Friday, November 25, 2011

I am not now, and will not be in the future, a candidate for public office.

I am not now, and will not be in the future, a candidate for public office.

It is inconceivable to me that my circumstances will change to a point that I become so deluded that I seek approval of a majority of voters in any venue.

For the past forty years my strong reticence has kept me from any desire to compromise personal, moral standards in business or government to attain promotions at any cost, under any circumstances. While a few people chose to resent what they believed to be “aloofness” on my part, this comes from a lack of discernment on their part.

Early in life I was done a favor by being shut out of conversations, first within family and later in the company of friends who needed far more than I to stand in front of a line or on stage.  Not being so compelled allowed me to learn more than I would have had I needed to prove how much I already knew.

Still, those people are easy to find. Not all of them run for public office, though; it seems every group of a dozen or more has at least one.

Why it is that people who do not know insist on putting themselves “front and center” is . . . there are many reasons, many paths to The Attention Center . . . 

Whatever silenced my voice while in youth matters little. What does matter is that all around us I see consequences of a lack of clarity of thinking and a lack of leadership within those who insist on grabbing perquisites of leadership without leading anyone out of any mess. Rather, accepting unearned rewards for leadership while being an obedient follower along the path to national degradation is today’s norm.

“What is seen cannot be unseen,” and I will extend this to include that our current collective circumstances were foreseen be wise men of the past such as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

Millions see corruption around them and do nothing; “don’t rock the boat.” A few years ago a well-meaning associate told me, without any prior discussion of possibilities, “only a crazy person would become a whistle-blower because you’re guaranteed to lose money, career and reputation for speaking out.” Later, I did it anyway. 

Monday, November 21, 2011

The Misery Industrial Complex and Occupy Wall Street

Many familiar with international child kidnapping (ICK) know this is a growth industry. As such, it has common elements with other sources of excruciating misery that happen to be quite lucrative for other people one comes into contact with as a case runs its course.

By this I mean misery is good business; this is why it grows. Those who write about ICK on official pages, such as those of the State Department, suggest the cause is OUR recently developed age of international travel with open borders conducive to cross-border intimate relationships. I believe this places a secondary influence at the top of the list of causes.

We live in a time of misery-for-profit like never before in human history. It is as if advances in technology that alleviate miseries of the past necessitated new forms of human misery being invented.

Records are set each year pertinent to budgets for hardware of war. Bullets and bombs, aircraft and fuel, high-tech gadgets and the lowest … men with blades … are in continual production. All these add to a global metric of investments in violent means. Add to this another market of misery, that of the fear-security industry.

First there must be fear of loss or of immediate personal danger, then an industry to protect the fearful. It is an ever-increasing business here and internationally. Other people’s fear opens opportunities for a lucrative career or corporation. The intelligence industry, often a partner with private security firms, is a hybrid between private fear-protection and “national interests.” No one knows how much of government intelligence budgets are spent protecting corporate secrets and assets. Be assured it is considerable.

We have disease care to add. There is little truth in the term “health care” unless this is defined as yoga, pilates, exercise spas, amateur sports and the like; in general, investment in what keeps people healthy.  Being certain that many people do become sick is an important part of our misery industrial complex. Because disease care is about 18% of this nation’s index of metrics related to human behavior [aka “the economy] having a constant supply of sick people is critical. If by some chance millions of people took responsibility for their own health within the myriad of ways available to them, shunning the many weapons used against them, a recession would result. A mere 10% drop in the number of people getting sick or seeking disease care would, on average, cause a direct slowdown of 1.8% in gross domestic product. It likely would ripple through other sectors of human economic behavior.

Hence, we need other industries to ensure sickness within the populace, as each “wing” of our misery industrial complex requires a solid foundation. For this we have a chemical industry, parts of which include chemicals used inside and outside our homes or businesses. We grow and process our food with toxic chemicals. Cleaners used within our homes, laden with chemicals combinations to ‘freshen the air,” accumulate in our cells. We are easily fooled by these artificial sensual delights, so we poison ourselves. Of course, none of these poisons are essential to keep around. Their ultimate value is in making people sick. Lawn care? The point is to create pretty places to sit while doped up either recovering from a devastating illness, or one of more than eighty auto-immune diseases (resulting from our bodies natural defense against the poisons we absorb) or slowly but surely fading away. Chemicals are a huge industry and highly profitable, but the true value is their contribution to the misery industrial complex.

Drugs! An essential part of the discomfort-disease misery index, and for a great many of us an important part of the misery-numbing industry. We are numb; therefore we exist. Early on in the fake “war on drugs” we were told that one drug leads to another. On any given day, one can open a YouTube video and witness testimony of a three-year old put on psychotropic drugs to modify his or her behavior, not by parents, but by “child protection services.” Children are forced to imbibe an astounding number of such drugs, nearly all of which are unnecessary. Misery vendors will do almost anything to open the “gateway” very early in a child’s life. This includes a fairly recent strategy: to expose young children, five-year olds, to graphic sexuality under a guise of “socialization, as classes in sexuality.” Included in these premature lessons are statements encouraging students to label themselves homosexual if they happen to like members of their same gender. And what five-year doesn’t? Contributions to the misery index are clear:  children are easily confused and adversely affected by too early exposure to adult sexuality, resulting in emotional damage.  Forcing children to use drugs at an early age also routinely follows separation of one’s parents and consequent alienation from one parent, usually his or her father. At the same time, it is functionally true that children are taught they can have only one biological parent in their lives. The end goal of these strategies is to ensure that children are miserable at an early age, and to treat their confusion, emotional wounds, and natural reactions with a list of drugs. Give them Soma, Orwell wrote in 1934.

