May 12, 2005

Dyson attacks Cosby on Today while interviewer Roker does nothing

After pointing out rabid moonbat Michael Eric Dyson's rampage on personal responsibility by black America in general, and on Bill Cosby's message of personal accountability in particular in the form of Dyson's new book "Is Bill Cosby Right," I've received a number of e-mails, some just plain calling me stupid, others telling me that I don't know what it means to be black, and yet others telling me that I'm going to hell for selling out my birthright. There were precious few who agreed with me, even in part.

Larry Elder agrees with me, and pointed out how it was open season on Cosby during a recent interview on NBC's Today where Dyson railed on in his foaming-at-the-mouth fashion, unchecked by interviewer Al Roker (yes, they got the weatherman to do the interview instead of the show's anchors; no offense to Roker, but Al's forte is usually much lighter fare).

Al Roker: "Do you think there's any validity in some of the things he said?"

Michael Eric Dyson: "Oh sure . . . there's validity always. Tim[othy] McVeigh had a point. The state is over-reaching. But the way you do it, dropping bombs and castigating of human beings, that's terrible. . . . Let's hold the larger society accountable for creating the conditions that lead to some of the downfalls of the poor people." Roker said nothing.

Roker then read three quotes from Cosby: "Those people are not Africans; they don't know a damn thing about Africa. With names like Shaniqua, Shaliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap, and all of them are in jail." Next, "All this child knows is 'gimme, gimme, gimme.' These people want to buy the friendship of a child . . . and the child couldn't care less. . . . These people are not parenting. They're buying things for the kid. $500 sneakers, for what? They won't . . . spend $250 on Hooked on Phonics." And finally, "You can't land a plane with 'why you ain't . . . ' You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth . . ."

Dyson: ". . . Black people have always been creative in naming their children. Africans name their kids after the days of the week, after conditions of their birth. Black people in 1930s gave their kids names after consumer products, Cremola, Listerine, Hershey Bar. So black naming has always been creative. I'm not worried about Shaniqua and Taliqua, I'm worried about Clarence and Condoleeza, who can hurt us in high places of power in America." Roker said nothing.

Dyson then accused Cosby of hypocrisy. After all, Cosby was a "pitchman" for "Jell-O Puddin' Pops. . . . He created artificial desire in people to spend beyond their means . . . "??!! Roker said nothing.


Dyson is so wrapped up in trying to attack black conservatives, that he goes after Bill Cosby for doing commercials for Jello? Mind you, in the midst of this entire exchange, Al Roker (whom I have a great deal of respect for in general) literally sits there and says nothing. My presumption -- rightly or wrongly -- is that Roker agrees with the mindless bilge that Dyson is spewing.

Near the end of the interview, Dyson tried to dress himself up as the "homeboy made good" who's trying to "protect" all the other "homeboys."

Dyson: So I'm speaking forth . . . on behalf of those people who are poor, because, after all, I was a teen father, lived on welfare until I was 21, then went to get a Ph.D. at Princeton, now I'm gonna have Afro-nesia [sic] and forget the people from which I've emerged? No, bro, I ain't the one." To which Roker "fired back" with this show stopper: "You know, you gotta come out of your shell."
And of course, thanks to the mindset of soul patrol charter members like Dyson, the only way one can help the black community is to blame the white man and not demand personal accountability -- and to trash anyone who says otherwise. The implication is that he is trying to help, and anyone else with an alternative view, including Cosby, is trying only to hurt black America.

Please. Spare me.

If you want to see more of Dyson's ad hominum attacks on Bill Cosby and black conservatives, you can tune into C-Span2/BookTV's AfterWords this Sunday (6P ET/PT & 9P ET/PT), where Dyson will wax poetic with author Debra Dickerson ("The End of Blackness").

And to reiterate my earlier headline, yes, I think Dyson has completely lost his damn mind. His view is irresponsible and potentially more damaging than anything anyone outside the black community could ever do, simply because he promotes a victimhood based on a second-class status as a people. We are not second-class people, and we need not accept that attitude or mindset, contrary to what Dyson is peddling.

Posted by mhking at May 12, 2005 10:33 AM

I completely agree with and support you. I have asked others to read the articles on the CITY by Kay Hymowitz and Heather Mac Donald addressing issues brought to the fore by Dr. Cosby. I pray that the African-American community awakens to the deceptions it has fallen prey to for so long.

It is also interesting to read the comments made concerning the N.J. Star Ledger's article "Where Have all the Black Men Gone" on the Free Republic web site.

Posted by: ocs at May 12, 2005 01:07 PM

I have read Larry Elder's article at and glad I missed Dyson
on NBC. Over thirty years ago while teaching
mathematics in high school, I was told by
15 year old that certain student was not
black because both his parents had a
college education and that his mother
was a math teacher in junior high!
Dyson also spoke out against Clarence
and Condoleeza. You do not have to add
last names! Dyson is Professor at Univ of
Penn (a private, Ivy Leage school) and
Larry Elder has degree from Brown Univ and
Law from Univ of Mich.
James M. Barber

Posted by: James M. Barber at May 12, 2005 03:39 PM

I saw the comments on your previous post. Haven't read or heard Dyson yet, but apparently it's not something I will look forward to.

Your blog has been consistently well thought out, well written, logically consistent and interesting. Keep charging, and if you're right, you're right--and someone who calls you "an idiot" like that one lady might be suffering from a little projection.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Posted by: Chap at May 12, 2005 03:47 PM

For a liberal like Cosby to be attacked so viciously, he must really have touched a nerve.

Debra Dickerson is an interesting writer, I look forward to her take on the whole controversy.

