Missouri: Where Stealing Babies Seems to be the Trend

by Carrie K. Hutchens

One would think that the Stocklaufer case would put the system on notice that people are actually taking note of what the Missouri courts and DFS (Division of Family Services) are doing with regard to the children of, and within, their state. Apparently not though! If there was ever a MEMO -- it must have gotten lost within the system. After all, it certainly didn't get to some case workers that went above and beyond wrong in the actions taken against still another Missouri family.

A foster child was involved in inappropriate behavior. The foster parent made notification to the proper authorities (as is the rule) only to then become the one blamed. Excuse me?

It didn't end there...

The DFS, didn't just take away the one child, they came into the home and took away other babies that were also supposed to be adopted by this family. Their excuse? That the family -- not they -- were neglectful. After all, the family should have somehow known the inappropriate incident was a possibility, and because they didn't (from lack of information provided by DFS) they were neglectful and therefore not worthy to foster or adopt the babies, right?

What is wrong with this picture? Too much, I would think!

The foster parent makes the call, yet is thereafter treated as though someone called in on them? Where is the ability to process logic? Isn't that a requirement with these state jobs, especially the ones involving the well-being of children? If not -- it should be!

Maybe Missouri needs to review it's social workers and it's rules, prior to wrongfully destroying families! Just a thought!

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.


Related article:

Missouri's "Too Fat to Adopt Man" Faces Losing More Than Weight

Missouri's "Too Fat to Adopt Man" Faces Losing More Than Weight

By Carrie K. Hutchens

Gary and Cynthia Stocklaufer went through a horrendous and wrongful battle to regain custody of the baby entrusted to them by a relative and stolen from them by the system in Missouri. It was a long and hard fought battle with Gary receiving by-pass surgery to get rid of hundreds of pounds, but it was also a battle that got rid of thousands of dollars, too. So, while Gary has lost a great deal of weight, it seems, according to Fox 4, that he and Cynthia are threatened with losing a car and behind on other bills. And this is right because why?

Baby Max -- now Dakota Allen Lee Stocklaufer -- was placed in another home after adoption was initially denied the Stocklaufers. He was placed with people who believed they were going to be able to adopt him. I found that strange at the time, since the Stocklaufer's were still fighting for custody. The battle wasn't over, and yet DFS (and related peoples) were acting as though it was and apparently gave the new family false hope as a result. Such unnecessary pain caused by the Missouri system.

The Stocklaufer's case makes one wonder about a great many things. How many people have wrongfully lost children SIMPLY because they didn't have the money to fight, nor the excellent attorney that specializes in such cases? How many indeed?

In the Stocklaufer's case -- a mother gave up her parental rights only on the condition that her relatives -- Gary and Cynthia Stocklaufer -- adopt her son. That mother gave permission for Gary and Cynthia to bring her baby to Missouri, which she had every right to do. So, how could there have been a problem with the baby being brought into a home in Missouri, and into the Stocklaufer's home in particular, as the court tried to use as an excuse after the story got national coverage?

Is the Stocklaufer case an isolated one?

Does the State of Missouri play fair, or do some (within the system) strive to wrongfully stack the deck against foster parents and/or hopeful-adoptive parents? Is there true accountability within the Division of Family Services or do the case workers get to merely play with people's lives based upon their personal opinions and mood for the day? One must wonder. I know I do.

Baby Max (aka Dakota Allen Lee) was returned to his rightful family. How many children have not been?


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

How Pathetic: Sarah Palin's Seventeen Year Old Daughter Pregnant

By Carrie K. Hutchens

Just when you think things can't get any worse or any lower, someone has to step up to the plate and prove it definitely can. We've just seen it again with the rumors apparently being spread that Bristol Palin was actually the mother of the baby born to her mother in April. She isn't, but what if she were? So what? What business would it be of the American people? None! What would it say about her mother's ability to be vice-president? Nothing! So what was the point?

With people rushing to spread false rumors, it was announced that Bristol is in fact pregnant and will be marrying the father of her child. Now that the news, which is actually nobody's business beyond the family, is out there -- it will hopefully put the brakes on the trashy gossip carriers' wrongful efforts to exploit a child. If not, perhaps those around them might point out that children should -- without question -- be off limits in campaigns and especially in attempted smear campaigns. And if they can't comprehend this little bit of ethics, perhaps someone should point out to them what their behavior says about them.

I find it absolutely pathetic that rumors were started about Bristol in the first place and even more pathetic that her pregnancy had to be announced to the world to prevent further lies being spread in regard to her. Needless to say, I find the people who brought a child into the campaign war and involved in spreading rumors about her to be about as pathetic as they come.

I also find it rather ironic, that while we have people preaching that choice is a right and everyone should be allowed to have sex with whomever, that anyone would have even thought it of interest to spread the rumor that Bristol was actually the mother of her brother. But then... there is little logic in many things many people do in this day and age.

