Welcome to the blog of the International Fathers and Children Coalition. We take pride in thoroughly researching our articles, checking our sources, and covering news that traditional media deliberately ignores or would not touch. For a full list of published articles see the "Table of Contents" page on the right, under "Pages."

Friday, June 29, 2012

VIDEO GOING VIRAL: Family Court Judge verbally abusing, threatening and intimidating a litigant, a pastor in the local church

by Eric Ross, Investigative Reporter, National Writers' Syndicate.

Family Court Judge Watkins, who
anointed himself to act as angry
Pagan God.
West Virginia, WINFIELD, Putnam County  –  Watch how this abusive family court judge screams his head off at a pastor in his courtroom, repeatedly threatens and berates him, then throws the book at him. 

Presumably, Judges are objective and courteous. – Really? See for yourself. This is not a TV reality show. It is reality. It is a must see. Please watch the whole video and listen carefully. (Should the video "disappear" from YouTube, just let us know, we will post a high quality digital video right here.)

The true nature of the judge’s ire comes through when he screams that the pastor should be dead by now, based on the judge’s prior orders. Apparently, the fact that the "man of God” is still alive is “evidence” of his “perjury” and the pastor does "nothing but lie in this courtroom!", at least according to the "fair-minded" Judge. This Judge admits a few times, by the way, that he is "too angry," except he self-righteously believes that he has all the rights to be angry, as all sociopaths do. Judge repeatedly screams at the quiet, meek, speechless pastor, “Shut up!” and threatens to make the “man of God” rot in jail for life. He even orders an appointment of a criminal prosecutor for alleged "violations" of the Judge's order. What is the violation? – The pastor dared to file a complaint against the judge's decisions and against the issuance of an order of protection against the pastor. Because it is business as usual in the family courts of America, the theatrical performance by this judge is a must see!

The judge went ballistic because he assumed, among other things, that pastor Hage published an article in the local on-line news outlet, PutnamLIVE.com, about Judge Watkins'  late payments to the condominium where he lives. The judge was wrong: it was the publisher of PutnamLIVE, who wrote the article, entirely on his own volition.  Judge Watkins screams at the pastor, "I will personally make sure that you will never see a free day in your life! You are going to jail!" While the pastor is silent, the Judge repeatedly screams, "Shut up!"

A parishioner who accompanied the pastor to the court, filed a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Conduct.  

Also, as the video has gone viral, the man of God is now suing "the Judge who acts like he's God," for $5 million.  

What makes it different this time, is that there is a video of this Judge’s abuse of power. (Now you know why New York Courts guard themselves from cameras in the courtroom, as if video cameras were machine guns aimed straight at them.) He acts like a sadistic tyrant, enjoying unlimited power to abuse a litigant. He makes these threats before starting the proceeding, probably mistakenly assuming that the video is not on until he begins the proceeding "officially." 

Pastor Art Hage, the Man of God, as
Judge Watkins mockingly calls him.
"Christians that love God... will come
because they want to help other
he said about his 2011

project to remove the strip club "Pink 
Pony." Apparently, his message 
stepped on too many toes.
In addition to screaming at pastor Art Hage, Putnam Family Law Judge William M. "Chip" Watkins III will have to answer why he ordered Paul D. Bentley, one of the minister's parishioners, out of the courthouse.

In his complaint, Bentley says when the bailiff came into the waiting room following Watkins' screaming tirade, he suggested the bailiff get Watkins "a glass of bourbon and give him 2 Xanax to calm him down."  As the bailiff re-enters the courtroom, Judge Watkins asks the pastor about this man, "Did you bring along a comedian, Mr. Hage?" When Hage replied "He's my chauffer, sir," Watkins snidely remarks, "He's your chauffer!" Then Judge Watkins growled to the bailiff, "Out of the building. I want him out of the building right now. If he smiles, I want him in here to answer what's so damn funny."
Hage's wife, Lillian, alleged he abused both her and their daughters... Sixty three year old Hage says these claims are absolutely false, and his grown-up daughters (all of them over 20) would know how to stand up to abuse, if there ever was any. Hage said Watkins filed a protective order against him hastily and without merit.

In his moving papers, the pastor wrote:
"My prayer is that you would consider these statements that I have made and act upon them... There is much more that could be said...
All that I am asking is that the words that are embedded on the outside of the Putnam County Courthouse 'Equal Justice for All' be adhered to."
Hage wants an order rescinding the protective order against him.  He said he wants a fair and unbiased judge to hear his case. But that, pastor, will take much more than a prayer.

This video is quite educational; it has gone viral for a reason; make sure it becomes widely known. It is high time the abusive sociopaths in power are put in the spotlight of public scrutiny for what they really are.
Watkins Screams At Hage In Court
Family Law Judge Threatens Putnam County Pastor. PutnamLIVE

Video shows Putnam judge yelling at Hurricane pastor in court. State Journal.

