance for the child is reasonably available at a reasonable cost to either parent, and the Court may order that the child be covered under such insurance.

If the Court finds that one or more of the reasons for deviating from the presumptive amount of child support applies, the court will specify in its order the reasons the court deviated from the presumptive amount of child support and how the best interest of the child will be served by deviation.

May the parties enter into an agreement for child support which is different from the guidelines? Yes, however the Court will review the adequacy of the child support negotiated by the parties, including medical expenses and health insurance, and if the agreement deviates from the law without findings of fact which support a deviation, the court shall reject the agreement. The parties shall provide their child support calculation worksheets to the Court to assist with this determination.

Will the duty to pay child support still stop at age 18? Yes, except when the child has not yet finished high school, and in that case it will continue until the child completes high school, but not past age the child’s 20 th birthday.

What is included in "gross income"? All income from any source, whether earned or unearned, before deductions for taxes and other deductions. It includes bonuses, overtime, commissions, trust income, capital gains, disability, workers compensation, gifts, and unemployment, in addition to many other examples of income listed in the statute.

What is excluded from "gross income"? Child support received for a child from another relationship, benefits such as PeachCare for Kids, food stamps, and SSI are examples of income not included in the gross income determination.

What if a parent fails to produce reliable evidence of income for the court (such as tax returns for prior years, check stubs, or other information for determining ability to support)? The court can look to other reliable evidence of the parent’s income or income potential. In a modification case where a parent fails to produce reliable evidence of income, the court may enter an order to increase the child support obligation of that parent by at least 10 percent per year of that parent’s pro rata share for each year since the order was last modified.

What about self-employment income? This would include gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses required for self-employment or business operations. Excessive promotional, travel, vehicle, or personal living expenses, and accelerated depreciation, will be excluded as a business expense in the calculation of gross self-employment income. The law recognizes that self-employment income should be carefully examined by the court and the amount of income will generally differ from a determination of business income for tax purposes.

What about variable income such as commissions, bonuses, overtime pay, and dividends? The court averages such income over a reasonable period of time to determine how much to include in gross income of that parent. Or, the court may require the parent to pay as one-time support a percentage of his or her nonrecurring income.

What if a parent is willfully or voluntarily unemployed or underemployed? The court can consider past and present employment, education and training, whether the underemployment/unemployment is reasonable in light of the parent’s obligation to support his or her children, whether the parent owns valuable assets that appear unreasonable for the income claimed by the parent, and the parent’s role as caretaker of a handicapped or seriously ill child or other relative.

What if a parent has been out of the workforce as a caretaker? In considering the income potential of a parent whose work experience is limited due to the caretaker role of that parent, the court can consider how long the parent has remained out of the workforce, whether they were a full-time caretaker immediately before the divorce action, his or her education, training, and ability to work, and whether the parent is caring for a child or children age 4 or younger.

If a court determines that a parent is willfully and voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, child support shall be calculated based on a determination of potential income, as evidenced by educational level or previous work experience. At a minimum, if there is no other reliable evidence, the court may impute income equal to 40 hours a week of minimum wage.

What if a parent is paying child support on a child from another relationship? An adjustment to that parent’s gross income will be made if the child support is actually being paid under an order of support for at least 12 consecutive months prior to the date of the hearing. No payments on arrearages shall be used as a basis to reduce gross income. The court may also consider a credit for support of a qualified child who a parent is actually supporting for whom the parent is legally responsible even if there is no preexisting order for child support. Stepchildren and other minors in the home that the parent has no legal obligation to support do not count.

How is alimony considered? Actual payments of alimony should not be considered as a deduction from gross income but may be considered as a factor to vary from the final presumptive child support order. In such a case, the court must make a written finding of such consideration as a basis for deviation.

How is the basic child support obligation determined? Look to the child support obligation table for the income bracket closest to the combined monthly adjusted income of the parents. The number of children column will refer to the number of children for whom the parents share joint legal responsibility and for whom support is being sought.

The child support obligation table will not include work related child care costs or the cost of health insurance premiums or uninsured health expenses. These will be recorded on the worksheets. If child care is provided by a parent or family member, the value of those services should be not added.

In standard parenting situations, the adjusted support obligation is the parent’s share of the basic child support obligation plus the parent’s share of any additional expenses for the child’s health insurance premium and work related child care.

In split parenting situations, the adjusted support obligation is each parent’s basic child support obligation for the child in the other parent’s care plus each parent’s share of any additional expenses for the child’s health insurance premium and work related child care.

The amount of child support established under the table and these procedures is presumed correct but is rebuttable, and the Court may deviate from the presumptive child support guidelines. The Court shall consider the best interest of the children. When ordering a deviation, the court’s order shall explain the reasons.

What about high income parents? Parents are considered high-income if their combined adjusted income exceeds $30,000 per month. The court sets child support at the highest amount allowed by the table, but may deviate upward where appropriate in the best interest of the children.

A low income person is a parent whose annual gross income equals $1,850 or less per month. The court may take this into consideration making a deviation.

Parenting time travel expenses – if parenting time travel expenses are substantial due to the distance between parents, the court may order the allocation of such costs by deviation from the basic child support obligation, taking into consideration who moved and why.

Extraordinary expenses are considered on a case by case basis. These might include expenses associated with special needs education or private elementary and secondary schooling that are appropriate to the parents’ financial abilities and to the lifestyle of the child if the parents and children were living together.

Special expenses may be added to the child support obligation as a deviation from the presumptive order – including items such as summer camp, music or art lessons, travel, and school sponsored extracurricular activities. A portion of the basic child support obligation is intended to cover average amounts of special expenses, but when special expenses exceed 7 percent of the monthly basic child support obligation, then the court shall consider additional amounts of support as a deviation to cover the full amount of these special expenses.

In cases of extreme economic hardship, deviation may be considered. An example might be extraordinary medical needs not covered by insurance for the child of a parent’s current family.

In the event a parents suffers an involuntary termination of employment, has an extended involuntary loss of average weekly hours, is involved in an organized strike, incurs a loss of health, or similar involuntary adversity resulting in a loss of income of 25 percent or more, then the portion of child support attributable to lost income shall not accrue from the date of service of the petition for modification, provided that service is made on the other parent.

No petition to modify child support may be filed by either parent within a period of two years from the date of the final order on a previous petition to modify unless a noncustodial parent has failed to exercise court ordered visitation, or has exercised a greater amount of visitation than was provided in the court order, or the motion is based on an involuntary loss of income. Otherwise, a petition to modify cannot be filed regardless of the length of time unless there is a substantial change in either parent’s income and financial status or needs of the child.

If there is a difference of at least 15 percent but less than 30 percent between a new award and a child support order entered prior to January 1, 2007, the Court may phase in the new child support over a period of up to one year. If there is a difference of 30 percent or more, the court may phase in the new child support award over a period of up to two years.

In proceedings for modification of child support based on this new law, the court may award attorneys fees, costs, and expenses of litigation to the prevailing party. If a custodial parent prevails in an upward modification of child support based upon the noncustodial parent’s failure to be available and willing to exercise visitation as scheduled under the prior order, reasonable and necessary attorneys fees and expenses of litigation shall be awarded to the custodial parent.

The complete text of Senate Bill 382, as passed, including the Georgia schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations table, may be found at www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2005_06/fulltext/sb382.htm.

© 2006 Karen S. Hindson, Hindson & Melton LLC

Announcement from Stephen Baskerville....

I have four prominent speaking engagements in
Washington and Michigan:

Friday, September 26
Eagle Council, Eagle Forum's 37th Leadership Conference:
Alongside other authors, I will be speaking about my book,
Taken Into Custody. Authors on the same platform will
include Jerry Corsi, who will speak about his book,
Obama Nation. The session may be televised on C-SPAN.
Also present will be Phyllis Schlafly, to whom we are
indebted for this event. The conference is at the
Washington Court hotel on Capitol Hill and continues
into the weekend. This is a major event and will help
us increase our influence in Washington. Please attend
if you can and show that Phyllis has huge support on
this. Details are here:
http://eagleforum. org/events/ Council/index. html.

Wednesday, October 1
The Conflict Between Federal Domestic Violence Policies
and Traditional Family Values, a conference sponsored
by Eagle Forum and RADAR and held at the Heritage
Foundation in Washington. Other speakers will include
Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation and Elaine
Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness.
We are indebted to Phyllis for making this event
possible as well.

Friday, October 3
I will be speaking at the First National Bank of
Lansing, Michigan. This event is not open to the
public but the banquet speech the next day is.

Saturday, October 4
Battle of Ideas Forum: This has been televised in the
past and featured such prominent speakers at Joseph Sobran
and Lew Rockwell. It is free and open to the public.
(Details to follow when I get them.)

Stephen

************ ********* ********* ********* ********

Stephen Baskerville, PhD
Associate Professor of Government
Patrick Henry College
1 Patrick Henry Circle
Purcellville, Virginia 20132

Is Joan Dawson talkin' PAS or BS????

PAS: In the Best Interest of the Abuser?

Is parental alienation syndrome a mental disorder or a defense?

By Joan Dawson - Feminist Propaganda Prime Minister of OhMyNews

"I think when my daughter becomes an adult she'll be fully cognizant of the fact that she's estranged."
--Alec Baldwin

On Tuesday, Alec Baldwin's book A Promise to Ourselves: A Journey Through Fatherhood and Divorce will be available in bookstores. You can also count on him making a lot of guest appearances. I caught him Friday night on the 20/20 show.

As expected, he talked about his custody battle in family court with his ex-wife Kim Basinger and parental alienation syndrome (PAS). Some claim PAS is a diagnosis; others claim the courts have gone from "best interest of the child" to "best interest of the abuser."

PAS is a form of "woman on man crime."
--Alec Baldwin, on 20/20

PAS is a term coined in 1985 by child psychologist Dr. Richard Gardner. It is defined as "a disorder of children, arising almost exclusively in child custody disputes, in which one parent (usually the mother) programs the child to hate the other parent (usually the father)." This was Dr. Gardner's personal view and it was never published in a peer-reviewed journal; thus, this "syndrome" has never been subjected to the typical rigors of research. Moreover, critics claim Dr. Gardner was pro-pedophilia.

"All of us have some pedophilia within us."
--Dr. Richard Gardner

In contrast to Dr. Gardner's anecdotal evidence, here is some information from credible sources and a child survivor:

Jennifer Hoult, J.D., provides a comprehensive analysis of the science, law and policy issues of PAS in the Children's Legal Rights Journal. She states that "PAS is rooted in theory that can fairly be described as pro-pedophilia." And, in sum, PAS shields abusers, promotes access to children, presumes male violence as false and punishes women (Vol. 26, No. 1; Spring 2006).

The American Psychological Association says PAS "lacks evidence."

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges condemns the use of PAS as a "discredited" syndrome.

Harvard's Jay Silverman's survey (as reported in Newsweek, Aug. 21, 2007) found 54 percent of cases with documented abuse were in favor of the abusers. PAS was used in nearly every case.

The American Prosecutor's Research Institute says, "In short, PAS is an untested theory that, unchallenged, can have far-reaching consequences for children seeking protection and legal vindication in courts of law."

"Nobody in our family likes our father anymore. We call him our 'ex' father. He can play the very concerned parent when he wants to, but as soon as there are no witnesses, he will stab us in the back. He keeps messing up with our mom's job, so she cannot work or hire an attorney, and so we stay poor. We cannot do much, and are depressed. Most of us have insomnia and nightmares. Many people know about the situation, but the judge doesn't listen to us, or to our mother's witnesses. Everything the court does is labeled 'In the Best Interest of the Children' when in reality it has always been 'In the Best Interest of the Child Abuser.'"
--Stephanie, Apr. 4, 2004

Proponents of PAS, and there are many, claim that women alienate their children from their fathers. While it is true that some women inadvertently or intentionally bad-mouth fathers (and vice versa), several other reasons can also explain why the child fears the father or distances himself from Dad. One is the parent's own behavior. Baldwin called his daughter a pig and this is just one term we heard. Perhaps this behavior would influence her opinion of him. Another reason, of course, is that the parent is an abuser.

"Terms such as 'parental alienation' may be used to blame the women for the children's reasonable fear of or anger toward their violent father."
--APA Task Force Report

The use of PAS alleges that mothers and children are liars. PAS, when used as a defense, claims the abuse did not happen and that mom is lying. In fact, there is no evidence that women make more false allegations than men or that lying is the norm rather than the exception in family court. (See: National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse; National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect.)

When mothers claim abuse, then, they are faced with counter-claims of being an alienator. Since more courts are using shared parenting plans and "friendly parent" criteria, a woman alleging abuse faces a serious uphill battle in the courtroom and, indeed, often loses custody to the abuser. Indeed, she faces a double-edged sword -- allege abuse to protect the child and be labeled an alienator or do not report abuse and be charged with failure to protect.

"It's really been a cancer in the family courts."
--Richard Ducote, family court attorney for 22 years, referring to PAS

Allegations of PAS are common among the Fathers Rights (FR) groups, which I have written about previously. Some call these groups backlash groups (because they are anti-woman or anti-feminist); others call them the Abusers' Lobby. They represent (often bitter or angry) men who have been through family court, the place where high conflict cases get settled. Many of these men have had charges and allegations of abuse made against them. Thanks to the Internet, they are now organized.

PAS is related to a term known as "Divorce Related Malicious Mother Syndrome."
--New York Fathers Rights Attorneys

Here is a brief summary of the FR agenda:

- Promote mandated shared parenting (the problem is that this has been allowing abusers to get custody or to maintain control over ex-wives; many FR advocates believe a violent dad is better than no dad at all).

- Lower or stop child support payments.

- Claim domestic violence is mutual.

- Attack services for female victims of violence (sue shelters; try to restrict restraining orders; attack the Violence Against Women Act, which provides funding for family violence, rape and stalking in the US).

- Discredit women by calling them false accusers (in domestic violence, child abuse, sexual abuse and rape).

- Use syndromes like PAS to discredit women and get custody of children.

These days, I have found that they use the term "syndrome" less often, instead preferring the term "parental alienation" to counter claims of the "syndrome's" credibility. They also tout more women as victims of PAS in order to gain more sympathizers for their cause. It is interesting (weird, really) to note they have used other terms against women: Malicious Mother Syndrome (MMS), Sexual Allegations in Divorce (SAID), Hostile Aggressive Parenting (HAP) and Lying Litigant Syndrome (LLS). As you can imagine, all are used in their arsenal against women.

And Baldwin is now providing them with a very public voice to promote their so-called parental alienation syndrome. I will not be buying the book. No, thank you.

I understand custody battles are difficult and there are a lot of scars from this battlefield. However, PAS is a weapon that allows people to shoot below the belt. It is unfounded at best, dangerous at worse. I would not hand a gun to an angry person, nor would I hand a ready-made defense over to a potential abuser. That is not in the best interest of anyone.

For further information: American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence (Quarterly newsletter) American Prosecutors Research Institute (PAS: What Professionals Need to Know) American Psychological Association (Statement on PAS) Cincinnati PAS Defend the Children Justice for Children (The Hoult article) Leadership Council Newsweek

Article Link: (http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=4&no=383732&rel_no=1)

Casualties of War....Land of the Free????

More victims of the ruthless divorce industry and another statistic of Georgia's extortion racket!

[Administrators Note: I found this post on the 20/20 website comment section (Alec Baldwin/Diane Sawyer story) and found it so common and relating to so many other Father's plight down this dusty trail of treason and treachory that I just had to add it to my "Casualties of War" collection. Ryland100, if you see this I want to thank you for sharing this brief and painful story concerning you and your two daughters'. I am glad that you have remained in touch with them after going through all those troubling years and have not done what many Father's have done and completely given up, losing contact. As hard as it gets, we cannot give up or surrender to this painful human event that is an epidemic infecting more and more families everyday.]

by, ryland100

Fifteen years ago, I had a beautiful mini-farm with 13 acres, a Connecticut gentleman's barn, and four horses running in the front yard. My wife of 14 years came home one day and announced that she hated it because' "it is boring, tiresome,& lonely" and that she was leaving me and taking our 2 little girls.

I had always been an excellent father by everyones account. This being the land of the free and the home of the brave and all, I felt that at some point in the process I would be able to get up on the witness stand to tell my side of the story. Of course, I did not !!! I was merely plugged into the "multi-million dollar divorce industry" and sent down the river along with all the other Dads who love their little children and did nothing wrong. (I still haven't met a Dad that was able to get on the witness stand & tell his side of the story! )

I spent many years gutting deer on the carport for meat and hitch-hiking to the hospital with my old Volvo broken down on the side of the road.

Last year I paid my final child support payment which represented the largest government mandated re-distribution of wealth that I have personally witnessed (42% of gross income for prime capitol earning years from age 35 to age 50.) My children are now 18 & 21. The loss my children suffered is too tremendous to detail here but, they essentially grew up fatherless by vertue of the Georgia state government. I don't even care about the money anymore but, how do you replace missing the "terrible two's" for the baby's sake...or the Daddy. I have testified before the State Judicial Committee but it has fallen on deaf ears. In my case, there were no extenuating circumstances. It was right down the middle and average in every reguard.

So what do you do? I wipe up alot of tears. I call my girls to tell them I love them every day. I never stand and put my hand over my heart for the National Anthem.

Alec Baldwin's interview on 20/20 - And Updated articles from the interveiw....

ALEC BALWIN appears on THE VIEW WED. SEPT. 24th

Let's see how this group of feminists will treat Alec when he stops by THE VIEW to discuss his newly published book , "A PROMISE TO OURSELVES" which brings to the surface the horrible effects caused by Parental Alienation.

http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vYWxlY2JhbGR3aW4uY29tL3dlYnNpdGUvZXZlbnRzLw==We can only hope that with Alec's notoriety he can begin to nationally expose the fact that there are many parents who are fighting for their constitutional right to parent their children and that we refuse to give up on the idea of reunifying our country's family unit, which the family courts and lawyers have managed to systematically destroy.Our government is going to listen to us because we are not going away until there is change! UNITED

Actor Says Many Divorce Judges and Lawyers are 'Corrupt, Inefficient, Lazy, Stupid'

[Administrators Note: Of course 20/20 had to show their bias towards Alec/Men in general before the Baldwin interveiw by running a story about a man chasing a woman down and killing her in front of a police station! Alec, I feel that was a slap in your face to discredit you such as the radical feminist do. Diane Sawyer also showed her bias towards Alec and I have lost some respect for her as a journalist. Way to go Alec! you handled yourself well under pressure and for anyone to think you do not have the right to be mad and disgusted with the system, well, they are just ignorant of the truth with what is truly going on in our family courts of today. Parental Alienation is child abuse PERIOD! Vindictive parents who use their children in this manner to punish the other parent are guilty of a crime and need to be prosecuted....PERIOD! These family court issues are not the only problem in our system, our human civil rights are being violated on many other fronts also. Just open your eyes people and look around you and you will see that there is a war against all of us in the civil rights arena and the federally funded incentive programs targeted at families and children have to be the most destructive and disgusting! I have been caught up in the family court system for over 5 years now and never in my wildest dreams have I imagined that this system would be so bias, unfair, and cruel. It is a travesty to our society as a whole and the innocence of children take the brunt of this, all for criminal profiteering.........and funding to do it to the next family. The divorce industry and federal incentive programs in this arena are EVIL and DESTRUCTIVE to humanity and our God given right to be human and to parent. Judges and Attorneys are instigators in Parental Alienation and support this abuse towards children and actually are co-conspirators in this crime. I have to blame the system, judges, and attorneys just as much as the guilty parent commiting these abuses of Parental Alienation, children deserve equal time with both FIT parents. Any thing short of that is violating the child's, parents, grand-parents, cousins, aunts and uncles rights.]

By KETURAH GRAY
Sept. 19, 2008

Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger's cutthroat custody battle over their 12-year-old daughter, Ireland, has made international headlines for years. The couple divorced in 2002 after nine years of marriage, but the vicious accusations on both sides continued, culminating in the infamous 2007 voice-mail message in which Baldwin berated his daughter.

In an interview with ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer, Baldwin, 50, spoke about his lengthy court struggles with Basinger, 54, and said that when the voice mail was released, it brought him to the brink of suicide.