The Palin family should not have had to share the news that Bristol is expecting. It has nothing to do with running the country or the ability to do so. However, it does show how low some in our country have sunken. Perhaps this is a wake-up call and proof we need to take a long, hard look at ourselves (our society) in the mirror to see what we have become and where we are headed before it is too late. After all, if we get where we are headed, we might not be able to ever get back, and I, for one, don't want to be there. I hope I'm not alone.


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Sarah Palin an Insult to the Hillary Clinton Die-Hearts?

By Carrie K. Hutchens

I caught a few comments made yesterday by the television pundits who were speculating on who John McCain's VP choice was going to be. One comment was to the effect that it would be condescending for McCain to pick Palin and that Hillary supporters would not be impressed, but rather, would be insulted. After all, they didn't just want a woman -- they wanted Hillary and would be satisfied with nothing less.

What I would like to know is...

What makes these pundits think that McCain picked Palin simply because she is a woman? Now that is where the insult rests. Well, at least one of the insults.

Life is not centered around Hillary Clinton, nor should it be. She was simply a woman running for president. She has no special powers or talents that others don't have. For any pundit to imply others can't live up to her bigger than life persona is the major insult and nothing more than media bias (free public relations) at its obvious. And let's be honest... how many Hillary Clinton make-overs can one life-time handle?

Sarah Palin is a governor and she did it on her own -- not on the coat tails of her husband. She was elected because of her abilities -- not her husband's. And if she is ever to be president -- she will be the one that earned the position and is expected to carry out the duties -- not her husband. And when she campaigns, we will know that the experience attributed to her, will be HER experience and not community property experience we seemed to have been exposed to for too long.

As I said...

The world does not center around Hillary Clinton. To suggest that Sarah Palin is a desperate pick on John McCain's part is actually an insult to all women. It is to say that if we aren't Hillary Clinton we are less deserving and less than capable. I think Sarah Palin is the woman to prove that old assumption to be idle gossip that we can throw out with the dish water. After all, life is too short to live by the illusion perpetrated on us thus far. It's time to put real people back into government.

Mental Patient Stuck in Chair Dies On Tape

"Mental Patient Stuck in Chair Dies On Tape
Man Left Untended For 22 Hours, Report Says
Posted: 10:43 am EDT August 20, 2008

RALEIGH, N.C. -- A mental patient died after workers at a North Carolina hospital left him in a chair for 22 hours without feeding him or helping him use the bathroom, said federal officials who have threatened to cut off the facility's funding.

The state sent a team Tuesday to help Cherry Hospital in Goldsboro draft new procedures to ensure patients receive proper care.

An investigator's report released Monday found that 50-year-old Steven Sabock died in April after he choked on medication and was left sitting in a chair for close to a day at the facility about 50 miles southeast of Raleigh. Surveillance video showed hospital staff watching television and playing cards just a few feet away.

Federal officials have threatened to cut off funding because of Sabock's death and a report that a physician punched a patient after the teen bit the doctor."

Read the entire report at WNEM.

The cruelty of some is ever amazing. I simply can't get use to the mentality that deems life so worthless and compassion too burdensome to keep on hand.

Saving Lives & Making Tears

I was reading news articles and came across the following human interest story...

Chiefs TE Gonzalez saves man’s life in restaurant

By DOUG TUCKER, AP Sports Writer 3 hours, 54 minutes ago

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP)—A California man says Pro Bowl tight end Tony Gonzalez of the Kansas City Chiefs kept him from choking to death.

“Tony saved my life. There’s no doubt,” Ken Hunter, a shipping company manager, told The Associated Press in a phone interview from Huntington Beach, Calif.

“Tony came up behind me and gave me the Heimlich maneuver. Thank God he was there.”

To read the rest of the article, go to Yahoo Sports .

Now that is a "feel-good" article that draws smiles and tears at the same time.

To the hero of the moment, I say...

Thanks for making Mr. Hunter's day one to remember. I know you sure made my day a little brighter by showing there are people who truly do care and will step up to the plate to help others. Way to go, Tony!

Karen Weber: Another Terri Schiavo or Not?

by Carrie K. Hutchens


Terri Schiavo's world became one of isolation at the hands of her husband. He made the decisions of who could visit her, if any at all could at any given time. He made the decisions of what therapy she might receive, though he came to reject any therapy at all. He made the decisions about any stimulation that touched her day, including whether the curtains would be open or closed or even a sound of music or voice to touch her moment.

The husband of Terri Schiavo did not see her as a human being, especially after he found Jody and fathered children with her, it would seem. Yes, it would seem that after Jody and the money entered the picture that Terri Schiavo suddenly became a "vegetable", rather than the "wife" that Michael Schiavo was going to faithfully take care of for the rest of her life. (No hint given that he was going to shorten that life from a natural span of time to an ordained and court ordered forced ending of her life when he was seeking the settlement. Of course, that would have limited, or excluded, the initial court awarded judgment, would it not?)

