Not counting possible write-in candidates, I have not yet heard a presidential candidate “openly promise to fight for effective policy changes for restoring the institution of family and individual rights.”

Do you know of such a choice?

Actually, I have not endorsed the Republican ticket. I’m an analyst and you should take my comments literally, without imagining ulterior motives. Three Election Pledges

It is clear from your many comments and articles that you support McCain-Palin.

I would agree that (once again in this presidential election cycle) the Republican ticket is the lesser of two evils vs. the Democratic ticket. (Frankly, I am aghast that a traitor like Biden is encouraged/enabled/paid for his traitorous behavior.) However, in the last presidential election cycle, the lesser of two evils has turned out to be a superb disappointment.

I would disagree that getting to the bottom of Palin’s role in the firing of Monegan is nothing but a distraction. Furthermore, perhaps it would better to cast a vote for a positive rather than for either of two negatives.

You point out that “from a legal perspective, she could fire Monegan.” I won’t dispute that. However, tenuous (to far fetched) legal justifications for making bad moral choices is the path that brought us here.

It is legal perspectives that have twisted our country into something, increasing contrary to the U.S. Constitution, and increasingly contrary to what we need to be to thrive.

Roe v. Wade was a legal victory (for lawyers) that has made it “legal” for millions of women to murder more than 50 million humans (so far), criminalize any of those baby’s father’s who might have intervened to mitigate that onslaught. Thousands of “doctors” have become financially comfortable, have profited from this, but does any of this “legal” justification make abortion right, or good?

It is legal for politicians (almost exclusively lawyers) to make laws that are in violation of the U.S. Constitution (VAWA, IMBRA, and much more). Politicians and judges who commit this treason are given a pass only to later execute, legislate, and adjudicate further degradation.

If McCain-Palin is an acceptable choice, why are 3rd party candidates being kept out of upcoming debates?

Nasty divorces don’t happen unless (at least) one of the partners/parents is nasty. If Palin used her power to exacerbate the nastiness of her relative, then this story is not just pertinent to the upcoming presidential election, it is case in point to men’s/father’s rights issues.

Scott Strohm

There might not be anybody worth voting for, but I think you’re burying yourself in a dead-end argument. There is no silver bullet demonstrating that Palin is lying about firing Monegan. From a legal perspective, she could fire Monegan for whatever reason she pleased, without reporting to anyone regarding the reasons. It doesn’t even matter if she thought about firing him for some other reason than the one she now gives, or was angry with him for some other reason. The “investigation” is a he-said / she-said dispute that her political enemies are hoping will dampen the McCain / Palin campaign. For us, it’s nothing but a distraction.

McCain/Palin are making huge mistakes attempting to bury this issue.

see: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/palin.trooper.probe/index.html

“Monday, the McCain-Palin campaign released documents it said bolster its argument that Monegan was fired over budget disputes and “egregious insubordination.”

The above is a total lie intended to firewall attention from the issues that would take Palin down instantly were they were revealed. Palin continues trashing Wooten, in defiance of the court order.

I regret there is nothing worth voting for in 2008.

Wheras conservative reform will only tinker with existing mendacious proceedures within existing feminist instututions, a counter-revolution will involve a substantive whole-sale restructuring.

A misspecification of the origins of the problem in feminism instead of male cultural degeneracy leads one to conclude that conservative reforms are adequate. They aren’t.

It is a very long shot suggesting that Palin would do different in public policy than what she has done personally. Why would she want to change the status-quo, when it would reduce her feminist power? Could anyone think she is reform-minded where her record is devoid of a position, and where she fell overboard exceeding her own statutory authority, which is far more than what the average person has?

Feminist abuses of marriage at the federal and state administrative levels are considered “personal” matters to be buried alive wholesale in family courts. This is what has permitted neo-conservatives to look good while yammering incessantly about the importance of marriage, while passing federal laws aborting marriage, and also while doing things in their personal lives that are tremendously irresponsible or damaging to others around them.

Over the years, I have seen many abuses of public power by families involved in divorces. One guy was committed to an insane asylum by his wife, who was having an affair with a well-placed public official (who pulled the public strings), to put him in a defenseless position. She then filed for divorce and quickly cleaned him out. There was nothing wrong with the guy – I went and visited him.

Another was a Texas case. An ex-wife who married a minister in a small Texas town. They were close friends with the local judge and police. They kidnapped a child from the custodial father in St. Louis. Despite orders of the court of jurisdiction in St. Louis, a letter from Gov. Ann Richards, and a forceful letter from the State’s attorney of Texas (who declined to enforce the Missouri order), the local judge insisted on keeping the child there. As usual in maternal abduction cases, the FBI refused to act (saying it was a state issue), but told the father they would “look the other way” if he hired a PI/pilot to fly to Texas and kidnap the child back. They managed to get messages to the child, who met the pilot at the edge of town in a field. The ex-wife’s parenting time was then terminated by the court in St. Louis.

There are plenty more cases I have been involved in.

There is a pattern of local abuses, which continues unabated because federal policy and our federal officials not only condone it, some do it themselves.

In monitoring how a joint-custody arrangement worked out, the judge said in his order that he would pay particular attention to problems noted by a “custody investigator,” specifically “the disparagement of the father [Wooten] by the mother [Molly Hackett, Sarah Palin's sister] and her family members.”

Wherein is the above quote misleading?

Under the circumstances, it is not unreasonable to ask whether Sarah Palin engaged in behaviors that abetted a Parental Alienator.

And it matters not that Wooten might be an unsavory lout. That’s no excuse.

Nor is this a private family matter — because as we all know, the father, in this case, is the State.

It’s a fair question.

The Newsweek article is a start. We will see where it goes.

I think anyone who thinks they may have a chance to get some serious Q&A going in a productive way on the subject of national family policy should go for it. But once again, that’s not where the alleged scandal goes.

The woman doesn’t have enough of a record for us to evaluate her on the issues, so the evidence we have of personal behavior is very important to filling in the gaps. And it’s almost all gaps.

I’ve said that in fact, I don’t want to be involved in this discussion. I don’t regard it as productive. I haven’t believed Newsweek for a long time – not just on this one story – they have a long record of publishing nonsense. A random blog is a more credible source. I read their article and it doesn’t make much sense prima facia.

As I said, I think the discussion at Fathers & Families is far more interesting on this topic. They are going to some effort to figure out how to deal with this properly. At this point, I’m not interested. All I see is a partisan attack. Newsweek isn’t “evidence” – and once again – hope I don’t have to repeat it – I don’t see the alleged “scandal” as being politically important. So I wouldn’t even care much if someone came up with proof that she’d personally yelled profanities at her ex-brother-in-law. That’s family business, not national politics.

As I said before, I don’t believe Newsweek and since there is no evidence that Sarah Palin is politically anti-father, I’m not going to pretend that there is. Also, as I have already said, looking into the alleged scandal surrounding her sister’s divorce does not provide any relevant information. It is a fool’s errand. I’m not supporting Palin’s opposition, so I’m not going to go to work for them.

I suggest continuation of the discussion at Fathers & Families, where it appears there may be a balanced and purposeful investigation going on.