Watkins accused of ejecting man from courthouse without cause. 
The Record, West Virginia Legal Journal

Family Court Judge and Pastor Feud Caught on Tape in Explosive Rant. The Church Report

'It's been a haven of evil': Pastor wants to spend $800,000 turning Pink Pony strip club into church.
Daily Mail, UK


Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Mother Accused of Tormenting Infant, Sending Videos of Child Abuse to the Baby's Father

Kellie Park
A 20-year-old Connecticut mother Kellie Park was arrested June 20 and remains in custody in lieu of $50,000 bail, while her child is in the care of the Department of Children and Families, according to police.  Police said she sent videos of herself abusing and tormenting her 10-month-old daughter to her child’s biological father.

Erick Vece, the child’s father, stated that Kellie Park sent him text 55 text messages in a span of about an hour, threatening to bash his daughter’s face in and the videos to his cell phone of her actually doing so, the arrest warrant stated.

Vece told police he had gone shopping that morning and left his cell phone in the car. When he returned to his car, there were 50 to 55 text messages, which he did not view until he arrived at his father’s residence and parked. When in his father’s home, Vece said he viewed 7 videos of Park abusing his child. He showed the videos to his father who immediately called police, according to court documents.

The Child abused by her  Mother
from Hell
Excerpts of the text messages police say Park sent to Vece include: “I’ll [expletive] break her face,” “I’ll beat her [expletive] face in,” “call the cops do me the favor fat pig,” and “I love abusing this kid,” according to the arrest warrant.

Police were able to extract the videos and text messages Park sent to Vece’s cell phone. Police confirmed there were a total of 8 video messages, 7 of which the child can be seen in, according to the arrest warrant.
Investigators say in each of the videos, the child was being tormented, berated, and assaulted by Park; the child appeared to be traumatized and seemed to be crying in pain as a result of Park’s actions, according to the arrest warrant.

According to the arrest warrant, the following videos were seen by police:

Video #1 depicts the child sitting on the floor while Park says, “eat stuff off the floor, this is what your dad wants to make me do.”
Video #2 depicts the child sitting in a high chair while Park asks her if she is hungry and pours/throws food on her.
Video #3 depicts the child sitting on the living room floor with her diaper off. Park says “here’s some more garbage, have a ball with no diaper, maybe you can wear a [expletive] diaper, I don’t care, play with cigarettes.”
Video #4 depicts the child standing up behind a gate as Park kicks the gate on top of her causing the child to fall under the gate. Park says to her crying child “don’t you get it, your father doesn’t care, so guess what, I’m not gonna care.”
Video #5 depicts a woman with a knife in her right hand making a cutting motion across the inside portion of her left wrist. There was no blood visible. Vece told police the woman in the video has the same tattoo as Park.
Video #6 depicts Park taking the child out of the high chair and putting her in a pack and play. Park then shakes the pack and play back and forth. At one point, Park is heard saying “shake it up” then tilts it to one side causing the child to fall out onto the floor. Park then puts her foot on the child’s chest.
Video #7 depicts the child on the floor while Park is pushing the child with her feet and says “roll over, you not worth a half cigarette, not worth [expletive], roll over…yeah your father says I’m not worth something.”
Video #8 depicts Park pushing the child with her feet telling the child she makes her life miserable and that she hates her. Park says “stop before you get hurt, stop, I’m gonna hurt you,” at which point Park freaked out.

Before police received a call about the videos, investigators learned Park had been sent to the Yale New Haven Hospital after she threatened to kill herself talking to herself -- an afterthought and adroit use of acting skills, most likely, to quickly create extenuating circumstances. (While the Police may not say it, we can.)

Badass girl Kellie Park is likely to act an "abused" Mommie now.
The 20-year-old mother fled when she was released from the Hospital, but was later tracked down in New Haven by Connecticut police officers assigned to federal marshals, the New Haven Register reported. Park was subsequently charged with risk of injury to a minor, cruelty to persons, threatening in the 2nd the degree, and assault in the 3rd degree. She will appear in court on July 11, 2012.

Officers were not aware of the abuse at the time of Park’s hospitalization.
Authorities said the child is now in the custody of her maternal grandmother, who is also seeking custody of Park’s 2-year-old, the Courant reported. Park faces charges of assault, risk of injury to a child, cruelty to persons and second-degree threatening.

Park and Vece also have an allegedly violent history. Vece was arrested in March on charges of domestic violence, and an Order of Protection was issued on behalf of Park against Vece, court documents show.


New York Daily News:

New Heaven Register:


Women Who Are Pure Evil

help us continue to speak the truth and stand up for your rights

WARNING: This video below is about horrific abuse... of an 8-months-old baby by the baby's mother. It is extremely disturbing.  My apologies to those fathers here, whose children were murdered as a result of the "decision and order" of a "Family Court" placing all custody with abusive mothers. Be warned, this footage is especially painful to watch if you lost a child to the legal mafia.

