How Can an Immigrant Mother Loose Her Child in Court?

I can provide hundreds of links to the Republican Party that states they are the party of families.  We all know the mantra of the party.


So, how is it possible that immigration, the courts and the adopted parents can allow a five year old child to be kept away from his mother?


What you say?  Read this link.

From the article, "A Missouri judge ruled the boy should stay with the Missouri couple, Melinda and Seth Moser, who took him into their home five years ago while his mother was in federal custody, where she attempted in vain to oppose the adoption proceedings."

Full disclosure here, I am an adopted child.  I was forcible taken from my mother at birth and given to another family.  The reason for the removal of my mother's parental rights were all lies provided by people that didn't want my mother to raise me.  (Yes, I have documents about the case.  I now know who my mother was and she was not as they said she was.)

In this woman's case, because she did not have proper representation at hearings, she lost her rights.

Shame on immigration for not keeping families together.

Shame on the courts for allowing such a thing to happen.

Shame on the adopted family for not supporting keeping families together.

Shame on you President Trump for allowing this to happen. 

The "Internet Kill Switch" needs some safe guards

Recently, under the radar of all the other arguments that our culture is currently debating, the senate passed out of committee a bill entitled, “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.” (at this writing it is not clear to the author what the current status of the bill is). The act would establish the “Office of Cyberspace Policy and National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications.” It directs this new office to set standards and coordinate cybersecurity efforts within the government. The bill is sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman (I, Connecticut), Susan Collins (R Maine) and Tom Carper (D Delaware).

The biggest concern about the bill is that it would authorize the President of the United States to shut down all or parts of the internet during Internet-based attacks that threaten national security without review of the courts. Whenever the term “national security” is used, it is suppose to make all of us flinch and allow our freedoms to be limited. It provides the ground work to take action without authorization from the courts much like Bush’s actions after the 9-11 attacks.

Before anyone thinks that this is national issue that doesn’t affect main street and your neighborhood, please reconsider. The uprisings in many countries around the world over the last year, especially during the Arab Spring, have been supported by the internet. The right to free speech about the issues in those faraway places was enhanced by communication on the internet. It drove the passions of people that seek their freedom from the dictators of countries that oppressed their citizens for far too long.

If the freedoms of everyday people in those oppressed nations had not been stomped down, there would have been evolutionary change in the governments that control those countries and violent change would not have been necessary. But, since freedoms that are basic to all people were suppressed, the governments held a firm hold over the masses. It was the rise of the internet that allowed people to coordinate protests (the basic right of assembly) and demand change (a redress of their grievances).

With the free flow of information about issues, we can all make informed decisions about the threats that face our community. To hear from many voices about the ideas and actions of others is to foster an open dialogue about solutions and actions to take. In the countries that experienced the upheavals of the last few months, especially the more sophisticated and developed countries, the internet was controlled or in some places shut down as a first line of defense to the protests. In the United States, or any nation, to place the same power as is held by the dictators in the hands of very few people without review, is a dangerous act.

But, there is a more practical and simple reason to prevent such power without review to take place. Much of our communication not only between political groups but also between loved ones, friends and others is facilitated by the internet. To be able to connect with them in times of trouble is to ease the fear and panic that is created by crisis.

There does need to be a policy, well developed and measured, in the event of attack to the internet. We can’t be blind to the fact that there are those that would do us harm. The community needs to respond appropriately to prevent the loss of lives and assets. The creation of a cybersecurity team may be the correct path to take. But, the power placed in the executive branch must be balanced by a review from both the courts and the congress. This will prevent a stomping down of rights that is the hallmark of totalitarian governments.

This is the way an open community works best.

Note: Three things presented themselves while writing this blog post.

The First amendment of the Constitution guarantees not only the freedom of speech, but also of the press. The authors clearly meant to identify two issues, speech and the right to distribute that speech through a medium, in this case the internet.

Second, another issue linked to this one is net neutrality. There are those in congress that would like to limit the amount of the internet that users can connect to, leaving that decision to the market. But, as is identified above, the Constitution clearly makes the distribution of speech a right. To limit it would be hard to justify.

Finally, the word cybersecurity used in the act. It is such a new term that the word processing software used to write this post didn’t have the term in the spell check data base. Therefore, it marked the word as misspelled. This is how new this issue is in our culture.

-----

Where is the outrage over Sharia Law?

Where is the outrage against this blood payment?

The United States is part of a Sharia law blood money payment to win the freedom of a CIA contractor and American citizen in Pakistan. Yet, there is no strong reaction in this country about using a Sharia law to win the release of the contractor.

Raymond Davis, a contractor working for the CIA, was released from Pakistani prison in Lahore a few weeks ago. He spent two months in detention awaiting trial on a charge of murder. On January 27, 2011, he killed two Pakistani men that he says were trying to rob him and were brandishing a weapon.

The two families of the men that were killed agreed to forgive Davis for the murders in open court. It was confirmed by an official of the United States that “blood money” had been paid to the families of about $2 million. Under Sharia law, a bribe by any other name, can be paid to the grieving families in return for their forgiveness of the crime. Since Pakistan operates its courts in conformity to Sharia Law, the judge released Davis. He was flown out of the country by the United States ambassador to Pakistan.

So where is the outrage?