With thoughts of Terri in mind, I do wonder about Karen Weber.

I know that Raymond Weber is supposed to have said that he didn't want his case to turn into a Schiavo one. And that means?

Does that mean that Karen Weber is being afforded every opportunity of recovery no matter how big or small the effort?

Is she receiving time?

Is she receiving therapy?

Is she receiving comfort and encouragement from family and friends?

Is she receiving stimulation to jump start those recovery cells?

Or ... is she laying there often alone, unless or until her husband, the court, or some appointed person decides that she has a right to the comfort of family and friends and the encouragement of hope and effort by medical and therapy staff (as well) to make her better?

It will be the actions that tells us, one and all, whether Karen Weber is being given a fair chance at recovery, or still another Terri Schiavo in the making. Indeed it shall be! Indeed, the world shall be watching both today and tomorrow!


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Terri Schiavo Documentary

Land,Gibbs in two-part documentary
on Terri Schiavo

Published June 5, 2008

AGOURA HILLS, Calif. (FBW)—Two thirty-minute television programs to air June 12 and 19 will explore the debate surrounding the death of Terri Schiavo and feature, among others, Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and David Gibbs, head of the Florida-based Christian Law Association.

Joni Eareckson Tada, whose ministry, The Christian Institute on Disability—a division of Joni and Friends International Disability Center—has produced the programs which will be broadcast globally via Trinity Broadcasting Network. Terri Schiavo is the severely disabled Florida woman who died of starvation and dehydration in 2005 after her feeding tube was removed as a result of a court order.

To be aired...

This two-part expose on the life and death of Terri Schiavo will be broadcast on TBN Thur., June 12 at 7:30 p.m. EST, and Thur., June 19, 7:30 p.m. EST. For more information, go to www.joniandfriends.org.

Terri Schiavo Execution Sanctioned by Faulty Polls?

by Carrie K. Hutchens

The polls were often sited as the Schiavo case progressed. Pundits, George Felos, Michael Schiavo and pals used poll numbers to claim the American people believed it was acceptable to execute Terri Schiavo in a death by dehydration and starvation. Other polls indicated it was acceptable to remove "life support", without making it clear the so-called "life support" was in fact a mere feeding tube.

Fast forwarding to the Election of 2008, it became quite apparent that polls are faulty. Polls weren't representative of the results in many cases. Pundits seemed bewildered. Some said they were going to have to revisit the reliance upon polls when looking for an accurate prediction of outcome.

Finally, the inaccuracy of polls was utterly apparent to not only the pundits, news staff, candidates and the candidates' staff -- it was apparent to any who were watching as the election events unfolded. Finally, the obvious was made so obvious that no one could ignore it. But sadly, it was three years too late for Terri Schiavo and her family.

Prior to Terri Schiavo's agonizing death by court order, many tried to point out the problem with relying upon polls, but it didn't hit home with those it needed to hit home with. People were becoming comfortable with the judicial order for murder, because the polls were alleging the majority believed it was acceptable to remove Terri from "life support." The irony being, that even after Terri's death, many believed she had been "brain dead" and only kept alive by a respirator. Some said they believed the latter is what she was removed from, because that is what poll questions appeared to be referring to.

Absolute fact is: Terri Schiavo was neither "brain dead" nor on a "respirator."

It is good that the Election of 2008 threw the truth about the unreliability of polls into the face of the world. It's just too bad it didn't become so apparent in the Election of 2004. Had it, Terri Schiavo might still be alive today and still proving assumptions to be wrong!

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

The Horrendous Killing: Death by Dehydration & Starvation

By Carrie K. Hutchens

Karen Weber, a 57 year old woman from Florida, suffered a stroke in December. Husband, Raymond Weber, has sought to have Mrs. Weber's feeding tube removed claiming she is in a vegetative state. However, according to "Family split on feeding tube - Schiavo case remembered" (The Washington Times -- June 5, 2008), "A judge issued an injunction, prohibiting the tube's removal, and has appointed a committee composed of a neurologist and two psychologists to determine her competency."

In March of 2005, Florida held the public and horrendous execution of an innocent young woman, who had mysteriously collapsed on February 25, 1990. It was a death that stretched through thirteen days of unspeakable torture and hideous cruelty that would not be allowed if done unto an animal. But it wasn't done unto an animal -- it was done to Terri Schiavo. Ms. Schiavo died at 9:05 a.m. on March 31, 2005 with the world watching. Will we be forced to watch again?

The Washington Times quoted Mr. Weber's attorney (Colin Cameron)...