Watch Diane Sawyer's interview with Alec Baldwin tonight on "20/20" at 10 p.m. ET

"I used to pray to God every night. I would get in bed, and I would say, please, don't let me wake up in the morning," Baldwin said. "I began to think about what little town I would repair to in order to commit suicide. And then you, obviously you say, well, what would that do to my child if I killed myself? Me, I really didn't care about me."

Go to article and preveiw page: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=5832850&page=1

After the show opinion:

[Administrators Note: The family court system (divorce industry) is totally bias and dicriminating towards men/fathers. More women are becoming victims of this family destroying evil entity and although men are severly at a disadvantage right now in this system, more and more women are becoming aware that they are not immune to it either. Parental alienation is done by mostly mothers right now because they are more prone to this behavior by nature IMO and they get custody in more cases than men. The system had to give one gender an advantage in order to generate more profiteering in the federal incentive programs that support and finance this monster business, (and fills alot of peoples pockets with big money). Parental Alienation is real and it is psychological and emotional child abuse to say the least. Alec did very well answering Diane Sawyer and played it cool when under bias pressure from her that I know he is totally sick of after what he has been through. These courts and vindictive women very damaging to children and fathers and society. Way to go Alec, we need more high profile men/parents like you to come forward with these truths and the people of this country need to know what these criminal family courts and this destructive divorce industry is really doing to families and children!]

UPDATE:

Baldwin lashes out at divorce lawyers
Saturday, September 20, 2008 9:51 AM
ABC News
Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger's cutthroat custody battle over their 12-year-old daughter, Ireland, has made international headlines for years. The couple divorced in 2002 after nine years of marriage, but the vicious accusations on both sides continued, culminating in the infamous 2007 voice-mail message in which Baldwin berated his daughter.
In an interview with ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer, Baldwin, 50, spoke about his lengthy court struggles with Basinger, 54, and said that when the voice mail was released, it brought him to the brink of suicide.
"I used to pray to God every night. I would get in bed, and I would say, please, don't let me wake up in the morning," Baldwin said. "I began to think about what little town I would repair to in order to commit suicide. And then you, obviously you say, well, what would that do to my child if I killed myself? Me, I really didn't care about me."
After the media storm and new round of custody litigation that followed the voice mail release, Baldwin nearly broke his own promise to never give up on his daughter. Deterred by the barriers that he believes his ex-wife imposed on his relationship with Ireland, Baldwin said he almost lost the will to keep fighting.
In his new book (in stores on Tuesday), "A Promise to Ourselves: A Journey Through Fatherhood and Divorce," Baldwin chronicles his journey for other fathers who are seeking custody and struggling for justice in family court. He says it's time to do something about the business of divorce in America and, in typical Baldwin fashion, he doesn't mince words.
"I don't care if the judges and the lawyers die of heart attacks in the process of getting their job done. They are corrupt, inefficient, lazy, stupid -- they're the most God-awful people."
Baldwin believes that many family court lawyers and their manipulations and delays make the child custody duel much worse than it needs to be. "The judges are like pit bosses in Vegas casinos. Their job is to make sure everybody stays at the table and keeps gambling."
Baldwin's clashed with Basinger for nearly eight years: there are hundreds of documents, 91 court proceedings so far, and about $3 million in legal costs.
But it didn't start out like that.
'All Dissent Was Abuse' Baldwin told Sawyer that he and Basinger came into marriage much like anyone else, except that they were two of Hollywood's biggest stars when they met on the set of "The Marrying Man" in 1990. "I had a marriage that I came to in the same way everybody else comes to a marriage. We all take chances when we get married."
Not long after they met, Basinger told ABC News that she thought Baldwin was "something else" and hoped that he was nuts about her.
Two years after their 1993 marriage ceremony, their daughter was born.
But by the time Ireland was 5, the marriage was unraveling.
"I'm sure she [Basinger] would tell you ad nauseam, she might even be more chatty about the warning signals she saw in me, you know," said Baldwin. "The harshest thing I can say is I was married to someone for whom all dissent was abuse. If you had your own opinion, you were abusive. And getting into the details doesn't matter 'cause it's not good for me legally to do that and it's not good for my daughter."
Ireland is unquestionably the love of Baldwin's life. He won joint legal and physical custody of her in 2004 and has racked up tens of thousands of frequent flier miles traveling between New York and Los Angeles to satisfy his custody visitation schedule. He sees himself as a good father and says he has met every court requirement that Basinger's side has thrown at him, including anger management classes.
"When I'm with her, I'm happy," he said. "It's one of the only times in my life that I'm happy."
In some ways, though, Baldwin believes that the separation with his daughter began before she was born.
"I think when my daughter becomes an adult, she'll be fully cognizant of the fact that she's estranged," he said.
At the time this story was published neither Kim Basinger nor her representative could be reached for comment.
Baldwin Describes 'Parental Alienation Syndrome'
In his book Baldwin recounts standing in the bathroom of Basinger's home in Los Angeles with Basinger and her assistant: "Kim said she was pregnant. A moment that one would have imagined, during all your lifetime leading up until now, would be a cause for unprecedented joy was more like someone telling you that they had wrecked your car. We all just stood there while Kim talked of her doubts about me and our marriage."
Baldwin wrote that Basinger's assistant "managed to sneak glances at me that seemed pitying, as if to say 'How sad to have this moment in your life play out this way.' I suppose that, in hindsight, the alienation from my daughter began that afternoon, before she was even born."
When he and Basinger separated, Baldwin said she moved from their home in New York back to California, reportedly for Ireland's health. At the time, a court-sponsored mediator was making custody arrangements with agonizing slowness, claims Baldwin.
At one point, Baldwin said Ireland told him, "Mommy says we can all be together again if you go and get help. Mommy says you're sick." Baldwin told Sawyer that he told his lawyer because he said it was another of Basinger's attempts to turn Ireland against him.
In "A Promise to Ourselves" Baldwin urges the courts to recognize parental alienation syndrome, which he says is real.
"There are women who get divorced in order to punish, out of this bitter, bitter hatred that some of these women have for their ex-husbands, they turn their children against them. Everybody knows that's real. We know that there are gangs in East L.A. We don't need to say there's East L.A. Gang syndrome, do we?"
Baldwin also suggests that if there is no evidence of abuse by the father, with school-age kids, "he gets meaningful custody of his child right away."
Joan Meier, a law professor at George Washington University, strongly disagrees with Baldwin. Meier, who helps women battle custody in court, says that allegations of parental alienation syndrome can endanger women. "Parental alienation is being misused and distorted simply to defeat abuse claims," she said.
The American Psychiatric Association also doesn't recognize the term. A former APA president, Dr. Paul Fink, referred to parental alienation syndrome as "junk science at its worst."
But what of Ireland's reaction to this book? "I said to her, I've written this book and this book is coming out and I want you to know that I tried to be as fair as I could in the book," Baldwin said. "And what's important is ... what I left out of the book."
Baldwin says he dreams of ending the battle with Basinger.
"I never think about her. I never think about the past. I think about the dreams I had, the reconciliation dreams, which to me, I could honestly say to you, there are few waking dreams I've had that I woke up as intoxicated as I was by those dreams, that all this was behind us."

Article Link: http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/entertainment&id=6403426

UPDATE-Sept 22nd, 2008

CHILDREN'S PROTECTION CAMPAIGN EXPRESSES OUTRAGE AT ALEC BALDWIN'S NEW BOOK
September 22, 2008
The Children’s Protection Alliance (CPA) is fighting to defend the rights of abused children against the legal strategy PAS or Parental Alienation Syndrome, a discredited theory that “parental alienation” was derived from, which Alec Baldwin is promoting in his new book on divorce and custody. A child abuse victim of the legal strategy of PAS, Randy Kravitz (now an adult) is speaking out as part of CPA’s national awareness campaign about this dangerous theory, which is used to place children with abusive parents in custody cases. “Does Alec Baldwin know that the original theory behind “parental alienation,” called PAS/Parental Alienation Syndrome, is a legal strategy that child molesters, batterers, and child abusers have used to get custody of their children nationwide?” asks Kravitz.
“This is an outrage. The strategy of PAS is a horrible reality for many helpless abused children that face this issue in family courts,” Kravitz says. Randy Kravitz is not only a victim of physical abuse and beatings from his father; he is also a victim of the legal use of PAS. PAS is a legal strategy used by child molesters and child abusers in order to win visitation and custody rights. Randy was forced to run away from home in order to escape the court-ordered abuse he received from his father. Randy Kravitz and the Children’s Protection Alliance are working to expose how the use of PAS as a legal strategy has harmed countless abused children across the country. “The successful use of the PAS strategy shows how family courts are failing to protect children from their abusive parents,” Kravitz says. “The personal nature of divorce proceedings should not interfere with the safety of a child. You must put the rights of abused children first and foremost.”

For more information please visit http://www.childrensprotection.org/ ###

CONTACT and BOOKINGS: Ashley CorkeryP: 917-546-0826E: http://us.mc362.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ashley@theelementagency.com This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
http://www.mmdnewswire.com/childrens-protection-campaign-expresses-outrage-at-alec-baldwins-new-book-3913-2.html

CPA is a radical anti-male front group

To whom it may concern:

Your organization, the Children's Protection Alliance (CPA) is doing
a disservice to the many fathers (and some mothers) out there that
have been victims of parental alienation and PAS. In fact, many
states including NY, NJ, GA, CA, ILL., NC, CO, FLA, et al. have
accepted parental alienation as a form of child abuse against
children being deprived of their relationship with their fathers and
in some cases, their mothers. However, various radical, left-wing
and Marxist feminist organizations are trying to discredit parental
alienation as being "junk science". Parental alienation is a form of
intentional infliction of emotional distress/outrageous
conduct/post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

PA and PAS is when one parent refuses to allow the other parent to
exercise his fundamantally, God-given parental rights, and in
violations of court orders, when the loving parent has done nothing
to incur the wrath of the alienating parent, other than getting a
divorce. Over 70% of all visitation/parental rights is denied to the
noncustodial parent within the first 5 years of a divorce involving
children. A wedge is driven between the mother and the children, and
the father. The mother invokes her power and control (e.g., this is
what is most often defined as domestic violence) to cut off the
children from their father, by fabricating claims against the father,
calling him names and expletives in front of the children, and
telling the children they don't have to see their father if they don't want to.

Those fathers who abuse and molest their children are a small
percentage of total of loving fathers being deprived of their
children. Statewide child abuse and molestation statistics show that
mothers account for over 85% of all females in committing child
abuse, neglect and molestation. Fathers constitute a little over 33%
of those committing child abuse, neglect and molestation, with
boyfriends, paramours, relatives and institutiions accounting for the rest.

According to the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services Third National
Incidence Study (NIS-3) of Child Abuse & Neglect, at pg. 6-11, table
6-4, mothers are responsible for 55% of all child killings, with
boyfriends, paramours, relatives and then fathers and institutions
bringing up the rear.

I am a victim of parental alienation and PAS. My ex-wife told the
court-appointed GAL that she did not have the authority to make my ex
bring the kids for visitation and she wouldn't. My ex alienated the
children from me at age 12 (which happens at this age most of the
time) by telling the children they no longer had to see me. Court
order after court order was issued for her contempt, but she never
went to jail, and she was never forced to give up custody. However,
I suffered PAS and PTSD, with my blood pressure going up to 175/130
and the doctors panicking that I was going to have a massive stroke
because of all of this. I became physically and mentally disabled as
a result of the PAS and wound up losing my excellent career and had
to go on Social Security disability. Since that time, over 14 years
ago, I have recovered (except for physical disability) and have been
involved in the fathers' rights movement, family rights movement and
childrens' rights movement and have seen my share of hundreds of
fathers breaking down and crying because they were deprived of their
relationships with their children because their vicious and
vindictive ex-wives with their lawyers, and complicit
judges, prevented these fathers from seeing their children. This is
systemic government oppression and essentially acts of treason
against the US Constitution and a threat to national security (break
up of families, denial of parent's right to children).

Before you go on your tantrums and accuse all "men are created evil"
you need to get out and investigate the subject rather than base your
anecdotal evidence of fabrications, false allegations and perjury
that runs rampant when women, who deservedly so, lose custody of
their children to the father. Yes, I understand that there are some
fathers who are abusive, but that number is so miniscule that it does
not show up on the radar. It's just like the epidemic hysteria
created by battered women's groups that many women are being murdered
in domestic violence cases. In my state, according to the latest
State Police reports on domesitc violence, there were 42 murders
related to domestic violence, and a 1/3 of them (14) were
men. Forty-two murders for domestic violence out of a population of
9,000,000 in New Jersey (NJ is the 11th largest state by
population). Where's the epidemic? Forty-two domestic violence
murders divided into 9 Million equals approximately .0006% of the
total, a statistical insignificance.

Yet, we have the diagnosis of "battered women's syndrome" which, in
reality IS "junk science" because it does not include "battered men's
sydrome". According to the most recent US Justice Dept. statistics,
there were 1.2 Million reported (not convicted) cases of domestic
violence against women; there were 950,000 reported cases of domestic
violence against men last year. Men account for over 40% of all
domestic violence victims, but over $1 BILLION in federal funding is
given to state battered WOMEN'S programs ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lastly, Tourette's Syndrome was considered "junk science" for almost
100 years before it was given a diagnosis code in the DSM manuals.

I suggest you do your research more thoroughly before calling
parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome a "junk
science". A small percentage of those who were abused because of
being given to the wrong parent on the basis of PAS, is statistically
insignificant compared to the huge number of those parents (read:
fathers) who are deprived of their children routinely through
parental alienation and PAS, which is a provable statistic. Instead
of using a small sampling of case studies or some anecdotal evidence
by radical anti-male, misandric feminist authors, do the right thing
and convene unbiased research studies on the subject and you'll see
that your studies will comport with what's already out there.


Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director
DADS (Dads Against Discrimination)--New Jersey & New York Chapters
Wayne, New Jersey

'Paramours' often seen as problem....

By Brian Hicks

The Post and Courier

Friday, September 19, 2008

Grace Beahm
The Post and Courier

Justin Hillerby, 27, sits during a bail hearing at Summerville Municipal Court Thursday. The judge denied bail for Hillerby.

In Family Court, they are called "paramours," and they can play a major role in child custody cases.

Live-in boyfriends are eyed suspiciously, children's advocates and attorneys say because they are often the most dangerous person a child encounters.

Judges frown on unmarried couples living together so much that some have been known to invoke the state's 200-year-old fornication law to encourage a single mother to avoid allowing a boyfriend to stay at her house.

After Justin Hillerby's arrest Wednesday in the death of his girlfriend's 22-month-old son in Summerville, local experts familiar with the court system say the situation is all too familiar.

"It is a recurring problem," says Stephen Dey, a local attorney and co-chairman of the Family

Court Liaison Committee of the Charleston Bar Association. "In a vast majority of cases, if a person is going through a divorce, there is a proscription to exposing children to the situation."

Dey says he will not take a case involving a parent with a live-in lover because "your chances of getting relief from the court is slim to none."

That's because of the troubles they've seen in Family Court. National studies indicate children living in households with unrelated adults are nearly 50 times as likely to die of inflicted injuries as children living with two biological parents.

Laura Hudson, executive director of the South Carolina Crime Victim's Council and a member of the state's Child Fatality Review Team, said Thursday it's hard to break down state statistics to illustrate the problem, but "I'll say it's not uncommon."

Often, she says, the death of a child comes at the hands of an adult caregiver who is not related to the victim. What police say occurred in the Hillerby case is nearly identical to a 2007 St. George case. Donald Joseph Mauldin last year was sentenced to 50 years for killing his live-in girlfriend's 3-year-old daughter.

The Dee Norton Lowcountry Children's Center has seen a 28 percent increase in child-abuse cases in the last four years. Dr. Libby Ralston, the center's executive director, says they have a lot of experience with cases involving live-in boyfriends.

"A lot of live-in boyfriends don't have the affection or the bond with a child, and no experience as a parent," Ralston says. "We have found that the risk to children increases when they are exposed to multiple adults."

And it is even worse when that is a person who doesn't understand a child's behavior, or how fragile they are.

"They may even feel jealous of the relationship the child has with its mother," Ralston said.

Some states have even considered harsh penalties against parents who move in with a lover. In Iowa, the state legislature has considered a law that could cost a parent custody of her children if she allows a boyfriend to move in. Iowa lawmakers say 26 percent of child deaths in that state between 1995 and 2000 involved live-in lovers.

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/sep/19/paramours_often_seen_as_problem55068/

Copyright © 1997 - 2007 the Evening Post Publishing Co.

Divorced From Reality

By Mindelle Jacobs mjacobs@edmsun.com

I inadvertently stoked the ever-simmering gender war last week when comments I reported from a domestic violence conference unleashed a fusillade of male outrage.

From California to Massachusetts, American men flayed me for painting a picture of male abuse while ignoring the flip side - that women are also perpetrators. Canadian ex-husbands and fathers also poured out their wrath.

Well, as I e-mailed back to many of my readers, don't shoot the messenger, guys. I didn't endorse the remarks of the head of the U.S. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, who told a women's shelter conference that some leaders of fathers' rights groups are abusers who wield their positions like an ideological hammer against women.

Incendiary comments are going to get reported. And I have clearly acknowledged in past columns that spousal violence is perpetrated by both men and women. But there is no denying that women are much more likely than men to be the victims of the most severe physical abuse and spousal homicide.

Still, the men want their say so let's proceed. I received countless e-mails from wounded men (both physically and emotionally) who said they'd either been assaulted by unhinged wives or falsely accused of either harming their wives or molesting their kids.

"I'm a guppy in a sea of really big and angry fish," wrote one man who said he was falsely accused of sexually abusing his two-year-old daughter.

Men wrote about being assaulted by their wives - with no subsequent charges by the police. They complained about the nasty games women play to cut them out of their kids' lives.

Former Edmonton lawyer Grant Brown has heard it all. He quit practising law in March after only four years as a lawyer because he's sick of dealing with what he describes as a dysfunctional family law system.

"I couldn't hack it anymore," says the 50-year-old who's writing a book called Deadbeat Judges.

"The thesis of my book is that judges actually create the deadbeats. They make such harsh orders against fathers and give fathers no rights," he says. "A lot of (dads) just give up."

Several of his former clients have signed waivers allowing Brown to write about their cases. He's had female clients who were unfairly treated by the courts but he says it's mostly men who get shafted.

Police, prosecutors and judges are generally harsher with men in domestic abuse cases, says Brown. And, he adds, judges rarely punish women who violate court orders.

He recalls appearing before the same judge four times in two months because of a woman who wasn't giving her ex access to the children. The judge warned her there would be consequences for breaching a court order - but he never followed through.

"Dads can spend thousands and thousands of dollars trying to see their kids and the judges do nothing to make it happen," says Brown.

To some extent, judges are faced with an impossible task, he acknowledges, because the court system is adversarial. "Everything hinges on proving that the other parent is a badass of some kind."

He'd like to see mandatory mediation in bitter divorce cases as well as a legal presumption of shared parenting.

"The money should be going to the kids instead of paying for the lawyers," says Brown. "The more you can cut lawyers out of it, I think the better off the system would be."

If a woman's ever tossed in jail for the weekend for refusing her ex court-ordered access to the kids, let me know. Now that's a story.

(http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2008/09/18/6800656-sun.html)

Today is Constitution Day....

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

On September 17, 1787, forty-two of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention held their final meeting. Only one item of business occupied the agenda that day, to sign the Constitution of the United States of America.

[Administrators Note: Sorry folk's, I do not have much to say on this subject at this moment....other than that I have very little reason to celebrate. With all the constitutional crisis happening throughout our country today and on constitution day, here is a headline title addressing the severity and importance of the constitution that is in mainstream news this morning! Baggy pants ban "unconstitutional," rules US judge, How pathetic!!!!]

To read about the most important constitutional mainstream news on this "Constitution Day" and to learn more about "The Fashion Police States" please click the link below to go to this important event that will eventually affect every citizen of the United States!
Article Link:
http://news.yahoo.com/story//afp/20080916/ts_alt_afp/usfashionjusticeoffbeat

Message from Terri Lynn Tersak of True Equality Network USA and brief commentary.

