Come to a Tea party near you – or host one!

Tea Party NYC 2 PM today

Party affiliation should not come into this – this is a matter of patriotism and a matter of justice and our children’s future. As Senator DeMint reminds us this is a government of the people for the people by the people and it is The people who have to show they are not going to tolerate this anymore! So get up and show them this is not acceptable. Don’t just sit there and take it. We sat there for two years and watched them take away our democracy are we now going to let them totally strip us of everything else and bankrupt our country – sell it to china? Exactly what are you going to sit by and let these elected officials do next? Thousands of people are taking to the streets – please join them.

Tea Party USA Watch: Party planning continues; Sen. DeMint: “People have to show that they’re not going to take it anymore”

Cross posted from By Michelle Malkin  •  February 25, 2009 02:32 PM

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/25/tea-party-usa-watch-party-planning-continues/

Scroll for updates…

(Photoshop credit: Leo Alberti)

Lots of folks are only now hearing about the nationwide Tea Party events on Friday and beyond — as well as the pig roasts and anti-stimulus protests that paved the way for revolts across the country.

A reminder of the main resources for activists looking to join:

The New American Tea Party page from “a coalition of citizens and organizations concerned about the recent trend of fiscal recklessness in government…dedicated to the Washington, D.C. effort specifically sponsored by the American Spectator, the Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, Americans for Prosperity, and the Young Conservatives Coalition” is here.

The #TCOT has a site here and #dontgo has a list of links to official Facebook Event (and some non-Facebook) pages for each confirmed Chicago Tea Party.

PJTV’s clearinghouse for protests is here.

On Twitter, search “#teaparty” for the most up-to-date organizational info.

Glenn Reynolds has links to protest info in Nashville, Houston, D.C., St. Louis, San Diego, Atlanta, Orlando, Kansas City, and Cleveland. Glenn also has a related poll.

Many readers have requested that I post their tea party info (and I know a lot of you don’t use Facebook, so I’ll post the time/date/location when I can). Some will be held this weekend. Others are planning into the summer. I’ll try and get to all the requests and will add to the list. Leave info on your neighborhood party in comments if you’ve got it.

Fiscal responsibility is the new counterculture!

***

Via WND: Sen. Jim DeMint says…

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., a staunch opponent of the federal government’s increase in size and spending legislated by President Obama’s stimulus package, has issued a call for Americans to stand up – literally – and take back their freedom.

“I would think it’s time to start thinking about peaceful demonstrations,” DeMint said in an interview with Georgia’s Augusta Chronicle. “The power of the people is there. Freedom is in the people’s hands right now, and it’s about to slip through.”

***

California:

Sacramento… State Capitol Building, North Steps, L St. entrance, Sac., CA.When: Fri, Feb 27, 12pm – 1 pm.

Colorado:

Denver…East steps of the State Capitol, Feb 27, Friday at 10:00 a.m.

Florida:

Orlando…February 27th Tea Party and March 21st.

Pennyslvania:

Pittsburgh…

Young Republicans of Pennsylvania, TCOT, SGP, and Don’tGo
Friday, February 27, 2009
Time:
12:00pm – 1:00pm
Market Square
Forbes Ave and Market St
Pittsburgh, PA

South Carolina:

Greenville, SC, Fri Feb 27, 6pm downtown on the Reedy River

Texas:

Pass this to anyone you know in the Houston area.
The Houston Tea Party
Join us in Protesting the Stimulus Package No Taxation without Deliberation!
When: Friday, February 27, 2009
Time: 11:00am – 2:00pm
Location: Fondren Green at Discovery Green Park!!! Right in front of Amphitheatre!! http://www.discoverygreen.com/
City/Town: Houston, TX
Bring a sack lunch and a pitcher of iced tea to “share” with Porkulus.

Wyoming:

“Cowboy Tea Party”
Date: 4th of July
Location: State Capitol , Cheyenne, WY
Time: High Noon
Info: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=56475332132

Posted in:

A golden opportunity to tell Schmucky Schumer you care

Be it a Tea Party or Pork Hors d’ouvres it’s time for the tax payers to step up and be heard- citizens are meeting up all over the country and saying enough is enough. We did not like the big spending of the last administration – so how the hell do we square the spending projected in this one? Is this the change we can believe in? I can see the pork but where’s the beef and the truth behind the ” there will be no earmarks in my administration?”

This pork laden bill is over the top and looks an awful lot like that old saw – don’t piss on my leg and try to tell me it’s raining out – that good an orator he ain’t! Americans are mad as hell and many are not going to take it anymore. Are you one of them- or are you one of the ones who bitterly complain but does nothing? It’s time to put up or shut up!

 

The following is cross posted from Michelle Malkin  •  February 27, 2009 10:32 AM
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/27/a-golden-opportunity-to-tell-schmucky-schumer-you-care/

 

(Photoshop: Tennyson Hayes)

He went on the Senate floor and derided Americans who care about bailout-mania and porkapalooza.
Now, you have an opportunity to tell Chuck Schumer what you think of his contempt for taxpayers.
Just learned that Sen. Schumer will make an appearance next week in NYC to tout the federal spending spree to business leaders:

WHAT:

New York’s senior senator will discuss the financial industry bailout, stimulus package and efforts to impose tougher regulations on Wall Street.
He will be questioned by Crain’s editorial director Greg David.