"Mr. Weber is of the opinion that Karen does not want to live as a vegetable and that she would prefer the body to take its natural course," Mr. Cameron said.

Death by dehydration and starvation is not a "natural course." It is a forced and agonizing death.

To order no heroic measures to counter an event created by the body giving up, is one thing. To order the removal of a feeding tube is quite another. Removing a feeding tube is creating the event and staging an intended outcome from the onset. That is not "letting someone go" -- that is "making the person go."

It is difficult for some to feel comfortable with Florida having jurisdiction over helpless individuals who have fallen victim to illness or injury after the Schiavo and Ted Stith cases. (In January 2006, Ted Stith Sr had a stroke while visiting in Florida. On or about January 31, 2006, he died as a result of death by dehydration and starvation with no time given for a hint of recovery.) Will Mrs. Weber share their legacy?

On the other hand, unlike the Schiavo case, the article goes on to say...

"Mr. Weber did not contest the March injunction that kept his wife's feeding tube in place, Mr. Cameron noted. If the judge determines that Mrs. Weber has the capacity to make her own choices, Mr. Weber would abide by the decision.

"There is no intent at this point to fight what's going on," Mr. Cameron said.

Martha Tatro, Mrs. Weber's mother, objects to the removal of the feeding tube and has hired attorney Joseph Rodowicz to assist in her efforts to prevent it from happening. Both Mrs. Tatro and Mr. Rodowicz are adamant that Karen Weber is responsive and deserves a chance to live. Thus, a reason the judge has issued the injunction and appointed a committee to review Mrs. Weber's condition and make a determination and recommendation.

Mr. Weber may very well have the best of intentions and be under the belief that removal of a feeding tube is a quiet, natural and peaceful way to go. (Some in Florida preach such to be so.) However, one can hope that as he gathers further and more complete information, he will come to realize that the forced and agonizing death by dehydration and starvation should never be an option considered and therefore determine that it won't be.

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Housing Crisis: Vacant and Wasted

by Carrie K. Hutchens

A few years back, I saw an enormous amount of upscale housing being built. My question was, "Where are all these people working?" Then I heard about the new fangled loans where one merely pays on the interest for so many years and I knew what was going on. I predicted then that there was going to be a major problem and it wasn't long before I was proven right.

And now?

I think we are headed towards still another major mistake that will merely complicate the original blunder and serve no good purpose.

Holding people accountable can get very complex when considering the housing mess and like crisis. After all, who is the most guilty? The consumer that came to believe the sales pitch (given by a professional) that he or she or they could afford the dream house or the professional who should have known better? Top that off with a bank or mortgage company willing to enter into the loan agreement and a consumer is given even more confidence that the deal is safe and their financial abilities and the economy is up to the challenge. What a shock it must have been when reality came rushing home a few years down the road and many found themselves without the original options and no alternative plans or finances to turn to.

One question is...

If experts didn't see the foreclosure epidemic on the horizon, how can average consumers be expected to have seen it?

There are people that carelessly enter into financial agreements, but there are also people who, in good faith, enter into agreements that turn out to be flawed. Agreements that rely upon outside sources and events that the person has no true control over, like job security, promotions and bonuses. Though perhaps due, the consumer cannot readily MAKE the right thing happen just because it was promised and earned. Life is funny that way.

Now, people are being foreclosed upon and here are all these houses that have no immediate buyers. Houses that are easy targets for vandalism and prone to early decay that seems to travel frequently with vacant homes. So what is the point? What is the benefit to any or all? Is there a benefit?

It is one thing to foreclose upon people who had no intent of honoring the agreement(s) set forth, however, what about those who were deceived by the professionals or hard hit because of the crisis they didn't create? How about the people who most likely would have been able to refinance as planned, if the housing boom hadn't imploded, which, I might add, was through no personal fault of their own? What about those people?

It seems to me that rather than leave those houses sitting idle to punish those who innocently got caught up in the housing movement (that appears to have been little more than a legalized scam), it would make more sense to figure out a plan to keep as many people in their homes as possible. It would make more sense for financial institutions to be bringing in some money, rather than no money on foreclosed houses. After all, how does the latter help the mortgage holders, people or the public (who will most likely pay indirectly)?

Get courts and lawyers involved and up goes the amount due. Put a judgment against people and what are the chances they will be able to borrow and if they can't borrow how are they supposed to pay back the amount in question? And while they are unable to borrow to pay the required amount, the interest and penalties keep growing and growing, and as the vicious circle goes -- because they can't pay -- they can't borrow -- so the penalties keep mounting and so does the hopelessness of the situation. Who, then, really benefits beyond lawyers, collection agencies and the like?

One additional irony to this crazy mess is that mortgage companies may get stuck with receiving pennies on the dollar, especially after paying court fees, collection fees, lawyers and collection agencies. Why are some of these companies so willing to pay such people and the collection costs involved, but often not as willing to work diligently to give the consumer the benefit of those same amounts? Why are they not willing, especially when doing so would give everyone a fresh slate to work on and chance for both to come out with a fair and honest result?

