|
1)
It Involves Three (Re:
Abortion)
Published in the Topeka Capital-Journal,
Date: 12-03-2003
Source URL:
http://cjonline.com/stories/120303/opi_letters.shtml
Regarding the letter from
Megan Mosack, "Hot Flash for Feminists":
The author says that
feminists have become so selfish that they have forgotten abortion
is a two person issue. I applaud Ms. Mosack's willingness to stand
up against the entitlement politics of feminism. Unfortunately, the
argument she uses to attack feminist selfishness is tragically
wrong.
Abortion is NOT a two
person issue. It is a THREE person issue involving women, children
and MEN. Feminists became so selfish, and America became so
apathetic, that the effect of abortion on men has been ignored.
Dads are expected to turn
their feelings off or on depending on the mothers' mood. If she
wants the baby, he's expected to be happy. If she wants to abort the
baby, he's supposed to turn off his emotions and support her
decision. Then he's expected to turn them back on when the mother
changes her mind yet again. We don't expect a woman to turn off her
emotions, so why do we expect it of men?
The effects of this
emotional trauma on a dad are never considered, and fathers are not
allowed to mourn for their murdered unborn children. How many
billboards in Topeka depict fathers as chickens? At least five at
last count.
It takes a man and a
woman to make a child. It takes a mother and a father to raise a
child. Why do we allow only women to make a decision that affects
children and fathers too?
THOMAS
LESSMAN President of American Coalition of Families and
Children/Kansas Chapter Topeka
2)
NO Deadbeat (Re: Deadbeats not the
norm)
Published in the Topeka Capital-Journal,
Date: 2-28-2004
Source URL:
http://cjonline.com/stories/022804/opi_letters.shtml
On behalf of fathers and
struggling single parents, we of the American Coalition of Families
and Children, Kansas Chapter (ACFC-KS), wish to sincerely thank the
Topeka Capital-Journal for the article titled "Deadbeats not the
norm."
All too many people have
a stereotypical image of "deadbeats" all over the place, and many
people are so entrenched in this attitude they can't see past their
own ignorance.
Deadbeat is an ugly word,
and calling someone a "deadbeat" is no better than the offensive
words often hurled at people because of their race or sexual
preference.
The article brought up
one significant point we've been trying to say for years. How can we
be involved in our children's lives if the children's mother -- or
biased court officers -- won't let us be involved?
I was a teenage parent;
my first child was born when I was 17 (1995). I finished high school
with the help of my mother, who helped me raise my child. We had to
fight the child's mother at every step just to be involved.
Nevertheless, I paid $125 per month in child support from an
after-school job, saw my child a week at a time, and did the best I
could to be involved.
There were three single
mothers in our school, and they got help from SRS, child support,
and special help from the school. What did I get as a single father?
No help from SRS, no child support, and the school gave me an
after-school job as a janitor to help me pay my child support.
Only an ignorant person
would condemn fathers as being "deadbeats" without noticing that
fathers don't get even a fraction of the help and assistance single
mothers receive.
I hope that the article
in TCJ has opened a few eyes.
THOMAS LESSMAN, President
of ACFC-KS Topeka
3)
Real Marriage Protection
(Re: Gay Marriage Amendment)
Published in the Topeka Metro News, Date:
11-19-2004
Source URL: http://www.topekametro.com/letters.html
(must scroll down to find letter)
See also:
http://www.acfc-ks.org/Marriage_Protection.html
Much speak has been made
over "protecting marriage" from various social issues. Mostly this
speak has been against "gay marriage," but this completely misses
the point.
The few married
homosexuals are finding out what millions of heterosexuals already
know: By far, the most serious enemy marriages face is Unilateral
No-Fault Divorce.
Marriage is essentially a
contract between two people (traditionally: one woman and one man)
who are committing themselves to each other to raise a family.
Regardless of whomever is allowed to marry whom (or what), the
commitment is worthless whenever either partner can terminate the
contract at any time for any reason, over the objections of the
other partner.
The federal government
has already spent millions of dollars to "promote marriage." A
decade ago, while complaining about the rising cost of welfare, the
federal government tried to fix the problem by throwing the cost of
welfare on single fathers. In both cases, the government only
created more problems while continuing to promote unilateral
no-fault divorce.
Any constitutional
amendment against gay marriage would in fact be unconstitutional.
The Constitution was designed to limit government authority, not
place limits on the people. Just like Prohibition, this amendment
would be used against the people, and would only create more
problems (i.e. divorces) for the government to "solve."
For the record, I am
against gay/lesbian marriage. I honestly care less what consenting
adults do in their spare time. However, if we expand the definition
of marriage to include gays and lesbians, we would have to further
expand marriage to include polygamy, beastiality, and other forms of
"marriage." After all, would it then be fair to discriminate against
people because they are not homosexual?
If we truly wish to
protect marriage, we must pull our heads out of the sand and
eliminate the unilateral no-fault divorce laws that have made
marriage dangerous for families and profitable for the attorneys and
marriage counselors who make up the "divorce industry."
Thomas Lessman
President, ACFC-KS
4)
Beyond Irresponsible (Re:
Retention of Judges)
Published in the Topeka Capital-Journal,
Date: 06-01-2005
Source URL:
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/060105/opi_lettered.shtml
Dave McIntire, responding
to Jerry Loney's letter, says that blanket non-retention of judges
is irresponsible voting and bad civics. I disagree.