From their email newsletter sent September 15th, 2008Retiring TEN (True Equality Network) USA President and CEO, Terri Lynn Tersak remarked, "The equality movement has long pasted the point where its current methods can be effective enough to bring about the significant changes family law in America needs. The movement is two decades behind the radical policy makers of today and needs real experienced professionals to run the agenda and daily operations. Citizen lobbying has an important role, but cannot compete with the well-funded machine they face alone. Without complete unity, major funding, and professional leadership it risks continuing to do more harm than good to its own constituency, while victimizing those it claims to serve.

Moreover, if the American men's rights movement had spent one quarter of time actually promoting gender equality that they spent knifing each other in the back, stealing each other's work, destroying their allies, and clearly proving they are as polluted with women hating terrorists as the radical women's groups are with man-haters, VAWA would never have happened and presumptive equal parenting time would be the law of the land today. Never before in the history of human civilization have so many people participated in group self-destruction as the American men's rights movement has."

Terri Lynn Tersak also commented, "Due to the compulsive obsession the men's rights movement has to recklessly publish everything they hear as fast as possible regardless of the damage it does to real victims and their supporters, and to the investigations into the abuses they claim to challenge the states have no choice but to keep their investigative work quiet."

Damage Control and Possible Future Remedies….[Administrators Note: Unfortunately I think Ms. Tersak is right. Pissed off non-custodial parents do no good going to Washington or any other place yelling and screaming about how they have been screwed by the system and propaganding violence and hatred. Yes we are pissed and even I am guilty of spilling my guts in anger and it hasn't helped my case one bit. The enemy just keeps on keeping on and raking in billions while we watch more and more families being destroyed. These destructive forces seem to be an endless cycle that cannot be infiltrated.............that’s the WORD, INFILTRATED!!!!

We need to learn from the productive actions of the people who can influence and get things done. We need major unity and organization. We need financial backing and big business to back us. We need people in business suits who are educated and persuasive with their tongues that can infiltrate the system and get things done. Climbing buildings in a batman suit draws attention, but it sure the hell doesn't accomplish much more than that. Instead of putting on a batman suit, put on a business suit and organize an intelligent meeting with senators and big business owners and show them the proof of the failures in our system and what is truly happening to society. Show them there are other ways to generate federal funding other than by the raping of families and children for federal incentive programs. Prove to them how hypocritical they look like just by the facts of the "No Children left Behind" criminal and false phrase/agenda. MAKE THEM SEE THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE! Prove to them they are the creators of the deadbeat American problem! Prove to them that eventually there will be no more huge profits when all the parents/people are unemployed or in prison and cannot be robbed of anymore of their income and taxes because they will be "all used up". Submit new laws and legislative outlines and ideas...

We also need to get over the myth that this is just a family court and parenting problem. This is a universal civil rights issue on all fronts and in every corner of society. From warrant less searches to debtors prison, from Fannie May to standing in line at the employment or welfare office, from being forbidden to see your children to being able to buy a loaf of bread..........this is a constitutional and human rights issue infecting everyone of us. It is a matter of survival and being able to say, "I love this country, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else!"

We are all guilty of what is happening to us and society to some extent and the time to infiltrate the system and change it is here and now and not tomorrow. We are the new generation and the old evil elites cannot live forever and have to be replaced. Why not replace them with us..........We are the people and are capable of change and rearranging the system that is failing us so cruelly.

I am optimistic and really do believe that with the right methods and the right leaders, a wrench can be thrown into this destructive machine and it's momentum can be altered and eventually completely infiltrated and re-organized. It has gone too far and is way out of control as we speak and it will not be easy. It's big business as usual in Washington and we need big influential business oriented people to go to work for us!]

The Deadbeat Witch Hunt! Attainder!

The 21^st Century Witch Hunt – Public Execution of Deadbeats coming soon to your town!

By FramedFather….

This Marxist, feminist, communistic country is not very far off from this title above being a reality to all of us. Instead of our government taking a reality check on all these outrageous child support court orders, they just assume to jail all these fathers, some mothers, and collect incentives through incarceration grants instead. The creation and hunting down of deadbeat parents have become liken to the Salem witch-hunts of years ago, only on a much larger scale!

The family courts of today almost always will not take into consideration at child support modification hearings, the fact that jobs are disappearing at historic rates, parents are becoming unemployed and not able to find jobs, if they haven’t had their drivers licenses taken before they lost their jobs. Non-custodial parents are titled “DEADBEATS” regardless of the reasons for falling behind on child support and public executions for these worthless inhumane members of society are only the next possible punishment for them.

The courts, lawyers, and media have spun this phrase “deadbeat” into exactly the same hysteria that the church and communities years ago did with accusing people of being witches. They tried and burned them at the stake just the way non-custodial parents are being accused of being deadbeats. Of course there are some parents out there that are totally avoiding paying child support, but I am not speaking of them. I am speaking of all the parents who have been trying to pay support and cannot because of fraudulent ruling amounts, loss of employment, illegally being in debtors prison, etc. These parents have become labeled as deadbeats by a brainwashed society that only hears the “not able to pay” clause, and never hearing the “forced to pay all their income” clause………for federal incentives!

This corruption of the constitution is plain and clear for anyone to see, but as most of the population being so unaware of these facts, like robots, they only believe what they are told through the biased and corrupt media outlets. It is truly pathetic how the majority of the population has been manipulated and controlled by big government and the cronies who profit off the poor and weak by destroying families and society.

Instead of the people of communities of today pointing their fingers at others and saying, “She’s a witch, arrest her!”….now they are saying, “He’s a deadbeat, arrest him!”. My how the tables have turned in this country through feminism and the communistic divorce industry! In order to control the masses and take all their money, the family court system has adopted the Russian outline of destroying the family from with-in tactic and it seems to be thriving and filling their evil pockets with billions, if not trillions of dollars every year.

I find it amazing that right after the 911 attacks how this country pulled together and united because of the blood and guts in the rubble, yet on a daily basis we all watch our families and children being destroyed and we do nothing about it. Are we that dumbed down that we actually trust our government that they have a right to do this? I am flabbergasted at this mentality of the majority of the population to think this way. Half of the people actually think Iraq attacked us that morning and that is why war is happening there…….unbelievable! The other half think the government was somehow involved in the trade towers falling……………but yet, as our families and children are being destroyed on a daily basis, as society crumbles around us as we speak, people just don’t see the truth and quickly blame it on all the government created deadbeats. Without due process, jailing them is the first and only option they scream! Just read most of the comments on any newspapers websites when someone writes an article about deadbeat parents!

So folks, when you hear about public executions coming to your town for deadbeats, just remember, most of these executions will be done to loving and caring parents whose only crimes were having a child and not following governments orders on how to raise that child! They may also be guilty of not being to pay a court order of child support that robbed them of all their income. They may also be guilty of losing their job because the ones that are executing them are the ones who shipped their job overseas. They may also just be guilty of deciding to eat a meal instead of sending 10 dollars to their ex that week. They may also be guilty of bankruptcy for being drained through the family courts and attorneys. There are many reason they may be executing these deadbeats in your town soon, just don’t forget, your turn may be next for not paying your mortgage payment on time…………..they may just cut your hands off for being a thief!

The 21^st century witch-hunt is fully being implemented! Deadbeat parents are being created by the thousands daily! Incarceration incentives are the next big moneymaking project for these evil mongers with a failing economy that is forcing federal incentives for child support profits being lowered and lost! Just watch and see and hopefully prove me wrong!

Mother innocent, Father guilty....wait, Mother guilty, Father innocent, regardless, children traumatized!

[Administrators Note: Wait a minute here! How come every time my daughter’s mother interferes with visitation/custody the police tell me that they cannot do anything about it and that it is a civil matter! I am told that I have to get a lawyer!!!!!!!! This article is absolutely ridiculous to say the least, these officers should be disciplined for their bias and discriminating actions towards this father and charged with child abuse for the trauma they caused these children…………oh wait! I almost forgot, in situations like this the woman/mother is always given the benefit of the doubt and the idiotic deadbeat father is always guilty! Damn! I almost forgot about the bias and discriminating perception of men and fathers in this country and almost was blaming the wrong person for this misunderstanding. Please forgive me for almost blaming the mother for being vindictive and criminal in her justified actions of falsifying documents, harassing, and child abuse towards these children. Please forgive me for almost thinking the father was innocent before proven guilty. I can almost 100% believe it that if a man did this the police would of never went in this house and took the children away from the mother in the middle of the night! The Father would have had to wait until the morning and hire a lawyer to resolve this civil matter. But when a woman is trying to enforce a situation like this towards the father, it some how magically becomes a criminal matter against the father. They need to prosecute this woman, but I suppose she will just get a slap on the wrist and somehow get custody of the children…………..sounds to me that CPS is trying to get their hands on some of these children according to the last paragraph of the article........pretty sad situation for these kids to say the least.]

Woman jailed in custody dispute

Children removed from home based on fake papers

The Post-Crescent

GRAND CHUTE — A Minnesota woman is awaiting extradition after convincing police to remove her five children from the custody of their father with paperwork later found to be fraudulent.

The next day, Sept. 5, police discovered the paternity papers from Milwaukee County had been falsified. Police subsequently arrested Katrina T. Ware, 30, in Robbinsdale, Minn., and the children, ages 3 to 9, were placed with Hennepin County protective services officials in Minnesota.

Police have since discovered Ware, who is being held on an Outagamie County warrant alleging two felony counts of interfering with child custody, is under investigation by Hennepin child protective services personnel regarding the welfare of the children.

Interim Grand Chute Police Chief Greg Peterson said the "atypical" case involves some missteps on the part of town officers who eventually decided to remove the children, some of whom were reportedly in bed sleeping, from their father's home in the 2900 block of W. Glenpark Drive before midnight on Sept. 4.

"Yes, it could have been handled differently," Peterson said Friday. "I think they were compelled to honor what they felt was a valid court order."

Peterson said there "was a lot of emotion and chaos in trying to sort this out" that night.

Ware went to the Grand Chute police station about 9:30 p.m. seeking help from officers after she said she learned where her former boyfriend had been living.

Child custody disputes are not unusual for police but Peterson said both had copies of paternity orders. Ware's was dated 2005 and his from 1999.

"We had a dispute revolving around two different documents and there was no way to resolve that dispute at 11 o'clock that night," Peterson said. Ware did not make any allegations that the children were being mistreated or abused but was "just reinforcing her custody position."

The man was also "lobbying hard" for his position. Peterson said that since the welfare of the children is the "first priority" in custody disputes and it appeared they were in a "safe environment" and apparently "well cared for," officers could have waited until the next day to contact Milwaukee County and sort out the differences.

"There were other alternatives we could have certainly pursued," Peterson said. "We will pursue those in the future."

Peterson said the department has begun reinforcing its policies and training regarding legal process.

"I don't envision any discipline in this case," Peterson said. "In essence, what we hope to do is learn from it."

Peterson said most or all of the children are back with their father, who could not be reached for comment. He said the father actually had physical custody of the two oldest, boys ages 8 and 9; they shared custody of the 7-year-old girl and Ware had custody of the two youngest, a 5-year-old girl and a 3-year-old boy.

Article Link: http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080913/APC0101/809130612&s=d&page=#pluckcomments

ARE Americans practicing Communism?

Read the 10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto to discover the truth and learn how to know your enemy...

Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as the Ten Planks of The Communist Manifesto… The following brief presents the original ten planks within the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart for each of the planks. From comparison it's clear MOST Americans have by myths, fraud and deception under the color of law by their own politicians in both the Republican and Democratic and parties, been transformed into Communists.

Another thing to remember, Karl Marx in creating the Communist Manifesto designed these planks AS A TEST to determine whether a society has become communist or not. If they are all in effect and in force, then the people ARE practicing communists.

Communism, by any other name is still communism, and is VERY VERY destructive to the individual and to the society!!

The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are...

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc...).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read "controlled or subsidized" rather than "owned"… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Americans are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, but are actually "government force-tax-funded schools " Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like "majority rules", and "pay your fair share". WHERE are the words "fair share" in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is "fair share" even suggested !! The philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. ... America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC ... Teaching ourselves and others how to "fish" to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be "needy"... Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

Do changing words, change the end result? ... By using different words, is it all of a sudden OK to ignore or violate the provisions or intent of the Constitution of the united States of America?????

The people (politicians) who believe in the SOCIALISTIC and COMMUNISTIC concepts, especially those who pass more and more laws implementing these slavery ideas, are traitors to their oath of office and to the Constitution of the united States of America... KNOW YOUR ENEMY ...Remove the enemy from within and from among us.

VOTE LIBERTARIAN, the only political party in America that still firmly supports and diligently abides by the Constitution of the united States of America.

None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free....

( http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html )

NEW FLORIDA CUSTODY LAW WON'T CHANGE ANYTHING

By: Dean Tong
September 12, 2008

NewsWithViews.com

Florida dads and your new pro-father organization Fathers Supporting Fathers take heed - the new child custody law that takes effect October 1 is not what it's cracked up to be. Let's take a look at what Florida legislators have done to allegedly improve the maxim "the best parent is both parents."

The new law contains different language as the current/old terms visitation, custody, custodial parent, primary residential parent and non-custodial parent are gone. In are the terms parenting plan and time-sharing schedule. Quoting the new language - The Division of Statutory Revision is directed to re-designate Chapter 61, Florida Statutes, as "Dissolution of Marriage; Support; Time-Sharing." Please see the entire bill here for Ch. 2008-61.

That should appease, pacify and placate future divorced dads of Florida! Instead of being labeled visitors you can now be called time-sharers. Dads - You are now equivalent to high-rise condos! The new law is redundant, too, eradicating "the tender years doctrine" (which supposedly has been off of the books for over 20 years now in favor of the children's best interest) and adding "shared parental responsibility" (which is already in place).

I remember about 10 years ago or so when the Associated Press called me to tell me our former (and late) Governor Lawton Chiles just signed into law a bill that changed the acronym of Florida's Child Protective Services agency from Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) to the Department of Children and Families (DCF). My published response statewide was "A skunk is a skunk is a skunk...It still stinks!"

The new time-sharing schedule means a timetable that must be included in the parenting plan that specifies the time, including overnights and holidays, that a minor child will spend with each parent. IF developed and agreed to by the parents of a minor child (how many undiagnosed and untreated Borderline Personality Disorder mothers demand to litigate and not mediate?), it must be approved by the court. If the parents cannot agree (he he), the schedule shall be established by the court! Dads - Please do not be so naive that you think mother will keep you in the ball game "in the children's best interests."

The moral of the story is just because you changed the language in the statute doesn't mean the typical loser - fathers - will garner equity-at-law. In my professional judgment, the results will remain the same, or perhaps worsen. Disneyworld "time-sharing" parenting time rights will still be the norm. You know the drill. Every other weekend, perhaps a few hours on Wednesday night. Every other birthday. Every other major holiday. Perhaps, six weeks in the summer.

Face it, Floridian fathers. You're going to continue to get screwed, glued, and tatooed in Florida family law court unless you induce these well-meaning, well-intentioned lawmakers to draft legislation consistent with "real presumptive joint custody." Please visit for a list of the states that have legislated presumptive joint, or actual joint custody.

© 2008 - Dean Tong - All Rights Reserved

(http://www.newswithviews.com/Tong/dean11.htm)

Dads - be afraid - be very afraid.....

[Note: The article below is an example of the organized propaganda about fathers that is successfully influencing people all around the world. This is a story of 800 people that came together to organize, coordinate and continue with building a system that reacts to the "facts" presented in this article. Note that it is likely that most if not all of these 800 people are receiving funding from their government to run shelters, attend these conferences, teach college students about domestic violence and more. They have a direct financial interest in keeping their perception of abuse alive and propagating that perception to society. How scary is it that these people are "teaching college students about domestic violence"? If you have ever been in court trying to get time with your children, the information taught in these types of conferences is what influenced the mentality of your opposition, judges, GALS and others. This conference, shelters run by those stating these "facts" and like minded people teaching college students about domestic violence and more similar efforts by these people are the kind of things that your taxes pay for through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). It is very likely that VAWA funding paid a significant portion of the bill for this conference, and if it were held in the US instead of Canada, VAWA funding would have likely paid for close to all of it.]

When Dad is just Bad

By Mindelle Jacobs

Sept. 10^{th, 2008}

What's a conference on domestic violence without fireworks? An American speaker shot off a doozy here yesterday, charging that the leaders of some fathers' rights groups are abusers who use the organizations as tools to harass women.

"It's really important that we recognize that they're gaining traction," Rita Smith, executive director of the U.S. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, told an international women's shelters conference.

In a later interview, Smith said her experience of men working on fathers' rights is that many of the leaders are abusers or were accused of abuse.

"The agenda, often by the leadership, is to completely undermine women's rights," she said. "The ones that are the most dangerous are, in fact, creating safety problems for women and children."

Many who join such groups aren't abusive - they just lost a custody battle, Smith said, and are being used.

"Our responsibility is to try to figure out which of those groups are legitimate and which of those groups are simply a way for abusers to continue using the legal system to abuse women."

Want more fireworks? Here goes. Smith also said domestic abusers who fight for custody in U.S. courts win full custody, joint custody or unsupervised access 70% of the time, regardless of the evidence of the mother.

She attributes it to a court gender bias. "For whatever reason, women are not believed," she told me. "There's this myth in the family court system in the U.S. that women lie about abuse to gain custody. There's been no ... evidence to indicate that's true."

Advocates and experts are trying to reform the U.S. family court system, she added. "It's pretty broken."

Her comments were echoed by speaker Sandra Ramos, who runs a shelter for homeless battered women and children in New Jersey and teaches college students about domestic violence.

Said Ramos: "When I tell my students batterers and child molesters get custody, they go, 'No, that's ridiculous.'

"If you have money for a good lawyer, you can win anything."

Abusers fight for custody as a backlash, to try to regain control and hurt the victims for leaving them, said Ramos.

"Batterers are insecure cowards and bullies," she added. "The way to hurt (their ex-wives) and not have to pay child support is to get the children."

Abusive men win custody of their kids in Canada as well, said Jan Reimer, provincial co-ordinator of the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters. "There's a feeling that even if a perpetrator is abusing the mom, he doesn't hurt the child," she said. "The child is used as a pawn to get at the mother."

Let's count our blessings, folks, that the vast majority of custody cases are settled amicably outside court.

So enough about custody battles. There are 800 delegates -- mostly women but a few good men -- at this week's conference of shelter workers and they all have incredible stories.

Ece Tuncay, who gave a presentation yesterday, is a clinical psychologist with a shelter in Ankara, Turkey, for female victims of human trafficking. There is another in Istanbul and they are desperately needed because Turkey is a destination country for trafficked women from countries like Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Moldova.

The women are tricked into thinking they'll work as cooks or cleaners and then forced into prostitution, said Tuncay.

"They are not generally able to escape because a pimp always accompanies them."

But there are hotlines the women can call and, in a strange twist of fate, Turkish johns sometimes feel sorry for them and call the police to rescue them, added Tuncay.

Her group gets the trafficked women safe housing and counselling. Then, with the help of the International Organization for Migration, the women travel safely home.

Every woman saved is a success story. As Reimer, the prime organizer behind this incredible gathering, commented to the delegates Monday night, shelter workers toil in the middle of a "hurricane of suffering" to keep women alive.

No other profession, she added, sees such a constant reminder of men's inhumanity to women.

I give the last word to Smith who quipped to the hundreds of shelter workers: "I look forward to the day when we all have something else to do in our lives."

Article Link:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2008/09/10/6719136-sun.html

News Flash - Jim Martin for US Senate Georgia Info

Jim Martin, Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate 2008 for Georgia
Anti-father

Voters need to remember that it was Jim Martin, who is a lawyer, as Chairman of the Georgia House Judiciary Committee, in 1997-8, would not hear the joint child custody bill that was in legislation at that time. The bill, SB 187, had already passed the Senate with a vote of 50 to 4. It stayed in his committee for over one year while Martin received hundreds hundreds of phone calls, letters and emails to hear it. He was more interested in keeping everybody going to court time after time (paying attorneys) than children having two parents. The system is purposely adversarial for the benefit of the attorneys and the courts and Martin did what he could to kept it that way .

Just like he lost the Lieutenant Governors race in 2006, he needs to lose this senate race. Many anti-father laws absorb federal funding. Martin's past shows that as senator he would increase that money and abuse fathers even more. Thousands of men (and some women) in Georgia have been denied joint custody, jailed, bankrupted, lost their jobs and denied visitation - mainly for the benefit of the system that Martin protected.