WHO:
Charles Schumer, United States Senate

WHEN:
    Monday, March 2, 2009 8:30 AM

WHERE:

Hilton New York
1335 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY

Bring a bag of pork rinds!

Posted in:

Decision Expands Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence

Legal Momentum Applauds Supreme Court Decision in U.S. v. Hayes

February 24, 2009 – http://www.legalmomentum.org/news-room/decision-usvhayes.html

NEW YORK (Feb. 24, 2009) – Legal Momentum, the nation’s oldest legal advocacy organization dedicated to advancing the rights of women and girls, applauds the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling today in United States v. Hayes, a decision that will positively impact victims of domestic violence throughout the country. The Court expanded the reach of a 1996 amendment—the Lautenberg Amendment—to the federal Gun Control Act barring possession of guns by a person convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence crime. The Supreme Court’s decision guarantees that the Lautenberg Amendment is applied across the nation in fulfillment of its original purpose: to prevent known perpetrators of domestic violence from possessing firearms and to help keep victims safe.   

Irasema Garza, President of Legal Momentum, praised the decision: “The Supreme Court’s ruling will undoubtedly improve the safety of victims of domestic violence by keeping lethal weapons out of the hands of convicted perpetrators. We have seen time and again that guns and domestic violence are a lethal combination. By restricting offenders’ access to firearms, this decision helps to protect victims from attacks that could cost them their lives.”  

For a variety of reasons, most domestic violence perpetrators are charged and plead to or are convicted of misdemeanor offenses such as assault and battery.  Some states have generic misdemeanor assault and battery statutes, but other states have misdemeanor offenses specific to domestic violence.  

At issue in United States v. Hayes was whether the Lautenberg Amendment, which prohibits gun ownership by persons convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” applies only to individuals who violate laws that specifically prohibit violence against family members, or if it also applies to anyone convicted of a violent misdemeanor that was, in fact, committed against a family member.  

In 1994, Randy Hayes plead guilty to a misdemeanor battery against his then-wife and mother of his child; ten years later, police responded to a call regarding domestic violence at his home, where they found a rifle and arrested and indicted him for violating the Lautenberg Amendment.  Hayes requested the federal district court to dismiss his indictment on the grounds that his prior conviction was not “a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” in that the law that he violated did not require a domestic relationship between the victim and the offender. The district court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, and Hayes appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

In their 2007decision on United States v. Hayes, the Fourth Circuit agreed with Hayes’ argument, and ruled that the domestic relationship must indeed be a specific element of the prior offense in order to trigger the federal gun ban — effectively rendering the gun ban moot in the states that do not have misdemeanor laws specific to domestic violence.  

Reversing the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, the Supreme Court’s decision holds that the gun ban applies whenever the battered victim is in fact the spouse or other family relative of the offender. In the majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, “It suffices for the government to charge and prove a prior conviction that was, in fact, an offense committed… against a spouse or other domestic victim.” 

Legal Momentum joined the amicus (friend of the court) brief filed by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, arguing in favor of a natural reading of the Lautenberg Amendment that does not require a domestic relationship to be a specific element of the prior offense. The Supreme Court’s decision supports that interpretation and ensures that the 1996 amendment banning gun ownership for perpetrators of domestic violence applies in all 50 states, thereby improving safety for victims of domestic violence nationwide.

For more information or comment, please contact Erin Smith at 212.413.7516 or esmith@legalmomentum.org.

About Legal Momentum: Founded in 1970 as NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Legal Momentum is the nation’s oldest legal advocacy organization dedicated to advancing the rights of women and girls. Legal Momentum’s ambitious and wide-ranging legal program is known for its cutting-edge legal theories and as a source of expert assistance to other women’s rights attorneys and organizations. www.legalmomentum.org

Supreme Court denies guns to domestic abusers

By David G. Savage

Los Angeles Times

Wednesday, February 25, 2009
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/02/25/scotus0225.html

Washington —- The Supreme Court Tuesday upheld a broad federal gun control law that strips gun rights from the many thousands of people who have been convicted of any domestic-violence crime.
In a 7-2 decision, the justices ruled that the federal ban on gun possession was intended to keep “firearms out of the hands of domestic abusers,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

The law covers not only people who have felony convictions, she said, but also misdemeanors involving an assault against a former or current spouse or a live-in partner, as well as a child, a parent or others who live together in the home. “Firearms and domestic strife are a potentially deadly combination nationwide,” Ginsburg wrote.

She cited a report from the National Institute of Justice that found about 1.3 million women and 835,000 men are assaulted physically by a spouse or partner each year. Many more such offenses are never reported, the report found.

In Tuesday’s decision, the court settled a linguistic dispute over how to read the law. Since 1968, federal law has prohibited felons from having a firearm. That ban was extended in 1996 to cover a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”

Some judges read this narrowly to mean the law did not apply to people who were charged with assaulting or physically threatening someone with whom they had once lived. These judges said the law applied only to those who were convicted or who plead guilty to a “domestic violence” crime.

Some states have laws against “domestic violence” and charge offenders under it. Other states and prosecutors routinely charge offenders with assault or battery.

In the ruling, United States v. Hayes, the court said the gun ban applies to all such offenses, as long as it can be shown there was a domestic relationship between the offender and victim.

The ruling reinstates an illegal gun possession charge against Randy Hayes, a West Virginia man who was found to have three guns in 2004. He also had on his record a 1994 misdemeanor for battery against a woman who “was cohabiting with him.”