The imposing authority of
family courts hits both mothers and fathers hard. Two parents enter,
one parent and one visitor leave. Usually it is the father, but many
mothers are also segregated into visitor status. Regardless of who
thinks he or she has won, the result is that the family is broken,
the children have one less parent, America becomes that much weaker
and "the system" becomes that much richer.
Attorneys, psychiatrists,
mediators and a host of other professions have created a
multibillion dollar divorce industry on the broken backs of
families. Judges are entrusted to maintain justice, but more often
than not they abuse their authority to enrich their friends and
supporters.
There is one reason I
disagree with Jerry Loney, because I know of one judge in Shawnee
County who is fit and just. However, they do not even honor her with
the title of judge; she's an administrative hearing officer. I guess
there is more than one way to marginalize justice.
As for irresponsible
voting, most voters blindly vote to retain (keep) all judges because
they have no clue as to how corrupt and broken the system is. That
is irresponsible voting.
When judges violate the
rules of ethics, accept bribes and hook up their professional golf
buddies by abusing their authority, it is time to remove them. When
Enron crashed, everyone looked straight at the CEO and other
leaders. It makes no difference if the thug wears a business suit, a
ski mask or a black robe -- a thug is a thug and deserves to be in
prison.
THOMAS LESSMAN, Kansas
president, American Coalition of Families and Citizens
5)
Libertarians Against
Consolidation
Published in the Topeka Metro News, Date:
12-09-2005
Source URL: (Published in print version only, not on the
Topeka Metro website)
See Also:
http://www.thomaslessman.com/LibAgCons_12-09-05_TM3.jpg
Dear
Editor:
The Kansas Libertarian Party strongly opposes the attempt to
consolidate the governments of Topeka and Shawnee County. Smaller,
more representative government is always more preferable to more
powerful governments that are disassociated from the people they
serve.
There are several reasons for responsible citizens to oppose the
consolidation plan. By far, the two most important are:
1.
Voters will lose more representation, ending up with fewer elected
officials and more appointed officials.
2.
Consolidation means more power in fewer hands, and eliminates the
system of checks and balances between city and county governments.
In
recent years, America has been rapidly losing hard-won freedoms.
Let’s not contribute to this trend. Taking away representation and
consolidating power in fewer hands is a recipe for disaster. If you
want a more powerful and less accountable government, consolidation
may be for you. However, if you cherish freedom and liberty, you
should oppose consolidation.
The Libertarian Party of Kansas urges you to protect your rights
and Vote NO!
Signed: The Libertarian Party of Kansas, including:
Rob
Hodgkinson, LPKS Chair,
Thomas Lessman,
Sharon DuBois,
Patrick Wilbur,
And
other members.
6) Put Families First
Published in the Topeka Capital-Journal,
Date: 04-15-2006
Source URL:
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/041506/opi_letters.shtml
|
Letter that was sent:
Amy White's letter "Put Children First" (4-04-06) is so off
the mark it demands a rebuttle. Obviously she has no idea
what it's like being a segregated non-custodial parent.
The vast majority of parents who DON'T pay child support CAN'T
PAY. It's not about "refusing" to pay - they simply can't pay
$500, $1000, or $2000 every month due to layoffs, illness, or
disability. Often child support amounts to 50% or more of a
parent's income, and leaves them unable to feed the children
when they are with them.
Does Ms. White really think custodial parents will get ANY
child support if the other parent loses their driver's license
or gets thrown in jail because they can't pay? She doesn't
say. Instead, her letter smacks of revenge and harsher
penalties.
I've got news for Ms. White. It's not about demanding revenge
or "getting all the child support you can get" from the other
parent. Raising children is about mom and dad working
together to raise the children. If you can't support your own
children, or at least work with their father to raise them,
then perhaps you aren't fit to be a parent.
President of the American Coalition of Families & Citizens -
Kansas Chapter
|
Letter that was published:
Put families first
Amy White's letter "Put Children First" is so off the
mark it demands a rebuttal. Obviously she has no idea what
it's like being a segregated non-custodial parent.
It's not about refusing to pay child support, they simply
can't pay $500, $1,000, or $2,000 every month due to
layoffs, illness, or disability. Often child support amounts
to 50 percent or more of a parent's income, and leaves them
unable to feed the children when they are with them.
Does Ms. White really think custodial parents will get
any child support if the other parent loses their driver's
license or gets thrown in jail because they can't pay? She
doesn't say. Instead, her letter smacks of revenge and
harsher penalties.
Raising children is about mom and dad working together to
raise the children.
THOMAS LESSMAN, president, American Coalition of
Families & Citizens, Kansas Chapter
|
7) They Are
Patriots
Published in the Topeka Capital-Journal,
Date: 09-19-2006
Source URL:
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/091906/opi_letters.shtml
In light of the editorial Sept. 13, I feel it necessary to speak in
defense of the Minutemen. Maybe the editorial board - like many
entrenched politicians - just doesn't get it.
Illegal
aliens have no respect for our laws, nor do they care about the
rights or freedom of American citizens. Some factions of illegal
aliens advocate the subversion and outright conquest of several U.S.
states. More than 20 million illegal aliens have already infiltrated
our nation. That's a serious threat to our national security, and
the government's response to date has been dangerously weak.
In times
of crisis, every American citizens has the duty to stand up and work
together to end the crisis. The Minutemen stood together to fight
for our independence and freedom in 1775. Today they are standing up
again to defend America's independence and freedom. Instead of
criticizing these patriots, we should be supporting their brave
efforts.
THOMAS LESSMAN, Topeka
|
