[AKidsRight.Org] Letter to Senator Clinton / Your FEEDBACK on NonViolent Action

jmurtari@AKidsRight.org

Good People & People of Faith,

   Tomorrow, 15 Aug, I will go to the Syracuse Federal Building in an
attempt to petition Senator Clinton to meet with parents regard the
need for reform.  There was some good FEEDBACK on both sides of the
issue after my last message which appears below.  There were some very
thoughtful comments made and the discussion may make our goals and
methods a little clearer.

   In one of my last steps of preparation, I sent a letter to the
two people controlling the situation in Syracuse: Senator Clinton and
the US Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Mr. Glenn
Suddaby. I include an excerpt from the letter below -- I hope it
reflects your sentiments as parents.

   I'll be at the building at 2PM tomorrow.  Hope to see some other
folks there, check http://www.AKidsRight.Org/actionc_syr for details.
If you plan on making the trip, please write a two page summary of
your 'story' and include a color photographs of you and your kids.
Make three copies and you can drop it off not only with the staff
of Senator Clinton, but also with Senator Schumer, and Congressman
James Walsh (all have offices in the building and are aware of our
issues).

   Best Regards!
   John Murtari (jmurtari@AKidsRight.Org) 877-635-1968,x-211

   Letter follows along with your FEEDBACK:

---------------------
Dear Senator Clinton & Mr. Suddaby:                 9 Aug 2005

    I am a coordinator for a group of loving mothers and fathers who
    feel it is time for our Nation to both recognize and protect the
    rights of parents to raise and nurture their own children. The
    rights of children to have both parents involved in their
    lives. We feel we need Federal Civil Rights protection in the form
    of a Family Rights Act. http://www.AKidsRight.Org/

    We certainly hope we are the next GREAT Civil Rights movement. We
    have visited legislators for years, but it is hard to get traction
    on our issues. Our immediate goal is a local meeting between
    parents and Senator Clinton and I have attached a draft Agenda to
    this letter. I certainly understand that we may seem to represent
    a minor issue. At present we are not well organized, nor do we
    have a lot of political capital in the form of funding or large
    public demonstrations.

    What we do have is the power of an idea and also the knowledge
    there are millions of parents and children across this country who
    have been hurt. Who have the power of government suddenly
    separating them from each other. Who know something just went
    terribly, terribly wrong in their lives -- but don't know what to
    do about it. We hope to help them find their voice. So that we
    soon all understand the right to "family" is one of our most basic
    human rights and that we need to put clear protections in place
    before government can interfere. 

    Our public method is NonViolent Action and we hope to set a good
    example that significant social reform can be achieved NOT by
    using anger, ridicule, and violence -- but by Faith, Love, and
    personal sacrifice. I have written you both in the past, but do so
    now as we seem to approach a new threshold of activity locally at
    the Syracuse Federal Building. 

    I am peaceful and concerned about Civil Rights. It is most
    disturbing to find myself pushed away by security staff, but not
    charged with any violation of the law. I find the local US
    Attorneys office clearly involved in controlling the conduct of
    security staff to get a "desired outcome". I have attached an
    affidavit which has more details ....

(read rest of letter at http://www.AKidsRight.Org/actionc_syr/suddaby5.pdf)

Your FEEDBACK & your replies
----------------------------

--- "Scott Snively" <ssnively@knobias.com>   "Need some PR!"

> You need PR. 

> Send your letter to Sean Hannity.  

--- Judy Thomas, FL <cj7scrambler@yahoo.com>

> You go John!! I'm praying for you!!

--- TIDDYBEAR@aol.com        "Waste of time" 

> such a waste of time.  I would think you could find a more valuable
> use of your time.  i don't think anybody here has had much interest
> from their senators, but the woman who wrote the book "It takes a
> village to raise a child' will definitely be of no use.  IMO

--- Jeff <jeffpi@aol.com>     "Try someone else"

> What's wrong with going to another Senator, and making Clinton look
> badly for not seeing you. I'm sure other Congressmen and/or Senators
> would jump at the chance to take advantage of her inaction ... (I'd
> help but being totally disabled keeps me homebound.)

--- Robert Green <Robert.Green@dshs.state.tx.us>

> I really admire your persistence, but Hillary will continue to hide
> from your and "stonewall" your efforts by proxy until she feels that
> it is politically expedient not to...and such expediency will
> require a much larger, broad-based show of very public outrage from
> both sexes that will attract major media attention.

> Justice will not be served until those who are NOT effected are as
> outraged as those who are!  Ben Franklin
> Good luck in your endeavors.

