News and Opinions from Thomas Lessman
(Note: This is my OLD blog. For up-to-date posts, please check out my new blog, at http://www.talessman.blogspot.com !)
This blog has been moved to a new location:
http://www.talessman.blogspot.com is where you'll find my new blog. MANY more posts than this blog, updated constantly.
I cover a wide range of topics on the new blog, from politics to religion to top news stories. You'll also see posts about my "World History by Thomas Lessman" series, which includes links to my World History Maps (www.WorldHistoryMaps.info).
So go check it out, www.talessman.blogspot.com, and feel free to leave comments!
Thomas Lessman
Website: www.ThomasLessman.com
Blog: www.talessman.blogspot.com
World History Maps
. www.WorldHistoryMaps.info
Lessman Farm and Truckhenge
. www.thomaslessman.com/LessmanFarm/
-------------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------
Dave McIntire, responding to Jerry Loney's letter, says that blanket non-retention of judges is irresponsible voting and bad civics. I disagree.
The imposing authority of family courts hits both mothers and fathers hard. Two parents enter, one parent and one visitor leave. Usually it is the father, but many mothers are also segregated into visitor status. Regardless of who thinks he or she has won, the result is that the family is broken, the children have one less parent, America becomes that much weaker and "the system" becomes that much richer.
Attorneys, psychiatrists, mediators and a host of other professions have created a multibillion dollar divorce industry on the broken backs of families. Judges are entrusted to maintain justice, but more often than not they abuse their authority to enrich their friends and supporters.
There is one reason I disagree with Jerry Loney, because I know of one judge in Shawnee County who is fit and just. However, they do not even honor her with the title of judge; she's an administrative hearing officer. I guess there is more than one way to marginalize justice.
As for irresponsible voting, most voters blindly vote to retain (keep) all judges because they have no clue as to how corrupt and broken the system is. That is irresponsible voting.
When judges violate the rules of ethics, accept bribes and hook up their professional golf buddies by abusing their authority, it is time to remove them. When Enron crashed, everyone looked straight at the CEO and other leaders. It makes no difference if the thug wears a business suit, a ski mask or a black robe -- a thug is a thug and deserves to be in prison.
THOMAS LESSMAN, Kansas president, American Coalition of Families and Citizens
Rein in judges
By Bruce Eden Date: 6-02-05
Source URL: http://www.cjonline.com/stories/060205/opi_letters.shtml
I am responding to the letter of Dave McIntire and his sophistry about booting out "honorable" and "earnest" judges in a non-retention vote as being irresponsible because some citizens are mad at them. He makes further specious allegations that this would deprive the community of good people in the judiciary.
He then states a "capricious citizenry" diminishes the community. I guess he hasn't read the writings of our forefathers about the judiciary and many who have written since that time. They talk about the judiciary becoming an oligarchy, becoming corrupt, becoming tyrannical. All of their premonitions about the judiciary have come true.
Mr. McIntire is either a lawyer, judge or a supporter of same. He makes capricious and arbitrary conclusions that somehow there are earnest and honorable people in the judiciary. He should read the papers and look at the corruption in the courts around the country. The judiciary is the new monarchy in this country. It is the most powerful branch of government and uses the force of a gun to acquire jurisdiction over people's lives, property and liberty.
Force doesn't equate to due process. Due process by the judiciary is an illusion and a public relations scam. It has infiltrated all branches of government and has screwed up the country as a result.
Abe Lincoln said it best standing over the grave of a lawyer and reading the epitaph: "Here lies a good man and a lawyer." Lincoln then said (paraphrasing), "I didn't know you could bury two people in the same grave."
BRUCE EDEN, director, Fathers Rights Association of New Jersey
Yesterday, radio host Megan of On the Other Hand on AM 580 Radio in Topeka made the statement that she thinks Abscent Fathers are a large part of the problem with violent children and with violence in sports. She was speaking in reference to the NBA brawl last Friday, when an NBA fan threw a beer on NBA player Ron Artesta, sparking a terrible brawl.
Megan and I have had a mostly respectful email exchange regarding her and my opinions of Absent Fathers. I say MOSTLY respectful because I was rather angry when I first emailed her, due to not being allowed on the air to contradict Megan's statements. Shame on me, but also shame on the hosts for not allowing me to counter Megan's opinions.
In reality, less than 1% of Fathers truly abandon their families. Granted, there are large numbers of children who grow up without their Fathers. However, the vast majority of Fathers do the best they can to be involved in their childrens' lives!
Unilateral No-Fault Divorce is but one tool Divorce Industry attorneys and judges use to remove Fathers from home. Marriage was society's greatest Equal Rights program until attorneys realized that unilateral no-fault divorce would cause the divorce rate to skyrocket. Marriage is essentially a contract between two people who are committing themselves to each other to raise children. Allowing one partner in that commitment to break it, and take the kids, and get a monthly check, creates incentive for divorce.