Posted by: Steven J. Kelso Sr. at May 12, 2005 06:12 PM

What is WRONG with some black people?! If I want to get an education I'm "white". If I speak properly I'm "white". If I don't want to blame white people for all my problems I'm not "black". If I disagree with the "Soul Patrol" and any of its "followers" I'm not "black".

A lot of black people my age are waking up from the Kool-Aid.

I agree with you, Mr. King and with Larry Elder and DEFINATELY with Bill Cosby. I see the foolishness he criticized EVERYDAY and it makes me SICK.

Why some black people can excuse the mess I see and hear everyday makes me question their sanity. It's disgusting and I refuse to let any future child that I bring into the world fall into that trap.

Posted by: Jade at May 12, 2005 08:20 PM

Dyson speaks "The King's English" yet isn't accused of "acting white". He's highly educated and isn't accused of "acting white".

There's more of dynamic to the "acting white" charge than what is stated here. But lazy thinking, and perhaps "victimology" prevents people from digging a little further.

Black "Soul Patrol"ers have been harder on the "Soul Patrol" than "Black conservatives" have, but funny that never gets mentioned.

Remember when Marion Barry said that Jesse Jackson doesn't know how to run anything 'cept his mouth? How about the none-to-silent criticisms of the NAACP from within the Black community.

Jesse Jackson, Sr. has slammed rappers, but no press. Sharpton has slammed rappers as well. No press until recently.

But "Black conservatives" either don't see it or over look it.

I ask: why?

Posted by: DarkStar at May 12, 2005 09:50 PM THAT WILL PREACH.

Posted by: Ambra Nykol at May 13, 2005 01:03 AM

How can a black person not know what it means to be black? That's a good one. I'm going to have to write that down.

I guess, since I'm pro-life, I must not know what it means to be a woman?

Posted by: Julie Anne Fidler at May 13, 2005 11:57 AM

You've got it right my friend. Maybe Cosby didn't use enough tact but his message was true, and that's not something some in the black community was to take responsibility for.

It's always easier to play the victim.

Posted by: Paladin at May 13, 2005 01:07 PM

I can roll with Cosby on most of his opinions. But when he brings up the "black sounding" names slant (along with fellas like Jesse Lee Peterson), he loses me. The "black sounding" names argument is so stupid and damaging that I wish the "goon hand" would be applied liberally to those that mention the subject.

Tell the Chinese, Japanese, and Indians to change their names and then we'll talk.

Posted by: Solomon at May 14, 2005 12:41 AM

I'm nagged by Dyson's reference to "artificial desire." What is that?

Posted by: Interested-Participant at May 14, 2005 07:04 AM

Using Jesse Lee Peterson's own standard, JLP is a race hustler.

Posted by: DarkStar at May 14, 2005 12:31 PM

I'm really fuckin' sick and tired of hearing these black "intellectuals" bitch, whine and blame whites and racism for their problems. So, let me get this straight, Dyson. It's hard for a black person to get educatued and to become successful, yet you have a phD? Man, I guess "the man" must have let you slip by huh? I mean, do you see whites sitting around and blaming blacks for their problems?

Posted by: Matt at May 16, 2005 10:39 PM

I heard the speech Bill Cosby gave back in November 2004, and I just recently read Micheal Dysons book "Is Bill Cosby Right or Has the Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind". My feeling on the whole subject is that I'm split 50/50 on both point of views. On one hand I do agree that some in the black community "lack the good sense god gave them" but to ignore certain political and economic policies that hurt not only poor blacks but all poor people is just down right naive. I think the issue is the judgemental attitudes we have toward one another, I'm not talking about the black elite and black poor but in general. Talking about so and so is not black cuz he votes this way or acts that way, or so and so is ghetto trash because he has no degree or the way dresses, man all of it is bullshit. I can tell you from personal experiance as can others in the black community we are our own worst enemies, I mean all of us, black elite, middle-class, and poor. I grew up poor in the D.C. area from Nigerian immigrants(P.G. County to be exact) where a good majority of the population is black, and i can't tell you how much hell I caught from both sides, and it baffles me to this day how we pass judgement on each other. I mean do you ever wonder how immigrants from certain cultures can come hear not speaking a word of english start whole communities, businesses send thier kids to college and thrive, while we cast stones at each, hell I don't know, maybe I've lost my fuckin mind, but I do know this we are the laughing stock while others are thriving.

Posted by: ore at May 24, 2005 03:22 PM

I think that much of the confusion has to do with the inability of the readers to comprehend Professor Dyson's position. We live in a era and culture where average is okay (look who won the Presidency-George Bush) and look where that has gotten the U.S. If the readers read with comprehension all of Dyson's work, they will see that Dyson has never been one who argues either one thing over the other (self-help vs. holding white supremacy accountable). He has been "both/and" on the issue-self help and hold the criminality of white supremacy. Dyson's point has been that every criminal is held accountable except the white supremacist or institutional racism. Professor Dyson responds to ideas that resonate out of Cosby and others who support Cosby's point because of its lopsided attacked. "They aren't taking care fo their fair share?" As one who doesn't quite understand that position, what fair share is he talking about? Its vague and cliche--it has no relevancy.
The problem has been there has never been a voice for the indenfensible black poor person. No one, with some exception, get the attention that Dyson amasses as a public thinker because his abilities are undeniable. I think what makes Dyson's contribution so disturbing to those who find his arguments wrongheaded is that he is heavy weight thinker in the midst of average thinkers. For instance, Debra Dickerson who is a brilliant scholar in her own right, seem to stumble, in fact could not hold her own with Professor Dyson on Booknotes on the vast majority of her points. She appeared to be more like the student who had not done her homework, than a professor. Much of what America has grafted from their biblical exegesis of the sacred text in these days are ideas of the religious right that reign has nothing to do with the poor or justice. This shortsided thinking informs those persons who support the narrow and calous thinking of Mr. Cosby. Jesus stood the poor and for justice; this is Jesus' core message. Who on earth is defending the poor? Joel Ostein? George Bush? Everyone, wake up at one time.