Hayes had argued that the federal gun-control law did not apply because he had been convicted of “generic battery,” not a “domestic violence” law. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., agreed, limiting the reach of the law.

Had the Supreme Court agreed, it could have restored gun rights to thousands of people in 25 states that do have on the books a specific “domestic violence” law, according to the Brady Center for Handgun Violence.

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady center, called Tuesday’s decision “the right one for victims of domestic abuse and to protect law enforcement officers who are our first responders to domestic violence incidents.”

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who sponsored the 1996 amendment that expanded the gun control law, said the measure “has kept more than 150,000 guns out of the hands out of domestic abusers. … Today’s decision means we can continue keeping guns out of dangerous hands and saving innocent lives.”

 

One Last Kiss

This is a cry for Justice from: BettyJean Kling

On 2/20/09, ( we think that was the date – no one informs any of us) Louisa Richardson – Rodas was rushed from Kessler Institute in West orange , NJ to Hackensack University Medical Center  Emergency Room with a life threatening emergency. We understand she was there a good part of the night. Louisa was fighting for her life within 2 miles of most of her loving family while Frank Rodas, her third husband of only 4 years – her brother Tommy and his wife Shelly played God. Was it spite- revenge and hatefulness that deprived her grandparents – parents children and sister of what might have been her last hours? Even more egregious, (According records from the courts from her nurse Nadia – it is highly probable she recognizes voices now) they deprived Louisa of the loving arms of her family- the prayers of her loved ones, the hugs, the kisses and the words of love from her sons in what could have been her final hours.

How long will this go on – where is the outrage? Where are the letters from the community on behalf of Louisa that the abuse must stop? Louisa cannot speak for herself- the law says her husband is legally responsible – he is under the influence of a of a brother who is using abusive control tactics – he has told me in no uncertain terms that either I do what he says or he is holding Louisa hostage.  It’s Tommy who insists that Louisa is kept in this state against her wishes and is now forcing her to face these perils without the benefit of the love and caress of her family around her – instead she lies there alone and afraid and helpless. I know my daughter – she is afraid – Louisa does not want to die without her children -mother – father – sister and grandparents !!.

Louisa’s family consists of: Her grandparents Roy and Louise, her mother BettyJean and step-father Dick, her father Doug and step-mother Diane, Marc her eldest son, Joshua her younger son and his father Ed and his grandmother Jean and Louisa’s sister Denise all of her closest relatives who love and care for her were prevented from information regarding what may have been Louisa’s near death experience both while it was happening and after the danger had passed.

Had we not had a neighbor working at the hospital – we still would not know about Louisa’s emergency at all. We do not know if it has happened before and are sure we will not be told if it happens again. If she had passed would we have read it in the papers? Would Frank – Tommy and Shelly have acknowledged us as Louisa’s survivors or would it have appeared in the Elizabeth papers in another county that they are now listed as resisding in? Would we be welcome at the funeral or just expected to pay the funeral expenses? Would they hide her resting place from us as well? What is the point of all of this nonsense and where does the abuse and neglect of Louisa stop? Will anyone out there write letters on our behalf to the editors to the media? Stop the continual abuse of Louisa!

I have just gained knowledge that Louisa’s health is tenuous at best.  I have come to find out these episodes are to be expected and Louisa may not survive one of them. The report reads; Louisa may experience complications from her injuries, including neurological issues. It is anticipated that Louisa will remain at Kessler for up to a few more weeks and then will be transferred to a sub acute facility. Thereafter, it is likely that Louisa would reside in a nursing home.  Her return home is possible but not likely.

This is not about me this is about Louisa. I am not a back down kinda girl- yet I pretty much stopped blogging about Louisa and these creeps- I did not start any suits- I did not make any noise at Kessler. I decided not to cut the baby in half thinking that as long as she was in Kessler she was safe and me and the rest of the family sacrificed our feelings for my baby girl but after finding out that we were wrong – that she is in danger – and in danger of  dying alone and without us to hold her and tell her we love her. We now know she needs us more than ever.  She  needs us – all of us – she damned well needs her mother and her children and we cannot sit quietly by anymore! What these three cold hearted people pulled the other night was a downright calculated cruelty aimed toward me but it hurt Louisa and it must stop! IT MUST STOP NOW!

Everyone of us that found out after the fact is livid with these three took it upon themselves to make this decision for Louisa and how they abrogated her rights the other night! How dare they make that decision for her. First- frank has not yet been named her guardian and secondly – that was not a fit decision and finally that would never have been her decision and therefore it is proof positive he nor they are fit to make those decisions. The entire family would prefer a court appointed guardian to intervene on Louisa’s behalf and in her best interests! A court appointed stranger would care more for her and have more sense- and would know better!

Louisa is entitled to medical privacy – I agree, however, when that privacy is used as it is being used as a tool to hurt her mother – it is cruelty. When a mother can not call a facility and ask how the daughter is doing – one has to ask – why not? Might I write on the blog – Louisa smiled today and is that private?

Help us Help Louisa – I cannot imagine that Louisa would not want to kiss her sons goodbye – Can you? Next time she may not be so lucky – it is urgent that she not be kept in near solitary confinement!