The mass media, controlled by the gender-feminist special interests, is engaged in a blackout of coverage of such "politically incorrect" events. According to the US Government ( Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families)  statistics of children victimization, biological mothers are more than 3 times more likely to severely abuse their children. Thus, in children's fatalities which resulted from abuse, "mothers only" were responsible for 32.4% of deaths, "mother & other" -- for 11.6% of children's deaths.  "Fathers only" -- for 14.2%, and "father & other" for a small fraction of 1.5%. (So embarrassing are these stats to the feminist officialdom, that the government stopped collecting these data in 2001.)

Placing the child in sole custody of the mother may be fatal, as some readers of this blog have found out through their personal tragic, and extremely painful experience, courtesy of Feminazi judges, such as Linda "The Child Abuser" Christopher for whom evidence means nothing. The feminazi bitch makes "difficult decisions," as she calls them, quite easily, deciding cases in gross violation of the US Constitution, New York State Constitution and NY Judiciary law at ex parte hearings with her former cohort in Legal Aid, Jacqueline Sands, behind the fathers' backs, in absence of their attorneys.

And finally, a video of the "cultural hegemony" by the vulgar, overpaid, fat and disgusting "cultural symbols" of feminist America, gloating and poking non-stop fun into a horrific act of sexual mutilation by a woman, who cut off her husband's genitals and chopped them into tiny bits with a kitchen garbage disposal. The "cultural hegemons," the bitches of the "cultural vanguard" of America are having major fun: they think out loud on America's national television broadcast all over the world that what she did was "quite fabulous!"
She should have just tossed the penis into the dog's bowl, letting it "chew on the old bone."  And they can think of a few things, which if their husbands did, they would cut off their penises, too -- following the suit by this criminal sociopath. A non-stop, penis-cutting, ball-breaking, fabulous fun fest!

Wake up, America! Feminists are ideological haters and sociopath monsters, third wave, or any wave.

Posted by Eric Ross, Ph.D.

Saturday, June 23, 2012

U.K. Government Press Release: "Co-operative Parenting Following Family Separation: Proposed Legislation on the Involvement of Both Parents in a Child's Life"


The U.K. Department of Education issued the following Press Release (or “Press Notice” in the U.K.), reproduced herein in its entirety. Here is what you absolutely MUST do − send an email, expressing your support for this legislation to:


Proposals to enable children to see both their parents are launched

Press notice date:13 June 2012

Plans to strengthen the law so children continue to see both parents if they separate have been put forward by ministers today.

The Government believes that where it is safe and in the child’s best interest, the law should make it clearer that children benefit from having both parents actively involved in their lives, with both sharing responsibility in decisions about their upbringing.

The majority of parents who separate reach their own agreements for their children. However, Ministers are concerned that when disputes arise one of the first things that can be overlooked is ensuring children have a strong relationship with both parents.

Children’s Minister Tim Loughton said:
“Our starting point is that we want most parents to resolve disputes out of court, wherever possible - that’s why we are investing in and promoting family mediation services and other support to help parents reach agreements in their child’s best interests.
But we must improve the system where court cannot be avoided – where disputes are intractable or complex or children’s welfare is at risk. 
We need to clarify and restore public confidence that the courts fully recognise the joint nature of parenting.  We want the law to be far more explicit about the importance of children having an ongoing relationship with both their parents after separation, where that is safe and in the child's best interests.
Where parents are able and willing to play a positive role in their child’s care, they should have the chance to do so. This is categorically not about giving parents equal right to time with their children – it is about reinforcing society’s expectation that mothers and fathers should be jointly responsible for their children’s upbringing.”
Current legislation sets out the clear principle that a child’s welfare is always paramount in any family court decision about their future. But the benefit of ongoing involvement with both parents is not explicitly stated in law – although it is factored into decisions.

Ministers believe this creates a perception the law does not fully recognise both parents’ roles and there is an inbuilt bias towards one or other parent.

Today’s consultation sets out four options for amending the Children Act 1989 to enshrine shared parenting in law. Ministers believe this will encourage more separated parents to resolve disputes out of court and agree care arrangements that fully involve them both.

The proposals make clear that any change is categorically not about equality in time that a child spends with each parent after separation. They state explicitly, there is no intention that equal time, or indeed, any prescribed notion of an ‘appropriate’ division of time, should be the starting point of a court’s consideration.

The consultation also asks how to toughen sanctions to enforce breaches of court orders regarding care arrangements – including, where there is a wilful refusal to comply with the court, short-term punitive action to protect the longer-term interests of the child.

The existing sanctions of a fine or imprisonment for contempt of court, or an order to undertake unpaid work, are not often used. The Government is considering extending these sanctions to reinforce the message that court orders are not the starting point in negotiations but are the court's considered decision about what is best for the child and must be abided by.