The predictable results are that these children will grow older but not smarter, wiser, or any bit better able to cope with life. Additional drug use and rebellious behavior is to be expected, and it comes. The misery begun in a child’s earliest years is carried forward to make other contributions to the misery index and the misery industrial complex.  

All these techniques and factors of life have individual misery in common. I’m certain most readers can add many more misery creators perpetuated for profit, so that every person can be exploited in some way . . . every one of us.

Now, what is Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and Anonymous really about? 

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Taking exception: aiding and abetting criminal acts is a crime.

Parents whose children are taken across international borders have a great deal in common with parents whose children are taken by local governments and non-governmental agencies. Between these two groups is another, parents whose children are taken across state lines with intention of keeping the other parent from accessing their children.
The suffering of all these parents is similar if not essentially the same. Emotionally healthy parents always suffer when their children are harmed physically or emotionally. However, community support, whether superficial or deeply sympathetic, appears to diminish, as a child is taken further away. The greater the distance, the fewer supporters speak out. Cases like Sean Goldman’s are a well-funded exception, and that’s what it takes to get noticed: funding.
More important than a perception of “fair treatment” within this sphere of child abductions, by Gestapo-like independent agents often backed by local police, by self-empowered agents of courts, or by court judges acting in haste without due process of law – through writs – there is a real consideration of adherence to law seldom exercised. In other words, public or community perceptions of sadness, sympathies, emotional stress, and tendencies to assume that a left-behind parent is guilty of something, along with other smoke . . . very often obscures perception of and focus on numerous laws broken in the process of separating children from one or both parents. This is especially true when one parent does retain his, or more often, her relationship.
Generally, it is assumed to be a dispute in “custody,” a term I find repulsive as it means “possession,” and children are no res, to use legal jargon; a child is not an object. The most often overlooked, or ignored, fact is that all of these cases involve serious violations of law, beginning with actions of one parent and quite often members of her family. By allowing its circumstances to continue under pretense of it being a “civil dispute,” an initial crime is compounded, as those who excuse inaction aid and abet the crime.

In cases involving international child abduction, for example, one left behind parent may file a case under The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. A great misunderstanding, or by a veil of words, a deception may result in erroneous assumptions that obligations of criminal law no longer apply to Hague cases. While the Office of Children’s Issues deals with civil aspects, obligations of criminal law remain. For example, under 18 U.S.C. § 1204 : US Code - Section 1204: International parental kidnapping, it is stipulated:   (a) Whoever removes a child from the United States, or attempts to do so, or retains a child (who has been in the United States) outside the United States with intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both. 
And it is critical to know:  
 (d) This section does not detract from The Hague Convention on the 
Civil Aspects of International Parental Child Abduction, done at The Hague on 
October 25, 1980.

In spite of the clearly defined criminality of these cases, there is a working consensus to overlook this criminality and dismiss cases from initial stages of prosecution. Under similar circumstances involving child abuse, law tolerates no such tendencies; teachers or counselors are obligated to report suspicions of abuse. Officers of the court, including attorneys, are obligated to report known commissions of crimes, yet parental kidnapping, abduction, or “custodial interference” is routinely dismissed as a civil dispute.  

In effect, this veil of deception amounts to willful continuation of the illicit circumstances: 

4.18.02 Aid and Abet, 18 U.S.C. § 2 See Statute
To “aid and abet” means intentionally to help someone else commit a crime. To establish aiding and abetting, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:
that someone else committed the charged crime; and that a person consciously shared the other person’s knowledge of the underlying criminal act, intended to help him or her, and willfully took part in continuing the crime, influencing to make it succeed.
A person need not perform the underlying criminal act, be present when it is performed, or be aware of the details of its execution to be guilty of aiding and abetting.
An act is done “willfully” if done voluntarily and intentionally with the intent that something the law forbids be done—that is to say, either to disobey or disregard the law.

This is exactly what happens when a police detective in a local jurisdiction ignores federal law pertinent to 18 U.S.C. § 1204: US Code - Section 1204: International parental kidnapping. Or, when a district attorney fails to issue a warrant under both state and federal law.  

When someone robs a bank and leaves the premises, hands of law enforcement are not tied from action as if it is a civil dispute between the bank and its robber. When a parent leaves a country while abducting a child, law enforcement is not precluded from action to recovery the abducted child. 

Another moot argument used is that prosecution of an abducting parent will deprive a child of a parent on whom he or she depends. No one uses this absurdity to preclude someone prosecuted for marijuana possession from imprisonment, nor are mothers who commit other felonies kept from prosecution under this deception. 

 Selective enforcement is the ability that executors of the law (such as police officers or administrative agencies, in some cases) have to arbitrarily select choice individuals as being outside of the law.
“There is a fundamental lack of equality before the law and a clear tendency towards politically motivated prosecution, namely selective enforcement, which is illegal in most democracies in the world.” Ha’Aretz 

“Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates rule of law, allowing men to apply justice only when they choose. Aside from this being inherently unjust, it almost inevitably must lead to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those they desire favors from.” Wikipedia

In a context of international child abduction or under any similar circumstances it is prudent to take exception to dismissal of serious crimes as personal “civil disputes.” Yes, it happens routinely. It can be fought through exposure and in courts.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Small farms for the 21st century survival

From time to time I’m told  “progress” is one-directional, towards a better society, that science and an evolution of ideas is leading this human race out of barbarism and poverty.

Except, of course, that there are “too many people.”

The trend into cities and off rural lands is supposed to be part of this progress. Cities are “where it’s at.” This trend has been well documented by Louis Mumford in The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects, a 1961 National Book Award winner. I found it a fresh read about 45 years after first publication.