There may have been a day and time, between the depression and now, when the majority of people who failed to live up to their agreements did so through their own fault, but I don't believe that is the case today. Today, I think there are situations where the majority of fault in failed outcomes rests with big business and a system that fails to face it, muchless deal with it. A system that often fails to hold the big business as accountable as the individual. If the system is going to be involved at all, then it should be involved with "true" fairness to all.

It is one thing for people to mis-spend their money, or be otherwise careless in their financial dealings. It is quite another for them to be sold a bill of goods by experts and professionals that should have known better even before this whole housing fantasy (crisis) became a twinkle in someone's eye. And maybe... just maybe... those people that had the twinkle in the eye that turned out to be so blindingly wrong, ought to think about a better fix to the mess they created, than foreclosure that punishes the consumer (regardless of their degree of personal fault), and leaves so many houses vacant and wasted.

Vacant and wasted -- can our economy afford the price tag hanging on the housing crisis?


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Hillary Clinton Attempts to Rule Over New Rules that Replace Original Rules?

By Carrie K. Hutchens

Watching Hillary Clinton in action is simply amazing. Who would have thought we could sink so low, but we have.

It isn't that Hillary is fighting for the nomination, but rather, "how" she fighting that makes for a sad day in American history and politics. She and her campaign have taken us down a path that no one should be proud of, though some seem to think it is some special badge to be bragged about.

I wasn't involved in Florida and Michigan moving up their primaries, nor the decision to punish them for having done so, but Hillary Clinton was. She agreed that they should be punished, until it became clear to her that SHE needed their votes for HER campaign and for any possibility of HER gaining the nomination that SHE once thought was simply HERS.

How do the voters from Michigan and Florida not see that Hillary Clinton's sudden fight for them is self-serving? How indeed? After all, where was Hillary Clinton's concern when she thought she was winning?

It seems that Hillary Clinton is trying to make up the rules as she needs them, but there is a truth standing in the way that needs to be considered. Whether the rules were right or not -- and whether the punishment was appropriate -- those were the rules everyone went into the game under. As a result, those are the rules that everyone should have to live with this time around. If that isn't acceptable -- then it shouldn't have been acceptable before the race got underway. It's plain. It's simple. It's a matter of honor and integrity. It is, but is it how this madness shall play out?

Today the DNC Rules & Bylaw's Committee will meet. It should be a very entertaining and telling event. One that shows the world what standing "honor and integrity" has within the DNC and to what length's Hillary Clinton and her campaign will go to in order for her to get her way. Yes, it should be quite the event as we watch Hillary Clinton try to manipulate the results once again. Will she succeed? The end of the day should tell.

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Quality or Not -- Support the Woman: Hillary Clinton for President

by Carrie K. Hutchens

I find it totally offensive that some women are supporting Hillary Clinton simply because she is a woman. How disrespectful of self and others is that?

I believe that "qualified" and "quality" women should have an equal chance at being in law enforcement (or any other position being sought) as any "qualified" and "quality" man. However, I do not believe that women should have some free pass that skips the qualified and quality stage and puts totally unsuitable women in a position they (as individuals) have no business being in.

Responding to any call, promoting the "women's agenda" would be the last thing on my mind. I would want my fellow officers to be trained and capable. I really wouldn't be happy to know that my supposed backup was a female that was wearing the badge not because she deserved it, but because women's rights groups not only forced the door open for her -- they decreased "quality" in the process. Primary on my mind would be all of us getting home safely -- not that some points were made for the women's movement.

So what are women thinking in this voting process?

Do they want a "woman" so badly that they are willing to sell themselves out?

Do they think if we don't grab Hillary that we have lost all chances of putting a woman in charge of the White House ever?

Do they think Hillary Clinton is the last woman in the world?

Perhaps we should share the secret that there are plenty of truly qualified and quality women out there that could and would excel as our president. We don't need to settle. We don't need to lie, steal, cheat, or manipulate our way to the top position of our country. Instead, we need to be honest, able and ready to fight for right for all, rather than clinging to out-dated personal agendas that have turned destructive in nature and action.

Sexism has affected Hillary Clinton's campaign and she is complaining? Looks like the only way it has affected her campaign is to get her a blind following. A following that will vote for the woman irregardless of any reason they shouldn't. (Isn't this sexism in and of itself?)

Sexism? It isn't that HIllary Clinton is a woman that goes against her. It is that the woman is Hillary Clinton.

We don't have to settle and we shouldn't.

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Sniper-Fire Hillary Wins PA as She Threatens to Nuke Iran?

by Carrie K. Hutchens

Hillary Clinton claimed to come under sniper fire in Bosnia. She lied!