George Hartwig took Louisa Richardson- Rodas out of our family picture but Frank Rodas, Tommy Vitale- Richardson and Shelly Dobson-Richardson took all the rest of us out of the picture the night Louisa was rushed to the emergency room. Now all that are left in the picture have all the control of Louisa's life and are those who only took but never added much to Louisa's life. Her Grandparents - her parents - her children and her sister not only love Louisa she adores us and needed us and wants us . Pictured here are her abuser George Hartwig pulled the trigger, Tommy left her alone that night , Shelly told lies to help them ban me from visitation and Frank who foolishly bit the hand that was feeding them and loved and cared for he and Louisa all these years.

Has the New Agenda Lost Its Way? Part 6

A six part series by:
BettyJean Kling WWW.Free-US-Now.com
PG of http://bertrandrussell.blogspot.com

In Part 1 - Accentuating the negative, we pointed out that our experience has been that Amy Siskind, far from encouraging a grassroots organization, is running The New Agenda in a hierarchical and elitist “top-down” manner. Rather than appealing to the intelligence of American women, she expects people to accept her agenda without doing any thinking for themselves. We also introduced a NOW 50 state membership drive for March.

 In Part 2 – Lack of focus, we note The New Agenda seems to get some CNN interviews and quotes in local papers, but question the actual national membership and get-out-the-vote ability. We also pointed out inconsistency regarding sexism and misogyny which may not be attributed to partisan favoritism but to the same media pressure which Amy Siskind enjoys the light of so long as she obeys their rules.

In Part 3- Failure to make the most of members’ expertise and capabilities, we noted that the New Agenda’s failure to educate its members about issues on which it asks them to take action leaves TNA’s eligibility for a 501(c)(3) foundation — which must be educational (http://www.nowfoundation.org/) and non-political — in question. We also pointed out the lack of disclosure extends to a shortage of information about The New Agenda’s goals.

In Part 4- Lack of diversity in the faces and voices representing The New Agenda, a pattern of dictatorial elitism emerges. Without divulging the names of the innocent, we have uncovered the scope of Amy Siskind’s true agenda, which, like the Wizard of OZ, is drastically smaller than the thundering illusion of a grassroots feminist movement that she purports to want. Instead, her goal appears to be to rule and reign over a few. Betty Jean also has demonstrated firsthand knowledge of Siskind’s willingness to attack and defame anyone who dares to disagree with her.

In Part 5 we provided documentation and additional first hand testimony to substantiate our concerns about Amy Siskind and her behavior at The New Agenda. Sandbagging other women, censoring and deleting comments, and banning people who dare to disagree is certainly an unacceptable approach and we feel an honest and open confrontation is the better way to solve this problem than to continue with the censorship or having to endure the back biting techniques utilized to handle women she doesn’t respect.

Be assured that this series is NOT merely tearing down The New Agenda. On the contrary, the goal throughout has been to provide constructive criticism. This final post offers suggestions to deal with each of the five criticisms; we know how to fix problems as well as identify them. If TNA followed our suggestions, Amy Siskind no longer could have such a dictatorial control of it — the suggestions are simply incompatible with the style of leadership that she has demonstrated thus far. If TNA survives because the organization becomes more transparent, accountable and democratic, we will be happier than if it fails because of Siskind’s personal failings.

We wish TNA well, but given its current structure, we would advise women to devote their energies to NOW at the national and local levels. As Marcia Pappas has shown in her comments here, local NOW chapters have the capacity to be more responsive about matters of particular concern, and as was shown in NY NOW’s criticism of Sen. Kennedy’s Obama endorsement (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/29/womens-group-slams-kennedy-for-betrayal/), national NOW gives the local chapters leeway to dissent. Can you imagine Amy Siskind, who doesn’t even permit criticism in TNA’s blog comments, allowing a local chapter of TNA to take a position independent of her national agenda?

6) So how can The New Agenda get back to its roots?

1) Minimize the negativity. Instead of making vague insults about how a potential candidate only cares about her own self-interest, TNA should put a positive spotlight on those whom it believes merit consideration. Don’t take every pitfall of the Obama Administration as an opportunity to call for a man to resign and be replaced by a woman. Instead, put forward a slate of female candidates for each Cabinet position, so that the Cabinet Watch will serve a useful purpose in keeping the names of women with expertise in particular areas before the eyes of America. It could become a resource for corporations looking for directors on their boards, nonprofits seeking trustees, and political parties recruiting new faces for candidacies.

2) Keep asking for that list of “asks.” Which of The New Agenda’s goals have the most overlapping consensus support from its membership (not just from its leadership)? Those should be prominently featured and pushed in every available forum. If a Congressperson or aspiring politician has agreed to an online chat, ask what s/he is going to do about those top priorities for TNA.

3) Create a better library of information. While TNA lists a set of goals, it provides very little information about how it wants to achieve those goals, or even a detailed explanation of what the goals are. Relatedly…

4) Diversify who blogs and speaks for TNA. Recruit more people to do the CNN interviews and to post on the blog. In particular, putting in place resident mistresses of certain fields of knowledge – educational, legal, medical, scientific, financial, etc. – would make The New Agenda an extraordinary resource both for its members and for journalists looking for a well-informed quote. Have those experts back up TNA’s criticisms and recommendations with solid analysis. For example, Siskind herself has tremendous experience in finance, yet she hasn’t posted a substantive critique of Tim Geithner’s work as Secretary of the Treasury, even as many center-left media outlets have begun describing Geithner as not being up to the job. (Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post, “Vote of No Confidence” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021100922.html; John Judis in The New Republic, “End the Honeymoon” http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=5bff5e94-6fa6-4a69-9ff2-8f08cb437ccc ) Instead, The New Agenda suggested that Geithner’s tax problems — already canvassed in his Senate confirmation hearings — were a good reason for Obama to ask for his resignation (http://thenewagenda.net/media/press-releases/obama-gets-do-over-and-a-new-chance-for-women/). TNA should be looking at whether politicians and appointees are doing their jobs right, instead of playing gotcha; “gotchas” on taxes always have the possibility of rebounding on the other side, as with the news of Gov. Palin’s needing to pay back taxes on her per diem (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/18/palin-told-to-pay-back-taxes/).