There is no doubt the movement continues, or that the organic nature of modern cities will make them more fantastic within the near future. To some extent, and for some segments of human populations, the city “works” and is livable. That tens of millions of people will begin and end their lives without traveling more than ten miles from their birthplace I have no doubt. This has been true of places like New York City and Mexico City for decades.

However, the same technology that has allowed and stimulated growth of mega-cities has great potential to disperse very large numbers of people back to the rural areas from which earlier generations have fled. I believe the future of humanity depends largely on this happening.

Yes, I know. Small farms, and a return to the backbreaking work of mule-based farming that enslaves whole families to a small plot of land, barely able to eke out an existence? Oh, yeah, another fringe-nut with old Utopian Society ideas already tried and proven to fail. Go harvest your wing nuts from your orchard . . .

Here and now, in this autumn of 2011, thousands of tons of crops in the Southeast and the Northwest have gone unharvested for lack of labor. Georgia’s Department of Agriculture reported that 11,800 jobs went unfilled, causing crops to rot on the ground, and contributed to escalating food prices. Will this trend continue?

It’s recently been reported that George Soros, the president’s primary financial backer, has been collecting farmlands like a trash hoarder collects community discards. Meanwhile, his ideological Internet “rag” AlterNet attacks the Monsanto naked agenda to incrementally gain control of the world’s food crop seed supply. Attacking Monsanto’s devious agenda is a good thing. Add to this one T. Boone Pickens, miserly billionaire, who has been buying as much underground aquifer acreage as he can, especially in West Texas. There is a pattern building.

Step back to 1979 and the publication of an extremely important book: Food First: Beyond the Myth of Scarcity, Frances Moore Lappé (with Joseph Collins), Houghton Mifflin, 1977, Ballantine Books. It will not take a reader long to realize that premises upon which mega-cities are built and populated are flimsy, and faulty. The Green Revolution touted from the 1950s to the present was a failure for several reasons, yet it created its own myth by edict of governments supporting future billionaires involved. Critical analysis tells us that per-acre yields have dropped significantly, typically 30% or more under the food revolution, yet high-yielding small farms were forced to close, merged into mega-farms.

Thus began the modern debacle of monoculture and industrial agriculture. Lack of diversity in crops is major high-stakes roulette. Hundreds of millions of lives depend upon a narrow set of factors that may well lead to massive crop failures. It only takes one to cause a global famine.

The alternative insurance policy against global famine is small acreage farming and a return to family farming. Not only over there, but here in America. Consider this insurance that pays immediate benefits to the family involved in farming without a disaster hitting. It gets better. A five-acre plot, or even a one-acre place, is enough land to feed a family of four. In most places in the United States, a small piece of land prudently managed can free a typical family of much of their current dependency on the electrical grid, most heating or cooling bills, and a greatly reduced food bill. The cost of living can and should be greatly reduced; most families with one to five acres and a diverse selection of crops will find it easy to build a surplus at the end of most months and certainly at the sum of the year.

Raised-bed farming, permaculture, high-tunnels, earth-bermed or solar-block greenhouses, composting, goat-keeping . . . these are a few of many available options that make small farms viable today. Add to this solar and wind energy sources combined with the latest generations of storage batteries and energy inverters, and selling surplus power back to a grid utility becomes another option for many.

Still, the best reason to take steps away from the city, in addition to the above life enhancements, is that doing so gives a family far greater control over pressing issues that make all of us vulnerable. An imploding global economy, expectation that the Euro will tank, the dollar will fall, and who knows what follows all of that? To become self-reliant is the greatest gift you can give yourself and your family this year and in the near future. It also helps your community, your state, and all other inhabitants of this planet.

Things can change that fast. It is prudent to be prepared.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

The problem with International Child Kidnapping

Earlier this year sensational headlines in print and online media announcing the startling discovery: approximately 500 children are retained in Japan by one parent while their other parent anguishes in the United States. There was much hype about this, 100% of that hypocritical.

Yes, the media that out-did themselves in fake alarm and concern are the same mainstream party-attendees who have known about this problem all along. It ‘s nearly as common as automobile fatalities the media never seems to omit from news reports. This is not to dismiss the tragedy of life lost in vehicular accidents, but to point to a more serious problem that MSM ignores because international child kidnapping is always a political, dirty game at the expense of tens of thousands of children.

The mainstream media and every inflated politician that I know of are incapable of telling the truth about international child kidnapping (ICK). On July 3, 2011, I witnessed via Cspan a charade of testimony before a congressional subcommittee on the subject. Sean Goldman was the front-line, the first  parent to speak to the subcommittee on behalf of tens of thousands of left-behind parents. His testimony was almost compelling. It may have been compelling if he were addressing a group who intend to do something about this ICK problem, or whose knowledge of ICK was as fresh as they pretended it to be.

The phony reactions of the committee were obvious to anyone whose eyes and ears were open, or to any one of us who’ve had first hand knowledge of these matters. I do sense that many of the audience attendees and other speakers addressing the panel with personal perspectives may have believed that panel was learning of the problem for the first time.

I don’t believe any congressperson has been so out-of-touch with reality that he or she has been unaware  of these serious international crimes before July 2011. If so, what is that person doing in Washington, D.C. representing anyone other than one’s own personal interests?

      Why would two years pass since both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate voted unanimously (the senator who voted “present” had already purchased the White House) to petition Brazil on behalf of Sean Goldman . . . and still none of the above had caught on to one of the most grievous issues in the world today?

