Leave a comment



The Groundbreaking new book: NOT In the Child’s Best Interest will show you how to protect your rights.

THUMBNAIL_IMAGE This book is desperately needed BECAUSE:

  •  Divorce Courts will NOT protect your rights if you don’t demand it.
  •  Divorce Attorneys will NOT tell you how to preserve your parental rights in
  •  divorce.
  •  Most Divorce lawyers do NOT know how to preserve your parental rights in
  •  divorce.
  • Child custody laws and family law codes violate your constitutional rights
  • by default.

Stop the winner take all slug fest. Deny the Judge any authority to restrict or  deny your parental rights. Put your child’s best interest first by ensuring that you remain an equal parent in your child’s life.



If you want to keep your rights to your child, you can try trusting the default winner take all system and blindly follow your divorce lawyer’s lead. You may or may not get a fair shot at getting custody. You may or may not be in a county that supports equal rights for parents. Some counties favor women and deny fathers rights in custody battles. Some counties overcompensate for gender neutrality and deny women’s rights to custody. Without a gender bases for deciding custody, the decision comes down to the arbitrary and capricious whim of your judge. If the Judge doesn’t like you under these rules then you are simply out of luck!

Hope and protection come in the form of the U.S. Constitution and the long history of Supreme Court opinions that support parental rights. These authors have studied over 100 United States Supreme Court cases going all the way back to the eighteen hundreds to understand the source of parental rights under the constitution. This book cites over 90 of these cases and several cases from Federal Appellate Courts, and State Supreme Courts. Although this is a heavily cited and professionally written book, It is written to be easily read by non-attorneys and to be accessible for parents in divorce. This book is much more than simply the authors’ opinions. It is chock full of cogent constitutional arguments tied directly to the Supreme Court’s own words. This book tells the Supreme Court’s history of opinions on parental rights from the perspective of divorcing parents focused on their particular concerns.

There are only three things that give a Judge authority to limit or take away your parental rights, all of which the State MUST prove, and none of which are appropriate in a Divorce Proceeding. Do you know what those three things are? Inside this book you will learn about the false “best interests of the child” standard that Judges wrongly use impose their moral, religious, and political values in child custody without any fear of being overturned on appeal. What is the correct interpretation and how do you argue that effectively? If you want the terror of child custody hearings to end then you need to get the knowledge and seize the authority that is rightfully yours as a parent in America. More