Bottom line, Bill Cosby is out of his league. Bill Cosby is only right within a context. Bill may have well said these remarks in front of a bunch of white men(Mass media present at NAACP Meeting). If Cosby came to my church and said these things and couched his points with "I am not nieve about racism becasue it does exist and I am not going let white supremacist off of he hook, howerver, today we are going to talk about taking responsibility" then he would have been on point. Cosby is out of his league.

Posted by: JC at July 4, 2005 08:55 AM

Sean “Puffy” Combs and Eli


I really need your keen input. My daughter lives in Little Rock, AR and I live in Gaithersburg, MD. My daughter resides with me only during her summers. During the summer vacation, I have her enrolled in Martial Arts, guitar lessons, and even gymnastics. I pay child support, on a consistent and accurate basis, and promise to fully take-on all costs of her extracurricular activities even her mother’s gas expense. Although it is in my daughter's best interest to continue her lessons, her mother does not allow her to participate in a single activity while she is away from me. She has bought her second large and luxurious home within 2 years of buying the first and she would not even allow my daughter to participate in a single class. At this point, it does not matter how she feels about me, but why should OCSE and the court allow her to take it out on the child?

*** Other than the apparent benefits of the actual lessons, what strong arguments will persuade the court that to allow my daughter to continue at least one of her classes while she is away from me?

*** Is there case law available and where?

*** What states have enforced this in the past?

*** Do you know any members of the House, Congress, or Senate whom will sponsor or introduce bills allowing children to have this right?

Children should have rights whenever it is simply the “right” thing to do.

*** Would you forward their contact information to me?

This will also decrease the crime, drug, and pregnancy rates of young people. It has been proven that active young people are far less likely to participate in crime, drug, and underage sex than those not participating in dance, the arts, martial arts, sports, or other extracurricular activities. This is a great idea and relieves the governments’ financial burdens and places it back on the parents, especially willing parents like me.

*** Should the government be forced to raise our children?

*** Can you provide or direct me to statistics that reflect how active young people are far less likely to participate in crime, drug, and underage sex than those not participating in community service, dance, the arts, martial arts, sports, or other extracurricular activities?

I have formerly taught at Sylvan Learning Center and I have proposed that I care her at lease one school year out of every three school years.

*** What effective arguments do you recommend?

During the last trial, her attorney repeatedly used courtroom trickery stating that I was trying to "control" my ex-wife's household. My attorney neglected to object to that statement.

*** What should be my respectful rebuttal or objection to this statement?

In order for you to have more influence on Arkansas legislation, you should contact Rep. Joyce Elliot via the information below:
Rep. Joyce Elliott; Dist 33, 7808 Lassie Lane, Little Rock, 72204 Ph: 501-570-0191
Rep. Bright:
Rep. Snyder:
You may also contact me 240-252-0889.

Best Regards,
Eli El

Family Law: He just needs a little horse sense knocked into him

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

By Eli El

I hope that someday the justice system would be fair. Would most of us be happy if this was true? When we take time out to think about it, there will always be a party whom believes that the judge ruled fairly and another whom believes that they have been wronged. There are some cases where all parties do agree with the outcome. By definition “Fair” is that which is free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; or conforming to established standards or rules. For me fairness is what makes good common sense. Back in the day, when someone would do something stupid, some wise elder would say something similar to, “he hasn't got the sense God gave little green apples” or “he just needs a little horse sense knocked into him.” As rational and logical citizens, we have some understanding as to what makes up common sense. Four years ago, I held the position of truck loader and unloader. I drove a 1985 Cutlass Supreme that barely ran. I also had a 2-year old Mazda that my ex-wife generally drove. Although the car note, registration, and insurance were in my name, I let her have that Mazda. She sold the car a year later and did not finish making the payments. Would it have been fair for me to have sold the car and split the little equity remaining leaving her and my child without a car? I believe that I acted fairly, although she reaped the benefit. My decision was not based on greed or emotions; it was based on “common sense.” I acted on what seemed reasonable. It was not fair for her to sell the car and not make payments on the vehicle. I was raised in The Church of God in Christ ( and my religion teaches that I should always treat people fairly. On that note, there is a huge gap between Church and State. Let us really take a strong look at this…Once religion, whichever he or she practices, is removed from legislation and “The Law”, there may possibly be no boundaries to human behavior. Are we becoming a society without moral and ethical boundaries and at the same time developing laws which possibly send individuals to jail or even seize their homes? Where does it end? And you wonder why so many politicians fight hard to maintain this ever widening gap between Church and State. There are generally negative aspects of human existence that causes us not to be “fair” such as greed, hatred, voracity, lust, spite, nepotism, immorality, revenge, and even fear. Most religions teach us how to overcome these. Some of us believe that when our political system is not conducted fairly, that politicians benefit. As I listened to NPR last week, I heard of a report that expressed how a group of airline employees voted to take reductions in pay so that the airline would not go bankrupt. For those airline participants and stakeholders understood that this made good and logical common-sense. I have never heard of any group of politicians to have ever done the same.
Most Americans work for a living. Many of us live from paycheck to paycheck. Politicians work for their pay as well. Churches, hospitals, and the political and justice systems are all service organizations. They serve in different ways, but each has an objective that includes service. Some of these have adapted strong business practices. These business practices have made some individuals wealthy. Whenever there is a fusion of money making endeavors with service to The People, there is a strong likelihood that the main focus may be compromised.
“I’m going to rule in her favor so that I don’t upset…”
“His company gives a lot to my campaign…”
“Senator James is here so I am not going to say that…he is a strong contributor to our…”
“I know her dad, so I’m going to rule in her favor.”
“I’m getting a kickback from each Medicaid patient, so I’m voting yes on proposition 49.”
“I’m going to institute more harsh penalties on them, because I’m about to run for District Judge.”