This plan was first proposed in February – as part of the Government’s response to the independent Family Justice Review Panel.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said:
“Both parents have a responsibility and a role to play in their children's upbringing and we want to make sure that, when parents separate, the law recognises that. Children should have the benefit of contact with both of their parents through an ongoing relationship with them. This is why we are publishing proposals today setting out that, where it is safe and in the child's best interest, the law is clear that both parents share responsibility in their upbringing.”
Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly said:

"Far too often I see cases where parents automatically seek a court order to solve a dispute over the arrangements for their children. This is not the only or, in many cases, even the best option and I want all parents to know that. 
We want to see parents using mediation, where appropriate, before they begin court action. Mediation can be an effective alternative in these cases. It means separated families can find their own solutions for getting on with providing a stable environment for their children and avoid drawn-out court hearings. 
We want to send a strong message to any parent who ignores the arrangements ordered by a court. In the future, these breaches will be brought back to court within weeks and before the same judge wherever possible. If any parent flouts a court order then effective enforcement measures will be made available to the judge."
SOURCE: www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/inthenews/a00210258/proposals-to-enable-children-to-see-both-their-parents-are-launched
Ads by Google

Friday, June 22, 2012

Barbara Kay: Britain strikes first major blow for father’s rights

British Parliament with The Big Ban Tower

Read this and weep! 

This is major news!

Rule, Britannia!

As the financial crisis in Europe unfolds and Europe drowns in multi-trillion Euro debt, the cautious voices among economists speak of a coming of a major inflation spiraling out of control, of civil unrest, and a possibility of war. The British ruling elites seem to realize that now is a bad time to continue pandering to the whims of self-serving feminists, and that "the social costs of fatherlessness can no longer be borne."  Unlike their arrogant American counterparts, the British elites know how to survive, how to live and let live. As she always does, Barbara Kay in her article below gives you nothing but the truth. (Eric Ross, Ph.D.)

Barbara Kay: Britain strikes first major blow for father’s rights

Barbara Kay.  First published Jun 14, 2012 
The first radical shake-up of family courts in decades is under way in the U.K. A dramatic list of consequences will befall any breach of court orders that flout court-endorsed arrangements for the care of children of separated parents. Children’s Minister Tim Loughton will announce that the Children Act 19879, which states that the child comes first in law courts, will be rewritten.

They should better mark the occasion with a 30-salvo salute in London
Henceforth the preferred option for the courts will be “the presumption that a child’s welfare is likely to furthered through safe involvement with both parents.” That is, in the absence of abuse, equal parenting, exactly the template we have been patiently awaiting in Canada, will be the default for splitting couples. Furthermore, mothers who refuse to permit access to the children may lose their passports, their driving licences or even their freedom of movement if they fail to comply.

This is a happy, but somewhat shocking, development for those in the global Fathers Rights community. For years objective observers in all western countries have hammered away at the double standards imposed in family court under the influence of feminist ideology, but it has been water dripping on a stone. The template has remained stubbornly pro-mother and anti-father. When custody disputes cannot be amicably resolved, courts routinely assign sole custody to mothers. Swift and often draconian penalties attend any failure to pay support by men, including jail time, but women who habitually and arbitrarily deny fathers court-ordered time with their children are rarely even threatened with repercussions, let alone punished. Here in Canada, the attitude of family courts was best summed up in 2003 by then Liberal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, who said with regard fathers who were denied parenting status, “Men have no rights, only responsibilities.”

Why the sudden reversal in the U.K.? Well, about one in five children from a broken home in Britain loses touch with the non-custodial parent (almost always the father) within three years and never sees them again. The social costs of fatherlessness can no longer be borne. So the dramatic turnaround represents acknowledgement of a truth that has long been apparent to anyone not blinkered by ideology: the absence of fathers in children’s lives is producing very bad social effects that exhaustive research links with fatherlessness: loss of self-esteem, truancy, delinquency, promiscuity, risk of sexual abuse, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, poor intimacy abilities in later life – and many others.

A Fathers-4-Justice demonstration
There was once a time – “Mad Men” time – when mothers stayed home and looked after the kids and fathers went out to work. It made sense that courts should privilege mothers as the children’s main caregiver, while fathers bore the financial burden of their care. But those days are gone forever. Parenting roles today are almost equal in intact homes, and there is no reason why they should not be equal in dissolved unions.

A May 12 article in the Wall Street Journal, “Are Dads the New Moms?” examines the changed role of men in the lives of their children. Men are redefining themselves. They are taking their fatherly responsibilities very seriously, whether they are married or not. As the article notes, “The age of dads as full partners in parenting has arrived.”

Research confirms the prevalence of co-parenting. A recent U.S. Census Bureau report finds 32% of fathers with working lives playing the dominant role in child care. Other research finds that it is not the occasional outings or trips to Disneyland that bond children to their fathers, but “fathers’ steady emotional connection that makes the most substantial difference to their children.”

Canada’s own resident expert on custody and the influence of father absence in children’s lives, UBC Professor of sociology, Edward Kruk, has written extensively on the desperate need for children to maintain bonds with both parents after their separation. His findings show that a child’s needs cannot be met by a single parent, however loving. A child must spend at least 40% of his time with a parent to establish and maintain a beneficial attachment. Substantial time spent with both parents is also the only way to reduce or eliminate the nightmare of parental alienation, which is easily nurtured by a vengeful spouse who has near-fulltime control of children.