We need to send a message that we will not forget Jim Martin or anybody else who votes against us - even after ten years.
Forward this information to everybody you can. Most people never understand why the law is like it is and why they are abused by the system. Now they know! It is because many of our state senators and representatives, mostly those who are attorneys, keep it that way!

CHIP SPRADLEY

ChipSpradley@charter.net

770-312-3799

Casualties of War....Paramour helps to Destroy a Family

Vindictive mother and paramour create of wave of destruction and pain, (supported by the court of course) with deadly results.

In memory of Steve Bandusky,

It was with great sorrow that I learned of the death of charter member Steven Bandusky on August 27, 2008, from liver and kidney failure. When we first heard from Steve on August 10, 2000, he was a successful engineer with Boeing in Mesa, Arizona.
He had built what his boys called the "big house" for his family, wife, her two daughters, and two boys of his and his wife. With about 5000 square feet and a full basement, it truly was a big house. The boys loved to play in it. Unfortunately about a year after they moved in, things started to get a bit stressed with his wife Sylvia. Maybe it was the money, which was thin then, or maybe they grew a bit distant because of his schedule at work and trying to make ends meet.
At approximately 11:30 PM, on Monday, January 31, 2000, Steve was awoken by the sound of someone knocking on his bedroom door. It turned out to be two City of Mesa police officers informing him that he was being forced from his residence under an ex parte domestic relations restraining order.
All that he could think was that he had been woken up by the Gestapo in Germany. In utter disbelief he asked to see the court order. Yes, there it was in black and white, an order stating that he had committed an act of domestic violence against his spouse, his two stepdaughters, and two young sons pictured below.

After trying to convince the officers that this was total nonsense, he asked them if they saw any evidence of domestic violence against his family members. They said no, but reiterated that they had no choice in the matter but to follow the letter of the court order. One of the officers even mentioned that the action he was ordered to take against Steve was wrong, yet he still had to act on the direction of the court order. So after packing an overnight bag, Steve said goodbye to the house he had just built for his family. He then found himself driving around Mesa at midnight looking for a place to stay. Eventually he went to work instead.
It turned out that Steve's wife had gone to his mother and borrowed $100 that Monday and used the money to go to court and file the ex parte restraining order against him.
With the house being just a year-old, Steve was still doing landscaping. When hit with the restraining order there were dangerous open trenches. Being an engineer, Steve was concerned about the danger to pedestrians and others if the trenches were left open. Thinking the legal system was just, he obtained a modification of the restraining order to return to the house and fill in the trenches. The modification expired at 5 PM but Steve was still working away at 5:30 trying to finish up. His wife then called the police and had him arrested for violating the terms of the order.
As usual, Steve was convicted of domestic violence for violating the restraining order in the kangaroo county court after some dispute between the City of Mesa and Maricopa County as to who got to put the noose around his neck for trying to be a good citizen. He vainly attempted to get a jury trial for the criminal charge but was denied.
Incidentally, a November 20, 2000, letter to Arizona Senator John McCain about his situation went unanswered. And Steve's pro se appeal through the state courts was denied and certiorari was denied by the US Supreme Court.
Of course with the conviction for violating a restraining order he was denied custody of his two boys although he did have two weekends a month visitation.

Real domestic violence
Meanwhile his wife's new boyfriend had moved into the house with the stepdaughters and the two boys. Within a year she had a new baby by him to add to the "family." As often happens with women looking for a little "excitement" in their lives they take up with an abusive male. Apparently Sylvia still couldn't keep her knees together, or something else set off the resident boyfriend.
On April 27, 2002, Steve visited the marital residence to discuss the re-positioning of some trees in the front yard that she had planted directly over the septic system. When he arrived approximately 10-12 police vehicles/officers/detectives were parked in front of the house.
Steve quickly got out of his car to find out what was going on. He approached one of the detectives and was told there had been a shooting. After just about passing out from fear that his sons had been injured he was told they were safe with a neighbor down the street.
Apparently Sylvia, Steve's now ex-wife, was shot in the back of the head with a 12-gauge shotgun by her resident boyfriend while the children were in another room. Fortunately for Steve the police had the perpetrator in custody. So he was not considered a suspect, as would usually have been the case.
After finding out from the detective that the boys were safe and sound with some neighbors, Steve informed the police that he was going to go get them. They informed him that he couldn't due to the fact that he did not have sole custody and couldn't take them without a court order. They also informed him that this was a criminal investigation and that they wanted to question the boys, who were in the house at the time of the shooting.
At the time Steve still naively believed he had rights as a father and made the mistake of getting mad at the police, never a good thing to do, especially when they are conducting a murder investigation. The police then ran a check on Steve and found he had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. He hadn't attended the DV treatment courses after being convicted of violating a restraining order when he attempted to finish the landscaping project. So Steve got arrested and taken to jail once again.
After posting bond he went back to get the boys only to find the police had taken them into custody for questioning.

Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
Steve was lucky in that, after an investigation, child "protective" services gave him custody of his two boys after his wife was murdered. My understanding is that the new baby went with its maternal grandparents. I don't know what happened with the stepdaughters. Perhaps they went back with their father but Steve did keep in touch with them.
As with everyone who goes through these injustices and traumatic events, Steve developed PTSD, severe in his case. The stress caused him to perform poorly at work and he went on medical leave until he used that all up. Eventually, though, he lost his job with Boeing and remained unemployed as he was emotionally unable to concentrate.
After cleaning his wife's brains and blood off the wall he managed to sell the "big house" and the boys certainly didn't want to go back there. That gave him money to live on but, like many, he self-medicated the PTSD with alcohol. More alcohol was required as time went on and eventually his kidneys and liver failed.

Restraining orders kill
Through all the many emails from Steve he was trying to fix the problem, fight the issues and injustices in the courts, and care for his boys. There was never any violence in his marriage, only some arguments about money, and probably some estrangement due to his working too hard to try and pay for a new home and support a wife and four kids. For this, which we should admire, his life and family were destroyed.
If Sylvia had not taken out the restraining order there is a very good chance she would be alive today. And we can be reasonably certain Steve would not have crawled into a bottle to compensate for the incomprehensible injustices done him and his children.
Before he died Steve did arrange with the older of the stepdaughters to care for his now orphaned sons. We can only hope the resilience of youth allows these now young men to go on to normal lives despite the tragedies their parents endured at the hands of a society and justice system gone mad.

May he finally rest in peace
While Steve lived I asked him many times to write his story so that others would know what was being done to him. After buying flowers for the grave of the boy's mother on March 15, 2004, he wrote me the following message:

"People have been after me for a few years now to write this story. I don't know why it has taken so long to complete. I have started many times, but I am still in utter disbelief as to what has happened. I always seemed unable to finish. Maybe it was the pain, maybe the horror or probably just the absolute incredulity of the way our government "protects" us.

The flowers were for the mother of my two young sons that we recently placed on her grave on what would have been her 39th birthday. This was the first time that I've taken them to view the gravesite of their mother. It was the first time that I thought that they were ready to be reminded of the horror of what had happened a few years ago in the "big house," as they fondly called it. I found it a bit ironic as I watched the tears form in their eyes, to notice that just a mile away on the horizon, stood the hospital that Johnny and Robbie were born in, some 6 and 8 years ago. They were just 3 and 5 when the nightmare began."

Go with God, Steve, for you the nightmare is finally over. I hope my few futile words provide some evidence of the horrors inflicted on you. Know that as long as I draw breath I'll continue fighting these injustices in your name.
Your friend,
Chuck

News Flash! Sarah Palin is not a single mom!!!!

Attention Feminist! - Don't forget to mention Todd Palin and that he is Father and Husband!!!! Are fathers not important?

By Kathryn DeBrecht

Tuesday, 09 September 2008

Analysis: Since the selection of Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain’s Vice Presidential running mate, the liberal left has been in a tizzy. After years of championing women’s rights, liberals and feminists are now attacking the one woman who shattered one of the highest glass ceilings in our nation. Liberal pundits and pols alike are questioning how this mother of five (one with special needs) will be able handle the job of Vice President and role of mother at the same time. Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn complained “Her first priority has to be her children”. Reporters Katty Kay and Claire Shipman wrote, “It’s not because she’s a woman with children trying to do a man’s job. It’s because she’s actually pushing the combination of professional and personal ambitions beyond the sensibilities of this generation of working moms.” News flash: Sarah Palin is not a single mom, and her husband, Todd Palin, will be tending to the children. A production operator on the oil fields in the North Slope of Alaska, Palin quit his job when his wife was elected Governor to help take care of the children, working part time for the United Steel Workers Union. Mr. Palin is not unlike many fathers. This generation of working moms has supportive husbands. The number of stay at home dads has risen 83 percent since 1996. Liberal feminists refuse to acknowledge this because men are supposed to be abusers and oppressors, rather than supporters and partners. Liberal feminists are still clinging to Gloria Steinem’s outdated remarks that “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.” They refuse to accept that fathers are important, and yes, competent. Studies have shown that children of involved fathers have higher I.Q.s, fare better in school, are more emotionally secure, and are less likely to get into trouble at home, school and their community. Instead of being bumbling idiots, as portrayed by liberals in Hollywood, fathers have a positive and deep impact on their children. To liberal feminists, fathers are merely there to earn more money than women, take out the trash and cut the grass. Todd Palin just shattered the grass ceiling. About the author: Katharine DeBrecht is a graduate of Saint Mary's College, Notre Dame and the mother of three. She is a freelance writer and the author of the popular Help! Mom! children’s book series. Katharine is a regular political commentator on several national news networks as well as national broadcast and print media. She has also written opinion pieces for newspapers across the country, including The Los Angeles Times. Article Link: http://www.tulsatoday.com/newsdesk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1708&Itemid=2

WHY WOMEN BASH SARAH PALIN

[Administrators Note: In my opinion one of the greatest threats to the radical feminist's such as NOW, is the fact not that Sarah Palin is the "wrench in the fan" to their agenda. I beleive that Mr. Palin, her husband, is the greatest threat. They are busy bashing Mrs. Palin to draw attention away from what they fear the most, a high profile stay at home good FATHER who will show the nation that not all men are abusers and worthless deadbeats! Mr. Palin is the facist feminists worst nightmare..................the last thing the facist feminist want is a great FATHER/MAN that goes against their negative propaganda about men sitting in the most public mainstream place of America, the White House. For the feminist agenda, Mr. Palin, the Palin family in general, sitting in the public eye for all to see is just simply bad for business!]

by Marc H. Rudov
September 9, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

Fascist Feminism

Ever since Alaska governor Sarah Palin stepped onto the world stage as John McCain’s vice-presidential running mate, she’s been the object of merciless, vicious attacks — mostly by women. This intragender war marks the official unmasking of fascist feminism.

Feminism, which took root in the late 19th century as an equality movement for women’s suffrage, has evolved into a militant, totalitarian train of entitlement, misandry, superiority, and privilege. To maintain the façade of pursuing equality, the National Organization of Women, self-designated voice for the “slighted” gender, presents a neverending, monolithic image of female victimhood. To achieve this monotony, NOW mandates that its badge-wearing acolytes talk, think, and act according to the the NOW playbook. I’m sure that Mussolini is smiling, wherever he is.

Buttressed by state and federal codes, statutes, acts, court decisions (case law), and blatantly anti-male judges — all in complete violation of the Equal-Protection Clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment — women living in America enjoy the exclusive rights to commit maternity and paternity fraud, falsely accuse men of rape and domestic violence (VAWA), commit paternal alienation, fraudulently get Green Cards (VAWA), dump their unwanted newborns at local fire stations (safe haven), and claim ownership of their babies (Roe v. Wade) while forcing men to support them.

All of these illegal rights and privileges for women were and continue to be made possible by eunuchs in public service — both Democrat and Republican — and the impotent male voters who put them there.

Women have amassed such unequal power since getting the right to vote in 1920 that they will destroy anyone attempting to remove said power or expose its fraud. Sarah Palin is guilty of the latter: she rose from hockey mom to state governor without affirmative action, whining about Alaska’s 10:1 male-to-female ratio, or complaining about glass ceilings. In other words, Palin proved publicly that women can succeed without being victims. That was her error: she violated the NOW playbook, has undermined NOW’s fascist power, and is experiencing the consequences.

Patently Inexperienced Female Fresh Face

So, what are the so-called feminists saying about Sarah Palin? What exactly do they have against her?

Let’s start with NOW itself:

Sen. Joe Biden is the VP candidate who appeals to women, with his authorship and championing of landmark domestic violence legislation, support for pay equity, and advocacy for women around the world.

We recognize the importance of having women’s rights supporters at every level but, like Sarah Palin, not every woman supports women’s rights.

Rudov’s Reaction 1: So, by setting goals and achieving them, Sarah Palin was not exercising her rights? Unless she adheres to the NOW agenda, she is not a supporter of women’s rights? Here’s the problem: NOW continues to suggest that women have special rights that are different from men’s rights. That’s nonsense and purely unconstitutional, but it is a ploy that has been successful in America. Palin has shattered the victimhood creed and “special rights” mantra, and feminists are running for cover.

Rudov’s Reaction 2: Joe Biden is the candidate who appeals to women? Gee, why is that? Could it be that Joe Biden is the father of VAWA, the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act, the passport for female-on-male violence and false claims of male violence? Yes, that’s the same Joe Biden. The same Joe Biden who admitted in a 1990 Senate Judiciary hearing (Serial No. J-101-80; pp. 171-172), the precursor to VAWA, that he grew up with an abusive sister who was permitted to hit him with absolute impunity — no retaliation allowed, even in self-defense — and he still has the bruises to prove it. Sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me. This is the VP candidate who appeals to women? If that’s the case, women find victims appealing because they identify as victims. Pure disempowerment.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA):

In an article purposely containing an image of Palin with her right hand extended in Hitlerite fashion, Boxer said about Palin: “She’s an extremist. She’s way out of the mainstream.”

Rudov’s Reaction: Considering that NOW is a fascist organization, a so-called feminist like Boxer portraying Palin as a dictator is laughable. Out of the mainstream? Palin is more like the mainstream than Boxer wants to admit, and the post-RNC poll proves it.

Sally Quinn, Washington Post reporter:

Is she prepared for the all-consuming nature of the job? She is the mother of five children, one of them a four-month-old with Down Syndrome. Her first priority has to be her children. When the phone rings at three in the morning and one of her children is really sick what choice will she make? I’m the mother of only one child, a special needs child who is grown now. I know how much of my time and energy I devoted to his care. He always had to be my first priority. Of course women can be good mothers and have careers at the same time. I’ve done both. Yes, other women in public office have children. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has five children, but she didn’t get heavily involved in politics until they were older. A mother’s role is different from a father’s.

Rudov’s Reaction: Sally Quinn is violating the NOW playbook with her comment. Women are supposed to be able to make their own choices, manage their own schedules, right? I can’t imagine Sally Quinn making the same comments about a man. Because Sarah Palin has achieved without victimhood, any means to tear her down is justifiable.

Maureen Dowd, Op-Ed columnist, New York Times:

The movie ends with the former beauty queen shaking out her pinned-up hair, taking off her glasses, slipping on ruby red peep-toe platform heels that reveal a pink French-style pedicure, and facing down Vladimir Putin in an island in the Bering Strait. Putting away her breast pump, she points her rifle and informs him frostily that she has some expertise in Russia because it’s close to Alaska. “Back off, Commie dude,” she says. “I’m a much better shot than Cheney.”

Rudov’s Reaction: This diatribe comes from the proud author of a book called Are Men Necessary? Again, because Sarah Palin has achieved without victimhood, Dowd believes any means to tear her down is justifiable.

Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe columnist:

Talk about rolling the dice. The idea was to connect to the Hillary supporters. These women, dismayed by the idea that the experienced female was passed over for a fresh male face, were supposed to be won over by a patently inexperienced female fresh face. Never mind that this feisty working mom leans — no, falls — right on social issues. You go, Clara Thomas. Oops, I mean you go girl.

Rudov’s Reaction: Unless a woman falls “left” on social issues, she’s disqualified as a representative of women? This is pure NOW fascism. Fall in lockstep, or face excoriation.

Gloria Steinem, feminist organizer:

But here is even better news: It won’t work. This isn’t the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It’s about making life more fair for women everywhere. It’s not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It’s about baking a new pie.

Rudov’s Reaction: Unqualified woman? A female governor in a macho state, with an 80% approval rating, is unqualified? Opposes everything most other women want and need? Sorry, NOW doesn’t speak for most women, and the post-RNC poll proves it. Making life more fair for women everywhere? Women already control civil and reproduction rights and can become anything they want. What more “fairness” would Steinem like her victimhood crusade to accomplish?

Conservative Women

Women are bashing Sarah Palin because her no-victimhood success is a threat to their “downtrodden” agenda. Many believe that only liberal women have a problem with Sarah Palin. Wrong. So far, only they are vocal in opposing her. I’ve received numerous e-mails over the years from staunchly conservative women who lecture me that my belief in gender equality and neutrality is misguided and that, according to G-d, a woman’s place is in the home.

Plenty of conservative women have benefited from the handiwork of liberal feminists. Joe Biden could not have succeeded in his mission to villanize American men, via his unconstitutional VAWA, without the overwhelming support of his Republican colleagues in the Senate and House — both genders — and in the Oval Office, both Clinton and Bush.

Finally, it is ludicrous to think that only liberal women falsely accuse men of rape and domestic violence, fraudulently get their husbands to raise and support children fathered through extramarital affairs, and exercise their Roe v. Wade rights. In fact, conservative women do all of those things.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

Women bash Sarah Palin because she has shattered the farce of the glass ceiling, and now there’s no place for them to hide. Sarah Palin is living proof that women derive their power through guts, brains, raw talent, and achievement — as true equals to men — not through victimhood. Moreover, Sarah Palin has achieved success while expressing love and admiration for her husband, anathema to the misandrist underpinning of fascistic feminism.

Sarah Palin has exposed the truth about feminism, which has for decades kept women dysfunctionally addicted to victimhood and viciously cast men as their enemies.

Instead of disempoweringly “pursuing” equality through whining and lobbying, women, who already enjoy more rights and privileges than men, can emulate Sarah Palin to demonstrate it. Will they?

© 2008 - Marc H. Rudov - All Rights Reserved

The Journey Towards Equality

Every Father; Every Day

By Guest Writer, Hearts Voice

We must ask ourselves why the American people seem numb to this abuse of the family and especially children with their total disregard for fathers. American people are not this stupid. If they were not lulled into sleep, this would not even be an issue. What the general population doesn't accept doesn't exist. This is a mass consciousness that men/fathers don't matter, have it made, and don't really want the responsibility of children.

Equal rights for men need to come around to the home and parenting like it did for women in the work place and military. Talk to almost every woman and even if she works, pays the bills, and financially contributes equally or more to the household she will tell you that she still is the one who goes grocery shopping, picks up the kids, does the scheduling, gets the kids ready for school, goes to their functions, plays with the kids, plans and makes the meals, cleans the kitchen, the bathrooms, does the laundry, she may even do the yard work.

Most often men/fathers do not stand for their rights in the home and as parents until those rights are gone. That's the problem. Think of all those happy men/fathers today sitting at home with their families watching football (not caring about this blog or what's happening to all the other men in his country) while his wife makes the snacks, brings him a beer, cleans the house, does the laundry, reads to the children, and all the time she's thinking "Those damn feminists all they did was give me TWO jobs. I'm still the one who has to take care of the entire home (in much less time) and now I also get to go to WORK where I can be just as unappreciated by another man, but at least that man pays me." Only it’s not that conscious, she is really blaming the guy on the couch. But, she loves him now, she’ll hold her tongue for the day she no longer does love him and then he’s going to get it and the Courts and Attorneys and Society-at-large will assist her.

At home, while you’re married or cohabitating, the thinking begins for women/mothers that fathers/men don't have equal rights in the home and as parents, because many men/fathers don’t contribute equally. Now, equally is something each couple has to determine – it is not a set standard. In general, women feel that they do as much as men financially and still have all the domestic responsibilities; this is what perpetuates the feminists to have their illusions and keep them in power. The feminists have to keep their smoke and mirrors up so that women don’t wake up, because if they did women would realize they are burdened now, not free. That would dissolve the feminist movement and mark it in history as the worst thing to ever happen to the family, because a huge imbalance was created. Women will be free when men have equal rights and responsibilities in the home and as parents and participate on that level. Children will never be free or whole until both parents/genders are free.

