Wisconsin Bill Claims Single Moms Cause Child Abuse by Not Being Married
By Lylah M. Alphonse, Senior Editor, Yahoo! Shine
A state senator in Wisconsin says being single causes child abuse and neglect.
In Wisconsin, a state senator has introduced a bill aimed at penalizing single mothers by calling their unmarried status a contributing factor in child abuse and neglect.
Senate Bill 507, introduced by Republican Senator Glenn Grothman, moves to amend existing state law by "requiring the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board to emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect."
The bill would require educational and public awareness campaigns held by the board to emphasize that not being married is abusive and neglectful of children, and to underscore "the role of fathers in the primary prevention of child abuse and neglect."
Saying that people "make fun of old-fashioned families," Grothman -- who has never been married and has no children -- criticized social workers for not agreeing that children should only be raised by two married biological parents, and that he hopes the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention board, of which he's a member, could "publicize something that's politically incorrect but has to be said in our society."
"Whether that leads to more people paying attention and having children after they're married or whether that leads to some others making a choice for adoptions," he said.
A third of all parents in Wisconsin are single. Given that single mothers far outnumber single fathers in the state and in the rest of the country, and given the emphasis on fathers being part of the solution rather than part of the problem, many people feel that the bill is tantamount to an attack on single moms.
At Tuesday's meeting of the state Senate Committee on Public Health, Human Services, and Revenue, lawmakers and members of the public spoke out against the proposal.
"This bill is going to do nothing to help children avoid abuse. It's going to do nothing to help families," at the meeting. "What this bill does is call out and chastise women who have babies who are unmarried."
Grothman has advanced and supported other policies "that make it harder to access prevention-based health services so that they can prevent pregnancy, so that they're not in a situations here they have an unintended or unwanted pregnancy," Taylor added.
Grothman is also the sponsor of Wisconsin State Bill 202, which would repeal the state's Equal Pay Enforcement Act. Last year he claimed in an essay that the "Left and the social welfare establishment want children born out of wedlock because they are far more likely to be dependent on the government."
In "How The United States and The State of Wisconsin Are Working to Encourage Single Motherhood and Discouraging Children in 2-Parent Families," he wrote that the government urges women not to get married by making programs like low-income housing assistance, school choice, WIC, tax credits, and food stamps more attractive than marriage.
His solution? Restrict the types of foods that can be purchased with food stamps, make Section 8 housing more cramped and limit the value of assets owned living there to $2,000, and eliminate school choice, among other things. "It is inexcusable that a single mother making $15,000 gets her kid out of the Milwaukee Public Schools but a married couple earning $50,000 is stuck in the public schools," he wrote. "It is also somewhat outrageous that some married couples feel they can only afford one or two children in part because they are paying excessive taxes to provide programs for someone else to have four or five children.
Edward Kuharski of Madison, Wisconsin, , calling it "off target."
"I don't understand a bill that's just about stating an opinion," he said, "and that appears to be the entire purpose of this bill, simply to assert an opinion and impose it upon an expert body that knows perfectly well how to do its business."
"Senator Grothman has no experience in parenting," Kuharski pointed out. "The contribution of institutional increase in neglect and abuse of children … has nothing to do with what you learned in Sunday school. Nothing. Before you put a larger target on the back of the people that you have attacked through many other bills, stop and take some responsibility for it."
Edward Kuharski - Speaking against SB 507 (which criminalizes single & unmarried parents)
Text with video:
Uploaded by nicknicemadison on Feb 29, 2012
Timothy Riley speaks against a bill proposed by WI Senator Glenn Grothman, who has never been married & has no children, that seeks to criminalize single or unmarried parents. In his twisted mind he believes that child abuse & child neglect only occurs with parents that aren't married.
This is from a meeting of the Senate Committee on Public Health, Human Services, and Revenue on Feb. 29, 2012
Article (from Forbes):
PDF of Grothman's disturbing views on families:
Copy of SB 507:
Full session can be viewed here:
* * * *
With the passage of the NDAA, the military detention act, will parents be unable to pick up their kids from schools, and will children be separated from parents to weaken any resistance. The military has geared up with a war with the American people if a war with Iran can be pulled off. When those in the military, who are now discussing policy, talk about this, you have to take them seriously. The below video should have a different title.
Anwar al-Awlaki Was A FBI Asset, Triple Agent Before 9/11 1/3
Text with video:
Uploaded by TheAlexJonesChannel on Mar 5, 2012
On the Monday, March 5 edition of the Alex Jones Show, Alex talks with U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, who is known for his revelations about government mishandled intelligence prior to the September 11 attacks and for the censoring of his book, Operation Dark Heart, by the Pentagon. Shaffer is currently a Senior Fellow at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. Lt.Col. Anthony Shaffer breaks down how Anwar al-Awlaki Was A Triple Agent, A FBI Asset Before 9/11.
Anwar al-Awlaki Was A FBI Asset, Triple Agent Before 9/11 2/3
Anwar al-Awlaki Was A FBI Asset, Triple Agent Before 9/11 3/3
* * * *
[click here] for:
Will those who obtain the below knowledge want to say STFU Israel about Iran? Will citizens want to obtain representation for their taxation after listening to the below videos? Will those who listen to the below videos want to stop the warring, spying, torture, rape, robbing, and murder that is being funded using our money and is perpetrated by our international corporate and banking owners?
The picture above which is unrelated to spying, the CIA, the USDOJ, and has nothing to do with post, other than being visually pleasing to go with post, was found here.
How is Ronald Reagan era US Attorney General Edwin Meese III involved in any wrongdoing? Edwin Meese is mentioned in the 2nd video below about hunting The Octopus. What happens when US Attorney Generals are promised cushy jobs as lobbyists, to get speaking fees, and/or high paying jobs in the corporate, banking, or spy world?