Barbara Kay
In his book Fatherless America, David Blankenhorn calls father absence “the most destructive trend of our generation.” A recent British report, Dad and Me, makes the same claim, suggesting that “father deficit” should be targeted as a pubic health issue.

That’s an excellent suggestion. For we are talking about what makes a society healthy – it all begins with happy, confident children – and what makes it sick – unhappy children with low self-esteem. Some pandemics must await a medical vaccine before they can be stopped. Here is a pandemic for which a proven vaccine is sitting on the shelf: a legal presumption of equal parenting after parents separate. Injection of the vaccine will only hurt for a second, and it will help to cure a diversity of social diseases.

Reprinted from the National Post

Meanwhile, the carnage in the USA continues. Why?

Thursday, June 21, 2012

New York adopts Cyberbullying – A Victory for Parents? – Maybe. At least not defeat.

                                                                            By Eric Ross, Ph.D.    June-20, 2012

Following the passage of cyberbullying legislation in NY, electronic communications such as text messaging, blogs and social networking sites will be targets for New York schools’ anti-bullying strategies, following the passage of cyberbullying legislation.
This legislation is a far cry from the anti-First Amendment bills that were proposed and feverishly promoted by Republicans and Democrats on the pretext of “protecting children.” This measure effectively throws into the garbage the other four bills, aimed at criminalizing children and criminalizing political free speech on the Internet.  So, in this respect New York parents and political activists can now breath a collective sigh of relief.

Let's take a step back and have another look at the attack on the Political Freedom of Speech, bills A.8688 / S.6779.  State Senator O’Mara (R-District 53), Assemblymen Dean Murray (R,C-East Patchogue), Jim Conte (R-10th district), Phil Palmesano (R-C, Corning) and many more. According to Murray and O’Mara, passage of their Act would “…cut down on cyberbullying, protect small businesses such as restaurants from unfounded, negative reviews and, naturally, protect politicians from baseless, derogatory attacks during campaign time.” Hmm,  that last concern must have been nothing, but afterthought!  

There are plenty of "baseless, derogatory attacks", because there is no lack of stupid people.
If, as a politician,  you can't stand the heat, just get out of the kitchen.

Another bill was seeking to criminalize just about anything a child might say on the Internet, that an enterprising lawyer would gleefully interpret as "cyberbullying." The proponents of this "masterpiece" to secure massive cash flows from parents to legal eagles (S.6132) were N.Y.S. Democratic Senators Jeffrey D. Klein (D-Bronx/Westchester), Senator Diane Savino (D-North Shore/Brooklyn ), Senator David Valesky (D-Oneida), and Senator David Carlucci (D-Rockland/Orange).  In their self-proclaimed "definitive report" they went as far as suggesting that Freedom of Speech is not a fundamental right of the people, guaranteed by the US Constitution, but a "privilege," which then may be taken away by some dimwit government bureaucrat.

So arrogant were all these self-important law makers that they even blissfully ignored the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Even now that their bills were defeated, these politicos spin the one adopted as their victory, despite the fact that what they insisted on until the last moment was "criminalization."

As an alleged "serious societal problem," “Cyberbullying” is really nonsense that the busybodies in the NY Legislature were self-servingly promoting.  Some were hoping to line up their pockets with parents’ money by criminalizing children. Others were going after their political critics. Being overbroad from the Constitutional perspective, these bills rightfully belonged on the political graveyard. 

It looks as if Governor Andrew Cuomo, mindful if his own Presidential aspirations perhaps, but also to acknowledge the four Democratic senators, steered overall legislative efforts towards a compromise, allowing them to save face, but steering clear off Constitutional violations.

The real winners of this unnecessary legislature, as it was thus adopted, were the GBLTQ community and the advocates of “Political Correctness.” Aside from the use of PC to influence the pop culture, I see no immediate harm coming out of this bill, except School District bureaucrats may find a way. 

Despite a push from four Democratic senators, this bill will not impose criminal penalties specifically for cyberbullying. The final legislation is limited to awareness and reporting. 
The openly gay Manhattan Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell, a former public defender, called it “the right approach.” He argued that the law already provides for penalties if cyberbullying escalates to a criminal level. “There’s no place for this in the criminal justice system,” he said about attempts to criminalize cyberbulluing. “All of the research, all of the experts, say that is the wrong approach. If you assault someone, you assault them. You don’t need to expand that.”  

It is not a coincident that a gay legislator speaks on the legislation effecting GBLTQ community. The idea that “assault” is a physical action, not some mean-spirited verbiage posted somewhere on the Internet is what we have been saying all along, as well. The fact that a legislator who speaks up on the issue of how idiotic is the idea of criminalizing speech as “assault” happened to be gay is purely coincidental.