The point is, the imbalance is not caused solely by the government/courts, they found a way to prosper off the consciousness of the masses: (pretend script) "No one cares about men/fathers, their place isn't in the home. It hasn’t been for thousands of years. Mothers aren't really raising the children any more either; they have to go to work. We'll use their anger from what the feminists did and pit them against the fathers/men. We'll give mothers sole custody and financial support and tax benefits, rape the fathers financially or put them in jail. And the best part - the entire American population will back us and call them "deadbeat dads", because they don't think fathers are interested or competent in the home (just like we used to think about women in the workplace and military). Oh yeah, but men/fathers can you see them marching "let me in the home"? They'll never do it. We'll have this cash cow (and the distracter factor) for a long time. They’ll be so busy blaming each other!! Ha! Ha! Ha!"

If men/fathers want equal rights they must clearly understand what they're asking for. You can not ask for equal rights as a father and not ask for equal rights in the home. Just like women couldn’t ask for equal rights to work until they had equal rights in the world (to vote, etc.). If men/fathers want equal rights in the home and as parents - they must participate equally. Yes, the courts will still love money, but you can change the mass consciousness towards men/fathers by going to the grocery store with your children, picking them up at school, taking them to soccer, bringing the cupcakes on their birthday, volunteering on the field trip, doing the dishes, cleaning the house, doing the laundry (all the things the mothers/women do and still work). That's the equality men/fathers are asking for and the world is waiting to see them take the role of home-maker and parent - not just parent and not just activist.

When the mass consciousness (or social acceptance) changes, our rights will change. Each father causes that change when he becomes involved as an equal participant in the home and as a parent.

Come with me to the very near future, the future men/fathers are creating (and women/mothers are really asking for as well). They know what they want (equal rights and equal help) but they don't know how to get there. Just dream for a moment with me...

Today, fathers/men all over the country realized they were asking for equal rights to be parents and were forgetting equal rights in the home. With that realization, men became equal partners and cooperative participants in the home with women/mothers. Men felt the struggle women must have felt to get rights in the world. Men and women began to feel an equal bond and connection with each other and the genders literally became equal at that moment and a great shift took place upon the earth. The final prejudice was removed as the gender standards exploded off of them like cold statues coming to life. The compassion grew, the inspiration grew, and fathers/men had to be strong and constant in showing they meant the change and were not acting to get what they wanted. Men/fathers learned the value of caring for a home and children. Women/mothers finally felt they had partners in life. Men had serious compassion for what women had to go through to get equal rights in the world, and they sought their advice on how to get equal rights in the home and they worked together - men/fathers and women/mothers - and the children became happier on the earth, divorce decreased because there was no longer an internal silent war against male and female. It became an insult instead of accepted comments that men can't do anything without a woman or the like. We realized we can't do anything without each other - especially create a home and children. Society saw a shift in men that they are able to be good home-makers and fathers. Only they decided to give it a more masculine tone like "Domestic Equality". The courts tried to hang on to the prosperity of the former consciousness, but people spoke out for the children - men and women together, the communities, the churches. The Courts had no choice but to grant equal parenting when the issue even came up. Fathers and mothers began to make their own agreements and keep their children out of the clutches of the courts. Divorce decreased any way, children in DFCS decreased, even people on drugs and alcohol decreased because the war within found peace. A house divided falls. Gender wars of any kind are contrary to healing and freedom. Male and female have always been equal. We are each equally made up of our mother and our father (male and female). The illusions of war against each other has prospered and destroyed for thousands of years - WE are the generation who stopped it!!!

This is what are children are asking us to do!! That’s why they suffer now. Women became equal with men, so to speak, by being the bread-winners and men have not yet become equal with women, participating in the home-making and parenting. We have all abandoned the children for the same thing – money. That doesn’t make us much different than the Courts or the Government.

Fortunately, no laws need to be changed or media coverage for men to rise up and start being equal participants in the home and as parents. Be equal and you will be treated equally. Equal rights are right there waiting for men/fathers: change the diapers, make the meal, clean the house, go to school, (yes, even after a long day at the job or in the middle of your busy day or when you don't feel like it - that's what the mothers/women have been doing since they got to go to work and war, too). It always took two parents. The divisions were clear: men-money; women-children. Now, that has changed and we must change with it. When men/fathers begin to do this, there will be a shift – it’s already happening. Do it BEFORE you need to do it! Those caught in the past that have paved the way for this lesson, your voices will be heard with equal valor as the women who suffered to get voting rights in 1917. Just do one better than the movements that followed them and don’t be against women, be for each other. Then, the family will be yours again.

There will always be mothers/women and Courts that have nothing but evil intent (some fathers, too), but they are more easily overcome when the mass consciousness is equality and not division.

Minister Ronald Smith Passes Away...

A message to all members of Children Need Both ParentsFriends and others, It is with an extremely sad heart that we announce Minister Ronald E. Smith passed away on September 5, 2008 from a massive heart attack. Minister Smith was not only the Founder of Children Need Both Parents, an author, and an advocate but also a proud parent. We are all still recovering from this unexpected news. However, a message from the family will be posted very shortly.Visit Children Need Both Parents at: http://cnbpinc.ning.com/

His website:http://www.ministersmith.com/content/view/26/34/
Minister Smith was born and raised in Chicago, Illinois. A product of the Chicago Public School system, furthered his education by attending and graduating from the University of Michigan at Dearborn. He further attended the Illinois Institute of Technology pursuing a degree in Public Administration.
Minister Smith has worked for the Mayor of the City of Chicago, and has also served as Assistant to the First Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Aviation for the City of Chicago. He has spent 15 years with the Community Mental Health Council as a Mental Health Professional and Psychiatric Rehabilitation Therapist under Dr. Carl C. Bell. During this time, he also served as a Substitute Teacher in the Chicago Public School system.
Minister Smith is founder and CEO of Children Need Both Parent, Inc. which is a non profit 501(c)(3) based in Chicago, Illinois and Headquartering in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Children Need Both Parents, Inc. was founded in 1993 initially to assist non custodial parents to maintain an equal and positive relationship with their children. CNBP has since become an advocate of the American Family highlighting the importance of the protection of the parent child relationship.
Minister Smith is the father of two sons, Richmond E. Smith (deceased) and Ariel D. Smith. His sons were victims of Parental Alienation which has sparked his push for the elimination of these practices nationwide and spotlighted the need for shared parenting legislation to exist throughout this country. He is the author of the book Cheated (A Documented Account of Parental Alienation Syndrome) co-authored by his son Ariel.
Minister Smith dedicates his efforts to the memory of his son Richmond Elihu Smith who passed on April 27, 2007 from complications of liver cancer believed to be the result from the administration of Ritatlin.
"We will not stop until Shared Parenting is the norm, the senseless medication of our children has come to an end and the parent child relationship is protected at all cost." Minister Ronald E. Smith

2008 Elections: Marriage-Absence, America’s Most Urgent Problem, Goes Ignored

David R. Usher - 2008-09-05

America’s most urgent home-front problem went entirely unaddressed at both the Democratic and Republican conventions. This is very bad news for the plebiscite for billions of reasons.

Even in the early days of the welfare state, Daniel Patrick Moynihan mentioned the danger that it would destroy marriage. Today, perhaps half of marriages are aborted before they happen, and another half are terminated midstream, because federal expenditures (and pass-through funding requirements imposed on states) entitle everything but marriage — and at the direct expense of marriage.

Marriage-absence is driving massive social spending deficits. The spending comes around to wreak further havoc on the marriage market. HHS is the largest line item in the federal budget at over 700-billion last year, much of the expense going towards weakening the marriage market or attempting to Humpty-Dumpty the downstream wreckage.

Certainly, we should help the poor bridge from one marriage to another, as a temporary tithe. However, the practice of permanently entitling non-marriage via billions in benefits and huge inflexible child support entitlements must end.

About 70% of poverty is actually single mothers and children, the vast majority of which would rise out of poverty simply by marrying. Marriage is impossible when the majority of poor men are unmarriageable because they cannot afford to pay imputed child support obligations, which are what led weak-willed women to have children out of wedlock in the first place.

Poverty is a crime for poor men and an entitlement for poor women, the consequences for both triggered by a woman "accidentally" getting herself pregnant. This forms a permanent prophylactic to marriage, deeper poverty for women and children, and asocial responses from men who have no stake or position in society.

The Democrat Feminist Machine

Senator Obama has no interest in marriage (other than his own). Obama is a classic Saul Alinsky community welfare/feminist organizer, who transcended the limitations of Alinsky’s secular approach by importing it into the churches around Chicago. He joined a church not to become a religious man – but as a step towards his monolithic quest for power. He uses his law license similarly – threatening lawsuits against publications that question him – and is apparently intends to launch criminal investigations against the Bush administration if he wins.

Many religions and churches nationwide – and even conservative religions — have been similarly compromised. These people actually believe that preventing abortion means pushing for more welfare and child support (somebody please tell these lost souls that illegitimacy does not happen, that three-quarters of poverty will disappear, and abortion will not necessary when federal policy is reformed so that women become interested in marriage again).

Most Christians generically blame the divorce revolution on male irresponsibility because Adam disobeyed God’s command. Certainly, we all agree there are some irresponsible men out there. But Roe v. Wade, invisible forms of birth control, welfare stimulae, and divorce statistics show that women hold the cards controlling reproductive and marriage decisions. The men who truly deserve blame are the men and women of Congress who enacted Pharaohesque entitlement laws disobeying God’s command to uphold marriage.

The serpent of modern radical feminism places women on a precarious but magnetic power-pedestal of sexual liberation, prostitution, and cheapened motherhood. The decisions of weak-willed women lead them out of marriage, and into the hands of alpha-feminist politicians who quickly inject more opiated venom into the anti-marriage machine. The feminist invasion of church and state drives entitlement of Serpentine federal policy that weakens or destroys all men and women in its path.

Church and marriage are today being eaten alive by subrogated "Christian" feminists. Real Christians must do business here on earth, holding feminists responsible for accomplishing what they set out to do in the 1970’s – to destroy the church, the imagined "patriarchy", and subsequently the institution of marriage.

Obama is an alpha male-feminist, proven by N.O.W’s prompt endorsement of him upon his nomination. A casual look at Illiniois’ feminist welfare state is proof that he knows how to build and run an aggressive welfare nation.

I submit that Obama got the nomination because he, as a black male religious feminist, could get away with things that a strident Hillary Clinton would be pounded for. This frees up Hillary to use as Ambassador to the U.N. — to execute building the planned feminist world order — and later to appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court (which Hillary would accept in a heartbeat).

Senator Joe Biden is a feminist mannequin who inherited Senator Paul Wellstone’s feminist machine after he died in a plane crash. Biden staunchly blocked all opposing testimony (with Arlen Specter’s blessing) during the Violence Against Women (VAWA) reauthorization hearings — preventing volumes of documented truths of corruption, fraud, and abuse of women from becoming part of the public record.

But VAWA is not, in itself, the major issue. VAWA came about (and remains alive) because it is driven by profiteering corruption in the legal profession. Trial lawyers make billions arbitrarily destroying marriage. In a 2000 article "To Mock A Mockingbird", Ann Coulter vibrantly pointed out that VAWA’s footings are not based in our Constitution. This is precisely why Biden wanted to keep the Congressional record free of opposing testimony that would force him to drop the funding entirely.

Biden has been the front man for a number of expansionist feminist initiatives such as his "100,000 Lawyers" initiative that would federally fund lawyers to arbitrarily destroy marriage under the guise of preventing domestic violence.

I-VAWA is Biden’s bill to export corrupt VAWA program overseas. I-VAWA is a piece of CEDAW, and the first step in turning the Supremacy clause over to U.N. feminist lawyers. It would directly entitle U.N feminists with billions of federal dollars they can use to invade us from without. I-VAWA would attempt to inflict radical feminism on marriage-responsible countries such as China, which could deeply radicalize it against America just like marriage-based Muslim countries came to hate us.

Electing Obama/Biden would signal further social policy radicalization in America and further radicalize our enemies. An Obama/Biden administration would be a social nightmare for America. But electing McCain/Palin would not be much better.

Republicans: AWOL on Marriage Policy

Certainly, McCain/Palin is a much better choice on conventional issues. But America cannot be a strong nation leading the world while being the laughing stock of socially-responsible nations. We cannot afford borrowing from them to continue running the most expensive welfare nation in the history of civilization.

When I spoke with Senator McCain at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference last year, he had no comment on social issues. At a whistle stop this spring, he pretended that family issues are judicial matters that do not fall under the mantle of the presidency.

Former Senator Jim Talent, Senator Kit Bond, and Senator John Ashcroft all issued similarly evasive responses on social issues – telling me that the divorce problem is a state problem for which no federal response could apply. This is the greatest lie a federal legislator could make. Federal welfare funding, anti-marriage child support entitlements, the Violence Against Women Act, IMBRA, and other policies are destroying marriage and placing America at grave economic, social, and criminal risk. These programs were either forced on states or bought by pass-though funding requirements.

Palin passes conservative litmus tests on abortion and economic issues. On a positive note, she apparently opposes sex education and programs that mollycoddle teen illegitimacy.

Unfortunately, Palin is not a pro-marriage social conservative. She is an alpha power-feminist who, in a divorce-related personal family vendetta, grossly abused her powers to influence a family law case and get her former brother-in-law fired from his job state trooper. We already have hundreds of alpha feminists tampering with marriage in Washington. We do not need one in the White House.

Party loyalists pretend this is a minor issue – which it most certainly is not. Tampering with court proceedings, litigants, witnesses, and evidence is a felony in most states.

Palin hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on her sister’s ex-husband because they were involved in a bitter custody dispute. Family law cases are classically won by hurling child abuse allegations and damaging the husband economically so he cannot afford to pursue the case. The PI came up with numerous allegations, including a serious child abuse allegation that Wooten used a taser on his child.

An internal police investigation found no wrongdoing on Wooten’s part, so the police commissioner refused to fire him. Upon election as Governor, Palin then pressured her newly-appointed Public Safety Director Walter Monegan to fire Wooten. Monegan refused, so Palin fired him.

The Chronology of the case suggests that Palin interfered heavily in the divorce case, injected very serious allegations against Wooten which were not found valid, with intent to influence the decision of the court.

False child abuse and domestic violence allegations are ruining marriage in America. Wooten was never tried or found guilty of child abuse or domestic violence. He was fired on allegations of improprieties.

Palin publicly pretends to be supportive of the father of her pregnant daughter, but quietly moved her daughter to another school to keep them apart. These are not behaviors consistent with one who believes in marriage or encouraging marital responsibility. Few teen girls get pregnant out of wedlock parents provide enough love, supervision, and guidance.

Tampering with family law court proceedings goes on every day in courts across the land. Horrendous feminist abuses of marriage will end only by firmly demanding that our elected representatives do not do it themselves. We should only support candidates who openly support "Responsible Marriage" reforms of federal laws.

Executing Marriage-Positive change

Historically, Republicans have done nothing to address the marriage-absence problem. After the 1994 "family values" landslide, Republicans promptly adopted Democrat plans to create an aggregated welfare/child support state, and to quickly pass the Violence Against Women Act. Republicans even put Democrats in charge of these committees!

The overwhelming majority of the electorate that voted for pro-marriage "family values" agenda was horrified. We eagerly anticipated change then, and Republicans delivered the exact opposite. Unsurprisingly, Republicans have mysteriously been losing elections ever since.

Today, Republicans don’t dare mention social issues because they are being blamed for what they permitted Democrats do for fourteen years. Republicans still have no pro-marriage policy ideas of their own. McCain is a deer in the headlights of social issues, and Obama plans to run him over this fall.

If Republicans had any brains attached to ethics and morals, they would reform federal programs to execute a painless and collaborative model of "responsible marriage" that is very attractive to almost all voters. (This will be discussed in my future articles).

American voters are far more ready for change than they were in 1994. But they will not get any of it yet. The 2008 elections feature machine candidates shilling to maintain the status quo for trial lawyers, K-street, and tremendous federal and state administrative bureaucracies that grow exponentially by destroying marriage.

Republican and Democrat analysts are worried because their constituencies are not excited about the candidates. The "family values" voting majority (that powered the 1994 Republican landslide) is disgusted with both parties. This constituency is now powering the "Ron Paul" revolution to a great degree. I know quite a few formerly-diehard liberals and conservatives who are voting Ron Paul this time around. Party pollsters are not asking questions to quantify this issues-based majority, because they do not want to recognize its existence. Recognizing us means changing the machine destroying America – a machine deeply embedded in both political parties. Whether they like it or not, our majority does exist. By not catering to us, Republicans are again taking tremendous risk of losing to Democrats in this cycle, and running even greater risk of political collapse in coming cycles.

Republicans have all the tools they need to effect positive change. They simply have to use the assets available to them. Certainly, getting support from the massive "system" (The A.B.A, A.P.A, federal and state administrative bureaucracies, and NGO’s), and winning support from the economic conservative community will take a lot of work. It is doable because the changes we propose will not kill the system, it will only change the nature of the work they do. I know many individuals who work in these fields who hate their work. The average bureaucrat will help us change their work so they can go home every night knowing they actually did something good.

There will be a sociopolitical revolution in America. The Klannish gender-based power liason between unethical lawyers, feminists, and politicians controlling Washington’s political machines will fail – hopefully before America fails entirely. Until this is accomplished, we will continue to see unethical lawyers driving the looting of marriages and assets, banking, oil futures, real estate, home loan sharking, and anything else that can make a fast buck while somebody else takes the rap and goes to jail.

America cannot survive the withering social, economic, and criminal costs of marriage-absence indefinitely. If Republican think tanks are wise, they will start planning positive forward-looking policy changes attractive to the majority of candidates and voters now, so conservatives are ready to win landslide elections perhaps in 2012 or 2016.

————————————————-

David R. Usher is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

Dealing with Parents who induce PAS in Children

Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, Volume 28(3/4), 1998, p. 1-21

Recommendations for Dealing with Parents Who Induce a Parental Alienation Syndrome in Their Children

by RICHARD A. GARDNER

ABSTRACT: The parental alienation syndrome is commonly seen in highly contested child-custody disputes. The author has described three types: mild, moderate, and severe$each of which requires special approaches by both legal and mental health professionals. The purpose of this article is to correct some misinterpretations of the author's recommendations as well as to add some recently developed refinements. Particular focus is given to the transitional-site program that can be extremely useful for dealing with the severe type of parental alienation syndrome. Dealing properly with parental-alienation-syndrome families requires close cooperation between legal and mental health professionals. Without such cooperation therapeutic approaches are not likely to succeed. With such cooperation the treatment, in many cases, is likely to be highly effective.

THE PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME

The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a disorder that arises almost exclusively in the context of child-custody disputes. It is a disorder in which children, programmed by the allegedly "loved" parent, embark upon a campaign of denigration of the allegedly "hated" parent. The children exhibit little if any ambivalence over their hatred, which often spreads to the extended family of the allegedly despised parent. Most often mothers are the initiators of such programming, and fathers are the victims of the campaigns of deprecation. However, in a small percentage of cases it is the father who is the primary programmer and the mother who comes to be viewed as the "hated" parent. Furthermore, we are not dealing here with simple "brainwashing" by one parent against the other. The children's own scenarios of denigration often contribute and complement those promulgated by the programming parent. Accordingly, I introduced the term parental alienation syndrome (PAS) to refer to both of these contributions to the disorder. Because of the children's cognitive immaturity their scenarios may often appear preposterous to adults. Of course, if the hated parent has genuinely been abusive, then the children's alienation is warranted and the PAS concept is not applicable.

There are three type of parental alienation syndrome: mild, moderate, and severe. It goes beyond the purposes of this report to describe in full detail the differences between these three types. At this point only a brief summary, however, is important here. In the mild type, the alienation is relatively superficial and the children basically cooperate with visitation, but are intermittently critical and disgruntled. In the moderate type, the alienation is more formidable, the children are more disruptive and disrespectful, and the campaign of denigration may be almost continual. In the severe type, visitation may be impossible, so hostile are the children, hostile even to the point of being physically violent toward the allegedly hated parent. Other forms of acting out may be present, acting out that is designed to cause formidable grief to the parent who is being visited. In many cases the children's hostility has reached paranoid levels, that is, delusions of persecution and/or fears that they will be murdered in situations where there is absolutely no evidence that such will be the case.