What you say is very true.  All we really need to 'break through' is
some good press coverage. A few more people involved, a good reporter,
and I think she would feel the pressure.

--- mark@ivalenti.com         "It Takes a Village?"

[ Note - for a very well written story of what happened to Mark & his
Wife after some false child abuse allegations, read:
http://ivalenti.com/snowfall.pdf ]

> I admire your dedication.  But I think you may be wasting your
> efforts trying to meet with Clinton. Before I continue, I should
> tell you that I am 100% non-partisan.  I don't vote for political
> parties, I vote for candidates, so my opinion of Hillary Clinton is
> not a partisan opinion, it is a personal one. 

> Have you read her book "It Takes a Village"?  Some scary stuff.
> Based on that book alone, I can guarantee you she will never meet
> with you. I'm not saying you should stop, because your actions alone
> are proving a point, and I do wish you success.  If you haven't read
> her book, you should.  It's not pretty.

I did read the book and had to admit one thing.  If I had read that
years ago, before all this divorce disaster happened to me -- I may
have agreed with it!  I do agree with you that she may be a 'tough
sell' -- she has never been through it like we have.

One large point, this is a Civil Rights Issue -- those type of items
have always enjoyed broad based support (once they were recognized).
She is a VERY good politician who wants to be President. If we can't
win her support -- what does it say about us?

-- Mark replies:

> I never thought of it from that perspective.  You're absolutely
> right, it is a civil rights issue.  I guess we need our 'Rosa
> Parks', and from all the efforts I've seen, you are probably the
> closest to being that person.

> I wish you all the luck in the world, and I'll be following you.  My
> only regret is that I'm not in New York to help out.  We have our
> protests and demonstrations here in Michigan, but they don't get the
> coverage like you do.  Granted, no one is quite as dedicated as you
> over here, and I wish I had the time.  For my family the priorities
> are a little different, since we won and we're all back together we
> spend a lot of time enjoying and appreciating what we are fortunate
> enough to have.

--- "Cesar" <caribestar@adelphia.net>  "You are crazy or an idiot!"

> You are either crazy or you are an idiot or both. Just in case you
> don't get it Clinton is not going against her base power structure
> of man hating feminist, lesbians, homos, lawyers , and other members
> of the communist party. ... You my friend are barking up the wrong
> tree and that is why I can't understand your logic.

> But, on retrospect as long as someone is barking at them keep it up
> but maybe change your tack. You ought to be telling her that she is
> wrongfully in power due to her being a lawyer and is violating the
> separation of powers doctrine. Oh, and as far as Hilary is concern
> why do you think Bill has been cheating on her for 30 years??

> God Bless you anyway at least you are trying.

--- "Marcia Winfield" <mw-99@worldnet.att.net>  "Try something else"

> I have suggested before that you make huge signs )message on both
> sides) with your phrase on them and carry them in front of her
> office. They can't stop you as long as you keep walking. They can't
> take your signs or in any other way molest you. Since it is Federal
> property (our property, yours and mine) you should not have to stay
> on the public sidewalk but if you do then that's where you walk. A
> lone father walking day after day carrying that plaintive sign will
> get media attention sooner or later, probably in the dead of winter.

Yes, that would be pretty safe -- but where is the element of personal
sacrifice that is a critical part of NonViolent Action?  In the 50's,
blacks just didn't sit in front of the bus stop with a sign (although
I'm sure some did), there were also those called 'Freedom Riders' who
would board the bus, sit in the front, and end up in jail.

Permitted parades and demonstrations are important, but will they work
all by themselves?  Hasn't the demonstration of personal sacrifice
always been required to secure GREAT rights?

http://www.AKidsRight.Org/civil_back.htm

-- Marcia replies:

> Back then they didn't have instant communication. You are not
> getting anywhere because your message hasn't made it to the big
> screen, or at least the evening news. If you carry that sign day
> after day, that is a sacrifice and it is a human interest story. You
> need to position yourself as a "lone father missing his son and
> praying for a chance to talk to his senator for help" Senator
> Clinton help us, pictures of you with Dom, all of that will get
> media attention especially as it gets closer to the holidays.

> She has political aspirations past being Senator. This refusal to
> meet with a constituent, if publicized, will help derail her run to
> the white house.  That you are not getting arrested is a direct
> result of her future aspirations.

> Ultimately she will meet with you but be prepared, it will not do
> any good.  She will tell you what you want to hear and that will be
> the end of it. Or she will tell you that domestic relations is not a
> Federal matter it is a State matter and there is nothing she can do.