5) Loosen the reins. While The New Agenda should not tolerate blog commenters who make rude or insulting remarks – women have to deal with enough of that in the offline world! – it should tolerate critical discussion. In particular, Ms. Siskind cannot continue to treat critiques of The New Agenda as personal attacks on her or on all of womankind. The New Agenda’s rank-and-file supporters deserve better. They deserve, as one put it (http://thenewagenda.net/2009/02/08/no-way-no-how-to-kim-gandy-for-director-of-womens-bureau/), “the kind of exchange that is going on right now on this thread is vital to ensure that an organization continues to take an honest look at itself, hone what needs to be honed, defend what needs to be defended, and in so doing, become ever more clear and credible in the public eye.”

I lobbed her head off-cuz I thought she was grade A beef

Another Rant by: BettyJean Kling

I will be bringing you a series of gruesome but true tales about beheadings

This takes insanity to new heights-was he angry- nuts- schitzy or what? This beats all I ever heard the man is angry and is fighting with this woman- he is also nuts- and he is now asking to be free and we are going to pay for this? Note, Tanner now 52 was quite his wife’s senior at 21 when this happened in 1990. So what is it- was he angry or did this steakhouse meat cutter suffer from acute schizophrenia and cut his wife up thinking she was cattle?

Read the story below and tell me why this murderer was found not guilty in the first place and now wants to be free of any mental observation at all? Would you want this gem running around your neighborhood, working in your butcher shop or steakhouse?

 

Psych evaluation approved for man who beheaded wife

 

 

By Lauren Pack
Staff Writer
Saturday, January 10, 2009

HAMILTON — A Butler County judge has approved funds for an independent psychological evaluation of admitted killer Raymond Tanner to determine if he should remain under court control.

Tanner, 52, was found not guilty by reason of insanity after decapitating his wife in 1990. He is seeking release from any court control of his freedom.

On Friday, Jan. 9, Judge Andrew Nastoff approved $1,500 to fund a second psychological examination of Tanner, who as a condition of release from a mental-health facility in 1996 must appear in court every two years for review of his case.

Defense attorney Greg Howard said the most recent evaluation by the court’s doctor recommends Tanner remain on conditional release, with six face-to-face evaluations with a psychologist annually. Tanner disagrees and wants a second evaluation.

There is no reason for Tanner to be under any court control, Howard said. He said Tanner has not been on medication for 12 years and does not see a psychologist other than the one required by the court. He has had no other offenses.

Tanner, a steakhouse meat cutter, killed his wife, Maria, 21, after an argument in their Fairfield home.

In June 1990, Tanner was found criminally insane, and to have been suffering from acute schizophrenia. After being in a mental facility for less than 10 years, Tanner was released with conditional provisions that have continued since 1996.

He appeared in court Friday with his daughter. He lives in Montgomery County, where he works at odd jobs. Butler County Prosecutor Robin Piper opposes Tanner’s release from court control.

Nastoff set a hearing date of March 4, for testimony from both doctors who have examined Tanner to be heard and a ruling on future court control.

Contact this reporter at (513) 820-2168 or lpack@coxohio.com.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/story/content/oh/story/news/local/2009/01/10/hjn011009tanner.html

Let Kirsten be who Kirsten is

Another Rant by: BettyJean Kling

One of my own pet peeves is that women are put in boxes to begin with. Why is every women in the Democratic Party expected to fall in line behind every so called Democrat issue. Kirsten was attractive to me because she didn’t fit into that box to begin with and was expected not to cave into politico pressure. I am annoyed because we constantly beg our politicians to be on our side then expect them to be robots after all. Maybe some of us are Steppford Wives and want the same in our female representative – not I.

As far as I am concerned- I hope this gal sticks to her guns and does exactly as she damned well pleases. And personally I am sick to death of hearing what NARRAL has to say about a damned thing! We are so much more than reproductive organisms that walk lockstep to the tune of Democratic Party issues. All together now … All I want for Christmas is the Equal Rights under the Constitution of the United States of America. I want 52% representation in my government and I will decide what I want for myself in terms of life- choices.

Oh and about guns If you don’t want one – by all means don’t get one- as for me – I damned well intend to be able to protect myself from anyone coming into my house with an illegal gun to blow out my brains – I reserve the right to defend myself and my family and shoot first!

So let’s let Kirsten be who Kirsten is. Can’t she be a progressive conservative democrat with common sense and the ability to consider the needs of all her constituents rather than cave into the same old crap that has kept ALL women down all these years?

But I digress- the reason for this post is to bring attention to how female politicians are derailed. For example: Here we go again- let the lady stand on her own two feet and show any strength at all and the good ole boys will turn out their favorite hit men aka the media to spread falsehoods and distortions. They print it and get other women to repeat these smears to do their dirty work for them, just like they did with Sarah and Hillary. It is obvious; Kennedy and Obama don’t like her, Kennedy because of Carolyn, and Obama because among other things she voted against stimulus bill.