Then... Hillary goes to Pennsylvania, tosses down a shot with her beer, claims her daddy taught her to fire a weapon and that she is going to nuke Iran if it messes with anyone -- and she walks out with a win?

I'm speechless!

Truth 'n Politics

by Carrie K. Hutchens

My theory, which includes the Hillary Clinton & Obama campaigns, is that a law needs to be passed that requires anyone guilty of false advertising and false accusations and statements while campaigning to be required to immediately surrender the office, if won by the lies and deceit. Should guilt be proven as the campaign is in progress, then the candidate should be immediately removed from the race, with no option to re-enter under a different party or as an independent. These should merely be the initial and immediate steps. Those guilty should face consequences such as losing qualification for any future office, fines and perhaps incarceration. After all, when "lying" to win -- the candidate is attempting to perpetrate a fraud upon the American people. Why should it be excused in the game of politics? It shouldn't!

Politics and politicians have been given a free ride for far too long. It is time for accountability. It is time to require each candidate to win based upon the "truth" , rather than dirty politics, outright lies, distortions and rumors to wrongly cast doubt on the other candidate and his or her positions and record. It is time that the American people have the opportunity to vote for a candidate for who the candidate actually is and what the candidate will and won't actually do, rather than some marketing fiction or honesty problem with the opposition.

Fantasy world as it might seem I'm in, knowing what we do about the politics of the past to now, why not? Why not change it all around to make it right? It's not like we can't if we want.

Ironically, we may already have laws that do apply, but we just haven't applied them to situations involving politics.

What happens if the candidate of our choice was the candidate of our choice only because we believed something that turned out to be an outright lie, or even a distortion that implied an outright lie? Our vote was "stolen". We were conned. False advertisement. Absolute slander and libel may be at issue. And then what? We merely have to wait until the person's term ends because he or she got by with it until the closing of the voting booth?

Maybe we should start taking our representation a little more seriously!

Maybe we should hold our representatives a little more accountable!

Maybe lying politicians shouldn't be considered, or accepted, as the norm, but instead exiled to the land of "once upon a time".

If politicians were held accountable for their campaigns, as the laws that govern crimes involving cons and perpetrating a fraud upon the people, we might see a whole new movement. However, it isn't going to happen unless we believe it can happen and demand that it does.

Truth 'n politics -- what a concept!!!


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

It Seems the Rules Only Count for Some: The Jimmy Carter Story

by Carrie K. Hutchens

Once again, the former president seems to think he is on a mission that only he can accomplish. Heck with the rules. He is Jimmy Carter after all. Those rules aren't meant to apply to him. He is special. He is all knowing. He should get his way, when he decides he wants to do something. Heck with the government. Heck with the rules. Heck with how bad results can be long lasting and affect millions of people beyond his little self-centered world.

According to the Associated Press...

Jimmy Carter Defends Meeting With Hamas

By CALVIN WOODWARD (Associated Press Writer)

From Associated Press

April 13, 2008 12:34 PM EDT

WASHINGTON - Former President Carter said he feels "quite at ease" about meeting Hamas militants over the objections of Washington because the Palestinian group is essential to a future peace with Israel.

The article goes on to say,

"The position of the government is that Hamas is a terrorist organization and we don't negotiate with terrorists. We think that's a very important principle to maintain," Hadley said. "The State Department made clear we think it's not useful for people to be running to Hamas at this point and having meetings."

Carter demurred.

"I feel quite at ease in doing this," he said. "I think there's no doubt in anyone's mind that, if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process."

Although he said the meeting would not be a negotiation, he outlined distinct goals.

"I think that it's very important that at least someone meet with the Hamas leaders to express their views, to ascertain what flexibility they have, to try to induce them to stop all attacks against innocent civilians in Israel and to cooperate with the Fatah as a group that unites the Palestinians, maybe to get them to agree to a cease-fire - things of this kind," he said.

Does he now? Well, good for him. Except that he isn't the sitting president. Who does he think he is to treat Washington (our government) as though they have no say in the matter and so defiantly over-ride their rules and effort?

Woodward further reports,

"The State Department says it advised Carter twice against meeting representatives of Hamas, which Washington considers a terrorist organization."

People are not allowed to give money or aid to terrorists, but Carter may give aid to them by giving them credibility? He can openly show defiance against a sitting president and the United States of America? Oh what a good impression that makes. If a former president doesn't respect the rules, this country, the government, the presidency, why should any of the countries that hope to bring democracy down? They won't. Instead, it gives them reason to mock us more. Oh what a benefit that is to the citizens of the USA.

Jimmy Carter may be a private citizen, but he isn't a regular citizen. That he was once president can be used to make what he does and says as far more important than what it is. He can be said to be speaking for us or even the government. It won't matter that he really isn't. Appearance can fuel the fire and destroy any progress made thus far.