Well, you get the point. What influence does the average American have in legislation? Can we truly impact the justice system? Why don’t we simply nominate and support individuals with common-sense as their focus? It’s almost impossible to convince a politician to sponsor bills and legislation that makes wholesome common-sense if she or he is already in office. Money is generally the only motivator…and you know what they say about money and root. Now, that is not fair. Family Law is really unfair, but what can motivate politicians to develop fair rules for Family Law? I am divorced with one child. Whenever my attorney conveys my argument (that seems to make common-sense), the judge in not impacted by this logical line of reasoning.

I recently read a column by Tresa McBee. She wrote about a professional basketball player whom was not forced to pay $25,000 (15% of his income) each month to the mother of his child. Situation: Steve has a child whom resides in Arkansas. Steve makes $61,000 per year and lives in New York City. For anyone making 60K in NYC is barely making it living in a studio apartment. For someone making 61K in Arkansas, they are living “high on the hog.” They both are forced to pay the same amount of child support and not considering what is in the best interest of the child. Here is a simple scenario…The custodial parent can simply give 80% (which is almost impossible to prove) of the tax-free money to a boyfriend and not be held accountable for this selfish act of immorality. Is this fair? Again, as a Christian, I have been taught to treat people fairly. Some fathers can’t pay their own living expenses due to the high costs of child support. Many women are getting paid multiple kings’ ransoms for having children out of wedlock. Again I ask you, why do so many politicians want to widen the gap between Church and State? We can all do this…Immediately checkout and I went back to school as an adult to complete my degree in Computer Science. I have no aspirations nor time to fight the system…I just want to be treated fairly…and yourself?

© 2005 Eli El

Comments may be sent to:
Eli El
303 N. Summit Ave. #3A
Gaithersburg, MD 20877-3169





VS. CASE NO. DV 2000-5967



Comes now the Defendant, Elihu Eli El, for his Motion for Modified Visitation and Custody, states:

1. The Defendant and Plaintiff have a child which was born during their marriage;

2. The Defendant loves his daughter;

3. As in the past, Mrs. Bryant continues to show total disregard to ethics and the orders of the court. The actions of the Plaintiff reflect that she is immoral, irresponsible, does not have the best interest of the child in mind, and has no regard for the law or the judicial system. The divorce occurred 4 years ago. Whatever ill will that Mrs. Bryant has towards Mr. El should not be taken out on the child;

4. The Defendant is an exceptional citizen, former PBA member, and former soldier. The Defendant is scheduled to become married 03SEP05 and has created household filled with Christianity, honesty, love, education, wisdom, and health that is conducive to successfully raising the child. The child’s future step-mother, Vonda Rhodes, has no children and it is unknown if she is capable of bearing a child. Ms. Rhodes is an outstanding person whose information is located at the following websites:

5. The Defendant has a significant and promising career. He is capable of satisfying the child’s financial needs;

6. The Defendant has been an invited speaker at Terrell Junior High School, Malcolm X Elementary School;

7. Along with 20 nationwide essay finalists (all others being law school students), the Defendant was invited to present an extended essay of the abstract and compete as a finalist before the Moot Court of the George Washington Law School;

8. The child is nine years of age. This is the Defendant’s only child;

9. There are a total of four children residing in the Plaintiff’s household and the step-father is unemployed. With three other children, two of them being non-potty trained babies, all residing in the Plaintiff’s home. The Defendant knows that he can provide more attention to the child;

10. The Defendant consistently takes the child to the doctor and dentist for routine checkups;

11. Though the child’s step-father does not work, the Plaintiff has bought her second home within two years of buying her first home, but yet she has never even taken the child to the dentist. The child was 8 years of age when the Defendant upheld his fatherhood duty by taking the child to the dentist for a simple checkup where the child received a cleaning, fillings in two of her baby teeth and one in a permanent tooth;

12. The child currently participates in her first Vacation Bible School at Poplar Grove Baptist church in Darnestown, MD where the Defendant is a member;

13. During the past two summers, while with the Defendant, the child has NEVER missed a single day of Sunday Church unless it was due to travel;

14. The Plaintiff has moved since the child has traveled to visit the Defendant. The Plaintiff has not informed the Defendant of her current address nor the child’s proposed school district;

15. The Defendant has paid for the child’s day camp, because the period was predetermined by the day camp officials and the day camp is required to be paid for in full at the time of registration which occurred late January of 2005. The day camp remains in session up to 12AUG05;

16. As it pertains what is in the best interest of the child, the Plaintiff has not shown a normal capacity for reason;

17. The child is currently participating in Martial Arts. The child is doing very well in Tae Kwon Do. The child has practiced Martial Arts for two consecutive summers. The child can not effectively retain and develop her skills if she does continue to receive Tae Kwon Do instruction during the school year. The child attends Martial Arts classes at least 3-times per week. Each session is 45-minutes in duration. The child is eligible to test and earn her belt. The Plaintiff has never offered nor has she ever contributed emotionally nor financially to the child’s Martial Arts classes;