> Nevertheless, getting you into the papers as the lone soldier
> fighting for your son, walking, carrying that sign day after day,
> will tell the story and help get the message out. A single voice can
> be extremely compelling particularly when all seems hopeless but the
> lone soldier continues his crusade.

--- "Mike Kosak" <mkosak@adelphia.net>

> Just FYI

> Writing a letter to Clintons office via her web site ALSO gets NO
> RESPONSE but what the heck- keep doing it and CC fox news and any
> other local and national email addresses you have

--- "Richard Doyle" <rfdoyle@mensdefense.org>   "Try others"

> John, why don't you try contacting the other NY senator, or better
> yet, a Republican Rep.  If one of them lets you in, Clinton will be
> mightily shamed.

Sometimes you have to finish what you started.  Clinton was the focus
of the effort for good reasons.  She is one of my Senators and she is
also THE PERSON on family issues in Congress.  She also wants to be
president.  Civil Rights movements in the past have enjoyed broad
based political support.  What does it say if she feels she can just
ignore parents?

To get her 'engaged' would help put reform on the national agenda.
Her very resistance also makes for a good demonstration of NonViolent
Action and the power of personal sacrifice.  I have been telling
people it will work -- but it is time to show them by real results.

-- Richard replies:

> My thoughts are that you can FORCE this man-hater to do as you would
> have her do by the threat of embarrassment.  She is politically
> savvy enough to know the danger of further avoiding you if her
> political rivals pay attention to you.

--- "Ken Wiebe" <kwiebe@fathers.bc.ca>  "Analysis of the problem"

> I work as a tech analyst, sometimes IT, sometimes technician and
> sometimes programmer. I have many years experience at problem
> solving, and some technical/engineering design. In short, a
> background probably similar to yours.

> You already know that the first step in solving any problem is to
> properly understand the problem, the causes, and the operative
> principles.

> The reason that the fathers movement generally has not gotten much
> traction is because (I think) of a basic misunderstanding of the
> problem. Clinton is just one politician, and we have had meetings
> with many of those - some of whom are better-positioned to effect
> change. Many of whom are more at-risk themselves, than senator
> Clinton ever would be.

I like the idea of analysis. But would like to start with your first
sentence, 'fathers movement'?  I think if you start with that, you
don't get anywhere.  I think 'we' are parents who have been separated
from our kids by an unjust system due to either divorce, separation,
or child abuse allegations.  It is not all about divorce.  It is not
all about fathers.

Regarding Senator Clinton, she is not just 'one politician'.  Anyone
has to admin, at least here in the US, that she is THE POLITICIAN when
it comes to family issues in Congress.

> The problem is not lack of discussion or lack of understanding. John, she
> knows what you want and why - but she won't do anything for you, no matter
> what you say to her. That is why she won't meet you.

I don't think she does know what I want and why.  I almost sure of it.
She never lost custody of her daughter, and I probably doubt any of
her close family members have been through it.

I think I have always been politically aware and educated about
issues.  Family Law was NEVER an issue for me.  I just didn't think
about it -- until it happened to me.  Then my eyes were opened as to
how the system is.  How about you?

> Which leads us back to the question: Why?
> People die, and nothing gets done. Why?

> In 20 years of analyzing this issue, I have only ever found one
> answer that explains all the seemingly insane aspects of the family
> law system, and it's near-universal sway in the western
> democracies. The goal is: Slavery. Male slavery first, and
> eventually everyone. Deliberate, knowing, and purposeful slavery of
> all men. ...

I think you are off base with that conclusion. Things are the way they
are through a bunch of silly laws that were passed one at a time by
well-intentioned people who just didn't think things through. It is
now time we realize proper protections need to be put in place before
the 'system' can separate you from your kids or treat you as less than
an EQUAL parent.  That is all that needs to happen.

I like the idea of analysis, but I think you made some bad
assumptions.  Your thoughts?

-- Ken replies:

> Like it or not, it is a fathers movement. Fathers are the vast
> majority of the people being hit hard by family law, fathers are
> losing their children.  Fathers make up the vast majority of the
> suicides precipitated by family law decisions. Any other impact is
> collateral. You are a father, demonstrating and taking action. Is
> the mother of your children with you?

> Yes, the bigger picture is "families" generally, and yes the system
> will eventually get around to enslaving mothers also, but the pivot
> point is fathers. If fathers lose then mothers will be at risk. If
> the fathers movement wins then mothers are safe. That is simply how
> it is.