This is the problem with international child abduction: That the MSM and the powers-who-would-be (if they were not compromised by those who own them) choose to dismiss this spreading epidemic as a sad consequence of two people not able to remain married. This is one of the big lies about ICK; it’s one of the most frequent porkies used to dismiss case after case from political arenas in which it truly exists. Politicians and their appointed counterparts, their true partners in crime, pass off their personal responsibilities for using children as pawns in this very corrupt game of chess onto alienated left-behind parents doing, mostly, all possible to bring their stolen children home.

Instead of powers-who-would-be doing what is right for abducted children, they throw their responsibilities back to the left-behind parent. They do whatever is necessary to sweep the matter under their hand-made Persian carpets. They leave left-behind parents to fend for themselves, and in my personal experience with Senator Merkley of Oregon, actively aid in covering up crimes committed within the State Department Office of Children’s Issues.

Those given responsibility of fulfilling obligations of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction have been working against left-behind parents rather than for the children the Hague Convention was written, negotiated, signed and enacted to protect. Proof of this is in the fact that my son Mathew remains in Israel today. Had not there been corruption within the Office of Children’s Issues, an attitude of United States’ subservience to Israel, willingness on the part of numerous people within the State Department and Senator Merkley to cover up the abandonment of United States child-citizens to foreign countries . . . my son would have returned to Oregon years ago.

The State of Israel kidnaps American children. Bob Geldof might agree that Israel also knowingly and willingly aids and abets abduction of British children.

If a parallel can be drawn, treatment left-behind parents receive by United States governments, at multiple levels from local police to the highest person in the State Department, is as if to say to a rape victim: “We will take your statement and your evidence. We will pass it along to the district attorney’s office. They may or may not decide to issue a warrant. You will not be notified of the district attorney’s decision, as there is no need for you to know.” This is exactly the importance given to international abductions, in spite of a book value of seven to twenty years’ imprisonment if convicted. It is about the same as no one being prosecuted or convicted of rape, ever, despite overwhelming evidence.

      Again, proof of these statements is in the fact that, after four years and nine months since my son has been abducted to Israel, I have not yet seen a photograph of him nor conversed with him since he entered that country. This is the same nation that made an international case for the release of the captive tank driver Galid Shalit, and paid a ransom in excess of one thousand (1053) prisoners to gain his return. During his captivity, Shalit was allowed to communicate with his family, occasionally, and photographs were shared. What will it take to persuade the State of Israel to release Mathew Ismalon-Nagy, or even to transmit his recent photograph, or his school grades, to his father?

Activism . .

"Folks are always going to attack the activist, or rather they are going to cherry pick which activist they are going to attack. Usually with slim or little knowledge of what is actually going on. And there are always
wingnuts that attach themselves to any group which gives even a squeaky clean image group a somewhat tarnished image.

"If you are an activist and do it so people will praise you, then you're in the wrong "business." Activism is a damned if you do, damned if you don't kinda thing." 


[posted in  OHG  -  Yahoo group on Organic Gardening]

Sunday, November 13, 2011


Stop for a moment, wounded warrior
Feel your pain.
In a short time it will fade from awareness
Though not from your being.

The wound is deep. It will not heal.
It will never heal because it's a wound of stolen time.
Forget all that bullshit about “lost-time alien abductions,”
Your time was stolen by someone who once swore she loved you.

Forget all that bullshit about defining what love is.
Your pain tells you what love is.
No surgeon’s jargon will ever describe your wound.
I know what it is. I have two of my own, a daughter, a son.

You will never find words to describe the pain.
None of us do. It is enough that we know.

When I see a soldier standing over a fallen comrade’s grave
There is a sense that he or she knows the pain of stolen time.
Yet a subtle whisper hints this isn’t quite so.

When I see a parent standing over a grave of his or her child
Affinity moves me.
We share something, like spheres of fog that merge at edges,
Not quite becoming a single cloud, blending along the surface.
That parent knows what we know through one’s child’s death.

It is not the same, those who witness a child wasted
By drugs or disease, or sudden tragic death.
Death steals that child’s life. There is no time left.

We know what stolen time is. As with all time
It will never be recovered, as clocks move with the sun,
Crossing space never to be crossed again.

Forget wailing to deaf ears.
The din raised only brings annoyed, condescending sympathy,
Or pity. You are alone.

You are alone in your anger and your grief over your child’s time
With you stolen from each of you.
Let your pain give you strength, and courage.

That will be needed as you lose your will to live, or face the temptation
To immolate yourself, or use a bullet to find the hole in your heart
Left in place of your son, your daughter.

I have known some who have fallen this way, a bullet, in flames.
And, yes, I have lain within that bleak darkness, ready to let go,
Willing to succumb to a freezing numbness that brings death.

Time that your child needs to spend with you is stolen from you both.
That time is gone. You know that child lives with the same acute pain we know,
Pain we live every day.

So live every day to heal your child’s wounds as only you can.