One of the things this brings to mind is a parent correcting a child for wrong-doing and the other parent coming home and telling the child to disregard, thereby effectively undermining the authority of the first parent. It further tells the child that the second parent does not respect the first, so why should the child? How many children are going to realize (or care about) the inappropriateness of this situation and instead side with the parent holding them to proper behavior?

I don't understand why Jimmy Carter thinks he has some special privilege to decide he doesn't like how the government is handling a matter, so he is going to do it his way regardless of the appropriateness of it all. Who is he to over-ride the government's decisions? He doesn't even have all the inside information. How does he know he wouldn't agree if he did? Regardless, if he had issue with the decision regarding Hamas, then he should have gone in private and talked with the appropriate officials -- not openly disregard those officials, rules and handling of the matter. He is telling the world that one does not have to respect anyone but him. I find that inappropriate and unacceptable.

It doesn't matter whether one likes President Bush or not. This isn't about him beyond the fact that he happens to be the sitting president at the moment. This is about Carter thinking that he has some special right to do things his way regardless, and continue to act as our president when we didn't even vote him in a second term. Someone needs to make sure he understands what the word "former" means and explain to him that his turn to make the decisions ended in 1981.

We may not like how things are going or the decisions made, but we need to be realistic and comprehend how dangerous it is to have someone undermining the decision-makers, especially when dealing with terrorists -- especially with people who take that type of behavior to mean weakness in their enemies. Carter's visit with Hamas is blatantly undermining our government's decision. It is making fools of us. And why should Hamas worry about changing inappropriate behavior, when Carter goes over there, and by his presence, tells them they don't have to pay attention to our government officials -- he doesn't.


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Hillary Clinton Lies About Bosnia Sniper Fire: Bill Blames Media

by Carrie K. Hutchens

I woke up to a clip of Bill Clinton blaming the media for what he considers unjust coverage of Hillary's "misstatement" of the 1995 Bosnia trip. Poor Hillary, it was late at night, he claims. Besides the fact that the trip was in 1996, rather than 1995, he had some other facts wrong, too.

Hillary made the sniper fire statement on more than one occasion, contrary to his claim of once and at 11 at night when she was supposedly tired. But, of course, it wasn't his fault he brought it up again, or that Hillary lied in the first place -- it was all the fault of the media.

Speaking of confusing the facts when it is late at night -- if Hillary gets that confused at 11 PM, just how confused is she going to be at 3 AM when that phone rings?

Then we have Bill, who apparently can't get things right in the light of day, yet he has no hesitation blaming the media for worrying about it or reporting it. How dare they? That's unfair coverage according to Clinton it would seem.

The Clintons also suggest that Hillary was the only first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to visit a combat zone. Guess Pat Nixon and Barbara Bush don't count. Maybe the Clintons meant to say the only "Democrat" first lady and it just "slipped their minds" to add that little added description.

Bill did give me an additional chuckle. He suggests when others get to be 60 (which Hillary is) that they might forget something when they are tired at 11 P.M., too. Is he saying, that at 60, people start getting to be feeble-minded and we should over-look their forgetfulness on major issues -- like being shot at? Yep, I want a feeble-minded president that confuses smiles, hand shakes, welcomes and a little girl's poem with sniper fire and need to duck and run immediately to waiting vehicles.

Did I mention that if Hillary gets THAT confused at 11 PM, we might have concern about a 3 AM call? Oh well... never mind, I'm sure if she gets too confused, it will be the media's fault and she can always go talk to Jay Leno about it.

Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Hillary Clinton Thinks Lying Is Funny?

by Carrie K. Hutchens

Hillary Clinton thinks it is all a big joke that she lied? She thinks it is funny? So funny that she tells Jay Leno on the Tonight Show that she was afraid she wouldn't make it to the studio because she was pinned down by sniper fire? And this is a person running for president?

Did Hillary also think it was funny when Zeifman is said to have fired her and one of the reasons claimed was for lying? ("Shocking Revelations about Hillary Clinton's Watergate Committee Job" by Rick Moran - April 2, 2008 and More on Hillary's Unethical Watergate Conduct by Bob Ellis - April 3, 2008 .)

There is something wrong with someone that can get caught lying and then go on television and try to make it a comedy routine. Lying should bring feelings such as regret and shame -- not light-heartedness, laughter and the attitude of, "Yep, I lied. Hehe isn't that funny? You caught me! Hehe oh my side hurts from laughing so hard. Want to hear another one?"

People need to take a step back and give this matter some serious thought.

Parents need to consider how they would feel if their child lied and then acted like it was a joking matter -- something to brag about. Employees need to consider how they would feel if a co-worker or boss lied. What if it was a teacher, minister, police officer, or doctor? Wouldn't there be a trust issue? Wouldn't people note the inappropriate reaction to being caught in a lie and wonder what was wrong with the person?