He said that the cyberbullying component of the Dignity law will take effect next year in order to give schools time to incorporate the changes. He said that the bill, which protects all students, represents an especially important next step for LGBT individuals after the passage of marriage equality legislation in the state last year. 
O’Donnell said in a telephone interview. “People are coming out at a much younger age, coming to terms with their sexuality at a younger age. Because of those positive changes, that also means that kids are at risk. I can’t find a gay person growing up who wasn’t bullied.”

And so, the measure, which defines “cyberbullying” as “harassment or bullying that occurs through any form of electronic communication,” extends Dignity law, which goes into effect in July 2012, after a two-year implementation period. It prohibits harassment in schools on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, a law with specific protections for transgender individuals.

According to a news release from the New York state assembly, the cyberbullying amendment to Dignity law will “establish protocols to respond to cyberbullying, harassment, bullying and discrimination, including designating a school official to receive and promptly investigate reports; take actions to prevent recurrences; coordinate with law enforcement when appropriate; and develop a bullying prevention strategy; and provide notice to all school community members of the school's policies. It would also set training requirements for current and new school employees.” 

The cyberbullying component of the Dignity law will take effect next year in order to give schools time to incorporate the changes, said Assemblymember Daniel O’Donnell, who also spearheaded the Dignity effort. “What this Dignity bill does is, if reasonably foreseen that it would cause major school disruption, then the schools are permitted to discipline. We define cyberbullying and include cyberbullying within the confines of the Dignity bill.”

Students today live in a cyber-world – it’s how most choose to communicate,” said Senator Stephen Saland, the Republican from Poughkeepsie, who sponsored the bill, in a statement. 
“It’s also how many are cyberbullied -- whether through messaging, emails or social networking sites, it’s difficult for victims to escape the 24/7 exposure to threats, bullying or discrimination. With this new law, when cyberbullying impedes a student’s ability to learn, victims and their parents will now have the ability to report the incidents to school districts to investigate.  This is a critically needed step toward ensuring a safe school environment.” 

-- Aren’t kids supposed to study in school, instead of texting? To have good friends, instead of “faceboook friends”?

Some in the NYS Senate Dig-in Their Heels, Declaring the Fight is Not Over to Criminalize and Legislate Human Behavior and Lack of Manners

Sen. Carlucci seems to vow to "continue our fight to end Cyberbullying": 

Cyberbullying is finally getting its day in Albany, as state lawmakers and I have finally said, “Enough is enough.” The truth of the matter is that this is a national epidemic affecting our children, many of whom are tormented so severely that they contemplate taking their own lives rather than endure any further harassment. With the proliferation of new technologies, bullies have made their way from the schoolyard to the Internet, with new, vicious ways to harass and intimidate each day.
Albany has acted boldly; students in New York now finally will be taught about the dangers and warning signs of cyberbullying. At the same time, teachers and administrators now will be required to respond aggressively to it. It will be defined for what it is — harassment, taunting, and threats through social media and text messaging. The bottom line is that our children need to have confidence that they are protected, and parents need to have faith that their child’s school will take swift action to stem the epidemic.
I am proud to support this common-sense legislation, as we continue our fight to end cyberbullying throughout our state.
                                                                             David Carlucci
                                                                             New City
The writer, a Democrat, is a New York state senator, representing District 38.

Senator Diane Savino suggests that this is just a first step, and that instead of a direct frontal assault, State Senators may engage in a creep upon the Constitution, piecemeal, one stupid law at a time.  She commented on her Facebook page on the passage of Cyberbullying law: 
" a fair first step, but, it is not enough. if it is a crime to to [sic] stalk me or harass me by snail mail, why not by email?"
-- Well, Senator, it is because to stalk or harass by email is already a crime, and any TRO specifically says so. Your law proposals, meanwhile, spoke broadly about Internet at large,  including discussion forums, commercial and non-profit websites and social media. They defined "cyberbullying" broadly as "anything your heart desires, honey." Your argument with "email" is disingenuous.  Criminalization of the lack of manners would be an inexhaustible source of money for lawyers, and would bring untold suffering upon the "unwashed masses."  It is about time you became true Democrats, defending the interests of the People, instead of the privileged elites. 

I believe that legislative proposals, such as A.8688 / S.6779, S.6132 and  S.6614A to criminalize and legislate human behavior, such as lack of manners in electronic communications, are deliberately overbroad, serving to secure cash flows for trial lawyers at the expense of the general population, especially so the school-age children and their parents. One man's rudeness is another woman's speech mannerism. Children should be taught better how to behave, not dragged to court on criminal charges, and possibly stigmatized for life, if they are rude, obnoxious in behavior or verbally abusive. If you watched any of today's "children's" movies and their sequels, such as "Dumb and dumber, " "Jackass," "Dictator," or "That's My Boy" -- the children are literally brainwashed, enticed and encouraged by our "popular culture" to behave disrespectfully and to be verbally demeaning to others.