18. The child currently receives guitar lessons once per week. Each session is 30-minutes in duration;

19. The child trained in Gymnastics and Martial Arts during her summer 2004 visit. The child is currently taking guitar lessons and studying Chess. The child has a brand new premium guitar that is best suited for her body composition. The child is very proud of her “Pink Johnson” guitar. The child has practiced Martial Arts for two consecutive summers. The child can not effectively retain and develop her skills if she does not continue to receive Tae Kwon Do instruction. The Plaintiff has never offered nor has she ever contributed emotionally nor financially to the child’s Martial Arts classes;

20. The Defendant is willing to take on all cost associated with the child’s extracurricular activates in addition to child support. The Defendant is willing to pay $0.10 per mile for transportation costs associated with the child’s extracurricular activities;

21. The husband of the Plaintiff, Jeffrey Bryant, is unemployed;

22. The Defendant is teaching the child division;

23. During the past four years, there have been 6 court interventions. The Plaintiff has not cooperated on any significant issue involving our daughter nor has she ever reasonably attempted to do so;

24. The child should be allowed to develop to her full potential;

25. The child carries a sense of fulfillment and high self-esteem due to her great accomplish due to her involvement in Martial Arts and playing the guitar;

26. The Plaintiff denies improved educational, physical, and emotion development of the child. As it pertains to this matter, the Plaintiff simply has issues that are outside the Defendant’s scope of education;

27. The level of education and standardized testing scores greatly exceed national averages in Montgomery County, Maryland;

28. The Defendant is a volunteer for the campaigns of Ike Leggett for Montgomery County Executive and Kweisi Mfume for Senate;

29. If the number of family members residing in the local area was a criteria for determining visitation and custody, then no member of our Armed Forces or service member would ever have custody or reasonable visitation with their children. There is no law that takes this notion in consideration;

30. Based on the preponderance of evidence, there has been a material change in condition so as to warrant consideration of this petition for modification of visitation and custody;

31. “Enough is enough”; The Plaintiff has shown total disregard to this matter for years. It must end here and now. It’s sad but true…The primary change in custody of the child to the Defendant is the only and right option at this point.

32. Based on parenting time, the nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child’s relationship with the father greatly exceeds that of the mother;

33. Based on the Plaintiff’s history, instead of providing available opportunities for additional educational, physical, and emotional development for the child, the Plaintiff would rather be none cooperative, deprive the child of development and blessing simply because she uses the disposable income that child support provides in order to finance her attorney costs and she also holds unsubstantiated animosity toward the ex-husband. This is known as “Parental Alienation Syndrome” and information on this can be found at

34. The Plaintiff’s attitude since the separation proves that is not interested in Shared Parenting. The Defendant has done his best to encourage Shared Parenting, but the Defendant understands that “you can not make an adult do what he or she does not want to do” – unless the court intervenes. The conduct and “Parental Alienation Syndrome” of the Plaintiff negatively affects the child relationship with her father and significantly lessens her educational, emotional, and physical development;

35. When the Defendant asks to speak to the Plaintiff via long-distance telephone, the child responds with, “My mother said that if that I can’t answer the question then wouldn’t be answered.” The Plaintiff is causing psychological harm to the child. No child should have ever been placed in that position;

36. The Plaintiff has shown total disregard for the orders of the court and continues to do so;

37. The Defendant can provide more consistency to the child life. The child can not retain or improve her development if she is not allowed to continue to consistently practice her Martial Arts or participate in guitar lessons;

38. For this year’s summer visit, the Plaintiff neglectfully packed majority long sleeved shirts and long pants for the child;

39. The Plaintiff has taken the child out-of-town at 7:30 AM Christmas morning (the Defendant’s court ordered scheduled holiday) after the father had flown into town to visit the child;

40. The Plaintiff has shown disregard for the court, lack of citizenship, and disregard for what is in the best interest of the child by overwhelming the court by purposely being combative and unreasonable;

41. The child has not been baptized nor has the Plaintiff made any attempt to express her concern to the Defendant;

42. Christianity is the religion of both parents and the child. Throughout The Bible, there is great significance place on fatherhood;

43. This length of this motion reflects the Plaintiff’s defiance to do what is in best interest of the child;

44. The Defendant contends that the previous trial courts erred in awarding custody to the Plaintiff where the court failed to make a finding of what the welfare and best interest of the child were pursuant to section ARK. CODE §9-13-101(a)(1)(A);

45. The Federal nor Arkansas’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, ARK. CODE §§9-13-201 to 228 state any preference to the “home state” in determining child visitation or custody;

46. When determining visitation and custody the court should consider the best interest of the child, without regard to the gender of the parent – ARK. CODE ANN. §9-13-101(a)

47. In determining the best interest of the child, the court may consider the preference of the child if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason, regardless of chronological age - ARK. CODE ANN. §9-13-101(a)(1)(A)(ii)

48. Custody awards are not made to gratify, punish, or reward one either parent – Hollinger v. Hollinger, 65 ARK. APP. 110, 986 S.W. 2nd 105(1999)

49. Rather, the main emphasis is on the welfare and best interest of the child; all other matters are ancillary – Hepp v. Hepp, 16 ARK. APP. 240, 968 S.W. 2nd 62(1998)

50. “The father of the righteous will great rejoice, And he who begets a wise child will delight in him” – Proverbs 23:24 NKJV. The next verse expresses the need for shared parenting: “Let your father and your mother be glad, and let her who bore you rejoice” – Proverbs 23:25 NKJV;


WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing arguments and the authorities cited therein, Defendant respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter a judgment granting them the following reliefs:

1. Extend the current summer 2005 visitation by at least one week for a total of 9-weeks;
2. Primary custody change of the child from the Plaintiff to the Defendant;
3. The court mandates that the child continues to receive instruction in Martial Arts and the guitar on a consistent basis based on a normal attendance schedule for the next four years; where then the preference of the child should be taken in consideration to continue;

4. The Plaintiff is entitled reasonable parenting time in order to assure the substantial time share which would place both parents on an equal emotional footing with the child;

5. An alternate weekend and holiday schedule is also appropriate to insure that the Defendant will have leisure parenting time with the child;

6. The Defendant takes on all cost associated with the child’s extracurricular activates in addition to child support;

7. The Defendant is pays $0.10 per mile for transportation costs associated with transporting the child from the home to the child’s extracurricular activities;

8. Mrs. Bryant answers the following questions, in essay form, for record of understanding and to the extent of her education and that of The State of Arkansas’s satisfaction:

Why does the Plaintiff believe that it is not in the best interest for the child to receive instruction in Martial Arts or participate in extracurricular activities?