Saturday, November 12, 2011

So Congress said: Let them eat barium and nano-aluminum

Enough is ...  too much!
The entire northern hemisphere is being poisoned daily by chemicals emitted from jets.
We all see these white streaks turn into puffy clouds as the chemicals descend to oceans and lands. Plants are dieing. Farmlands are becoming fallow. Wildlife is being exterminated. Bark from trees in pristine Hawaii peels off in a child's hands.
Across the globe, farmers are finding that soils needed to grow food crops are depleted of nutrients and loaded with salts from excess irrigation. This is a slow-death process for arable lands. However, the addition of chemicals from the atmosphere, sprayed as chemtrails from jets, are accelerating destruction of life-producing processes of soils and living plants. As if it is not enough that farmers are hard-pressed to produce enough food under changing conditions?
Food prices increase each week in some markets. We all know this; we all feel this as we shop for essentials. With a continuation of this chemtrails campaign against life, this will escalate within a few years. Food shortages are on the horizon as it is; yet arrival of future famine is being actively accelerated through the chemtrails program. This global atmospheric spraying of chemical death will impact every child, every woman, and every man sharing this planet. Everyone already has been impacted, aware or not. The chances are overwhelming that you and your family have eaten food contaminated by those chemicals you see floating in the sky, coloring your sunset.    
The United States Congress held pretentious hearings eight years or longer after these chemtrails had begun descending upon us all, discussing whether or not to grant approval of an experiment that began by 1997. It is like discussing whether or not to slaughter a cow after it has already died.
Members of Congress consider this General Public, for whom they "work" and whom they are paid to "represent," to be too uninformed, too stupid to catch on to this charade.
Here are video links to see for you to consider:  
For the most comprehensive view of what chemtrails are, and the danger, watch this full-length documentary film:
This practice will continue until it is forcefully stopped. Mass-propaganda-media is not going to alert the public on this matter.  Only grassroots sharing of information is going to result in sufficient outrage needed to stop this exceedingly dangerous experiment with our planet’s life.
I propose that we now prepare a class-action group to initiate a lawsuit against the corporations producing these poisons, against the owners of the airplanes that disperse these poisons, and against the pilots who fly those planes and disperse these poisons upon all of us. Only strong, united action will make a difference. To join the FaceBook Group designed to build a network of concerned people united against chemtrail spraying, see the page here:
Please join me. 

Thank you.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Everybody knows what our children really need

Open dialogue on children’s issues is essential. There can be no honest discussion of children’s emotional and physical well being without including truthful dialogue about men. It is also absolutely wrong for children to limit statements about men to a collective negative.
We all know what these negatives are, although the percentage of men who have rightfully earned condemnation is and will remain in great dispute. Pressing children’s issues gain great press, as not a day passes in which reports of extreme physical abuse, heinous neglect, sexual abuse, sexualization, or “trafficking” are not published somewhere, hence everywhere through Internet sharing.
It is exceedingly easy for both men and women to jump into discussions of how terrible these circumstances are, increasing the din that calls for more laws to protect children. Sadly, none of these discussions have significantly resulted in diminished abuse. It is my observation that laws enacted with intent to curtail child abuse have done exactly the opposite. Instead of fewer reports of severe child abuse, the number of abusers has increased phenomenally in recent decades. A proliferation of abusers employed by social services agencies within governments or in non-governmental organizations has come as a direct result of new laws that empower emotionally deficient men and women in “protective” roles. Many of these workers are themselves abusers. Many more pass children forward to foster parents who take children into their homes for money alone; many foster custodians will neglect, starve, beat, attack verbally, sexually molest, even kill boys or girls in their “care.”
This is ubiquitous common knowledge. This is what gets into news reports, and as Leonard Cohen sang, “Everybody knows …”
Everybody knows what goes on. Few, if any, have come forward to say, “This is where it begins . . .” However, I believe that persons who have sufficient power and influence to make a difference, who can help curtail the expansion of this phenomena choose willingly not to act. 
Everybody knows this heinous behavior has roots in the childhood of the abuser.
Everybody knows that abrupt separation of a child from a bonded parent is traumatic and leaves wounds for life.  
Everybody knows that babies who are not held are stunted in many ways, physically, emotionally and mentally.
Everybody knows that healthy children thrive through contact with male and female parents, and withdraw when deprived of emotional nourishment.   
Everybody knows that biological mothers and biological fathers are uniquely and naturally magnetic to their children.   
Everybody knows that a child must be given very compelling reasons to reject the biological parent before fully accepting stepfathers and stepmothers emotionally.    
Everybody knows that a growing number of mothers set out to diminish biological fathers in minds and hearts of their children, whether that is by truth or lie, and far more often it is by lie.  
Everybody knows that diminishment by lie has become the norm; it is not an exception.     
Everybody knows that numerous studies reach this same conclusion: that children need both father and mother actively present in their lives.    
Everybody knows that feminism strongly resists accepting this truth, and that feminism also rejects similar research conclusions that assert single maternal parentage has disastrous social and economic consequences.      
Everybody knows that money does not buy emotional health, and that the root of social problems of crime, drug abuse, addiction, suicidal thoughts, a loss of a will to live, bullying and violent behavior, and much more, are emotionally based.    
Everybody knows that a system that emphasizes only material needs of children while ignoring emotional needs is predictably going to generate a high percentage of sociopaths within a generation.
Everybody knows that sexual education without complimentary education in minimums of wholesome parenting will result in large numbers of disadvantaged children who ultimately risk being vacuumed into the foster care debacle.
Everybody knows the present system places children into the worst possible circumstances for their short and long-term health and well-being by “tearing them from the nest.”     
The solution is not going to be a quick-fix tune up enacted through government agencies. It requires open discussion of positive roles that men serve in the needs and lives of their children. It requires honesty. It requires trust that men can and will step forward and reclaim fatherhood. It requires that mothers allow fathers to be fathers for and with their children.
We do not view this as an assertion of “men’s rights.” Rather, we know we are advocating for reclamation of fatherhood, and indirectly, manhood, because the needs of our children demand this of us. Women cannot be fathers. Men must be fathers for and with their children, our children.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

You think you know what child abuse is?