Sharia law is a system of laws based on the religious beliefs of Muslims. It is doesn’t recognize the natural rights of humans. For this reason, many in this country, including the Responsible Community, don’t believe our courts should consider it in decisions. In Oklahoma, a citizen’s initiative to prevent it was passed overwhelmingly in the last national election. In many states around the country, most recently in Tennessee, legislation has been introduced that would ban the use of Sharia Law in decisions. (As a nation, we should ban the code of law of all religions from being considered in any decisions. We should only use Constitutional law.) Yet, when the United States wins the freedom of one of our own citizens by using Sharia law, there is no outrage.

The government in Pakistan is in some ways similar to our own system, with one exception. There is an executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. All legitimately elected to office directly or indirectly by a vote of the people. The exception is the Federal Shariat Court. In Pakistan’s constitution, this court decides if any law or ruling conforms with Sharia law. This court makes Pakistan’s government a theocracy, a form of government that doesn’t respect the rights of those that live outside of the religion of the land.

It is doubtful that Davis would have received a fair trial. The evidence presented would be questionable at best and any ruling would need to receive a confirmation from the Federal Shariat Court. Additionally, a long drawn out trial would have done serious damage to United States’ image in Pakistan and possibly to its foreign relations throughout the region. But, when we entered the country in this world wide war on terror, we knew that those risks existed.

Everyone involved in this case from the United States government is denying that the payment was “blood money” or that the United States government authorized it. It was used, it is suspected, as a simple, practical way to get Davis released and bring him home. It is fortunate that he is on his way home because of the doubts with Pakistani’s legal system, but our diplomats should have found another way to get him released. But, the truth is, we used a legal code that we condemn in this country yet use it to subvert the justice system in another country.

Right and wrong doesn’t end at our border. The calls for blocking Sharia law from being used in this country must be consistently applied throughout the world. The payment of “Blood Money” as it is understood in Sharia Law should not have been used to gain Davis’ release. How is it that we will be able to ever again condemn Sharia Law when we used it to our benefit in this case?

-----

Only United States Laws

Only United States laws that are enacted by legally elected representatives of the people of the country should be followed by all branches of government. No religious, ethnic, cultural or social laws should be enforced. Additionally, all laws that are enacted should also pass the constitutional test to ensure that it is not violating individual rights that are granted explicitly and implicitly by the Constitution.

There, that is about as clear of a statement that can be written defining what laws courts and the other branches of governments should enforce. That means that Christian religious laws should not be enforce. Neither should Jewish, Hindu and any of the other 4,200 religious and cultural groups in the country.

Recently, lawmakers in Tennessee have proposed legislation that says judges can not consider Islam’s Sharia law in making rulings in their courts. Similar laws have been proposed in other states and Oklahoma passed a citizen’s referendum that also prohibits Sharia Law from being used in a judge’s decision. A responsible community should support this law if it included the other 4,200 other religions that are found in the country. But, by selecting only one religion’s law, it both sets up a situation that can be much too easily abused and shouldn’t pass the constitutional test.

The only reason lawmakers in those states, conservative Republicans all, are proposing such legislation is for political gain. They make their supporters feel good about them instead of working with them to do the right thing. Sharia law is no more likely to be recognized by the United States’ Court system than any other religious based laws. Yet, these legislators continue.

What is also disturbing, this type of law, directed solely at one group of people, begin to move us in the direction of pre-world war Germany. At first, Jews were just blamed for the bad economy. Once it took hold in the country, they were excluded from everyday life by being barricaded in the ghettoes. We all know where that ended up.

Don’t fall for any of this. The proposed legislation in Tennessee and elsewhere has nothing to do with reality. It wastes governments time, creates laws that are not necessary and is unconstitutional.

A Responsible Community can’t support any law that directly targets a religion.

-----

Kilpatrick Received Equal Justice Under Law

“Equal justice under law”, which is written over the entrance to the Supreme Court building, means that all will be held accountable to the same law, it doesn’t mean that all will receive the same sentence. It has never been that way and should never be that way.

The words “Equal justice under law” were used yesterday by Kwame Kilpatrick’s New York City-based spokesperson Mike Paul. He didn’t think that the former mayor received a fair sentence yesterday in a Detroit court for violating his probation.

Kilpatrick, who admitted to lying under oath to a grand jury and other charges, spent 120 days in jail before being released on probation. He still had to make restitution to the City of Detroit of a $1,000,000. Then, Kilpatrick moved to Dallas, Texas and lived a very comfortable life style to say the least. For a few months he kept up with his restitution payments but then began to default. After a long legal battle, Judge David Groner sentenced Kilpatrick to one and a half to five years in prison. After the sentencing, Paul said that the Ex-Mayor was, “Clearly not treated equal to all citizens under the law. As a result, treating him differently is unconstitutional.”

Kilpatrick was held accountable to the same law as everyone else. This wasn’t any special law that was created just for his case. He even admitted to the crime and accepted a punishment that saved him from jail time other than the 120 days.

The Judge Groner may have indeed sentenced him to more time than the average for violating his parole, but judges have wide discretion on most cases, as it should be. As a community, we would like everyone to be held accountable to the same law. But, if there are circumstances that lead a judge to believe that they are not fully responsible or the accused has fully accepted his responsibility, then sentencing should be lighter. On the other side, if the judge believes a stronger punishment is due, then it should be done.

A politician that violates the trust placed in him by the voters should be held accountable to a higher standard. As an example to other people in the same position, harsher treatment of Kilpatrick was justified.

-----