9. The court considers the best interest of the child;
10. Restitution and disgorgement according to proof;
11. All such other and further relief as the Court deems just;

I request that this original is filed and stamped for permanent record by the clerk of the Pulaski County Court of Arkansas and a copy stamped and placed in the enclosed self-address stamped envelope. I, Elihu Eli El, understand that I am swearing or affirming under oath to the truthfulness of the claims made in this petition that the punishment for knowingly making a false statement includes fines and/or imprisonment;

Dated: 7/15/2005

Elihu Eli El
303 North Summit Avenue
Apartment Number 3A
Gaithersburg, MD 20877
240-252-0889 (cellular)


I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Response has been mailed via United States Postal Service to Keena V. Wamble (#94073), 221 West Second, Suite 601, Little Rock, AR 72201 and the clerk Pulaski County Court of Arkansas to be filed and stamped for permanent record by the clerk on this _______ day of July, 2005;

Original to be filed and stamped
Pulaski County Clerk
405 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201-1407
(501) 340-8431

Address Unknown
(501) ###-####


ELIHU E. EL 7/15/2005


Posted by: Eli at July 18, 2005 01:14 PM

Exsqueeze me but doesn't Mr.Dyson have just as much right to his opinion as anyone else and doesn't he have the same 'freedom of speech' entitlement as you? So where in the hell do you get off criticizing his comments and by the way I feel Mr.Cosby made some good points but he also made some bad ones and I don't exactly see where he is an expert considering he hasn't been in a poor black neighborhood in what 30 odd years. That goes triple for mr. self-righteous,hating,puppet larry elder or 'house negro' star[fading]jones and another thing if you or Mr.Cosby can't take criticism of your comments then don't tell us. If you can't stand the heat then don't open your mouth in a public forum[like this one]Mr.Cosby is entitled to his opinions but so are the ones who disagree and he should be 'called on it too'. I especially didn't like his comments he wasn't letting white people 'off the hook' then why in the hell didn't he mention them then?!! That comment really confused me because if he only meant poor black people then why allow white people to even come into the conversation and if he meant ALL poor people then why single out one group it sounds like backpeddaling bullshit to me and people who backpedal aren't rational 'deep' thinkers they are phonies who can't own up to what they say. Or who can talk the talk but can't walk the walk and to that little shit 'brat' the reason why white people don't 'blame' black people for your problems is because the people you glorify and worship and vote into office and make laws and hold 99.9% of power in this country look just like you so whose to blame there.

Posted by: lauren morris at September 2, 2005 12:40 AM

i listened to several other interviews with dyson and he DOES in fact tackle the issue of personal responsibility of the black poor many many times. He is not condoning "blame whitey" and all the other things you and some of the commenters are blaming him for. I won't fight or argue about this, but instead I'd let dyson speak for himself. In other words I would suggest you listen to all the other interviews you can find on the internet and maybe read the book and see what he says about that. I have since found 2 more interviews you can listen to dyson, one on NPR and one here
You are only getting one thing from this ridiculous Roker interview (isn't he a weatherman? why did he interview him?) and not knowing what else he believes.

Posted by: CB at September 22, 2005 01:42 PM

EVERYONE on earth MUST see the movie "Crash". You won't be able to speak for hours. You'll think, you'll reflect, you'll change, you'll grow. No matter what your color, you'll grow.