Listed below are the primary manifestations of the PAS (Gardner;1992):

The Campaign of Denigration.

Weak, Frivolous, or Absurd Rationalizations for the Deprecation.

Lack of Ambivalence.

The "Independent Thinker" Phenomenon.

Reflexive Support of the Loved Parent in the Parental Conflict.

Absence of Guilt over the Denigration and/or Exploitation of the "Hated" Parent.

The Presence of Borrowed Scenarios.

Spread of the Animosity to the Friends and/or Extended Family of the Hated Parent.

This article has been written because of certain misinterpretations of the recommendations I made in my book on the PAS. Although these recommendations are situations in which they have not been implemented in the appropriate manner, sometimes with unfortunate and even disastrous results. In addition, I present here certain refinements I have come to appreciate since the publication of the original book in 1992. (These are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.)

Because mothers are much more often alienators than fathers, I will refer to the parent who induces the PAS as the mother, and the parent who is the victim of the child's campaign of denigration as the father. Obviously, in situations in which the father is the one who is inducing the PAS in the child and the mother the victim of the campaign of denigration, then the recommendations made here for the mother should be applied to the father.

Unfortunately, the term parental alienation syndrome is often used to refer to the animosity that a child may harbor against a parent who has actually abused the child, especially over an extended period. The term has been used to apply to the major categories of parental abuse, namely, physical, sexual and emotional. Such application indicates a misunderstanding of the parental alienation syndrome. The term is applicable only when the parent has not exhibited anything close to the degree of alienating behaviour that might warrant the campaign of denigration exhibited by the child. Rather, in typical cases the parent would be considered by most examiners to have provided normal loving parenting or, at worst, exhibited minimal impairments in parental capacity. It is the exaggeration of minor weaknesses and deficiencies that are the hallmarks of the parental alienation syndrome. When bona fide abuse does exist, then the child's responding hostility is warranted and the parental alienation syndrome diagnosis is not applicable.

TABLE 1: Differential Diagnosis of the Three Types of Parental Alienation Syndrome.

PRIMARY SYMPTOMATIC MANIFESTATION MILD MODERATE SEVERE

The Campaign of Denigration Minimal Moderate Formidable

Weak, Frivolous, or Absud Rationalizations for the Depreciation Minimal Moderate Multiple absurd rationalizations

Lack of Ambivalence Normal ambivalence No ambivalence No ambivalence

The Independent-Thinker Phenomenon Usually absent Present Present

Reflexive Support of the Alienating Parent in the Parental Conflict Minimal Present Present

Absence of Guilt Normal guilt Minimal to no guilt No guilt

Borrowed Scenarios Minimal Present Present

Spread of the Animosity to the Extended Family of the Alienated Parent Minimal Present Formidable, often fanatic

Transitional Difficulties at the Time of Visitation Usually absent Moderate Formidable or visit not possible

Behavior During Visitation Good Intermittently antagonistic and provocative No visit, or destructive and continually provocative behavior throughout visit

Bonding with the Alienator Strong, healthy Strong, mildly to moderately pathological Severely pathological, often paranoid bonding

Bonding with the Alienated Parent Strong, healthy, or minimally pathological Strong, healthy, or minimally pathological Strong, healthy, or minimally pathological

TABLE 2: Differential Treatment of the Three Types of Parental Alienation Syndrome.

MILD MODERATE SEVERE

Legal Approaches Court ruling that primary custody shall remain with the alienating parent.

Plan A

(Most Common)

Court ruling that primary custody shall remain with the alienating parent.

Court appointment of PAS therapist.*

Sanction:

Money

House arrest

Incarceration

Plan B

(Occasionally Necessary)

Court ruling that primary custody shall be transferred to the alienated parent.

Extremely restricted visitation by the alienating parent, under supervision if necessary, to prevent indoctrination.

Court-ordered transfer of primary custody to the alienated parent (in most cases).

Court-ordered transitional site program**.

Psychotherapeutic Approaches None usually necessary Plan A

(Most common)

Treatment by a court-appointed PAS therapist*.

Plan B

(Occasionally necessary)

Monitored transitional site program**

Therapist-monitored transitional site program**

* Gardner, R. A. (1992), The Parental ALienation Syndrome, Cresskill, Nj: Creative Therapeutics, Inc. pp. 230-245.

** ________ (1992), The Parental Alienation Syndrome, Cresskill, Nj: Creative Therapeutics, Inc. pp. 334a-334h.

Programming parents who are accused of inducing a parental alienation syndrome in their children will sometimes claim that the children's campaign of denigration is warranted because of bona fide abuse and/or neglect perpetrated by the denigrated parent. Such parents may claim that the accusation of parental alienation syndrome induction is merely a "cover-up," a diversionary maneuver, an attempt on the part of the vilified parent to throw a smoke screen over the abuses and/or neglect that have justified the children's campaign. There are indeed some genuinely abusing and/or neglectful parents who will deny their abuses and rationalize the children's campaign of hatred as being programmed by the other parent. This does not preclude the existence of truly innocent parents who are indeed being victimized by a parental-alienation-syndrome campaign of denigration. When such cross-accusations occur$namely, bona fide abuse and/or neglect vs. a true parental alienation syndrome$it behooves the examiner to conduct a detailed inequity in order to ascertain the category in which the children's accusations lie, i.e., true parental alienation syndrome or true abuse and/or neglect. In some situations, this differentiation may not be easy, especially when there has been some abuse and/or neglect and the parental alienation syndrome has been superimposed upon it$resulting in far more deprecation than would be justified in this situation. It is for this reason that detailed inequity is often crucial if one is to make a proper diagnosis. Combination of individual and joint interviews with the children and parents is probably the best way to make this important differentiation.

In recent years some professionals use the term PAS to refer to a false sex-abuse accusation in the context of a child-custody dispute. In some cases the terms are used interchangeably. This is a significant misperception of the PAS concept. In the majority of cases in which a PAS is present the sex-abuse accusation is not promulgated. In some cases, especially after other exclusionary maneuvers have failed, the sex-abuse accusation will emerge. The sex-abuse accusation, then, is most often a spin-off, or derivative, of the PAS and is in no way synonymous with it. Furthermore, there are divorce situations in which the sex-abuse accusation may arise without the PAS present. Under such circumstances, of course, one must give serious consideration to the possibility that true sex abuse has occurred, especially if the accusation antedates the marital separation.

Before one can make a decision regarding legal and therapeutic approaches to the PAS child it is important that a proper diagnostic evaluation be conducted in order to ascertain specifically in which category the child's symptoms lie: mild, moderate, or severe. Each type warrants a very different approach. Failure to make this discrimination may result in grievous results, with significant psychological trauma to all concerned parties. This principle is in line with the ancient medical tradition that proper diagnosis must precede treatment. Furthermore, evaluators should appreciate that the category of PAS is not determined by the efforts of the programming parent, but by the degree to which the indoctrinating attempts have been successful. It is the resultant PAS manifestations in the child that determine the categorization, no the degree of parental efforts at indoctrination. A mother, for example, may embark upon a relentless campaign, the purpose of which is to denigrate the father to the degree that the child will hate him formidably. However, the father's love and involvement with the child has been deep-seated. Accordingly, the mother's efforts may not prove successful, so strong has the father's bonding been. And the older the child the less likely her efforts will be successful.

MILD CASES OF PAS

Manifestations

Children in the mild category exhibit relatively superficialmanifestations of the eight primary symptoms: campaign of denigration; weak, frivolous, or absurd rationalizations for the deprecation; lack of ambivalence; the "independent thinker" phenomenon; reflexive support of the loved parent in parental conflict; absence of guilt; the presence of borrowed scenarios; and spread of the animosity to the extended family of the hated parent. Most often only a few of these eight symptoms are present. It is in the moderate type, and especially in the severe type, that most, if not all of them are seen. Visitation is usually smooth with few difficulties at the time of transition. Once in the father's home the children's primary motive in contributing to the campaign of denigration is to maintain the stronger, healthy psychological bond that they have developed with their mothers.

Legal Approaches

In mild cases of PAS all that is usually needed is the court's confirmation that the mother will remain the designated primary custodial parent. In such situations the PAS is likely to alleviate itself without any further therapeutic or legal intervention.

Psychotherapeutic Approaches

Most often, psychotherapy for PAS symptoms in the mild category is not necessary in that they are likely to disappear once the court makes a decision to designate the mother the primary custodial parent. However, psychotherapy might be necessary for other problems attendant to the divorce.

MODERATE CASES OF PAS

Manifestations

The moderate cases are the most common. It is in this category that the mother's programming of the child is likely to be formidable and she may utilize a wide variety of exclusionary tactics. All eight of the primary manifestations are likely to be present, and each is more advanced than one sees in the mild cases, but less pervasive than one sees in the severe type. The campaign of denigration is more prominent, especially at transition times when the child appreciates that deprecation of the father is just what the mother wants to hear. The children are less fanatic in their vilification of the father than those seen in mild cases. None of the normal ambivalence that children inevitably have with regard to each of their parents is present. The father is described as all bad and the mother as all good. The child professes that he(she) is the sole originator of the feelings of acrimony against the father. The reflexive support for the mother in any conflict is predictable. The child's absence of guilt is so great that the child may appear psychopathic in his (her) insensitivity to the grief being visited upon the father. Borrowedscenario elements are likely to be included in the child's campaign of denigration. Whereas in the mild category there may still be loving relationships with the father's extended family, in the moderate cases these relatives become viewed as clones of the father and are similarly subjected to the campaigns of revulsion and denigration.

Whereas in the mild cases transition times present few difficulties, in the moderate cases there may be formidable problems at the time of transfer, but the children are ultimately willing to go off with the father, while their mother's purview, the children generally quiet down, relax their guard, and involve themselves benevolently with their fathers. This is in contrast to the severe category where visitation is either impossible or, if the children do enter the father's home their purpose is to make his life unbearable by ongoing vilification, destruction of property, and practically incessant provocative behavior. The primary motive for the children's scenarios of denigration is to maintain the stronger, healthy psychological bond with the mother.

Legal Approaches

1. In moderate cases I still recommend that the mother remain the primary custodial parent, her inducement of the PAS in her children notwithstanding. In moderate cases, she has usually still been the primary parent with whom the children have been mostly deeply bonded and it therefore makes sense for her to continue in this role. A court order finalizing this arrangement can contribute somewhat to the alleviation of the PAS, but it is not likely to evaporate entirely the symptoms, so deeply have they usually become entrenched by the time of this order.

Because in most cases the court has decided that the mother will remain the primary custodial parent, there is continued resistance to visitation. This is the result of the entrenchment in the brain-circuitry of both mother and children that the father is somehow despicable. Accordingly, a court-ordered therapist is often necessary who serves to monitor visits, use his (her) office as a transition site, and report to the court any failures to implement visitation. This therapist must be someone who is knowledgeable about the PAS and comfortable using the special, stringent therapeutic approaches necessary for successful alleviation of symptoms in both parents and children.

In most cases, recalcitrant mothers need to be warned by the court that if the children do not visit with the father, for whatever reason, court sanctions will be imposed. These not only serve to "remind" the recalcitrant mother to cooperate with visitation but are very useful for the children as well. It gives them the excuse to visit and can assuage the guilt they might otherwise feel if they were to admit to their mothers that they themselves want to see the father. In such situations the child can say to the mother: "I really hate him, and I don't want to visit with him. However, if I don't see him, I know the judge will punish you." I cannot emphasize strongly enough this important factor in the efficacy of sanctions, and even threatened sanctions.

I generally recommend that the first level of such sanctions be financial, e.g., reduction of alimony payments. If this does not serve to bring about visitation, then house arrest for short periods should be ordered by the court. At the first level of house arrest, the woman would merely be required to remain in her home throughout the prescribed time frame of the "sentence," with none of the traditional monitoring by police. Generally a "sentence" of a few days will suffice, e.g., the time frame of a child's weekend visitation. The woman should be put on notice that if during that time frame she will be arrested. If this fails, then a more formal arrangement should be made with electronic transmitters placed on the woman's ankle and telephone calls from the police to the home, randomly made throughout the 24-hour time frame. If , then actual incarceration for limited periods should be utilized. I am not recommending that these women be placed in prison with hardened criminals. I am only suggesting short periods in a local jail. In most cases, the awareness of financial penalties and the possibility of incarceration is enough to motivate such mothers to get their children to the father's home, their resistance to such visits notwithstanding. Unfortunately, my experience has been that courts are not generally willing to impose these sanctions, and so mothers in the moderate category have not been meaningfully deterred from continuing the promulgation of a PAS in their children.

My general recommendation to courts is that they use the same methods that they would for a father who reneges on alimony and support payments. Although financial penalties are not usually imposed under such circumstances, short prison terms (especially on weekends), both at home and in jail, have proven quite effective. Inducing a PAS in a child is a form of child abuse, more specifically emotional abuse. Reneging on alimony and support payments is also a form of child abuse, in that from the privations generated by such withholding. The court has the power to induce both types of child abusers to reconsider their ways, and courts can do this much more speedily and effectively than can therapists.

Psychotherapeutic Approaches

It is important that the court order treatment by someone who is not only familiar with the PAS but who is comfortable using the stringent approaches necessary for order. The therapist monitors visits, uses his (her) office as a transitional site, and reports to the court any failures to implement visitation. Without direct access to the court and without meaningful sanctions that the court is committed to implement is likely to fail. Details of this therapeutic program are provided on pages 230-245 of my Parental Alienation Syndrome book (Gardner, 1992).

In most cases of moderate PAS the aforementioned program should prove efficacious. However, success depends upon the joint efforts of both the court and the PAS family's therapist. If the court fails to invoke sanctions (a common occurrence) and/or a therapist does not satisfy the aforementioned provisos of treatment (also a common occurrence), then there is little likelihood of reduction of the children's symptoms. They may then progress on to the severe category. In such situations, the only hope of protecting the children from progression to the severe category--and the likelihood of lifelong alienation--is to transfer primary custodial status to the father. Such transfer; however, should only be done in situations in which the mother's programming is so deep-seated and so chronic that it is obvious that sanctions and a special PAS therapeutic program will prove futile. An example of such a situation would be one in which the mother is clearly paranoid, refuses to cooperate at all in the special therapy, and it becomes clear that incarceration is not going to in any way affect her delusion. Under such circumstances, transfer of custody is necessary in order to protect the children from progressing down the road to the severe type of PAS and ultimate disintegration of the father-child bond. Following transfer, varying degrees of maternal access to the children are possible, depending upon the mother's ability to reduce the PAS-inducing manipulations. Supervised visitations with the mother are often indicated in order to protect the children from her indoctrinations. This is similar to the monitoring provided for abusing fathers. After all, inducing a PAS in a child is a form of abuse from which children need protection.

We have, then, two types of custodial plan for the mother who programs children into the moderate level of PAS. The majority, whose tendencies are not deep-seated and longstanding, may respond to the sanctions and special PAS therapeutic program. Such mothers, in my experience, represent the majority of programming mothers in the moderate category. There are a minority of such mothers, however, whose programming tendencies are so chronic and deep-seated that sanctions and the special therapeutic program have either proven futile or there is every indication that they are doomed to failure. Under such circumstances it is necessary to prevent the children from to a severe PAS. These two situations Plan B in Table 2.

SEVERE CASES OF PAS

Manifestations

Children in the severe category are usually fanatic. They join together with their mothers in a folie à deux relationship in which they share her paranoid fantasies about the father. All eight of the primary symptomatic manifestations are likely to be present to a significant degree than in the moderate category. Children become panic-stricken over the prospect. Their blood-curdling shrieks, panicked states, and rage outbursts may be so severe that visitation is impossible. If placed in the father's home they may run away, become paralyzed with morbid fear; or may become so continuously provocative and so destructive that removal becomes necessary. Unlike children in the moderate and mild categories, their panic and hostility may not be reduced in the father's home, even when separated from their others for significant periods. Whereas in the mild and moderate categories the children's primary motive is to strengthen the stronger, healthy bond with the mother (often paranoid) and the symptoms serve to strengthen the pathological bond.

Legal Approaches

In severe cases of PAS, which represent a very small minority of PAS cases (approximately five-to-ten percent in my experience), more stringent measures must be taken. If there is any hope of alleviating the children's symptom the first step must involve a transfer of physical custody to the home of the father. Whether this remains permanent depends upon the behavior of the mother. Because the children typically will not cooperate regarding going to the father's home, the therapist may be confronted with one of the knottiest problems I have encountered regarding the treatment of PAS families. Specifically, my recommendation that the court remove such children from the home of a parent who is inducing a severe type of PAS (especially when paranoia is present) has not been met with receptivity by judges and some mental health professionals.

One source of this unreceptivity relates to the deep-seated notion that children should not be removed from their mother, no matter how disturbed she may be. (As mentioned throughout this article, for simplicity of presentation, I refer to the programming parent as the mother because she, much more often than the father, is the programmer. However, the same principles apply when the father is the primary promulgator of the PAS.) Courts have generally been much more receptive to my recommendations for the mild and moderate categories of mothers, because my recommendations do not include removal of the children from the mother's home. Another source of unreceptivity relates to the fact that the children in the severe category are often so frightened of their father, and have been so imbued with the notion that being in his home is dangerous and might even be lethal, that transfer is considered impossible. My frustration, resulting from the unreceptivity of courts to implement this recommendation, has been made especially poignant by the recognition that the children's remaining in the mother's home dooms their relationship with their father and predictably results in their developing longstanding psychopathology, even paranoia.

An intermediary disposition, an arrangement that does not involve immediate transfer from the home of the mother to the home of the father, can solve many of the problems attendant to a direct transfer and can also reduce judicial unreceptivity to this proposal.

Before describing the details of the transitional program, it is important to emphasize that the transition points are particularly difficult for PAS children. In such circumstances, with both parents present, the children's loyalty conflict is most acute. In the case of children suffering with the severe type of PAS, transition under such circumstances is practically impossible. The father is generally unable to get the children out of the mother's home and, even if they are transferred to his home by force, they are likely to run away and do everything possible to return to their mother's home. Temporary placement in a transitional site appears to be an excellent solution to this problem. In such a transitional site, the aforementioned confrontation is obviated in that the children are not placed in a position in which they are with both parents together.

It is also important to reiterate that mothers in the severe category are not going to comply readily with court orders to cease and desist from their brainwashing. In fact, their ignoring of court orders is one of the reasons why they warrant placement in the severe category. The main purpose of the program presented here is to enforce the mother's separation from the children pending upon the case-in order to protect the children from the mother's ongoing campaign of manipulation and programming. Accordingly, during this early phase it contact at all between the children and their mother, either or indirectly, e.g., via telephone or mail. All these contacts will be utilized by the mother to continue her brainwashing and will thereby lessen significantly the likelihood that this traditional program will be successful.

The Three Levels of Transitional Sites

There are three levels of transitional restrictive from the least restrictive to the most restrictive environments. The less restrictive environments should be tried first, using the most restrictive as a lass resort$and then only if the less restrictive facilities do no prove adequate for the purposes of the transfer. The program must be monitored by a guardian `ad litem' or court-appointed therapist who serves to monitor the program and who also has direct access to the court for judicial support and the issuing of court orders necessary for the success of the plan. Without such "clout" the program is not likely to succeed. For each level of transitional site there is a phased program, the purpose of which is to facilitate the children's transfer from the mother's to the father's home.

Site Level 1. In this category of transitional site, I include the home of a friend or relative with whom the children have a reasonably good relationship. Although this might be the home of one of the father's relatives, it would not be a suitable place for transition if the mother has been successful in programming the children to believe that these individuals are part of the father's extended network of people who will also cause them significant harm. While living with these people, arrangements have to be made for the children's attending a local school. In order to serve effectively, these caretakers have to appreciate the depth of the mother's pathology and have to be strong enough to prohibit mail and telephone calls (during a prescribed period$see below) and report to the proper authorities (e.g., a guardian ad litem or a court-appointed therapist) the failure of the mother to obey the court order restraining her from visiting the children or even coming into their neighborhood or school. The caretakers at this site would also have to be able to exert control over the children's antics during the periods of their father's visits with them (see below).