Nearly everyone in America knows someone affected by parental alienation, or, to put the concept in non-controversial terms, a dysfunctional relationship between a parent and offspring. We all seem to know someone unable to relate to his or her father, whether we know that person casually, as a distant acquaintance or intimately, as a family member, or somewhere between.
These deep rifts happen every day.
This is not about “child abuse.” Let’s be perfectly clear. This is not going over “the same old ground.” As a point of fact, I believe that 90 % of victims of child abuse are overlooked and forgotten about; very few are speaking out for these victims despite all the rage and clamor, all the organizations “to stop child abuse.”
By this is meant a small minority of abused who suffer in obvious ways get a great deal of attention. Yet, a high percentage of sympathizers are unable to do anything about their cause. Men are blamed, and restricting men’s behavior is assumed to be the solution. “Stop child abuse” means for too many, alienate all men from all children. An absolute program to prevent child abuse would be to prevent all births from taking place.
The horse is gone. Close the barn door.
Pointing fingers, naming the guilty after the fact, going to meetings so that one is witnessed crying out, “they should be jailed for life … he should be castrated …” Yes, I am going to assert this is self-serving behavior that does nothing to prevent a first-time offender from getting his or her first taste of blood.”
When the horse leaves the barn, go get it.
Yes, we strongly advocate that all abusers are brought to justice.
Nevertheless, to really do something to prevent abuse it is necessary to take a look at the lives of children today. This means that one is open to witness where the vast majority of abuse takes place: within the confines of single-mother homes. But no, I am not going to cite statistics. Metrics are available for a number of reputable studies. The findings are consistent. Go find them.
Instead, I prefer to ask what people know from experience. Those of you who know … know exactly what I mean. You carry the truth within you every day.
Consider any office group of ten or more people. Usually, there is one guy of whom the others are inclined to say, … “He’s an asshole;” the office ass. Or, a woman is reputed to be “the bitch.” Every group seems to have one of each.
Bets are, if you go to either, finesse your way through their protective armor, a sad human being is found. A victim of abuse, at the hands of a parent … or even more likely, someone who was alienated from a parent early in life. A bond formed; a bond was abruptly broken. Trust was terminally crushed.

I happen to be one person who believes in a personal soul. I have one; it existed before I was conceived. It is my belief that all non-cloned persons have a soul; instinct tells me to allow for some apparent persons out and about that are soulless clones.
I also believe that my soul, and everyone’s, retains a sense of identity, a collective memory, so to say. When a child is born, its soul begins to develop along with its body. Being held by a loving parent enriches the soul. Animals tell us the same truth, as photographic evidence abounds of animals of one species nourishing babies of another species in circumstances of need. Inter-species affection between animals is also evident. Throughout history, humans have witnesses this and similar behavior; so-called “primitive” religions reflect collective belief in a human soul as well as a soul in animals, and often, plants. Ignorance within contemporary generations does not erase validity or truth of these concepts.
These other species tell us, in sharing affection, that this is also a basic human need of nourishment. A properly nourished human soul develops a healthy moral conscience, which seems to be a “thinking’ part of a soul-body. It follows that an undernourished human soul does not fully develop its moral conscience. As a skin grows with a physical body, so should a moral conscience grow with proper nourishment of a human soul.
The sad fact is that a majority of children today are not being nourished within their soul-bodies. I base this observation on factors that do nourish a soul, affection being vitally important. Interaction with adults is also important; so is hearing an adult, male and female, witnessing male-female interaction, speaking with both parents, and being heard. All of these behaviors nourish one’s soul.
Look around, observe prolific behavior of youth whose soul, and thus whose moral conscience, is undernourished. We stand in the midst of evidence of this truth. Hence I assert strongly that children are routinely abused by neglect, by inadequate nourishment of their souls.
This is why children of single mother families are eight times more likely to commit murder than children growing up within two-parent families.
It proves once again … there is madness within the method of raising children in America today. 

James Allen – An American Hero

For many if not most Americans, an unemployed electrician cannot possible rise to that special honor of not merely being called a hero, but an American hero. As if that rings loader than any ceremonial bell heard since the days old Greece or Rome’s age of Caesar. There were men of the American Revolution, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson; later came Andrew Jackson who “killed the bank;” the uncivil conflict between North and South brought forth Old Ironsides, Robert E. Lee and Ulysses Grant; Teddy Roosevelt and the Rough Riders were followed by Sargent Alvin C. York in the First World War. Seventy years ago, the “greatest generation went to war in Europe and the Pacific arena, where many heroes emerged from ashes and death.
We in America tend to honor “war heroes.” This is what makes an unknown electrician from North Carolina an American hero today. The war we are engaged in presently exceeds military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and other, unpublicized conflicts around the globe. James Allen’s war gets nearly no press coverage, and is not acknowledged by the powers that be to exist. Yet his war is quite real, and it has spread around the world. It is a global war. It is the war against fathers and fatherhood.
Like many readers, the tern fatherhood causes one’s mind to wander. Concepts like time honored tradition come to mind. Yet reflecting on that term causes caution to creep; time honored tradition is taboo in mainstream America for contemporary generations. Many associate this concept with secret societies or cults, or with “outdated religious beliefs and practices.” For some it means another offence: patriarchy. Too many leap quickly to assume all the above are equivalent to “organized religion, the cause of all wars in history.”
All these erroneous associations partly explain how and why the war against fatherhood came to be.
The fact that time honored traditions, fatherhood, patriarchy, and organized religions have held civilized culture together for thousands of years, despite its divisions and wars, allowing progress to occur . . . has no meaning for a growing majority of people who read no books, hold no consistent beliefs, are mis-educated mostly by mass media, and consequently despair of a hopeful future.
Nevertheless, fatherhood is a complex of many things …  like a forest; it is more than the sum of all its component trees.
Enemies of fatherhood would have us believe that there is no good forest; that all trees ought to be considered individually, and each is only as good as wood they produce, or fuel, or heat when they burn. Only in their destruction do they have value, and the value of a tree is a metric. Likewise, men are only as good as what they provide in tangible terms: a gun in a war, a source of money or entertainment, an occasional ride. Too, the value of an unemployed electrician is a rather low metric, not worth paying attention to. This is quite wrong.
There is no metric to measure what James Allen has done.
Unlike “traditional” heroes of military wars whose feats can be measured, such as those of Sergeant York, reputed to have killed 28 German soldiers and capturing 132 others, James Allen walked alone for twenty-one days across wilderness in Columbia, risking his life to reach the American Embassy in Bogotá. He was turned away at the embassy gate, refused water or food by his fellow countrymen, who instead gave him directions to travel across the hostile city to find a cheap hotel. Allen was a lone soldier in an undeclared, hidden war on a mission to retrieve his kidnapped infant son in a strange land.
The war of alleged terrorists against civilization is a false war. It is a one-sided fiction too complex to explain here, so it is saved for later posts.
Yet, there is an ongoing actual global war against fatherhood. It has its own heroes even though the battlefields of this war are taking many forms, too many to define in one post. James Allen is one hero of this war, and I’m sure there are many. A small number become celebrities; it is too early to say, but perhaps seduction into the world of celebrity negates their effectiveness. It appears to be so. Still, each man involved in this war that involves all men has his role to play. Whether or not one is effective, or survives the conflict upright is to be determined. This war will define the value of men in relation to women, children, and collective society. For most males alive today the direction this war takes will determine the value men place on their own lives. Many are losing both their self worth and their lives in this struggle every day, unknown to nearly everyone, silently, in darkness of despair.   