On the other side of things the female politician is then defended by the true democrats who come to her defense with all the old tired bull shit that centrists- moderates- progressives and independents are just plain tired of marching in lock step to. These old anti -Shaffely types are just as much as a turn off on this side of the aisle as Shaffely is on the other side and female politicians are paying the price, and we wonder why we have only 17% representation.

Senator Gillabrand has a stellar resume – I am curious what it would look like if we unfettered her from that which holds women hostage from breaking through that glass ceiling. For the hell of it – go through the pieces below and peruse while well meaning and very kind how her defenders choose to advocate for her. Call me crazy – but having called oneself a conservative democrat, perhaps NARAL, PP are tired old labels unnecessarily attributed to all progressive women now. Both the media and our friends may be doing us harm if you ask me – but then who asked?

I am all for giving her that chance – and I would let her speak for herself – while I am at it. The Senator has a very good reason for reconsidering her positions now that her constituency covers the entire state- that is something I had not considered before I went off half cocked- but I am still all for owning guns- every women needs a gun for self protection!

     PUSHING BACK!  Posting by “SAM” http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2009/02/gillibrand_gun_flipflop.html

NYNewsday’s coverage of Kirsten Gillibrand is doing a disservice to its readers by distorting her positions and viewpoints. They have chosen to focus on only 2 issues–guns and immigration. There is no mention of the support she has from such groups as Planned Parenthood, NARAL, the ACLU, Sierra Club, NAACP, League of Conservation Voters, the Farm Bureau and many other progressive groups. Perhaps Newsday should focus on her overall record and positions to give readers a true and more realistic picture of who Kirsten is. You have put her in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t position”–if she changes her views, then she is flip-flopping, yet if she doesn’t change her views, then she is rigid and not listening to her constituents. Kirsten shares the viewpoints of many of her fellow Democrats, including President Obama and Sen. Schumer. She deserves a chance and so do your readers deserve a chance to have a full picture of who Kirsten Gillibrand is–they will like what they see.

 

Kirsten astounded the political world when she won handily in that Upstate congressional district against a tough incumbent. She did it the way she does everything: lazer-like focus and determination, hard work, keen intellect, and an impressive, independent approach to problem-solving and decision-making.

JUDITH HOPE:

“Please meet my friend Kirsten Gillibrand” and pass along to others.”I want to tell you about my good friend Kirsten Gillibrand, and why I think she will be an outstanding US Senator for NY State.

I got to know Kirsten in the early days of organizing for the Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy Committee, a group with an impressive track record of electing progressive democratic women to state and local office.

Kirsten was a successful young corporate lawyer in New York City and I had known and worked with her legendary grandmother, Polly Noonan, who was, for decades, a power house in Albany County Democratic politics.

Kirsten, with her characteristic high energy, enthusiasm, and generous spirit, jumped in and did a fabulous job hosting events and recruiting other young women professionals to get involved. She was asked to join the board of Directors of ERLC where she continued to contribute with her sound judgment and thoughtful, well-considered opinions.

She and her husband Jonathan (who is wonderful) decided to move to Hudson, NY, near the area where she grew up, shortly after the birth of their first child. When Kirsten first told me she was thinking of running for the House of Representatives from the district, I was not encouraging. It was (and is) one of the most Republican districts in NY State – seemingly impossible for a progressive Democrat to win.

Two years later, she won re-election with a whopping 62% of the vote against a self-funded, multi-millionaire, former Chair of the State GOP who spent almost $6 million against her.

She won in this conservative, heavily Republican district despite very high marks from most of the national progressive watch-dog organizations: She has a 100% voting record with the ACLU, NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood. She has 95% from the League of Conservation Voters, and 96% from the NAACP. She was also endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign, the National Education Association, and the Sierra Club.

She has come under fire for her past votes on immigration issues and gun control. Her positions on these issues have been influenced by the concerns of the district where hunting is a historic part of the local culture, and where an influx of immigrants has coincided with high unemployment and severe economic hardship.

She has said that, now that her constituency includes all of NY State with our remarkable diversity of interests and concerns, she will seek to find a balance among those concerns. She moved quickly to meet with urban constituents to find common ground and to craft real solutions to their problems. For example, she is drafting legislation aimed at stopping the traffic of illegal firearms from southern states – a major source of gun violence in our cities. And she is championing the DREAM Act to give children of illegal immigrants the opportunity to attend college.

I hope that the news media and New York voters will give her a fair chance, something often denied to women when there is an intense competition for political power. I know she has the talent and the heart to become a truly outstanding leader in the US Senate.

I wanted to share my thoughts with you because the Kirsten who is being portrayed by the media is so different from the one I have come to know and admire. I appreciate your taking the time to read this.

Many thanks,

Judith

Has The New Agenda Lost Its Way? Part 5

A six part series by:
BettyJean Kling WWW.Free-US-Now.com
PG of http://bertrandrussell.blogspot.com

In Part 1 - Accentuating the negative, we pointed out that our experience has been that Amy Siskind, far from encouraging a grassroots organization, is running The New Agenda in a hierarchical and elitist “top-down” manner. Rather than appealing to the intelligence of American women, she expects people to accept her agenda without doing any thinking for themselves. We also introduced a NOW 50 state membership drive for March.