There's overwhelming evidence from numerous reputable peer-reviewed studies that such behavior (not to mention outright criminal behavior) in Children is a direct result of the forcible removal of fathers from the lives of their children, which – based on the 95% statistic of custody to mothers – seems to be the "mission" of the family courts, often acting in gross violation of due process.  "According to 72.2 % of the U.S. population, fatherlessness is the most significant family or social problem facing America." (Source: National Center for Fathering, founded in 1990 by Dr. Ken R. Canfield; Fathering in America Poll, January, 1999.) In the U.K. last week, the British government has finally come to its senses, because the social costs of fatherlessness there can no longer be borne. Last week, the British government announced that from this point forward, the preferred option in family court will be “the presumption that a child’s welfare is likely to be furthered through safe involvement with both parents.”

With the US beating each and every world "record" in absolute and per capita numbers of incarcerated, we need more "criminalization" like a hole in the head.  It pays the lawyers' bills, but it bleeds the country dry. The numbers of men in US prisons far exceeds those for the most populous countries such as China and India. 

Monday, June 18, 2012

Mock the Vote

By David Heleniak, Esq  

Jesse Ventura, when he's not talking about 9-11, makes a lot of sense. Describing the two party system to Larry King, he said,
[W]hat you have today is like walking into the grocery store and you go to the soft drink department, and there is only Pepsi and Coke. Those are the two you get to choose from. There is no Mountain Dew, no Root Beer, no Orange. They're both Colas; one is slightly sweeter than the other, depending on which side of the aisle you are on.
In an interview with Newsmax, he described politicians in the two party system as pro wrestlers.
In pro wrestling, out in front of the people, we make it look like we all hate each other and want to beat the crap out of each other, and that's how we get your money, [and get you to] come down and buy tickets. They're the same thing. Out in front of the public and the cameras, they hate each other, are going to beat the crap out of each other, but behind the scenes they're all going to dinner, cutting deals. And [they're] doing what we did, too — laughing all the way to the bank. And that to me is what you have today, in today's political world, with these two parties.
Jesse's right. Our political system is a farce. This year, we have running for president a warmonger who's a reluctant socialist versus a socialist who's a reluctant warmonger. We have two parties that claim they're different, but when the Establishment, the Complex, our shadowy overlords, whatever you want to call them, really want something, they get it. When the Establishment wanted the Bailout in the face of almost universal grassroots opposition, they got it. When the Complex wanted immunity to the telecoms who knowingly spied on Americans, they got it. When our shadowy overlords wanted stormtroopers to brutally stifle protesters during the party conventions, they got it.

But even if voters had a real choice — and even if the politicians followed the majority will on issues that matter — the system would still most likely be a farce. As Augustine observed, without justice, a government is nothing but a band of thieves. Augustine was writing about kingdoms, but his insight applies to democracies as well. Without justice, the ability of the subjects of a government to vote on the laws and rulers that govern them doesn't make a government any more legitimate than an unjust monarchy. And the founders of this country did not believe democracies were likely to be just.

As Walter Williams points out,
We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny.
In Democracy: The God That Failed, Hans-Hermann Hoppe notes that
it is difficult to find many proponents of democracy in the history of political theory. Almost all major thinkers had nothing but contempt for democracy. Even the Founding Fathers of the U.S., nowadays considered the model of democracy, were strictly opposed to it. Without a single exception, they thought of democracy as nothing but mob-rule.
In order to create a just government, the founders established a constitutionally limited republic, in which the popular vote was to be just one check among many. Notably, the word "democracy" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Yet today, the word is sacred. As election day approaches, Americans dutifully watch inane debates, respectfully watch commercials in which celebrities harangue them to "rock the vote" or other such nonsense, and compulsively ask each other who they're going to vote for.

On election day, they go to the polls as if they were receiving Holy Communion and then go through the rest of the day wearing "I Voted" stickers as if these stickers were ashes on Ash Wednesday. Pat Buchanan calls the blind reverence to and awe of the seemingly divine force of democracy "democracy worship." He notes it was the prospect of spreading democracy to the Middle East that ultimately convinced The Decider to decide on war in Iraq. So how did we get from the founder's deep suspicion of majority rule to the deification of democracy?

Once, humans lived in small bands and were free. True, life was dangerous, but no one told you what to do. As Philip Jackson explains,
Men might hunt individually or in groups. But when they cooperated, leadership was not based on official rank, but rather on one hunter proposing a group hunt and recruiting others to follow him. None were compelled to follow, however, and different hunts might have different leaders based on the relative charisma of different individuals at different times. Women needed even less coordination. With them leadership would be more a matter of the wiser or more skilled giving advice as the need arose.
Then came the great collusion, followed by the long oppression. As humans increased in number and food became harder to come by, bands became tribes and tribes became chiefdoms. Big Chief, hungry for power, convinced the high priest to delude the people to his consent. Big Chief was divinely appointed, they were told, and maybe even divine himself. Therefore, the people must do what he says.