Monday, November 7, 2011

FACIO - Why Fathers And Children are going to Washington D.C. - Fathers Day 2012

Hopefully, many thousands of fathers from the United States, Canada, and other countries will converge at the Mall in Washington, D.C. on Father’s Day, June 17, 2012. As well, we hope influential people will join us; those who impact or influence the lives of children are encouraged to be there, such as scout leaders, teachers, coaches, social workers, guidance counselors, and both elected and appointed officials. 

We would like to see many children there yet we know that millions of fathers will not be able to see their children on Father’s Day. For those fathers and an estimated twenty-five million children who enjoy no father influences in their lives, we know this day can be an empty, bitter one.

What we hope to achieve is a “show of support” in numbers, and to raise a unified voice for this basic message:

·         The present “social welfare” system is unconscionably broken and must be fixed.

·         Government is the problem; government cannot heal itself.

·         We ask that Congress do only one thing for fathers and all parents: a federal law passed that mandates abducting parents or family members serve a minimum of two days for every day a child is kept hidden from another parent in violation of existing laws or custody stipulations. 

·         We are not asking permission to assert our roles as fathers to our children; rather, we are putting everyone on notice that this begins today.

·         Hence, we expect that government at all levels, as our employees, will follow through with implementation of existing laws that call for prosecution of abducting parents or those who interfere in custodial rights of parents, including cases of international child abduction. 

·         We demand either abandonment of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction or an immediate closure of loopholes in its application.

In each of these assertions its reason is implied. This is why we must gather unified in Washington, D.C.

  • Study after study proves that parental alienation creates social and economic burdens on all of society. 
  • Immediate problems in children include depression, suicidal tendencies and suicide. Rather than address the cause of these behaviors in children, businesses exploit child victims as new targets of drug dependency.
  • Loss of a father in a child’s life often results in lack of interest in school and learning. Dosing a child with drugs or imbedding negative labels within the child’s psyche is a common “treatment.”
  •  Tens of millions of children are emotionally undernourished. Being raised by a single mother is equivalent to providing only half portions at every meal.
  • In terms of emotional bonding, an opportunity to love and be loved, to hear and be heard, to witness and be witnessed, that child is given, at best, half of what he or she needs.
  • No parent can be both mother and father. In fact, children of single mothers most often receive less than half-nourishment of parenting because working mothers are too busy and too absent to actively share time, listen to and express adequate love with their children.
  • The role of a father as a significant partner in raising children is passed off to strangers who provide impersonal “day care service,” mostly absent any personal connection with the child.

Children are damaged emotionally, if not also physically, by this system. These are our children. This must stop.

Governments here and abroad cannot afford to pay for more child abductions by social workers, for more group foster warehouses, or for more foster care rife with neglect, abuse, and murder of children.

Governments cannot afford for present levels of these evils that it is deeply involved in, let alone more. Governments cannot afford the present level of crime, investigations and prosecutions spawned by victimized children, let alone more.

Governments cannot afford to incarcerate more children raised in fractured families, foster homes and group care, or taken from streets that they’ve run to, but greater numbers are certain to come if we do not act.

Governments cannot afford the present costs of a war against outlawed drugs, nor the costs of picking up the pieces of drug-addicted youth whose addictions are being created by the present system. We cannot afford the costs of expanding that war.

Feminism cannot fix this collection of problems; it has created them. Only genuine fatherhood has a chance to reverse these trends of the past fifty years.           

FACIO – Fathers And Children International Organization

A simple concept:

Our Mission is to aid both fathers and their children
  • To spend more time together
  • To enjoy the many benefits of a father-son and father-daughter bond, especially emotional health and well-being of children as future heirs of this world
  • To improve communications between fathers and their children, and between children and their fathers
  • To assert the naturally endowed rights of children to have their fathers present in their lives
  • To assert the rights of fathers to be fathers of their children without interference from corporatism, governments or any other organized force
  • To assert enforcement of laws enacted to protect these rights
  • To educate fathers how best to be or become mentors, leaders and protectors of their children
  • To encourage equal, cooperative partnerships with the women who happen to be mothers to the children of this world.