Hillary Clinton has been caught lying on numerous occasions but it seems that she has never had to pay a price she thought serious enough to stop her. As a matter of fact, she apparently thinks it is all so funny that she performed her little comedy routine on television. I wonder if she will be taking that routine on the road soon? Oh... never mind. I forgot. She did that first!


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Hillary Clinton: Playing the "Underdog Card" Again?

by Carrie K. Hutchens

Hillary Clinton is claiming that whenever it looks like she is headed to a win that people call for her to quit the race? Has she noted, by any chance, that when things don't look good for her that she readily pulls out that over-worn "underdog card" and plays it once again? Oh, poor Hillary, everyone is treating her so very badly, she and her campaign cries.

Hillary and her followers have claimed that the media doesn't hold Obama as accountable as it does her. Oh really? And whose "perspective" needs a little fine tuning on that matter?

Rev. Wright made negative comments, which people have been trying to claim reflected (and reflects) on Obama. How much play time has that story gotten compared to the other little incident that popped up? You know... the little incident of Hillary Clinton getting caught in an outright lie regarding the Bosnia trip. An outright lie that came out of her mouth -- no one else's. Did that little matter get as much coverage and air time? Hardly!

No matter what we see and hear, it appears the Clintons will push their stories in hopes the "fairy tales" will catch on and become "believed" to be the truth even though they're not. Perhaps Hillary Clinton is hoping that someday her version of the Bosnia trip will be made into a movie that some will consider the actual events in spite of the news coverage. Who knows, some people may even believe that the actual events were merely a cover-up or propaganda trying to destroy this woman that would be champion of the people. After all, that looks like what some are trying to feed us already.

One woman (a guest on Hardball) seemed to think that it was wrong to call Hillary on the Bosnia trip lie. She thought the treatment was unfair? How interesting. We are picking on Hillary Clinton if we hold her to telling the truth and insist that she take responsibility when she doesn't? How do people come up with justification for it being okay for one person to lie, but a grave and hideous sin if someone else does exactly the same thing?

Is there more negative coverage about Hillary than Obama? Could that possibly be due to the Clintons and their surrogates, rather than any special treatment of Obama? Could it be that the Clinton's have done more to be caught (and called on) for than what Obama and his surrogates have? How then is it the media's fault that the Clintons and pals keep giving them the extra material? How is it always (something) someone else's fault when Hillary & friends do something inappropriate and get caught? People shouldn't catch them, because that is against the rules in this Clinton age of thought? Amazing!

Hillary Clinton is good at playing the cards, including the underdog farce, it would seem. She bluffs... she bullies... she lies... and she appears to think the world should see this all as a good thing. Maybe the voters ought to take a second look and consider for a moment just what it says when the news media doesn't seem to think that a Clinton telling an outlandish lie is really that "news" worthy after all!


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Hillary Clinton Made the Decision to Lie & Did So

by Carrie K. Hutchens

I didn't go looking for skeletons in Hillary Clinton's closet. I didn't have to. Right out there in the open for all to see -- Hillary Clinton made the decision to lie about being under sniper fire. She, no one else, made the decision to actually make those statements and that is exactly what she did. Hillary Clinton lied!

Clinton cries, on the one hand, that she is put under a microscope, while Obama is allowed to slide. If she really and truly believes this to be so -- why would she so blatantly lie? Did Hillary Clinton really think that no one would check up on her claims or call her on it when they found the actual footage regarding that Bosnia visit and landing?

I can't believe how the media and Obama campaign are being blamed by some Clinton surrogates for "her" getting caught in her own lie. It is dirty politics to call her on it? Wait a minute. What is wrong with this suggestion?

A person lies and the person that catches them is the one that is wrong and the one lying is the one being wronged?

Did this form of reasoning come right out of the pages of an "Abnormal Psychology" book or the "Twilight Zone?" One has to wonder.

One Clinton surrogate on MSNBC today (March 26, 2008) seemed to be accusing the Obama campaign of doing exactly what he and Clinton herself were doing. And rather than explaining why Hillary would lie about the sniper fire, he kept trying to throw blame on Obama and the media. He kept trying to make Hillary Clinton somehow the "victim", in spite of the fact that "SHE" is the one that lied. If she hadn't lied -- no one could have caught her and shared the information with the world! How's that for a reasonable conclusion to come to?

I have some very important questions...

If Hillary Clinton can't be trusted to tell us the truth now, how can we trust her to tell us the truth ever? And... if she can't take responsibility for her own actions and words -- how can she be trusted to take responsibility for our country?

It's Obama and the media's fault right now? Whose fault will it be next time she messes up and someone finds out? After all, Hillary Clinton sure seems to believe in delegating responsibility so as not to burden herself with accountability!


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.