Another type of transition site in this category would be a foster home. Here, again, the foster parents would have to satisfy the aforementioned criteria of vigilance and stringency.

If the situation is so bad that a level-1 transitional site is not feasible, then a more restricted environment must be considered. This would be necessary if the mother continued to ignore court orders not to call or visit the children (either in the transitional home or in the school environment). It would also be necessary if the children continued to run away from a level-I transitional site in order to return to their mother. Under such circumstances, a level-2 transitional site would have to be considered.

Site Level 2. A possible site in this category would be a community shelter--the kind of setting where are placed delinquents, abandoned children, abused children, and otherswarranting removal from their homes. It is preferable that the school be incorporated into this facility (sometimes the case). Here there would be much more stringent surveillance and control of the children's behavior, especially when the father visits (see below), as well as the mother's potential to visit and/or communicate with the children.

This facility might not prove feasible if the children's antics became unmanageable, if the mother continues to visit the premises (in spite of a court order), and/or if the children's behavior becomes uncontrollable at the time of the father's visits. Under those circumstances, a level-3 transitional site would have to be considered.

Site Level 3. Hospitalization. Obviously, this is the most restrictive environment, one in which there is the greatest degree of control over the situation. This should only be tried after transitional sites 1 and 2 have been considered and, preferably, tried. Obviously, here the children would at least opportunity to go back to their mother's home, and there would be the greatest degree of control over the children's behavior at the time of the father's visits. It is crucial that the treating personnel have knowledge of the PAS and the opportunity for input to the court, either directly or indirectly. Because most hospitals have affiliated schools, the children could attend school while hospitalized.

The Six Phases of Transition at Each Site

At this point I will address myself to the details of the six-phase sequence developed to effect a transfer from the mother's home to the father's home via the transitional site. Although the program may be under the auspices of a therapist, what is done here is far less therapy than "movement of bodies". The main goal is to provide the children with living experiences that their father is not the terribly dangerous person he has been portrayed to be by the mother. The ultimate aim is to get the children into the father's home as soon as possible, but it is important to recognize that the amount of time spent in the transitional site will vary from case to case, and transfer must be monitored carefully by the people involved in administering the transitional program. I propose a program that follows this sequence:

Phase 1. Placement in the transitional site. Here, the children are removed from the mother's incessant campaign of programming, yet they are not with their father, with whom they believe terrible things will happen to them. During this period at the transitional site, all contact with the mother should be cut off, including mail and telephone calls. Then, after a few days of accommodation to the new site, the father should visit the children at the site. There, they will start to have the living experience that no harm will come to them. Over the next few days or weeks (depending upon their tolerance), visits with the father (again at the site) should increase in both frequency and duration.

Phase 2. At some point (hopefully in a short period), the children should begin visiting their father for short periods in his home, after which they return directly to the transitional site. Gradually, the visits to the father's home should be lengthened, until the point where they can start living there on an ongoing basis. During this period there should be no contact with the mother, even via mail and telephone calls.

Phase 3. The children are discharged from the transitional site and live with their father on an ongoing basis. In the early part of this phase, once again, no mail or telephone calls from the mother should be allowed. If she is seen in the area of the father's home, this is to be reported immediately (through proper channels) to the court, after which serious sanctions, such as a fine, a reduction in alimony payments, and even incarceration (or hospitalization [in selected cases]) should be seriously considered. The children require the living experience that the terrible consequences that they have anticipated will not be realized. Any interruption of this process by the mother is likely to cause them to regress.

Phase 4. Carefully monitored contact with the mother can be permitted -- on a trial basis. The first step should be limited and monitored telephone conversations. It is not likely that the mother will reduce her programming, but at least limitations can be placed on it. If it appears that she has enough self-control and/or that her obsession with brainwashing the children is somewhat under control, longer telephone conversations can be permitted. During this phase, similarly monitored mail communications may be allowed.

Phase 5. Monitored visits with the mother in the father's home may be tried, the frequency and duration determined by how much she can reduce inculcation of animosity toward the father.

Phase 6. In some cases, carefully monitored and judiciously restricted visits to the mother's home might be tried. Obviously, this would only be possible in those situations in which the mother's animosity has become reduced to the degree that there is only limited risk of programming (which runs the risk of undoing all the benefits the previous phases of the program). There are some cases in which this phase would never be reached because the mother might kidnap the children, refuse to return them, or otherwise subject them to unrelentless programming against the father. It is to be hoped, however, that this does not prove to be necessary and that some contacts with the mother might be possible.

Further Comments on the Transitional Site Program

The transitional-site program might be conducted under the auspices of a psychologist, psychiatrist, or guardian ad litem, who is court appointed and who has the freedom to report back to the court any problems that may arise. In recent years, courts have become increasingly appreciative of the importance of strong sanctions (fines, garnisheeing of wages, attachment of property, and even incarceration) for fathers who have failed to fulfill their financial obligations to their former wives. Courts, however, have not been equally receptive to recommendations that PAS mothers know that they cannot ignore the court's order with impunity. The threat of fine and incarceration can help most such women "cooperate." Another issue relevant here is the power of the court to hospitalize the children. Courts certainly hospitalize insane people and/or individuals who are a danger to themselves and others. Many people are committed for shorter periods, such as thirty days. Pending a final decision of the court regarding their permanent disposition. A similar procedure could be utilized to hospitalize PAS children, and a thirty-day limit would, I suspect, be adequate to achieve the aforementioned goals.

Community shelters and psychiatric hospitals are not famous for their plushness. In fact, many are referred to as "zoos," and this reputation is sometimes warranted. However unfortunate this situation may be in other circumstances, it may serve to speed up the transfer program for PAS children. Recognizing that they cannot return to their mother and appreciating that their antics may prolong their stay in the transitional site, may enhance their motivation to move rapidly into the home of their father. And even the level-I transitional site may serve this purpose if it is inhospitable enough for the children. I am not recommending that one go out of one's way to select the most inhospitable sites for these children; but I am not recommending that one search for the most plush arrangements either.

To date, I have had little direct experience with this proposal, mainly because of the unreceptivity of courts to implement it. Others, however, have described some success with it. I recognize that this proposal, like many of the other proposals in life, are more likely to be put into effect if there are financial resource to support it. This is no different from any other recommendation made in psychiatry, or in medicine in general. The facts are that the more money available for any program (medical or otherwise), the greater the likelihood it will be implemented and the greater the likelihood of its success. To the degree that community and/or personal resources are available to implement this program, to that degree is it likely to prove successful.

It is crucial to reiterate that the only hope these children have for bonding with their father and being protected from the induction of their mother's severe psychopathology is permanent transfer to the home of the father and his designation as the primary custodial parent. Without such transfer, the bonding with the father is inevitably going to be destroyed, and the children will predictably develop the mother's psychopathology. This plan is not designed for PAS families in the mild and/or moderate categories. Mothers in these categories generally have healthier bonding with their children, have most often been the primary caretakers, and (their antics notwithstanding) still warrant being designated the primary custodial parent. Accordingly, no such transfers are indicated for mothers in the mild and moderate categories.

It is not the purpose of this program to preclude the mother entirely from the children's lives. In fact, as described therein, it provides for expanding opportunities for access, depending upon the degree to which the mother can reduce her PAS-inducing indoctrinations. In most cases there will ultimately be varying degrees of maternal access, depending upon the mother's ability to reduce the PAS-inducing manipulations. Supervised visitations with the mother are often indicated in order to protect the children from her indoctrinations. This is similar to the supervision provided for abusing fathers. After all, inducing a PAS in a child is a form of abuse from which children need protection. The transitional program does not necessarily preclude the mother ultimately reverting back to the status of primary custodial parent, although this is not likely in the severe category because these mothers often suffer with significant psychiatric disturbances. It is important to emphasize that it is only in the severe cases of PAS (again, representing five-to-ten percent of cases) that primary custodial status should be shifted from the mother to the father.

Psychotherapeutic Approaches

The transitional site program should be monitored by a therapist who is not only familiar with the PAS but is comfortable with the kind of stringent approaches necessary for the implementation of the transitional site program. In short, this therapist must have the same qualifications as the therapist ordered by the court to implement the treatment of families in the moderate category. If the therapist does not have these qualifications, the transitional site program is not likely to succeed.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

The differential diagnostic and treatment approaches to the PAS are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. I cannot emphasize strongly enough that evaluators should never lose sight of the crucial medical dictum: diagnosis before treatment. Evaluators from non-medical disciplines tend to lose sight of this important principle. One wants one's heart or brain surgeon to conduct the proper examinations and tests before opening up one's heart or head to operate. Most would not submit to such a procedure without diagnostic evaluations and tests. Yet, evaluators and courts are implementing PAS recommendations that are improper for the particular diagnostic category.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of accurately defining the category of PAS before implementing any therapeutic or legal measures. Not to do so is likely to result in grievous errors that will predictably cause significant psychiatric disturbances in all concerned parties. I have seen reports of mental health professionals and courts dealing with mild or moderate cases of PAS as if they were severe, injudiciously and erroneously, then, transferring custody to the father, and even putting women in jail whose level of indoctrinations are minimal and might even be reversed once they had the assurance that they would remain the primary custodial parents. I have seen cases in which courts and mental health professionals have assessed PAS on the basis of the mother's indoctrinations, and not the degree to which the programming process has been successful in the child. In such cases the children may have exhibited only mild PAS manifestations, but the mother was treated as if the children were in the severe category and thereby deprived of custody.

Again, the diagnosis of PAS is not made on the basis of the programmer's efforts but the degree of "success" in each child. The treatment is based not only on the degree to which the child has been alienated but also on the mother's degree of attempted indoctrinations. In most cases the mother will still remain the primary custodial parent. It is only when she cannot, or will not, inhibit herself from such indoctrinations that custodial transfer and the transitional site program should be implemented. Not to do so will predictably bring about progressively more pathological levels of PAS symptomatology in the children.

It is only in the severe category that custodial transfer from the mother to the father will generally be indicated. In some cases of moderate PAS, however; such transfer might be necessary because of the mother's deep-seated compulsion to indoctrinate the children against the father and the real danger that she will not desist from her indoctrinations after the trial. Often the main reason why these moderate PAS children have not progressed to the severe category is the healthy input from the father. In such cases, the transitional site program is not necessary because the children are still visiting with their father, although they may be causing him grief in association with their moderate levels of PAS.

In my experiences, it is rare that custodial transfer is warranted in the mild cases. However, the examiner should still consider such transfer for mothers who are so fanatic that it is unlikely they will desist from their indoctrinations after the trial. The only reason why the children are only in the mild category is that the programming has not "taken" probably because of the father's healthy input.

Obviously, the presence of a PAS is only one consideration in assigning primary custodial status. Other factors must be considered, but the presence of a PAS -- especially with regard to its level -- is crucial if one is to make a proper custodial recommendation in families where it is present.

REFERENCE

Gardner, R.A. (1992) The parental alienation syndrome: A guide for mental health and legal professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics, Inc.

Richard A. Gardner, MD, is Clinical Professor of Child Psychiatry, Columbia University, Collect of Physicians & Surgeons, New York City.

This article is an elaboration of a recent addendum to Dr. Gardner's original work, The Parental Alienation Syndrome: A Guidle for Mental Health Professionals (1992). Dr. Gardner has requested that readers working in this area of PAS with case experience and clinical data contact him at 155 County Road, P.O. Box 522, Cresskill, NJ 07626-0522.

Why Is Daddy in Jail?

--for the crime of wanting to see his child. by Stephen Baskerville Someday Hollywood will make a movie of this: A father is sentenced to prison for wanting to take his son to a ballgame. Up against him is his ex-wife, the legal system, and various women's groups, all declaring him a deadbeat and a batterer, all of it untrue. But as a result, he's in a cell while his ex and her new boyfriend take little Johnny to a Mets game. Improbable? Only in the sense that Hollywood would ever make such a movie. Unfortunately it's an all too real scenario that is taking place everyday across the country. The case of a man we'll call Alan is fairly typical. Without warning Alan came home one day to find his apartment cleaned out. His wife and two-year-old girl were gone. Shortly afterwards Alan was summoned to court and as a "defendant," was ordered to stay away from his daughter most of the time and to begin making child support payments. His two-hour, thrice-weekly visits with his daughter were supervised and she was not allowed to stay with him overnight, since his wife alleged that he was dangerous and would kidnap her. The accusations eventually proved groundless, and the supervision terminated. After a year Alan was permitted one overnight visit with his daughter per week. His wife, meanwhile, was never charged with making false accusations nor has the fabrication counted against her in the custody proceedings. Various experts testified that Alan is no danger whatever to his daughter and that he is a devoted and loving father. All these findings were ignored by the courts. More than four years after his wife left, the child remains with her. He has spent a $160,000 inheritance on legal fees, not counting about 40 percent of his income for child support, and now lives hand-to-mouth. Then there's Bruce, who was a truck driver in Boston and who came home one day to find his things on the street, the locks on his doors changed, and his wife's new boyfriend already moved in. Angry and bewildered, Bruce kicked in the door and began shouting. (He did not strike anyone.) His wife called the police, who arrived and took Bruce away in handcuffs. She got a restraining order preventing any contact with his three children. When his son was hospitalized with an illness, he was not allowed to visit. Eventually Bruce was allowed to see his children at a supervised visitation center with his wife and her boyfriend present in the next room. Another man, Tom, tells of how he was living with his wife in California, where they were raising their three children as vegetarians like themselves. He thought she was content until one day, when she told him she wanted to move back to her native Virginia. He agreed to the move. After establishing residency in Virginia, however, she left with the children, and he was hauled into court. Then, after an injury left him without an adequate income he found himself in jail for failure to pay child support. Eventually he relocated in the Washington area to find work. Tom now drives three hours each way to get his children from his wife's place in Virginia, twice every other weekend. His ex-wife subsequently gave up her vegetarianism and obtained a court order preventing him from discussing diet with his children. His children are used as informers to monitor his compliance, and their relationship is now strained. Tom now belongs to a fathers' group that meets in Arlington, Virginia. Almost every member has a similarly painful story. Some have not seen their children in years. The children of a few will no longer speak to them. Others regularly drive hundreds of miles to visit their children in hotels or visitation centers. Several with no previous criminal records have spent time in jail. The group is currently involved with the case of Michael Mahoney, a father in an Arlington jail awaiting sentencing for criminal contempt. Mahoney has already lost his job, his home, his savings, his freedom, and most recently his health (he has developed congestive heart failure, severe stomach ulcers, sleep apnea, and has undergone brain surgery for subdural hematoma). His private life has also been exposed to public view and he himself vilified on "Geraldo" and at least one other nationally televised talk show. And these fathers are angry. Alan describes the system as a legal "child-kidnapping and extortion racket." Even more though, they are in shock. Like virtually all men in their position, none realized that such a thing could happen until it did. Worse still, these men–and millions more like them–have suddenly found that the assumptions they had made about wife beaters, child molesters, "deadbeat dads," and O.J. Simpson are now being made about them. Many see themselves as having been abandoned not only by their wives but by friends and family members, who assume they "must have done something" to deserve losing their children. What their children "must have done" to deserve losing the care of even an imperfect father is seldom asked. Fathers who attempt to contact their confiscated children or separated spouses can be arrested for "harassment" or "stalking," an offense that can be defined as "unwelcome conversation." "Stories of violations for minor infractions are legion," the Boston Globe reported in May. "In one case, a father was arrested for violating an order when he put a note in his son's suitcase telling the mother the boy had been sick over a weekend visit. In another, a father was arrested for sending his son a birthday card." The practice of arresting fathers for attending public events such as their children's musical recitals or sports activities–events any stranger may attend–is one many find difficult to believe, but it is common. Last year National Public Radio broadcast a story on restraining order abuse centering on a father who was arrested in church for attending his daughter's first communion. During the segment, an eight-year-old girl wails and begs to know when her father will be able to see her or call her on the phone. The answer, because of a "lifetime" restraining order, is "never." At once the most extensive and well-concealed denial of civil rights in America today, the plight of fathers and children is all-but-ignored by the media and virtually unknown beyond the rapidly increasing circle of its victims. Few people realize how easily and frequently children are now taken from fathers who have committed no actionable offense and for reasons that have nothing to do with the children's wishes, safety, health, or welfare. Contrary to common assumption, the prevalence of mother-custody is not a matter of simple sex-bias against fathers in mutually-agreed-to divorces. As American family courts now operate, a mother can have the father summoned to court and, without producing any evidence of wrongdoing, request that he be stripped of custody of his children and effectively ejected from his family, and in almost every case the judge will duly oblige. Despite formal legal equality between parents, some 85 to 90 percent of custody awards go to mothers. One study in Arlington found that over a recent eighteen-month period, maternal custody was awarded in a hundred percent of decisions. This includes divorces in which the father has given neither grounds nor agreement. Most people probably accept some bias against fathers in custody cases when divorce is mutual. What is happening in family courts, however, is very different. It is one thing to say that young children need their mother; it is quite another to say a mother should have the arbitrary power to keep their father away. Yet current judicial practice throughout most of the United States allows her to do just that. In fact, a mother can have had a half-dozen previous divorces, she can have deserted the marital home, she can abscond with the children, she can have committed adultery, she can level false charges, she can have assaulted the father, and none of these can be introduced as evidence against her in a custody decision. For a father, the simple fact of his being a father will be used to keep him away from his children six days out of seven, deprive him of any decision-making role, and dissolve his marriage over his objections. Part of the problem originates in the advent of no-fault divorce in the early 1970s, which is often blamed by conservatives for leaving wives vulnerable to abandonment. Yet it has also left fathers with no protection against the confiscation of their children. No-fault divorce laws did not stop at removing the requirement that there be grounds for a divorce, so as to allow for divorce by mutual consent; they also provided for what writer Maggie Gallagher calls "unilateral" divorce and removed any consideration of grounds from custody decisions. Though changes in the divorce laws were legislative, it is the practitioners of family law who have benefited both in terms of power and profit, and they have not hesitated to exploit the opportunities to the full. Dickens' observation "the one great principle of the...law is to make business for itself" could hardly be more strikingly (or destructively) validated.

When the Rule of Law begins to Collaspe

The War Against Law

July 28, 2008 From theTrumpet.com

America’s forefathers had a profound respect for law. Today, law is being trashed, and we are suffering the consequences.

The Greek Empire tried to establish the rule of law. It failed, and the empire collapsed. The Roman Empire also tried to build a society based on law. It was unable to do so and the Roman Empire fell. Many other empires experienced the same failure.

The famous British historian Paul Johnson wrote an article titled “No Law Without Order, No Freedom Without Law.” It was printed in the Sunday Telegraph, Dec. 26, 1999. In it he wrote (emphasis mine throughout):

The rule of law, as distinct from the rule of a person, or class or people, and as opposed to the rule of force, is an abstract, sophisticated concept. It is mighty difficult to achieve. But until it is achieved, and established in the public mind with such vehemence that masses of individuals are prepared to die to uphold it, no other form of progress can be regarded as secure. The Greeks had tried to establish the rule of law but failed. The Romans had succeeded under their republic but Caesar and his successors had destroyed it. The essence of the rule of law is its impersonality, omnipotence and ubiquity. It is the same law for everyone, everywhere—kings, emperors, high priests, the state itself, are subject to it. If exceptions are made, the rule of law begins to collapse—that was the grand lesson of antiquity.

Yes, “that was the grand lesson” of history. But have we learned that lesson? Failure to do so means we pay the supreme sacrifice—loss of our republic.

The continual problem of man has been his failure to learn from history.

Are “masses of individuals … prepared to die” to uphold America’s rule of law? Mr. Johnson states that this is our only security!

In many cases our people are confused about what the law is. And many others want to change our laws, including our constitutional law.

Who is going to be willing to die for such confusion? Will such a deeply divided people sacrifice their lives for our republic and the rule of law?

Our people in Britain and America lack the will to even sacrifice a few soldiers’ lives to fight a ground war. Our generals know that we lack the will to win any hard-fought battle—even if it directly relates to our own freedom. For example, we had to be bombed into World War ii. Even one of the most diabolical leaders in history, Adolf Hitler, could not rouse us to fight until we were bombed by Japan.