President Barack ‘Mussolini’ Obama


Mr. G. Richard Wagoner, the chairman and chief executive officer of General Motors, was recently forced to resign his position because of pressure from the Obama administration. He was told that if he didn’t leave, the Obama administration would not give General Motors any more federal bailout money. President Obama also told General Motors and the Chrysler  Corporation that if they wanted more federal bailout money, they would have to shrink and refocus their businesses according to his (the federal government’s) wishes.
In our country’s history, there have been some limited instances of the federal government exercising some sort of control over private industry, but that was during wartime. The current assault on American capitalism by the Obama administration is unprecedented in both its scope and speed and should raise the red flag of alarm for all freedom-loving Americans.
World history has shown us that the implementation of strict government controls over private industries has been one of the first steps in the introduction of various forms of Fascism to formerly free countries.  The practice of a government taking control of private industries was refined by Benito Mussolini in Italy in the 1920’s and it is called ‘corporatism.’  
According to Wikipedia, political scientists use the term ‘corporatism’ to describe “a practice whereby a state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly.”  Mussolini described it more simply when he said, “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
Some corporatist-style regimes of the 20th century included those of Benito Mussolini of Italy (1922-1945), Adolph Hitler of Germany (1933 to 1945); Francisco Franco of Spain (1936 to 1973); Juan Peron of Argentina (1943 to 1955) and even our own President Franklin Roosevelt (1933 to 1945) during the ‘New Deal.’ The Mussolini, Hitler, Franco and Peron regimes were brutal, totalitarian, Fascist dictatorships, but not all the regimes that had a corporatist foundation were fascist. The Roosevelt administration, despite its many faults, could not be described as fascist, but the ‘New Deal’ program was definitely corporatist.
Corporatism boils down to this: The government tells industry (and eventually labor unions) what to do and that they must do it for the supposed good of the country, or else their individual leaders will pay a price. Does this sound similar to what is happening to the auto industry today?
Where in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize the President of the United States to fire the head of a major private corporation just because he disagrees with his management policies?  Where in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize the President of the United States to decide what kind of cars a private company will build? or what kind of car I will drive?  President Barack ‘Mussolini’ Obama is taking this country down a very dangerous road and a road that America has never taken before.
Confucius said “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” Are the ‘corporatist’ policies of President Obama and his administration just the first steps of many in a move towards a government takeover of our major industries? Are these policies much different than those that Mussolini and Hitler initiated in the early stages of their rise to power?  
With the Politburo in our expanding federal government now having the power to hire and fire the leaders of major private corporations and to tell the auto makers what cars they can produce, will they soon be telling Americans what kind of cars they can drive; how much money they can earn;  where they can go to school, what sodas they can drink, what foods they can’t eat, where they can travel, what national ID card they must carry at all times and it will impose any number of other restrictions on them. Look at California, where the state legislature is currently considering banning black cars by 2012, for some bogus global warming reason.  
Thomas Jefferson said: “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.” Americans must remember that we cannot fully enjoy our freedoms and liberties in America unless we keep our government limited. As our government grows and becomes more intrusive, as it is today, it is our freedoms and liberties that are becoming limited.
Welcome to the United Socialist States of America! 
If we continue on President Obama’s road to socialism, the American people will no longer be free. The question is: Will we learn to accept our captivity at the hands of our new masters, or will we be willing to do something about it? 
John Wallace
“For Freedom, Liberty and Sovereignty”
New York Campaign for Liberty
Chatham, New York

Confronting My Representative

Leave a comment


I just learned that my representative, Mary Fallin, whom I helped elect in 2006, was among those in the House who voted for the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. So, I’ve just contacted her about it:

Rep. Fallin, when I helped to elect you, I expected you to be faithful to your oath to uphold the constitution of the United States of America. Now, I learn that you were among those who voted in favor of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.


This act, if passed by the senate, will enable, not only the Bush administration, but any future administration to label any American citizen a “homegrown terrorist” or “enemy combatant” simply for holding or expressing beliefs the government deems to be included in the vague definitions this act constitutes as “homegrown terrorism.”


Especially troubling is the wording “use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence…”


 The way this is worded, it implies the government considers “force” to be something different and apart from “violence.”


As vague as this definition is, the President is given a virtual blank check in interpreting what he considers to be “force.” This can be construed to include “forcing” an issue before congress for debate, “forcing” the government to live up to the constitution, or speaking out against the government “forcefully,” for example.


Since the word “force” has been separated from the word “violence,” this implies that “force” needn’t be actual physical violence.


Even more threatening to our freedoms is the definition of “Ideologically Based Violence,” which extends this vague definition of “force” to include the political, religious or social beliefs of any individual or group.


In other words, Rep. Fallin, this act that you have voted for will make it possible for whomever is in charge of our government, either now or in the future, to selectively decide that some individuals’ or groups’ political, religious or social speech or activities, including their constitutionally protected free assembly and protest against our government, constitutes sufficient “force” to make said individuals or groups guilty of “ideologically based violence.”


I hope that you will reconsider your vote and appropriately act to stop this bill from being passed in the senate, as well. I know you have no jurisdiction in the senate and cannot vote on the bill again, but you do have the ability to influence your colleagues in the senate to refrain from passing this incredible infringement upon the rights and liberties of all Americans for generations to come.

Thank you for your patience and for reading this.”


%d bloggers like this: