Friday, June 30, 2006

Government intervention on behalf of the people of the USA against the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

iENDORSE THE FOLLOWING SENTIMENTS. The Roman Catholic hierarchy is both abusive and oppressive, and will not change except through public scandal. They were warned about these abuses in the 1980s and did nothing. Two out of three bishops sent predator priests abusing children to other places without notice. There has been no accountability on the part of the bishops. Instead, they and the Vatican want to put the onus on gay priests. This situation cries to heaven for justice. Paschal Baute

Clergy Sex abuse scandal suit
called for by the Department of Justice

by Debby Bodkin, Founder

June 29, 2006

Via Facsimile & Email
(202) 514-0293,

U.S. Department of Justice
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Criminal Section, PHB
Washington, D.C. 20530

Re: Request for Government Intervention on behalf of the People of the United States of America, Protections of Children, Due Process, Equal Protection and Administration of Justice

Dear Attorney General Gonzales:

This letter is a formal request for representative plaintiff status in a civil, criminal and/or enforcement lawsuit to be brought on behalf of the People of the United States of America, by the U.S. Department of Justice, against any and all attorneys and legal advisors who have assisted Catholic Bishops and religious leaders in the obstructions of justice and abuses of our country's legal system, in defending and protecting politically-connected religious institutions from monetary losses, for the sex abuse crimes committed against children and vulnerable adults.

It is important to note that this request should not be referred to the various State Bars who monitor the professional standards of attorneys nationwide. Afterall, that would be like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops monitoring the sex abuse crimes of Bishops, priests and employees. This is not a solution and will never protect children and vulnerable adults from sex abuse crimes or continued expired statutes of limitations, based on intentional delays through our country's courts.

As a 51 year old female, non-party spouse in a Whistleblower lawsuit filed by my husband, whose 8 years of employment with a Catholic school ended soon after he reported that the Catholic school principal's son had a gun on the school campus, and as a supporter in several organizations, A Coalition for Truth, Survivors of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), Voice of the Faithful and others, I have experienced financial, emotional and privacy breaches during the past 4 years that have resulted after the exercise of free speech, press and opinion.

I have facts, testimonials and documentation from persons and families all over the country, that would justify government intervention on behalf of the People of the United States of America, against attorneys and officers of the court, who intentionally aided and abetted sex abuse crimes that were committed against children and vulnerable adults, through the abuses of the U.S. court system.

Many legal advisors representing politically-connected religious institutions have led criminal and civil court battles nationwide that have cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, year after year, for personal economic gain – which is a form of malicious prosecution.

In the interests of justice, public safety and peace in the U.S., please investigate the facts in this letter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via email or letter.

The clergy sex abuse crisis has released a Domino Effect in our society with consequences and life-long damages for the victims of sex abuse crimes and their families. Please assist in all efforts to return the justice denied to God's most precious gift, our children, those who cannot protect themselves, and deserved to be safe when in our care.

Respectfully submitted,

Debby Bodkin, Founder

As an amateur writer, my passion for the courage of clergy sex abuse victims has changed my life direction in many ways. We must never forget that our country's freedom of religion does not include sex abuse crimes, cover-ups and failures to report sex abuse to law enforcement. Your input is important and valued -- please listen to the personal stories of clergy sex abuse survivors - write to your state legislators and Church leaders expressing your views and concerns. May God Bless you always.

Contact Author

Contact Editor

View Other Articles by Author

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Is this President a War Junkie?

Published on Friday, June 23, 2006 by
Every Junkie's Like a Setting Sun: Enabling the President's Addiction
by Steven Laffoley

"Addiction," my dictionary tells me, is "the condition of being habitually or compulsively occupied with, or involved in, something." Watching George W. Bush, almost giddy and sometimes nervous with excitement, talk about being a "War President," I can't help but wondering: is this president a junkie?

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't mean to say that this president is a drug addict, although it is true that this president inhaled

And I don't mean to say that this president is an alcoholic, although it is true that, as a grown man, this president stood on the front yard of his family's home, and after drinking one too many cans, he challenged his dad, George Sr., to come outside and settle their differences like men, "mano-e-mano."

No, what I mean to say is that this president is.well. a war addict.

Sure, I know other presidents have fought wars - Lincoln fought the Civil War; Franklin Delano Roosevelt fought World War II; Woodrow Wilson fought World War I; Truman had Korea; Johnson and Nixon had Vietnam; and even William McKinley had the Spanish-American War - but not one of them seemed to enjoy fighting a war the way this president seems to enjoy fighting in Iraq.

I know it may sound wrong to say, but look, in my defense, this president's predilection for absolutes, for intoxicants, and for all-round recklessness is pretty well documented. I mean, when it wasn't drugs, it was alcohol, right? And when it wasn't alcohol, it was religion, right? In fact, no matter what the president's "focus" happened to be, his attention was, and remains, best described as "habitual," "compulsive," and "occupied" - that is, an addiction. Just consider his childlike zealousness when he carped on about cartoon absolutes: "Good versus Evil," "Dead or Alive," and "Your either with us or with the terrorists."

Then there was his downright enthusiastic invasion and occupation of Afghanistan - and then Iraq. And with no plan worth a damn to end his wars - even with the dead mounting like cordwood - he sings merrily about fighting the Long War on Terror in Iraq, and elsewhere, oblivious to its murderous consequences. So does it really seem so out of line to suggest that George W. Bush gets a rush out of being a "War President"?

That said, between you and me, after years of his addiction, I think it's starting to get to him.

I mean, you have to admit it: the president doesn't look so good these days. When he talks of positive momentum and improvement in Iraq, or even about "temporary setbacks," lately he appears, well, nervously restless. He garbles his words and shifts his weight from one foot to another. He constantly moves his eyes, searching the crowd for something he can't quite see. His hair has grayed and his face grown haggard and drawn. To be honest, he looks as like a man who hasn't slept in months. Maybe years.

Addictions are like that.

I suppose it's bad enough that the President of the United States is a war addict, but this addiction affects us all. "I've seen the needle and the damage done," Neil Young once sang, "a little part of it in everyone." In the language of addictions, we have become the president's co-dependents. We've lived with the addict and his addiction for so long, participated in feeding the addict and the addiction for so long, we've simply adjusted ourselves to the president's erratic moods - and have become his enabler.

Remember how the dead once shook our souls. September 11, 2001: 2,986 killed by terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Our reaction? We were shaken beyond words. Our collective gorge rose in deep horror.

Now consider this - June 22, 2006: 2,823 American soldiers killed since March 19, 2003, in Iraq and Afghanistan. 50,000 or more civilians killed since March 19, 2003, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our reaction? We hardly even wince anymore. We just change the channel.

What a difference an addiction makes.

Neil Young sang, "Every junkie's like a setting sun." This far down the dark path of addiction, the American president is unlikely to kick his addiction to war. He's even said as much, suggesting that the next president will have to end the war in Iraq. But history tells us this: eventually, an addiction this bad over takes the addict. Certainly, it won't be pretty when it does, but this addiction will end, one way or another. And then, perhaps, we can begin our healing.

Meantime, with years left before the junkie "sets like a setting sun," we can only share Neil Young's lament about the ravages of addiction: "ooh, ooh, the damage done."

Steven Laffoley ( is an American writer living in Halifax, Nova Scotia. He is the author of "Mr. Bush, Angus and Me: Notes of An American-Canadian in the Age of Unreason."

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Kerry: Right now, or wrong, or "pussyfooting"?

Published on Thursday, June 22, 2006 by the Progressive
The Hit on Kerry
by Matthew Rothschild

God forbid that an elected official actually admits a mistake.

God forbid that a politician actually takes a risky and courageous stand.

But that’s what John Kerry has done, and The New York Times hammered him for it in a nasty, ad hominem front-page story on June 21 entitled “On Iraq, Kerry Again Leaves Democrats Fuming.”

What Kerry has called for is withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq within the next year.

For this, Kate Zernike of The New York Times makes Kerry out to be a spoiler.

Here are some of the disparaging words from the paragraphs that appeared on the front page, not attributed to any Senator;

“the latest evolution of Kerry’s views”—as if they’re always evolving (you know, flip flopper);

“a frustration with Kerry”;

“Kerry, never popular among the caucus, and still unpopular among many Democrats” for failing to beat Bush;

“too focused on the next Presidential campaign”;

“more politics than principle”;

“insistence on pushing ahead with his own plan”;

“left the Democrats divided, and open to renewed Republican accusations that they are indecisive and weak—the same ridicule that Republicans heaped on Kerry in 2004.”

Well, let’s look at what Kerry did to deserve this barrage.

He acknowledged the errors of his ways on Iraq. “Most members of Congress, myself included, share some responsibility for getting us into Iraq,” he said on June 2. “We’ve got to take responsibility for getting us out.”

To me, that’s refreshing.

So he introduced legislation calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by December 31, 2006.

That’s about time. And it’s the exact date that Senator Russ Feingold had proposed last year. Feingold and Kerry are co-sponsors of these withdrawal resolutions.

When their colleagues balked at December 31, Kerry agreed to amend the withdrawal date to July 1, 2007.

That’s not exactly “pushing ahead with his own plan.”

And if you want to talk about being more concerned with “politics than principle,” check out the Democratic leadership on this issue. They’re too scared to stick their necks out on the biggest moral issue of our day!

Not Kerry.

Like John Murtha, he sees the moral dimension quite clearly.

“Half the names on the Vietnam Memorial wall were added after America’s leaders knew our strategy would not work,” Kerry said on April 6. “It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion. You and I have to do everything in our power to stop that from happening again.”

Kerry knows full well how Karl Rove and the right will respond.

“For speaking the truth, the right wing and their surrogates will question our courage and commitment,” he said. “They’re going to question our patriotism.”

It is just this fear of being questioned that has many Democratic Senators running for cover. How that amounts to standing on principle is beyond me.

John Kerry is not going to be the Democratic nominee in 2008.

And he did run a bad campaign in 2004, and his position on the war back then was shameful.

But now he’s finally answered the war question correctly.

And no amount of sneering and sniveling by other Senate Democrats—or by the Kate Zernikes of this world—can take that away from him.

Matthew Rothschild has been with The Progressive since 1983. His McCarthyism Watch web column has chronicled more than 150 incidents of repression since 9/11.

© 2006 The Progressive

Friday, June 02, 2006

Banning gay marriage is a political side-show simply designed to win votes.

Letters to the Editor, Editorial page, Herald-Leader.
Dear Editor:

RE: "Bush to Push..." Page A9, Herald-Leader, June 2, 2006

What can we expect of Republicans in this election year?

More of the same pandering to their far right base by means of a congressional amendment banning same sex marriage, taking marriage laws heretofore states rights away from the states.

A 10-8 vote along party lines sent the amendment to the Senate floor this past week.

The measure shamelessly endorsed by the Senate Judiciary committee bans not only marriage but the "legal incidents" of marriage, thus challenging protections of domestic partnerships and civil unions, now provided by many states and local governments.

There is little chance this measure can get congressional approval of 2/3 of the congress, but it provides delicious red meat for social conservatives, and plenty of fodder for TV commercials aimed at senators who vote to block the attempt at writing bigotry into the nation’s charter.

G.O.P. the party of moral values? Humbug. The G.O.P. has become the party of corporate fat cats who believe in the government dole, using political power to rip off vast numbers of the American people. Bush is clearly implicated in the Enron scandal and is getting off scot-free.

Republicans in the White House and in Congress will demonstrate once more they are willing to use religion to divide the country. Wake up, America! Civil rights of gays and lesbians are no threat to the stability of marriage. Divorce is the real threat, leaving one half or more of our children in single parent homes. Furthermore, we criminalize the social problem of non-payment of child support which becomes a revolving door for delinquent dads since they still owe back payment when they finally get out of jail and discover they are farther behind than before. What politician will examine this sad and tragic issue? Why could we not have something like a Drug court that keeps delinquent dads our of jail and employed while garnishing percentage of wages being earned with regular reporting?

Banning gay marriage is a side show distraction from real issues - simply designed to win votes. It is a huge waste of congressional energy, but the G.O.P. knows it worked to help re-elect Bush in 2004. Why not go for it again?

Paschal Baute.
Lexington, Ky.
Tel 293-5302