Posted by: Fern at October 20, 2005 03:21 PM

There has been a dramatic increase in the number of divorces over the last thirty years. Experts estimate that at least half of all marriages will end in divorce.
Divorce has an effect on everyone involved, especially children if there are children in the relationship. Many times divorces become very hostile, which results in long courtroom battles. These battles are over money, houses, land and cars, but the most sensitive, traumatic and often the most cruel battle is the battle over the custody of the children.
Custody battles for children are often long and heated debates over which parent is the better parent for the child. (Of course, the best parent is "both parent's") In the past, custody was always awarded to the mother because of the belief that children needed to be nurtured. In recent years, there has been an upward trend of fathers seeking custody rights to their children. (Still, when it comes to actual distribution of respective shared of parenting time, mothers are given or take on average an amounts of parenting time that is virtually unchanged from what it was in the past) Often parenting plans can be set up with mediation between the two parents but in most cases, the court becomes involved.
During custody battles, there is a growing trend of one parent alleging abuse by the other parent. Before 1973, Child abuse was rarely reported to authorities and often it was covered up. In 1963, there were reports of suspected child abuse, but between 1976 and 1993, the total yearly number of child abuse reports grew from 669,000 to over 2.9 million after the child abuse protection legislation went into effect that Senators like Mondale sponsored.
The passing of this legislation has also resulted in the increase of allegations of child abuse in divorce battles. In 1975, thirty five percent of all child abuse reports were unsubstantiated, but by 1993, that percentage skyrocketed to sixty six percent. In divorce, when allegations of abuse are made and the police conduct investigations, ninety seven percent of these claims cannot be substantiated. (resulting in wasted state and county resources).
It is obvious that many allegations of abuse that are reported in divorce situations are false. and ninety five percent of those accusers are women. With the high amount of divorces, the percentage of those divorces which abuse is reported, and the percentage of which are unsubstantiated, it shows that children are being used as pawns by one parent to hurt or destroy the other parent. These false allegations of abuse, even if proven to be false, can ruin lives and have a devastating effect on the children.
Many children believe these false allegations, because the accuser has forced it on them for years. Yes, the courts have started ordering that "No derogatory remarks" be made to or in the presence of the children. However, this order is about as enforceable as visitation orders. Our court simply just can't handle the callous behavior of some parent's, and the legislature has not put laws in place to prevent or punish those making the allegations. In other words, the parent making these claims has "no fear of punishment" from the courts or the current law.
Two syndromes have been occurring in rapidly increasing numbers since 1980. The first is called Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Douglas Darnall, Ph.D. States that, many women say that PAS does not exist or it is simply a tool used by male dominant courts to take the children from their mothers. They also contend that fathers and attorneys use PAS as an aggressive defense for physical and sexual abuse.
There are three different types of alienators. The first is the naïve alienator who recognizes the importance of and encourages the relationship between the children and the other parent and only occasionally will do or say something that may alienate. This is not done to try to destroy the relationship between the children and the other parent. The second is the active alienator who alienates the children from the other parent by lashing out at the other parent in front of the children. They may even give the children the choice of whether or not the child wants to visit with the parent although the court has ordered rights to visitation. The third type of alienator is the obsessed alienator who does everything in their power to align the children to their side and campaign to destroy their relationship with the targeted parent.
The obsessed parent is bitter and angry and tries to completely remove the targeted parent from their lives by vilifying them and set themselves up as a victim/hero. Some weapons that the alienating parent uses are false allegations of domestic violence, sexual or physical or emotional abuse of the child, mental illness on the part of the target parent, or alcoholism/drug abuse/homosexuality on the part of the target parent. This is a form of parentectomy, or the removal or erasure of a parent from the child's life.
Sexual Allegations In Divorce
The second syndrome that is occurring is called Sexual Allegations In Divorce (SAID). SAID is a false accusation against one parent, usually the father, for molesting the child. In the American society, there is such sensitivity or outrage about child abuse that when an allegation is made, it is presumed to be true. Instead of being innocent until proven guilty, the accused child molester, especially fathers, are guilty until proven innocent.
Upon allegation, the courts generally order the removal of the child from the father and at the very best, allows the father only limited supervised visitation until the matter is completely settled. Frank Zepezauer Columnist / Researcher for the liberator, , states that "in some jurisdictions, the accusation can send a man to prison for life. In others, it can incarcerate him for ten or twenty years or more and brand him, for the rest of his life as a sex offender. At the very least, it can immobilize him in custody proceedings by involving him in costly litigation." SAID is often used by women to alienate the father from his children. It is used more often than physical abuse since there is often no physical signs from sexual abuse.

A defense attorney in San Jose, California states, "In one fell swoop, she (the mother) can get her husband completely out of her and her children's lives, and assure herself complete custodial control. And in one fell swoop, she can completely destroy the man's life, and any semblance of a normal relationship between him and his children."
One may wonder what the alienator would have to gain in making such false accusations or why one parent would try to erase the other parent from the child's life. There are several reasons. Fear of losing their parental identity, loss of family structure, envy, rage and revenge are all viable bases for which one parent will alienate the other parent from the child.
An epidemic of lies
The use of false allegations in divorce is rapidly becoming an epidemic, which is spreading throughout the world. According to the National Shared Parenting Association (Saskatchewan Chapter), in Canada a Children's Aid Society study showed that of 1200 complaints of abuse, 900 involved custody disputes. Of those 900 allegations, two-thirds (600) were found to be false.
Most people do not realize the effects of parental alienation on children and the false allegations of abuse. Many young children whose mothers have made false allegations of abuse will develop false memories of abuse because of leading questions or suggestive counseling. These children are left fatherless.
Parentectomy results in children becoming depressed, sometimes reaching suicidal proportions. They often lack self-esteem. Often they will turn against the alienator in later adolescence when they realize they have been "brainwashed" against the other parent.
David Blankenhorn Founder and president of the institute for American values, a private, nonpartisan organization devoted to contributing intellectually, and also supporter of fathers count act of 1999