Murray Rothbard (1926–1995), economist, historian, and political theorist, was one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. Perhaps Rothbard's greatest achievement was his identification of the "court intellectual." In contrast to the masses, who "do not create their own ideas, or indeed think through these ideas independently," intellectuals are society's opinion shapers. The court intellectual is the intellectual who, "in return for a share of, a junior partnership in, the power and pelf offered by the rest of the ruling class, spins the apologias for state rule with which to convince a misguided public."

Until recently, the propaganda put out by the court intellectuals was linked to traditional religion. To quote Rothbard again,
particularly potent among the intellectual handmaidens of the State was the priestly caste, cementing the powerful and terrible alliance of warrior chief and medicine man, of Throne and Altar. The State "established" the Church and conferred upon it power, prestige, and wealth extracted from its subjects. In return, the Church anointed the State with divine sanction and inculcated this sanction into the populace.In the West, the myth of the divine right of kings held sway until the Enlightenment.
According to Keith Preston, "A principal achievement of the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries was the demolition of the notion of the divine right of kings." The word "enlightenment" may conjure up images of a man sitting in the lotus position on a mountaintop, at one with the universe, but in regard to the time period, enlightenment refers not to mystical insight but to the realization that much of the received wisdom — including the myth of the divine right of kings — was a pack of lies. With the courage to question the lies and disseminate their conclusions, the writers of the Enlightenment began a revolution in thought that culminated in the Declaration of Independence.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712—1778),
"the modern state's evil prophet.,"
the "Democracy worshiper."
Unfortunately, at the same time they were knocking down one pillar of the old order, another writer, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, was planting the seeds of democracy worship. In Rousseau's mystical vision of a society governed by what he called the "general will," each of us would put "his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we [would] receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole." The resulting sovereign, "being formed wholly of the individuals who compose it, neither [would have] … nor … [could] have any interest contrary to theirs; and consequently the sovereign power [would] need give no guarantee to its subjects. In his imagined world, "[t]he Sovereign, merely by virtue of what it is, [would] … always [be] what it should be."

James Bovard, who calls Rousseau the "modern state's evil prophet," contends that in promoting his concept of the "general will," Rousseau "unleashed the genie of absolute power in the name of popular sovereignty, which had hitherto been unknown."

Rousseau's concept of the general will proved irresistible to future court intellectuals, as it perfectly conflated society and state — a useful trick indeed. Rothbard wrote,

With the [subsequent] rise of democracy, it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense: such as "we are the government." The useful collective term "we" has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If "we are the government," then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and tyrannical; it is also "voluntary" on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must he paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we owe it to ourselves"; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to himself" and therefore nothing untoward has occurred.
Observing the power of "the myth that says we are governing ourselves," Lew Rockwell notes that whereas "[k]ings of old would have been overthrown in short order if they had tried to grab 40 percent of people's earnings, or told them how big to make their toilet tanks, or determined how schools taught every subject," modern Americans "turn a blind eye to petty tyrannies in our midst."

As Bovard comments, it is as if "[b]eing permitted to vote for politicians who enact unjust, oppressive new laws magically converts the stripes on prison shirts into emblems of freedom."

Voltaire  (1694-1778):
"Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities."
Wise up, America. There's nothing special about 50% plus one. Truth and justice cannot be determined by a show of hands. We are not the government. Voting is not a sacrament. And as it stands today, when we're only given a choice between two Establishment-approved candidates, voting is a joke.

Voltaire, the undisputed leader of the Enlightenment, used humor and wit as two of his primary weapons, and, as Robert Ingersoll remarked, "In the presence of absurdity he laughed…" It was largely by making the divine right of kings a laughing stock that the Enlightenment writers destroyed it. It is time for us to do the same thing to the divine right of the majority.

This year, vote laughing or stay home.

A note from Eric Ross, Ph.D.: David Heleniak is a New Jersey attorney and the author of the well-researched book Rousseau and the Real Culture War. This article reprinted above went viral in 2008, reprinted by many alternative media outlets. It is reproduced here from http://mises.org/daily/3170 with permission by the author, a member of the advisory board of NCFM.ORG

Some more quotations on the Tyranny of the Majority:

The phrase "tyranny of the majority" was coined by John Adams in 1788, when he published A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, Vol. 3 (London: 1788), p. 291.

“It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”                                    Alexander Hamilton June 21, 1788

“The world is weary of statesmen whom democracy has degraded into politicians.”
                                                                      British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli -1850

“The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise.”
                                                                        Duke of Northumberland 1931

“I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both.”
                                                                        Thomas Babington Macaulay
“Democracy forever teases us with the contrast between its ideals and its realities, between its heroic possibilities and its sorry achievements.
                                                                         Agnes Repplier

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
                                                                           C.S. Lewis

A good politician under democracy is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar.
                                                                           H.L. Mencken

Nothing...is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.
                                                                        Thomas Jefferson (letter to John Cartwright, 1824)