> We have a senator in Canada who is "the senator" on family law
> issues. She is on-side. She has even enlightened several members of
> the government. Ad yet, reforms do not happen - and things continue
> to get worse. Look around at other countries and you will soon see
> that this issue is much bigger than any one government. Ask yourself
> why so many countries, all around the same time, have all
> implemented such wrong-headed legislation that impacts fathers and
> families. A few mis-informed politicians might explain one or two
> countries implementing the insanity, but not 20 countries or more -
> all at the same time and with the same harmful effects.

> Even if you persuade Senator Clinton, do not get your hopes up. It's
> quite likely that she can do nothing, and her career would be
> adversely impacted if she took up the cause. She's Note stupid, she
> probably knows this.

> Mass ignorance is not an explanation, it's a symptom. If it was one
> or two countries... Maybe a mistake. But not this many. My
> conclusion is the only one that fits all the facts. I don't like it
> any more than you do. You do know that elimination of family has
> been a socialist goal for as long as there have been socialists?

--- Gordon Broward <gbroward@comcast.net>

> John, I had occasion this past week to listen to Frank Abagnale,
> the subject of the movie "Catch me, if you can" directed by Steven
> Speilberg. Franks story was compelling as he described the
> difference between the movie and what actually happened to him. His
> story segwayed into the basis for his problems, not having a mother
> and a father around. I will quoted as closely as I can here. He
> stated that all children need a mother and father, all children need
> access to a mother and father. He went on to say that he was
> terrified of the court system, and had no idea of what would happen
> to him. I think that if someone were to contact him, that he would
> make an outstanding spokesmen for this cause, realizing that he
> himself had been the victim of the injustice of the family court
> system. Gordon Broward

Thanks for writing.  I never saw the movie, but I'll try to rent it
sometime.  It would be great to get him to speak/write on the topic.
Someone just needs to contact him -- know anyone?

Gordon replies:

> Six degrees of separation. I would start with his agent or perhaps
> writing him. I could do some of this. I could try the people who had
> contacted him to speak at the event, to get his agent's info.

--- Dr R L Munisamy <munisamy@bigfoot.com>  "non-violence ineffective"

> Non-violent action in the face of potent, intransigent force only
> works for outstanding individuals. Gandhi and King were great
> orators who led vast numbers to directly attack their tormentors
> economically. That's how they got the political elite of their day
> to the negotiating table. Lesser individuals like Nelson Mandela
> have only achieved this after long excursions into terrorism and
> incarceration.

I remember a quote from a biography on Mandala, where he states,
'NonViolent action did not fail us -- we failed NonViolent Action' --
his years in prison gave him a new perspective.  Just being
'non-violent' is not enough, there is also embracing self sacrifice
and having a strong Faith.  These are difficult elements, especially
for 'modern' people -- if someone treats you unjustly, you are suppose
to sue them and get rich!  Not make more voluntary sacrifice.

> It is even more difficult now since today's elite are particularly
> crafty at dealing with dissent.  Witness the mobilizations of
> thousands for the G8 meeting.  Precious little was actually achieved
> by the orchestrated venting of accumulated frustrations. Take a look
> at the suffering in Niger to see what practical change has occurred.

Again, what I see is a bunch of angry protesters throwing stones and
yelling.  Make the other person suffer!  Perhaps you recall the
example of the Buddhist Monk in Vietnam, who set himself on fire as a
statement against the violence of the war...

> Our cause is not popular even though it is just. The populace have
> been indoctrinated by feminist ideology spread by the elite. The
> state gives women security, they don't need men. Separate a man from
> his family and you make him impotent or crazy. Either way it is
> business as usual for the capitalists.

You bring up a good point.  But who/what is "Our cause"?  I find
myself very frustrated by fathers who just see this as about them and
are anti-feminist.  With that line of reasoning Mr. Luther King should
have preached hatred toward whites, and Gandhi ridiculed the British
-- if they would have done that, they would have failed.

Our cause is such an 'easy win' -- all we need to do is talk about the
love we have for our kids, and turn it into action by sacrifice -- who
could find fault there.  I'm tired of hearing about the Divorce
Industry, the Lawyer mafia, Feminazis!

> If you want change, forget the courts and politicians and get the
> people to attack the economy. Good luck. I suspect that change will
> only occur when we drop our current ideology. Even you talk of US
> citizens making sacrifices for their country in Iraq. This is the
> same imperialist viewpoint that uses feminism to stay in power. The
> Iraqis (like their Muslim cousins in Palestine) are turning to
> terrorism out of frustration in the face of an "invincible"
> invader. Perhaps you are beginning to understand how they feel.

