Sunday, June 25, 2017

"A HOUSE DIVIDED . . . "

Editorial Note:

As you look at the following photo opportunities please ask yourself this:
If  churches in Michigan are so concerned about breaking up immigrant families, where do they stand on the breaking up of American families through divorce, or American parents having their children ripped away by family courts and social workers , or how about homosexual marriage which is a direct attack of the natural family? Is the church in Detroit standing up for them or is this simply a political fad the church in Detroit supports?  


 As far as providing "sanctuary" is concerned, where is the church in America? - where is the sanctuary for the natural family, for single parents, or for the epidemic of missing children or child victims of pedophilia? We talk about passing laws to protect pastors and give congressmen guns; what about the God's unborn murdered in the womb, the children in state care, and what about the natural families in America who have been under constant institutional and policy attacks during the past 60 plus years in an undeclared "war on the American family"?  To the church in Detroit and other professing houses of worship we would ask: where's your sanctuary for these victims?  How about ministering to Americans within our own communities with the same "zeal" shown to immigrants?

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2017/03/religious_leaders_and_activist.html

Detroit congregations declare sanctuary for immigrants
Updated March 14, 2017
Posted March 14, 2017
Sanctuary.zip
Rev. Paul Perez of Michigan United, along with many religious leaders addressed the need for sanctuaries to protect immigrant families. (Dana Afana | MLive.com)
Dana Afana | dafana@mlive.com
Rev. Jill Zundell of Central United Methodist Church, along with many religious leaders addressed the need for sanctuaries to protect immigrant families.
Rev. Jill Zundell, Central United Methodist Church, along with many religious leaders addressed the need for sanctuaries to protect immigrant families.

rabbi Jeff Falick, Birmingham Temple for Jewish Humanism, along with many religious leaders addressed the need for sanctuaries to protect immigrant families.
Imam Mohamed Almasmari, Michigan Muslim Community Council, handed plaques for congregations declaring themselves as sanctuaries, made by a local artist.

Monday, June 12, 2017

Americas LOST Generation

Americas LOST Generation, those born in this period 1963-1993 . . . makes sense why most are not engaged.



Sunday, June 4, 2017

State Court Trafficking Children for Federal Dollars $$$$$

Article by Gilbert T. Tso, Executive Chair – National Parents Organization of Colorado – Denver, Colorado
March 22, 2017
I was recently contacted about a case in Summit County involving a biological father being sued by
the mother’s boyfriend for custody of the father’s son. The biological parents resided in Missouri with
the boy until the mother decided to take him to Colorado several years ago to live with her boyfriend.
The father remained in contact with his son, who knows him as his father. The father did his best to
maintain a relationship with his son, and paid child support throughout.
In January 2016, the father was called about a car crash and was told his son was alright, but that
the boy’s mother died. Expecting to finally reunite with his son and for the boy to live with him, the
father instead received legal notice of a custody challenge from …. the boyfriend! What transpires next
from this tragedy is mind-blowing!
Few Coloradans are aware of the laws applied to custody litigation in the state’s family and juvenile
courts. Fewer still are Coloradans who are aware of the hidden financing involved in custody disputes
between the state of Colorado and the federal government.
Colorado law grants legal standing to a non-parent to contest child custody as a “psychological”
parent; it’s C.R.S. § 14-10-123. This enabled the boyfriend in Colorado to file the lawsuit seeking
custody.
But why would any judge grant child custody to the boyfriend of the deceased mother when there is
a loving and involved biological father at hand? The answer may be unsavory, as the reader will see
below.
Turning back to this father’s situation, the custody trial recently concluded in Summit County,
Colorado. From the information reported to me, the father is a fit and willing father who wants to raise
his son in Missouri with his other children; the boyfriend now lives alone and has no other children in his
household. Also, for some time, the boy lived in the home of the father in Missouri, and is fully
integrated into that family when they’re together. The judge’s decision should be straightforward. Not
so.
The judge granted custody to the boyfriend, naming him a “psychological” parent, and ordered the
father to pay the boyfriend child support in an amount greater than what he had previously paid to the
boy’s mother. It is also interesting to note that the boyfriend not once asked to adopt the boy as his
own son! What kind of paternal love does this suggest? Can we agree that this is an outrageous
outcome?
So, we return to the question of why the judge would make a custody order that seems outrageous
to most people. It turns out, unbeknownst to most residents of Colorado, that the state receives federal
payments for the collection of child support, under Title IV-D, E of the Social Security Act. See 42 U.S.C. §
658a.
So, the boy is a cash cow to the state, and of course Colorado would not want to relinquish him to
Missouri. Who would give up an annuity? The judges and state human services officials involved in the
family courts are running a business model that exploits the true best interest of our children.
And could it be that the boyfriend too is motivated by the opportunity to collect tax-free child
support payments for years? After all, he did not love this child enough to adopt him. It wouldn’t be the
first time a custody battle resulted from the irresistible urge to win a child support check.
Children have a sacred right to their biological parents; just as biological parents have a sacred right
to a relationship with their children – it’s a fundamental liberty interest affirmed by over twenty U.S.
Supreme Court opinions. Yet because the higher courts mostly ignore the family courts, they are
essentially unaccountable to anyone and do as they like. Judges should not intertwine their personal
beliefs, politics or operate as revenue generators for the state. Coloradans, it’s time to express outrage
at what our family courts are doing to families in the interest of the state and not for we, the people.
National Parents Organization
PO Box 270760
Boston, MA 02127
617.542.9300
NationalParentsOrganization.org
Parents@NationalParentsOrganization.orghttps://www.facebook.com/HereforLater/videos/656352387890966/