* * * *
Can you trust tyrants to investigate and police themselves. I was told that the former Connecticut State Police Commissioner Arthur L. Spada was the one man grand jury for Connecticut. So if you had a complaint about Spada, you had to complain to Spada, so Spada could be investigated. That makes sense, right?
There was allegedly one judge on Connecticut's Habeas Corpus review committee, Jonathan J. Kaplan. So, if you need relieve from an unfair case, or tyrannical judge, a more tyrannical judge decided to hear your case, or just have you waste more time, come before him so he could deny it. I know from talking to legislators on the Connecticut Judiciary Committee and who are in the Connecticut Judicial Branch, read this blog. So, if there is any errors above, email me, correct me. stevengerickson At yahoo.com
So, if American can be kidnapped, tortured, or killed for being on the list, where are there any checks and balances? The dead can't sue. Those who aren't allowed access to even the US rigged courts can't now pretend there is any real justice in the US. It looks like international corporate owners and bankers have representation, what about we the people? Why are we being taxed if we have no say? We can get profiles and arrested just for showing up in public. That makes sense, right?
Holder: When It Comes to Assassinating Americans, Due Process Includes Arbitrary Whims of the RegimeMarch 6th, 2012
The Fifth Amendment provides that no one can be “deprived of life” without due process of law. But that due process, Holder said, doesn’t necessarily come from a court.
“Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process,” the attorney general said.
Holder said a U.S. citizen can legally be targeted in a foreign country if that person is “a senior leader of al-Qaida or associated forces,” and is actively involved in planning to kill Americans. Killing would be justified if the person poses an imminent threat of a violent attack against the U.S. and cannot easily be captured.
Any military operation targeting a citizen overseas must be carried out consistent with the law of war. “The principle of humanity requires us to use weapons that will not inflict unnecessary suffering,” he said.
The ACLU called Holder’s explanation “a defense of the government’s chillingly broad claimed authority to conduct targeted killings of civilians, including American citizens, far from any battlefield without judicial review or public scrutiny.”
“Few things are as dangerous to American liberty as the proposition that the government should be able to kill citizens anywhere in the world on the basis of legal standards and evidence that are never submitted to a court, either before or after the fact,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project.
“Anyone willing to trust President Obama with the power to secretly declare an American citizen an enemy of the state and order his extrajudicial killing should ask whether they would be willing to trust the next president with that dangerous power,” she said.
Afghanistan: Special Forces Under CIA Control Would be Considered Spies, Allowing White House to Claim U.S. Troops Have Been WithdrawnMarch 5th, 2012
Top Pentagon officials are floating an idea to put elite special operations forces under CIA control in Afghanistan after 2014, sources told The Associated Press.
The plan is one of several possible scenarios being considered and has not yet been presented to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the White House, or the relevant congressional oversight committees.
If the plan were adopted, the U.S. government would be able to officially say that there are no more troops in Afghanistan, because once the special operations teams are assigned to CIA control they become spies. This would obviously hinder any potential for accountability and transparency, since activities and funding would become classified and journalists or other forms of oversight would not be welcomed.
Maybe the filmmakers could get a B-2 bomber to park out front:
At $2 billion each in 1997 dollars ($2.8 billion each in 2012 dollars), however, they would have to significantly increase their fundraising efforts.
Help us Open an Actual Museum of Gov't Waste
Filmed over the last 5 years, MUSEUM OF GOVERNMENT WASTE follows regular citizens Jim and Ellen Hubbard as they travel to Washington, DC in the ultimate quest to find out why the federal government is spending our country into bankruptcy. In an effort to get behind the closed doors of Capitol Hill and see how and why Congress really makes its decisions, Jim and Ellen decide to run an experiment.
* * * *
Attorney General Holder defends execution without charges
By Glenn Greenwald (about the author)
Barack Obama and Eric Holder (Credit: Reuters)
In a speech at Northwestern University yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder provided the most detailed explanation yet for why the Obama administration believes it has the authority to secretly target U.S. citizens for execution by the CIA without even charging them with a crime, notifying them of the accusations, or affording them an opportunity to respond, instead condemning them to death without a shred of transparency or judicial oversight. The administration continues to conceal the legal memorandum it obtained to justify these killings, and, as The New York Times" Charlie Savage noted, Holder's "speech contained no footnotes or specific legal citations, and it fell far short of the level of detail contained in the Office of Legal Counsel memo." But the crux of Holder's argument as set forth in yesterday's speech is this:
Some have argued that the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. "Due process" and "judicial process" are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.
When Obama officials (like Bush officials before them) refer to someone "who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces," what they mean is this: someone the President has accused and then decreed in secret to be a Terrorist without ever proving it with evidence. The "process" used by the Obama administration to target Americans for execution-by-CIA is, as reported last October by Reuters, as follows:
American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions . . . There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council . . . Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
As Leon Panetta recently confirmed, the President makes the ultimate decision as to whether the American will be killed: "[The] President of the United States obviously reviews these cases, reviews the legal justification, and in the end says, go or no go."
So that is the "process" which Eric Holder yesterday argued constitutes "due process" as required by the Fifth Amendment before the government can deprive of someone of their life: the President and his underlings are your accuser, your judge, your jury and your executioner all wrapped up in one, acting in total secrecy and without your even knowing that he's accused you and sentenced you to death, and you have no opportunity even to know about, let alone confront and address, his accusations; is that not enough due process for you? At Esquire, Charles Pierce, writing about Holder's speech, described this best: "a monumental pile of crap that should embarrass every Democrat who ever said an unkind word about John Yoo."
Read this entire critical article at Salon