Terrorism (the targeting of innocents) is such a lack of Faith.  It
get's publicity, but does it bring peace?  We don't' have to 'attack'
anything to win Family Law Reform -- but we need to demonstrate that
our relationship with our children is the MOST important thing in our
lives, and we're willing to sacrifice all else to regain it.

I think you know we have a history of NonViolent action at the site,
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/civil_back.htm -- all those people had
tremendous Faith in a Loving God.  That is probably the greatest
obstacle we face.

--- Grant <grants@usadatanet.net>

> Have you thought of contacting the Vatican requesting them to get
> involved?  Your not going to succeed unless this becomes HIGH
> profile!

> Good Luck

Yes, you would think the Church would be concerned about Family
Issues, but they are rarely on the cutting edge of Civil Rights.  I'm
sure they will help once it becomes more accepted.

--- Donna L.Taylor, LCSW, RN, MEd <socialdlt@att.net>

> Children need both parents equally for positive mental health. New
> Jersey politicians, lawyers & judges worry more about upsetting
> their image and /or votes than they really care about the needs of
> children.

> One NJ committee (Women, Family & Children) has been blocking "Equal
> Parenting" for too many years.  Diana L.Taylor, LCSW, RN,
> MEd. socialdlt@att.net

Thanks for the message and the need for both parents.  I'm not so sure
about the 'positive mental health'?  Right now we have a draft Family
Rights Act, http://www.AKidsRight.Org/act.htm -- it calls for equality
and fitness unless it can proved to a jury that you were a
demonstrated serious threat to your kids.  What do you think?  Part of
the idea is: Good Parent, Average Parent, Poor Parent -- all EQUAL
parents.

--- "howard axelman" <haxelman@hotmail.com>

> What is so weird about this whole issue is that sociologists,
> psychologists, etc constantly complain and write about how the black
> family is being destroyed by not having fathers around (see recent
> column by William raspberry) but when it comes to divorce, fathers
> are easily disposable.

You are very right.  A lot of this stuff just does not add up.  It is
a patchwork system that is not founded on any fundamental
understanding and protection of the rights of parents to nurture their
own children and kids to have TWO parents involved in their lives:
Good, Average or Poor parents.

Sometimes it seems like it will never change.  I draw encouragement
from the effort of Martin Luther King to destroy segregation.  Who
would have thought you could actually argue that a Black person should
sit in the back of the bus - OR, they had to pee in a different
bathroom than a White?  It seems so insane now -- but in 1950, it made
sense to a LOT of people!  http://www.AKidsRight.Org/civil_back.htm

--- Julian <fried@aesops.force9.co.uk>

> The central demand is obviously the civil rights demand for family
> rights - equal parenting, because only with this demand met can you
> tick all the boxes. Only thosde who stand to lose unfair legal
> advantage oppose it. It is not in the civil code because it is a
> demand which specifically recognizes a group right which limits
> state intervention, based on distinct characteristics of the human
> species (childhood and family, encompassing all members of the human
> species, ALL), whereas most post-enlightenment political philosophy
> is based on an abstract of the adult's individual's rights vis-a-vis
> the greater social whole, universalist and failing to differentiate
> between different human states(childhood and adulthood), or
> acknowledge the fundamental significance of individual human social
> relationships.

> It is a real advance we are asking for, one which brings us back
> into closer contact with the realities of humanity, adding to and
> enriching the universalist principles already established in recent
> Western political and social philosophy. Some of the choices that
> such a basic re-assertion of human values requires us to make
> confront directly the technological permissiveness of dehumanizing
> sperm donor and arbitrary parenthood freedoms for ADULTS that have
> already been established. The choice is going to be hard fought and
> hard won, but it is a just and a noble cause.

> See recent Euro-dads&mums messages and the Langeac Declaration of Family
> Rights for more specifics, more analysis.

> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/euro-dads/
> http://81.96.84.79/webpub/fr/main/en/faro/farfram2.htm

> Note that Equal Parenting Week at the end of September is an ideal
> event to start planning for in order to reinforce the equal
> parenting message, and is sufficiently flexible to spread a
> pluralistic message of solidarity:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/euro-dads/message/27023

=======================================
Newsletter mailing list
Newsletter@kids-right.org  subscribe/unsubscribe info below:
http://kids-right.org/mailman/listinfo/newsletter