 In Part 2 – Lack of focus, we note The New Agenda seems to get some CNN interviews and quotes in local papers, but question the actual national membership and get-out-the-vote ability. We also pointed out inconsistency regarding sexism and misogyny which may not be attributed to partisan favoritism but to the same media pressure which Amy Siskind enjoys the light of so long as she obeys their rules.

In Part 3- Failure to make the most of members’ expertise and capabilities, we noted that the New Agenda’s failure to educate its members about issues on which it asks them to take action leaves TNA’s eligibility for a 501(c)(3) foundation — which must be educational (http://www.nowfoundation.org/) and non-political — in question. We also pointed out the lack of disclosure extends to a shortage of information about The New Agenda’s goals.

In Part 4- Lack of diversity in the faces and voices representing The New Agenda, a pattern of dictatorial elitism emerges. Without divulging the names of the innocent, we have uncovered the scope of Amy Siskind’s true agenda, which, like the Wizard of OZ, is drastically smaller than the thundering illusion of a grassroots feminist movement that she purports to want. Instead, her goal appears to be to rule and reign over a few. Betty Jean also has demonstrated firsthand knowledge of Siskind’s willingness to attack and defame anyone who dares to disagree with her.

5) Loosen the reins.

This relates to the last two points, but is worth discussing in itself because it seems to be a cause of those symptoms. While every online forum has to fend off spam and trolls, Siskind seems to be using her powers of moderation on The New Agenda’s blog to ban commenters who are simply critical. This fear of criticism and debate is very self-destructive and echoes the same problems the Democratic Party had last year when it misconstrued women’s complaints about the treatment of Secretary of State Clinton as an effort to hurt the Party. An organization, whether the Democratic Party or The New Agenda, that cannot withstanding informed, reasoned critiques is an organization too weak to stand the test of time.

In particular, to return to Point #1, Ms. Siskind’s response to questions about TNA’s anti-endorsement of Gandy is very telling: “[W]e very purposely chose to not list line items as to why we do not endorse Gandy. But suffice it to say that it was unanimous (less one) amongst our Founders group who are prominent women from around the country and perhaps, through our connections, we know more information than you know. Could that be?” This lack of transparency, accountability and access for all members (no matter how non-prominent or unconnected!) is the theme that runs through all of these concerns.

Concerns about Ms. Siskind’s undisclosed motives and secretive tactics may derail The New Agenda — something that couldn’t happen over a problem with a single person if leadership were diversified. Questions are beginning to pop up all over the internet.

According to this site (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/why_is_the_new_agenda_smearing_nows_kim_gandy/), Siskind sent the following email on the down-low to select “feminist bloggers” in order to sandbag Gandy:

From: Amy Siskind
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL – Kim Gandy seeks powerful position in DC in Obama Admin
Fellow Feminist Bloggers:
We learned yesterday that Kim Gandy has made public her intention to ask for one of the most powerful positions in federal gov’t for women – Director of the Women’s Bureau in the Department of Labor.
TNA has watched Gandy shift positions again and again to stand up for Obama and sell out women – for example, on Larry Summers …
Our view is that she has sold out the women of this country for some back room deal – well now we know what the back room deal is!!!
We are asking all feminist bloggers to post a story on their blogs on Sunday, February 8th at NOON EST in protest of Kim Gandy. Feel free to use whatever rationale you see fit – I know that we each have our own gripes.
But letting this woman be in a position of power, as reward for selling out her constituents (women) would be a crime.
Please forward this to all the feminist bloggers you know that are like-minded – with one caveat: WHEN YOU FORWARD IT – IT DID NOT COME FROM ME OR TNA – AND TAKE OUT THE FIRST FEW PARAGRAPHS HERE AND JUST PUT IN INTO YOUR OWN WORDS!!!
Remember, post your story on Sunday, Feb 8th at Noon.

The Rumproast blogger questioned Siskind regarding her attack on Gandy.

“When confronted with copious evidence that her statements about Gandy were flat-out false on Monday, Siskind promised a more complete accounting of the case against Gandy Tuesday. She said she knew Gandy actually opposed Clinton during the primary (despite video evidence to the contrary) and would include an account of that in her clarification. This is what she delivered — a completely fact-free and pathetic “parable.” (http://thenewagenda.net/2009/02/10/a-parable/)

When people expressed puzzlement over what the “parable” was supposed to tell them about Kim Gandy, Siskind didn’t try to explain. Again, typical of her preference for putting others down instead of trying to persuade them to join her, she said,

“You seem an intelligent woman, but you seem to have totally missed the gist of the parable,” and added “This ain’t rocket science – read it again!”
(http://thenewagenda.net/2009/02/10/a-parable/)

Again, from the same article (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/why_is_the_new_agenda_smearing_nows_kim_gandy/), more evidence that Siskind censors anyone who dares to question her claims:

“And to stave off dissent, she’s censoring or deleting comments from polite though persistent questioners like this woman and me, and she scrubbed her own comment promising a more substantive critique. In other words, Siskind has got nothing, and she doesn’t want anyone pointing it out.
“… Siskind purports to speak for women via The New Agenda and from her status as a go-to “feminist” for our stupid media. Therefore, the standard of proof is higher. I say they either produce evidence of the offenses they’ve accused Gandy of or retract the scurrilous attacks which they’ve thus far failed to substantiate.”