The Custody system segregates parents into 2 un-equal classes, Custodial (Primary) and Non-Custodial (secondary) parents. The Non-Custodial Parent is only allowed to "visit" their children, and are usually forced to pay their ex to raise the children, even when the NCP is willing and able to raise the children themselves.
Imagine the insult and injury caused when you are "allowed to visit" your children, and forced to pay someone else to raise them even though you are willing and able to raise them yourself!
Far more Fathers are driven out of their Children's lives by the Divorce Industry and Mothers than by voluntary abandonment. Put another way, more Fathers are forced out of their kids' lives, not abandoning them. Need statistical proof? See the bottom of this post for 3 well-known references.
Fathers 4 Justice is a well-known British Fathers' Rights that has waged a high profile campaign to highlight the massive problem of Fathers TRYING to see their children, but who can't see them due to vindictive mothers and incompetant courts. www.Fathers-4-Justice.org
The vast majority of absent fathers are not absent by choice, but rather, they are absent because the mother or the attorney won't let them. After years of court battles, the Fathers become so frustrated by the corruption and injustice in "Family Courts" that they give up.
See below, under my signature, for 3 very good references to back up what I've stated.
---------------------------------------------
Thomas Lessman
Citizen Activist, Network Coordinator, Tech Consultant
www.ThomasLessman.com
Phone: 785-230-4546
eMail: Chairman@MillionDadsMarch.org
Mail Address:
4124 NE Brier Rd.
Topeka, KS 66616
President of ACFC-KS
www.ACFC-KS.org
Million Dads March network Chairman
www.MillionDadsMarch.org
3 good statistics and references about WHY many Fathers are not involved with their kids:
50 percent of mothers see no value in the father's continued contact with his children.
--- "Surviving the Breakup" by Joan Berlin Kelly
40 percent of mothers reported that they had interfered with the father's
parenting time... to punish their ex-spouse.
--- "Frequency of Visitation" by Sanford Braver, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry.
40 percent of fathers are denied parenting time.
---1988 Census "Child support and Alimony: 1989 Series P-60, No.173 p. 6-7
and U.S. GAO report GAO/HRD-92-39FS January, 1992
Last Thursday was the first (and only?) debate for the 53rd District race for the KS House of Representatives. Courtesy the Jim Cates Show on AM 1440 KMAJ in Topeka. www.JimCatesShow.com.
The first thing I noticed was that both of my opponents are more than twice my age! My generation currently has no representation within the state legislature, and I believe it is time we get a young Kansan into office.
Each of us three candidates were allowed to ask one question of the other two. My question went like this:
"With the Welfare Reform Movement in the late 1990s, Clinton's Democrats pushed through a series of abusive legislation such as the 'Deadbeat Parents' Punishment Act', which has become a nightmare of suspended Drivers Licenses, Debtors' Prisons, and other clear violations of our Constitutional Rights. My question is this: As a Representative, would you be willing to fight against such abusive laws as the 'Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act', the 'Homeland Security Act', and the 'Patriot Act', and would you be willing to fight to restore our Constitutional Rights as American Citizens?"
The look on the faces of my opponents said it all; they didn't have any idea how to answer! When they did answer, they did much like any regular politician, giving an answer that basically didn't answer the question, but sounded like they were answering.
Jack asked a question about whether I would support the "Marriage Amendment" and Gay/Lesbian Marriage. My reply was, "The Constitution is a document designed to limit government power, NOT to define what citizens can't do. Therefore I would NOT support the "Marriage Amendment". At the same time, I realize that marriage is an institution designed to protect and strengthen Families, which are made up of one man, one woman, and children. I am AGAINST Gay/Lesbian Marriage because they would not be made up of one man and one woman. Civil Unions already provide most of the protections of Marriage."
Ann's question was about School Financing, and how would I 'fix' the School Finance Controversy, and what is my position on consolidating city/county school districts in Shawnee County, Kansas. My answer was, "First, the media isn't giving a clear picture of the controversy. Judge Bullock, whom we like to call "Bullock the Hutt", actually had a major part in drafting the original Financing rules that he later declared unConstitutional. And in reality, Judge Bullock is a PETTY District Court Judge, and does NOT have authority to declare all schools in the state shut down. Bullock WAY overstepped his authority in his ruling. As for consolidation? Having graduated Shawnee Heights (the district we are running in) just 8 years ago, I can personally vouche for the very high quality of education we recieve at USD 450. In contrast, I am well aware of the fiascoes taking place at USD 501 (Topeka Public Schools), where the District lost $550'000 through fraud, tried to hide it from the public for 2 years, then when they were found out, cried that they didn't have enough money to pay for buses. So now, kids have to walk up to 2 MILES to school. Then to top it all off, the school district administrators gave themselves RAISES. So my answer is that, NO, I am NOT for consolidating city/county schools because I do NOT want to see the very high quality of education and administration in Shawnee Heights brought down to the level of USD 501."
If only you could have SEEN the look on my opponents' faces!
Bravenet Blog 
Blog Community
Get a Free Blog
Manage your Blog
bravenet.com