This is an international organization therefore we seek and encourage fathers and children from all countries to join us.

We exist as an organization to counter the many negative forces that have been tearing father-child and family relationships apart from approximately 1933 to the present.

The inception of this organization begins with publication of this brief. From this point forward all who are interested in joining are encouraged to do so.

We anticipate that interest and growing membership will lead to formal incorporation as a nonprofit organization recognized with 501 c-3 status. To grow, we expect
  • That many will show support through social network groups,
  • That word-of-mouth and “sharing” will lead to increased membership,
  • That growth will attract some of the best minds available with knowledge and experience in pertinent issues to be shared within this group,
  • That members of other groups nominally designed to aid fathers or children will see the value in a unified, streamlined organization designed to represent every father and every child,
  • That the power of unity and numbers will move many concerned fathers to join us,
  • That our focus on the positive aspects of fatherhood and father-child bonds will set us apart from other groups,
  • That being many with one voice will enhance the listening ability of those to whom we speak,
  • That because we are joined “to do” and “to bind” those who listen will also join us.

Our first major objective:

Gather on Fathers Day 2012 in Washington D.C. at the Mall in a strength of numbers that will raise global awareness of the plight of fatherless children everywhere.
  • We invite fathers and their children from every nation to join us
  • We encourage especially fathers who have been alienated from their children to “celebrate” Fathers Day with us there
  • We encourage members of all fathers rights organizations to attend
  • We encourage experts in related fields to volunteer to speak
  • We encourage political candidates to attend
  • We encourage women who share our concerns to attend and to speak
  • We encourage the Secretary of State to attend
  • We encourage family court judges to attend
  • We encourage district attorneys to attend
  • We encourage governors to attend
  • We encourage mayors to attend
  • We encourage other heads of state to attend
  • We encourage war veterans to attend
  • We encourage ambassadors from other nations to attend
  • We encourage those who would like to give personal testimony of parental alienation to attend and to speak

To all fathers and children: this is your organization, this is your event. We are here for you, we are united for you, and we hope to speak loudly and clearly so that your concerns will be addressed.

FACIO … to do, to serve, to bind  (Latin) (fa-ki-oh)

A lesson in deficit spending and open government

A few years ago I received a first-hand lesson in openness in government and a free press. At the time, I was a grant specialist supervisor for the State of Florida, in Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management, Bureau of Recovery and Mitigation. (How's that for bureaucracy?”) Our office was doling out public assistance for Hurricane Andrew and a number of small disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, shared the fifth floor of an office building in the Doral area of Miami. To demonstrate transparency in this state-federal partnership, a reporter from the Miami Herald was invited to roam offices asking questions, conducting informal interviews with staff, making independent observations, free to write about anything he chose. He was an embedded journalist in 1995.

Several million dollars worth of reimbursement requests for public projects were on my desk for review. It was the State’s role to review documentation and make a recommendation to FEMA, to pay or not to pay for projects. Using 44 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) as a guide, eligibility determinations were defined by scope of work and accuracy of supporting financial documentation, to put it simply. There were two problematic projects under my scrutiny that week, one a $703,000 contract for a seawall replacement, the other, $1.1 million that had been reimbursed to the local school district for emergency use of school buses immediately after Hurricane Andrew struck South Florida.

In the latter case, project reimbursement by FEMA had been expedited early in 1993, months after the disaster. The school district had demanded payment based on dire need, having expended tens of millions of dollars in excess of budgeted funds for emergency measures. There had been contentious meetings on several issues between state, federal and school district staff at the highest levels. The state representative who preceded me had stood firmly between the school district and the FEMA purse. For political expediency, the money was paid with an understanding that details would be scrutinized at a later date. That time for detailed review had come.

The school district documentation indicated that FEMA had reimbursed the district drivers as much as $252.00 per hour to drive a school bus for several weeks after the hurricane. Some drivers were on the job 36 hours a day, one as long as 48 hours in a single day. High hourly rates and long hours were combined, so that payroll documentation reflected a single driver working as much as 36 hours per day at a rate of $58.00 per hour.  My calculations indicted that FEMA should have paid no more than $300,000 rather than $1.1 million, based on “state of the art” documentation. Thus, it was exceedingly clear why my predecessor had vehemently objected to state’s recommendation of payment in full. 

The other contentious issue was simpler and perhaps more routine: a parks department had submitted an approved contract to replace a seawall damaged beyond repair. The approved contract had been clearly altered, the original bid amount of $1,050,000 crossed through. Penciled above a “winning bid” of $703,000 was evident. A FEMA engineer had brought this to my attention, asking for an informal opinion.

The reporter wandered the halls and office for at least three days, perhaps longer. His daily stories were benign; they should have been on the social pages of the newspaper rather than the news section. He wrote of how cooperative our staffs were, how rumors of contentious issues between state and FEMA were simply not true, as he saw how friendly we were and how everyone got along so well. Smiling faces and good humor were abounding in our offices, and he made it seem as if the most challenging thing for us to do would be to find something to disagree on. He had never approached my office.

On perhaps the last day of his visit three staff members informed me, separately, that word was out all over the floor: my office was off limits to the reporter. “Stay clear.”  Two state and one FEMA staffers each spoke in confidence; “you did not hear it from me.”

At mid-level bureaucracy, it is routine to lie to elected and appointed officials. It is expected that journalists be fed meaningless information. Truth telling is routinely punished. Overspending is an every day occurrence. Fraud, waste, theft and cronyism are standard at every level of large government bureaucracies, whether local, state of federal. This is why America is deeply in debt.