This is turning into an unfortunately personal kind of battle, which it need not have been. Had The New Agenda presented its preferred slate of candidates without mentioning Gandy; had the New Agenda, in recommending against Gandy, given evidence of her unfitness for the office instead of unsourced rumors based on Siskind’s “connections”; had Siskind just shown the basic honesty not to push a blog campaign against Gandy while telling people that they didn’t hear it from Siskind — we wouldn’t be seeing The New Agenda disparaged by connection.

Again, the actions of only one person won’t smear an organization if the organization is truly grassroots, broadly-based and democratic. Unfortunately, The New Agenda hasn’t reached that status, and it’s hard to tell how it can under its current leadership. An organization that is transparent and accountable is what women need. Does it really make sense for women who are disenchanted with the Democratic Party to sign up for another organization that works in secret and won’t explain its decisions?

Has The New Agenda Lost Its Way? Part 4

A six part series by:
BettyJean Kling WWW.Free-US-Now.com
PG of http://bertrandrussell.blogspot.com

In Part 1 - Accentuating the negative, we pointed out that our experience has been that Amy Siskind, far from encouraging a grassroots organization, is running The New Agenda in a hierarchical and elitist “top-down” manner. Rather than appealing to the intelligence of American women, she expects people to accept her agenda without doing any thinking for themselves. We also introduced a NOW 50 state membership drive for March.

 In Part 2 – Lack of focus, we note The New Agenda seems to get some CNN interviews and quotes in local papers, but question the actual national membership and get-out-the-vote ability. We also pointed out inconsistency regarding sexism and misogyny which may not be attributed to partisan favoritism but to the same media pressure which Amy Siskind enjoys the light of so long as she obeys their rules.

In Part 3- Failure to make the most of members’ expertise and capabilities, we noted that the New Agenda’s failure to educate its members about issues on which it asks them to take action leaves TNA’s eligibility for a 501(c)(3) foundation — which must be educational (http://www.nowfoundation.org/) and non-political — in question. We also pointed out the lack of disclosure extends to a shortage of information about The New Agenda’s goals.

4) Lack of diversity in the faces and voices representing The New Agenda.

TNA President Amy Siskind has been effective in leveraging her media connections to get herself on TV. However, Ms. Siskind is a white, upper class woman from the suburbs, and having that be the only face seen as “The New Agenda” may leach away the support that ought to exist for the organization from minority, middle and lower income, urban and rural women who also are outraged by sexism and who seek sex equality.

To the extent that The New Agenda’s natural base is among Hillary Clinton’s supporters, TNA ought to be attracting Latinas, working-class and rural folks, not just Wall Streeters (http://thenewagenda.net/2008/10/11/wall-street-without-its-top-three-women/) in Westchester. Its agenda should be informed by those diverse perspectives as well.

Siskind insists on the names of the founders being kept secret, and no one speaks to the media except Siskind — while she is accountable to no one. If a member wants to talk to the other founders – one cannot.

Betty Jean was invited to join by an original founder and thus became privy to that founders’ list. Looking at the original press release, why people were asked to join is now obvious: to get at least one from each of the five fledgling Pro Democracy groups, mostly from the tri state area, with a sprinkling of founders from four further states to inflate a claim of nationwide presence.

When in a serious discussion (explained in the next paragraph) with Siskind over the Favreau turn-around, Betty Jean copied the entire discussions to two other founders, insisting that if this group were to be speaking up for all the women of America, then before they were going to do a 180 turn they should at least consult with the membership or discuss it with other founders. Siskind cut off Betty Jean from the blog, and defamed her as a crazy, dangerous stalker, for the temerity of demanding democracy in The New Agenda. When Betty Jean reached out to the other founders on the list regarding this situation, the founder who gave her the list was immediately removed from the “secret society.” These Stalinist tactics, coupled with further defamation of Betty Jean, led to the resignation of eight members within a very short time, several of whom were attorneys. Do we want this kind of an organization: secret founders; dictatorial, undemocratic behavior; willingness to spread false, derogatory information about a member who disagrees with Siskind?

Regarding Favreau, Betty Jean urged Siskind to rethink her change from demanding that Favreau be fired, to having him be forced to volunteer at a battered women’s shelter. This latter suggestion would make the previously-stated concern about Favreau’s attitude toward women look ludicrous. Who would send a man with a history of disrespecting women and their bodies to a battered women’s shelter? Typical of her elitism, Siskind seemed to view a battered women’s shelter as a rehab center for sexist men — the equivalent of juvenile offenders’ doing highway trash cleanup — not as a refuge for women fleeing the misogyny and violence occurring in their own homes. Betty Jean encouraged Siskind to bring the matter to the membership, rather than changing TNA’s stance and speaking for all the women of the country based solely on Siskind’s personal decision. Siskind cut off Betty Jean, telling others that BJ was a crazy old stalker for wanting to continue to the discussion instead of just trusting in Siskind’s judgment.

Within days, Betty Jean’s daughter Louisa was shot in the head by another man who had been slapped on the wrist for his previous treatment of women. Violence against women is serious; battered women’s shelters aren’t places for Siskind to dispatch men whom she has said are encouraging acquaintance rape (http://thenewagenda.net/2008/12/06/will-president-elect-obama-fire-jon-favreau/). Any organization with leadership that will not listen to its membership, instead demeaning other women as “nobodies,” doesn’t deserve to represent those nobodies. There are plenty of “nobodies” among American women who won’t put up with this. They demand that their voices be respected, even by “prominent” and “connected” women. If there’s an income requirement for getting Amy Siskind’s respect, let her run the Pound Ridge Bridge Club!