We are not prepared to die to defend our security, as we were in our past. This is the supreme sign that our will has been broken—and that our republic cannot stand.

Our forefathers were willing to die to establish the rule of law. Many Americans died in the civil war to sustain our constitutional law.

How different they were from our people today!

Our Forefathers’ Goal

Early immigrants who came to this land were often persecuted in the countries they left. They usually lacked religious freedom.

“[B]oth in Virginia and in New England to the north, the colonists were determined, God-fearing men,” Mr. Johnson wrote, “often in search of a religious toleration denied them at home, who brought their families and were anxious to farm and establish permanent settlements. They put political and religious freedom before riches …. Thus took shape the economic dynamo that eventually became the United States—an experiment designed to establish the rule of God on Earth …” (ibid.).

What a goal. They planned to establish the rule of God on Earth! That means they had the goal of each person keeping the Ten Commandments of God—the basis of all righteous law.

How many Americans are willing to face that reality? Not many. Because then we would have to see that we often fight not to establish law, but to promote lawlessness!

Consider some statements from the Founding Fathers. In his first inaugural, President George Washington said, “The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality.” And in his famous farewell address he said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” Without religion and morality, Washington knew the American experiment was doomed to fail. John Adams backed him up: “Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.” Religion and morality are firmly rooted in divine law.

In 1954, Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, “I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it.”

What political or religious leaders would make such statements as these men did? Even the politicians who established our republic were more spiritual than most of our religious leaders today!

The Constitution is the foundation of our republic. And the Ten Commandments were, in many ways, the foundation of the Constitution. Our forefathers believed that if we didn’t keep God’s Ten Commandments, our republic would collapse!

We will pay a dear price for taking those words of our founders lightly.

It was much harder for our Founding Fathers to spill streams of blood winning our freedom, and to create and establish our constitutional law, than it is for us just to maintain it! So we ought to respect our Founding Fathers above ourselves. But we are too vain and arrogant to see how profoundly strong they were and how pathetically shallow and weak we are.

Noble Constitution

The Constitution was based to a great extent on God’s law. That is why I believe it is the most noble document ever written by a government of this world.

What a rare document it is. Our forefathers had the awesome opportunity to establish the rule of God in the wealthiest country ever. So they established a Constitution to protect all of us from the extremes of human reason. Tyrants, unjust judges and biased leaders were controlled by this law.

Did our Founding Fathers know that the Bible interprets itself? To some extent, I believe they did. And they probably patterned the Constitution after the Bible, in that sense. The Constitution is a document that interprets itself probably better than any book or document, other than the Bible.

We see indescribable confusion about the Bible today. Why? Because people won’t let it interpret itself!

We received some foundational direction from Britain’s Magna Carta. But Britain has no Constitution.

Our persecuted forefathers wanted their protection spelled out in detail. They had suffered intensely at the hands of tyrants. Such tribulation deepens a people’s understanding about the value of freedom.

Will we have to experience indescribable tribulation before we can appreciate our freedom, which is given to us by the rule of law?

The Bork Nomination

When Robert Bork was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, it created a firestorm in Congress, and he failed to get confirmed. Shortly thereafter, he wrote The Tempting of America, which I believe is the best book about constitutional law in a century—perhaps ever.

Mr. Bork believes we are more than halfway along in the destruction of our Constitution. If he is right, our republic is in grave danger.

We live today in a culture that is becoming much more anti-law and anti-God.

If the Constitution is to be rewritten, it should be done only by our legislative branch, or Congress, and the president, or the executive branch. If they err, these leaders are subject to the voters. But that is not true of the judicial branch—the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court justices are selected for life by the president.

Our forefathers designed the Constitution that way so the U.S. Supreme Court justices would not be so concerned about the people when unpopular judgments had to be made. The Supreme Court justices are subject only to constitutional law—not the voters!

Their job is to interpret the law—or better, to let the law interpret itself. They have no authority to rewrite the law. If they rewrite the law, it’s almost impossible to correct the error.

Law schools routinely teach about being “legal realists.” Like former Vice President Al Gore, they want an “evolving Constitution.” But this reasoning gives the judges despotic powers. It also takes us away from the foundational law established by our forefathers.

Then why do our politicians allow it? The president and Congress often like the judges to do this, if the decisions are favorable to their views and they know their views will not be approved by the voters. Still, the judges are taking power from the legislature and the executive branches as they rewrite the Constitution.

Our politicians simply lack the vision to see how disastrous this process is. It is based on selfish lawlessness—not law!

The Supreme Court justices are gaining dictatorial powers, and none of them were voted into their offices or approved by the people. The democratic process is being destroyed. That means we cannot maintain the rule of law. As a result, our future is very black indeed.

Usually the people know very little about how the law works. But they know enough to lose respect for our governmental institutions. They also lose interest in the whole political system.

As a result, they end up doing what our predecessors in ancient Israel did. “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). This is the history of our own people. And the book of Judges is a part of the biblical books called the former prophets. That means it is prophecy for this end time.

Today, we have no king or president or real authority figure that we look to for leadership. And that means we are a nation without strong leadership. The same is true of Britain.

No ship of state can find its way to a safe harbor without a captain to guide it. That is exactly the way it was in ancient Israel just before it was conquered! And that is exactly where America and Britain are today! There is no leader who can or will establish the rule of law. This sad state of affairs was also prophesied in Isaiah 3:1-5. In this prophecy, our leaders are likened to children!

What most people don’t see is that we are destroying the rule of law. And history tells us that our republic cannot stand as a result.

Those in the media are a big part of the liberal culture—about 80 percent of them. The destroying of our constitutional republic would not be possible without their support. All too often they are deceived, and in turn they have the power to deceive our citizens.

Mr. Bork relates how the Constitution is the big trump card in American politics. Today it is being used by the liberal culture to force their unlawful ideas on people!

The great heresy being taught in our law schools is that the judges are not bound by law. Some are saying the Constitution isn’t even law!

That means we are being led by the human reasoning of a liberal culture.

That is often the opposite of establishing the rule of law. Again, history reveals that empires are destroyed if they fail to establish the rule of law. But the liberal culture often has contempt of history and our Founding Fathers. These liberals foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law.

The founders of the Constitution put in place the walls, roofs and beams of our Constitution, as Mr. Bork said. The judges’ purpose is to preserve the architectural features—adding only filigree or ornamental work. Instead, the lawyers and judges are changing the very structure of our representative democracy.

The Constitution is being altered dramatically. And it is the foundation of our republic! We are experiencing a constitutional earthquake, and most of our people don’t even know it—yet. Your future is being changed for you, and often you have no input.

This process is sure to lead to anarchy! That is why you and I should be deeply concerned.

Law scholars today don’t believe the Constitution was “rooted in objective and unchanging truth”—that is, they don’t believe our founders established the rule of law. But that’s just what the founders did. And now most lawyers and judges reject their foundational work.

Our views today reflect a deadly degeneration into lawlessness!

The liberal culture in politics wants a “living Constitution.” Mr. Bork stated that many liberals imply the Constitution is dead. They don’t want unchanging truth, established 200 years ago, to direct their lives.

The liberal religious culture similarly wants a “living Bible.” Their “intelligence” demands that they adapt the Bible to modern times—even though every word was inspired by God (Matthew 4:4).

Most religions preach that God’s law was done away, in spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-18: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Christ came to fulfill, or fill, the law to the full. He essentially was saying every t must be crossed and every i dotted. Still, many thought, and still think, that He came to destroy the law. They refuse to believe the truth!

Christians are supposedly people who follow Christ, the Lawgiver. That is how they got their name “Christian.” But whether secular or religious, we are racing into lawlessness, and our nation is plunging toward disaster. Any good history book will show us that!

The Bible should be even more convicting. Study it and see the deadly danger of lawlessness. When the new U.S. government was established, Benjamin Franklin said that we have “a republic, if you can keep it.” Mr. Franklin knew America’s future hinged on the people’s love for the law!

But we have pursued the path of lawlessness, and it’s taking us toward catastrophic ruin!

Thankfully, there is good news. The Bible clearly shows Jesus Christ’s Second Coming occurs at a time when lawlessness prevails. Christ is about to return, and our lawless society is evidence of that fact! When He does, the wonderful rule of God’s law is about to be established forever!

Article Link:http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5355.3652.0.0

For more information about law, and its centrality to national and individual success and happiness, please read No Freedom Without Law. •

To e-mail Gerald Flurry, click here.
Please note that, unless you request otherwise, your comment may appear on our feedback page.
To read more articles by this author, click here.

Foster mother forgets about baby in van, baby dies!

JACKSON COUNTY-GEORGIA
9-month old dies in hot minivan
Foster mother said she had taken prescription medication, forgot baby was in vehicle
By CHRISTIAN BOONE, CRAIG SCHNEIDER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Wednesday, September 03, 2008

A 9-month-old girl died Tuesday after her foster mother said she forgot the infant inside a hot minivan for more than two hours, officials said.
Jackson County sheriff’s deputies are still investigating Wendy Osborne’s account. The 29-year-old Nicholson woman told Jackson County Sheriff deputies that she came home from a doctor’s appointment about 2:30 p.m., unloaded her two adopted girls but forgot about the baby in the car seat.
Osborne, a foster parent for five years, said she took a nap, waking around 5 p.m. Maj. David Cochran of the sheriff’s department said at that point she remembered the baby in the minivan.
State Child Advocate Tom Rawlings identified the girl as Jessica Marie Scovil. The infant, who had lived with Osborne for five months, was pronounced dead by emergency personnel called to the scene, Cochran said.
Osborne told deputies she had been sick for several days and was prescribed medication for strep throat, which may have contributed to her drowsiness. A toxicology report has been ordered, and charges could be filed.
Two other foster children who had been living with Osborne were removed from the home, Cochran said.
The state Division of Family and Children Services, which oversees the foster care system, is also investigating the death, said spokeswoman Dena Smith. She said there had been no indications of problems with Osborne as foster mother.
Rawlings said if Osborne’s version is correct, he would tend to oppose criminal charges.
“I usually look at these kinds of situations as there but for the grace of God go I,” he said.

(http://www.ajc. com/metro/ content/metro/ stories/2008/ 09/03/baby_ death_heat. html)

Stop the annihilation of fatherhood

[Note: I thought this article was somewhat harsh......but, sometimes truth and reality CAN be harsh. I sometimes wonder if the women's rights movement such as NOW want complete control and to dominate. What ever happen to "EQUAL" ????]

Daily Record/Sunday News

Article Last Updated: 09/02/2008 07:46:50 AM EDT

Anyone tired of women having three or four kids to two or three different men?

Anyone tired of our government putting our fathers in prisons for back child support (it used to be a man did the best he could and that was good enough)? Meanwhile, we send millions overseas to "feed the children" (how about we put those fathers in jail?).

Anyone tired of hearing, "I'm a single mom"? Truth is, the majority of "single moms" choose to be single moms. They usually don't fulfill their Christian or nature's obligation to stay with the father of their children (enough of the abuse speech).

How come it is when a woman gets pregnant, the man doesn't want the child, he is obligated for 18 years. But when the man wants the child, the woman doesn't, she can murder the child? She should be made to have the child and then give it to the father. After all, aren't equal rights what we are after? Remember, the woman isn't the giver of life, but a contributor to life. How about equality?

Anyone tired of announcements of birth, congratulations, or death and no father is listed, as if there is no father?

Anyone tired of sperm banks? They offer no scientific gain -- just another way for women to eliminate fathers.

How about if a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock, she does six months in prison? A second offense is two years in prison and a mandatory hysterectomy. This should not hurt the child because we put their fathers in jail all the time -- don't we?

Stop the annihilation of fathers. Stop the break-up of the American family.

We've given up control of our women; now women are out of control.
JOHN ZEIGLER
DOVER

Link: (http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_10358628?source=most_emailed)

The Truth Will Set You Free....

The Truth Behind the Custody Chaos

By Guest Writer, Hearts Voice

CHILDREN ARE THE ONES WHO SUFFER FROM THIS NARCISSISTIC PARENTAL ABUSE! THE ENTIRE FAMILY IS DESTROYED THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

Everyone who participates is responsible!

1) The Family Court: Seeks one parent over the other - here lays the problem. It took two to make the child and BOTH are responsible. Not one that is a parent and the other a paycheck! One the victor, the other the victim. The Courts encourage this betrayal of children because they want "child support" for funding - not because they think children only need one parent. It is communistic in design, to make money for the government at the expense of we, the people and our children. This has always been so, they just found a way to profit from the 50% divorce rate and the 27% of children being born out of wedlock. The States use divorce/unwed parenting to get federal funding and each state competes for currency at the expense of our children. They get more funding if children go into the system of DFCS (a living hell perpetuated by federal funding). They get more funding when they incarcerate without due process for non-payment of child support (debtors prison). They get more funding when your children end up on welfare or screwed up because they were torn from their own being as children when you went to Court and used them as daggers to kill the other parent. Gay marriage being legalized is another way to reach 11,000,000 million or more people to suck the life out of in family court when they attain the freedom to be screwed in the legal system like the rest of us through divorce and custody. Judges, in order to sleep at night, blame the attorneys as the vehicles who accomplish the massacre of the family, children and ultimately the economy. (75% of bankruptcies occur within two years of divorce/custody.) Judges know they profit from these “proceedings” as they have to report these hearings in order to get the funding and they are not supposed to rule in cases where they profit financially. Judges are neither trained, nor qualified, to determine custody.

2) Attorneys: Besides the Courts, attorneys prosper at the expense of our children. Attorneys are neither trained, nor qualified, to determine custody. As they perpetuate and manipulate this hate crime against the family their status and bank accounts expand. They call it “status quo” and even though in their hearts they know it’s wrong, damaging to children, and extremely prejudice, they follow the course of “correct” in the legal sense and accomplish more destruction. No wonder attorney suicides are beating out any other occupation these days. The surviving attorneys blame the parents.

3) Parents: With the courts and attorneys (who are not trained or qualified) setting the stage for profit, parents seem to have no choice, but to try to be the one to get sole custody. Women/mothers are the oil used in this money-making machine because they are much more cooperative at doing in the other parent - many believe the lies the courts and attorneys tell them - that children don't need fathers. And, fathers generally don't want to take a child from the mother, they just want to be the father, so they couldn’t be used as the “status quo” in general – it would bring their money-making machine to a halt. So, mothers/women, DO NOT believe you are granted sole custody (by unqualified judges and attorneys) because they think anything more of you than this – YOU are the daggers they use to sacrifice your own children for their profit! And, when fathers (less common because they rarely get the opportunity) do the same to a good mother, they are just as much the daggers.

4) Society: There is a mass confusion that mothers own children as property. Much like the old opinion of men owning women as property that women fought so hard to be set free from for centuries and some still do. Women have now gained the right to do to children what men did to them for millennium. Many mothers/women are using the same psychological warfare as abusive men have done for centuries over women – OWNED PROPERTY - yes, many women/mothers and many judges and attorneys and society in general, believe that women/mothers own children as property because of the 9 month gestation. Well, animals have multiple partners, give birth and nurse their young - that does not make them human mothers. A mother is only more than an animal when she cares about her children enough to NOT project her own heartache or anger onto her children and make them suffer for her will pleasure. If society wants to follow “natural law” or “nature” then the fundamental truth is clear – it takes TWO to create a child – not one. Wake up to the root of this belief, because it was (key word…was) the woman who typically stayed home to raise children and the men worked to support the family that these customs came to be. Now, women work and no one raises the children, and fathers are only a paycheck. It is wrong and it needs to change. For the children’s sake. With both parents working, children need both parents more than ever!!!

5) Women’s Groups/Women’s Rights: They had their place when women needed equal rights. Now, they exist to subjugate the equal rights of men, for their own survival and funding. These groups were formed to pave the road to give women equal rights in society – namely, the military and the work place. Women have attained those rights and now these groups exist solely for profit through imaginary righteousness (even domination) at the expense of children, by standing and blocking the way for men to get the fair exchange of equal rights in the home (those women left to go to work and to war). When in fact, these groups should have morphed and used the same tactics and strategies to set men free giving them equal rights in the home – namely, as homemakers and fathers (especially since they don’t have the positions in the work place or military any longer).

6) Mothers who take custody away from good fathers: How is the raising your children alone working out for you? Are you able to do this with integrity? Do you really prefer child support as money over someone who loves and cares about them as much as you do and that has involvement in their lives? Or, are you jealous of your own children being loved by someone who couldn’t love you? Is your satisfaction of breaking the father’s heart worth breaking your child’s heart? If you think so, then look at every word and action that confirms your “single parenting” and you will see that in it lays manipulation and power over others. Worse, psychological and emotional abuse of your children.

7) Good fathers who have custody taken away from them: If you haven’t lost your children completely in order to survive and you have standard visitation and you watch other men come in an out of your child’s life, you must think this entire world has gone mad – that this kind of torture could be “status quo”. We agree with you. The Courts and attorneys are not qualified to determine the custody of your children. The court-ordered parenting classes (where psychologists have become involved for the sake of children) even state that it is impossible to be a parent 4 days a month and in the summer. Studies show the #1 perpetrator of children isthe mother's paramour. You have much to overcome. You must be the first to dispel the lie that you are just a paycheck. You must be involved from sunrise to sunset in your children’s lives. Don’t let anyone push you out! We know you can do it, we’ve seen it. You are the pioneers on this frontier and you have an entire world that needs to change its mind about you. We know it’s painful, but don’t let the mother (or her paramour/husband) run you off. Don’t let your heart break over the alienation and surrender. Educate yourself. Have a vision – YOU are the vision – a new kind of man, a new kind of father. With the equal rights of women in the workplace, it is natural that the course will come for equal rights of men in the home. Keep your faith. You are not what they say you are. You are a parent. You are more important to your children than you will ever know. You have an idea who you are, that’s why it hurts so badly. Forget what they say, forget what they believe, stand firm in your belief that God/Nature gave you just as much rights and the world just has to catch up. Women paved the road of equal rights to get into the work place; Men can follow the same path, going the other direction – to the home. It is that simple and it is that time.

8) Children: think they are the cause of everything already. Children believe they are half mom/half dad. They need both of you! The courts have an excuse, they need the funding and they can blame the attorneys. The attorneys love the money and power and can blame the parents. The parents blame each other and that’s the design of those above you. The child blames themselves. Our children don't want to be involved in our adult narcissistic drama or used as currency to support the six digit salaries of strangers, they just want to live and be joyful and love whom they will. That’s what we love so much about them – don’t take it away! The "system" has its reasons and they do not love our children. Parents have no reason (most of the time) except bitterness and hatred that we project onto our own children and we’re supposed to love them. It’s impossible to trash the other parent and not trash your child. After all, it's YOUR FAULT who the other parent is - not theirs! So, stop making them suffer for YOUR mistakes! Wake up and stop the abuse of your own children! If the other parent is a good parent, forget the jealousy or anger and do what is right. Children are NOT a means to an end. Or, tools for profit and pain. They are precious life given to you for a second chance! They are suffering so we will wake up and finish the circle of equal rights. Only half the circle has been drawn – women in military and work – let us finish by bringing equal rights to men in the home and as parents. It’s a fair exchange.

9) Media: Find the truth in your own hearts and you will find more ratings, more advertisers, etc. than you ever imagined… when you stop supporting the prejudice and ignorance of : “status quo” of the Courts, the “drama” of attorneys, the “self-righteousness” of women’s groups… and, join in the revelation, the Frontier of the Future where the full circle of equality comes together supporting: Honorable Courts of Equality, attorneys as advocates for both genders, men’s rights groups are not necessary because we’re more evolved than that and it is common knowledge that men are entitled to equal rights in the home and as parents just as women are in the work place and military!

10) Gender Biased Used Against Children: This, my friends, is the final prejudice to overcome. When we accomplish this, we will really begin to move forward! For every time we try to split a child between male and female, mother and father, we split that child in two and ourselves as well. Each of us came in as children and we are created from the male and female becoming one. That one is us. We are each made of our mother and our father – male and female – and anything less or contrary to that Truth is absurd!

Hearts Voice is founder of,

AFTER © (Abused Families Task Force for Equal Rights)

Enotah District, Georgia, USA ~ AFTERenotah@yahoo.com