gives statistics of fatherless children. He states that forty percent of American children will live apart from their fathers sometime before they are 18. He also says that drugs, child and adult abuse, poverty, teen pregnancy, gangs, crime and growing prison population are all driven by the separation of fathers from their children.
He states, "A man can communicate to his son how to be a good man. The best mother in the world can't do that." "Children who are deprived of their natural fathers, compared to children in two-parent families, are more likely to go to prison by eight times, to commit suicide by 5 times, to have behavioral problems by 20 times, to become rapists by 20 times, to run away by 32 times to abuse chemical substances by 10 times, to drop out of high school by 9 times, to be seriously abused by 33 times, to be fatally abused by 73 times and to have a 44 percent higher mortality rate."
These statistics are alarming and horrifying but what is behind all the statistics are hurting children whom long for a normal life and were never given the chance to have that. They long for a healthy relationship, with both their parents. Many times the mother has so convinced the children that their father is worthless, that they have a bitter resentment toward their father, which is solely based on the fabrications of the mother. This can ruin the child emotionally.
But it is not only boys that need their fathers in their lives to help them become emotionally stable. "Adolescent girls whose parents divorced during their oedipal years, we postulate that particular coping patterns emerge in response to the absence of the father which may complicate the consolidation of positive feminine identification in many female children and is observable during the latency years. We illustrate both the existence of these phenomena and implication for treatment:
1. intensified separation anxiety
2. denial and avoidance of feelings associated with loss of father
3. identification with the lost object
4. object hunger for males."
This also shows the hurt and anger that a child goes through with the loss of the father in their lives. They repress their feelings and act out upon them trying to make themselves whole again but without any hope of doing that because the only way would to be able to undo the emotional abuse that the alienating parent perpetrates on the child. The target parent has literally lost their children. In essence, their children have died.
The target parent grieves but continues to love their children from a distance. They are forced to live as if their children are dead. The only hope that the target parent has is that someone will be able to reach their children and explain what has happened and the child will be willing to start a relationship with their lost parent.
This alienation from their child can, as one can imagine, cause an increase in suicide rates among fathers. It is financially devastating to those who choose not to take their lives and result in poverty. They must fight long legal battles to clear their names of the crime that they have allegedly committed. This can take thousands upon thousands of dollars as well as years of court proceedings.
Many men lose everything they own to fight the court system because not only have they lost their rights as a parent, they have lost their reputation as well but they are still required to pay child support to those children. Even once a man has been cleared of the charges of abuse, there will always be emotional scars from the abuse that their ex-wife and the court system has ravaged them with. As stated earlier, many are branded as child molesters for the rest of their lives even with an acquittal.
Mondale Act of 1974
The legislation that passed that began this massive surge of false abuse allegations is called the Mondale Act of 1974 or the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA - 42 USC Sec. 5101). This law was well intentioned to stop child abuse, but it has created an epidemic of false allegations of abuse. CAPTA matches monies to states that comply with their provisions, which are to set up programs for the identification and prosecution of child abusers. CAPTA created a vague and ambiguous definition of child abuse that is left up to the subjective discretion of the caller who reports the abuse or investigator. CAPTA has been revisited many times and has had minor amendments.
President Clinton re-authorized the act in the fall of 1996. Most states have what are called Child Protective Service Workers (CPS). These workers, along with law enforcement officers, investigate abuse reports. While the law enforcement officers have been trained to be objective, the CPS have not been and they even are called "validators" which raises a question to their role in an investigation. The CPS has authority to deny a parent the access to the children even if there is a court order that allows him to have visitation with the children. The CPS will send a child for an evaluation.
According to the Mondale Act, if an evaluator does not report suspected abuse and the child goes back to an abusive situation, the evaluator can be imprisoned. These evaluators are often either afraid of the consequences of imprisonment if they mistakenly place a child back in the home of an abuser or they may even be a validator as the CPS workers.
The indicators that these validators use to determine abuse are actually quite common behavior that even normal children sometimes exhibit. The indicators include, bedwetting, acting out, nightmares, whining, temper tantrums, thumb-sucking, and compliant and fearful behavior. These validators often propitiate allegations of abuse because it puts food on their tables. It is their career and without such allegations, they could be without a job.
Although this is a horrifying thought, this is a reason to ignore evidence that shows innocence and only present to the court "evidence" that substantiate the client's claims of abuse.
Millions of false allegations
In Armin A. Brott's A parenting expert and author

of A system out of control: The epidemic of false allegations of child abuse, he states, "In California, for example, the Victim/Witness program will pay directly to a licensed therapist up to $10,000 per child for counseling – as long as the child was alleged to have been abused.
An additional $10,000 is available to counsel the child's mother. The only catch: to get their therapy paid for, the child victim and her mother must see a therapist from an approved list. Guess who directs the mother to a therapist who would be best for her and her child? CPS, of course."
These CPS workers often ask leading questions that can distort the children's memories. In their reports to the court, they often ignore evidences that would clear the accused, such as lie detector tests and outside therapist evaluations and rely solely on the child's evaluations which have been skewed by the CPS and the therapists that they recommended. In a report disseminated by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) Child Maltreatment 1995 Reports From the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System depicts more than three million reports of alleged child abuse and neglect in 1995 of which two million of were without foundation.
False allegations of abuse in divorce are an epidemic that is sweeping the world. Children are becoming heirs to hatred passed down to them from their parents. Because this is all they know, they in turn foster this pain, hatred and deceptiveness in their own adult relationships. The children are crushed under the weight of the system and a parent that is only looking out for his [ or perhaps “her”] own best interests.
Look at the rise in crime in recent years. There needs to be accountability set within the legislation that would help stop the false allegations of abuse and the propagation of such allegations by the judicial system through CPS. The Mondale Act does not provide boundaries that would provide for prosecution of those who make false accusations.
Where is the protection of the innocent in all of this? The CPS has become a money-making business and not a public service. Their theories that children do not lie about such issues are false. Many times children are coached into believing that something happened when it really did not. It is important to have laws to protect the innocent children from abuse but it is also equally important to protect the innocent adult from a wrongful accusation that could ruin them for the rest of their life.
America's judicial system was founded on the principal that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. The CPS has changed the law in this issue to guilty until proven innocent. Those who commit perjury are indicted and imprisoned and there should also be the same punishment for those who falsely allege abuse.
This legislation will never change until men and women come together and protest the unjustness of this issue. Most people's attitudes are "it is better to falsely convict than to allow a child to be abused." There is no justice in this. The American Constitution gives us the rights to justice.
Only if we decide to speak can our voices be heard. There needs to be an accountability that the CPS has to answer to so that they cannot simply ignore the truth. Therapists should not have to fear making an honest evaluation. We cannot sit by and allow the burden of proof to always be on the father. The burden of proof must be placed once again on the courts and the person who makes the allegations.
Children and the target parent will never lead normal, healthy lives until the abuse is stopped. Legislation needs to be changed to protect all the innocent, not just one. Let's be the voice of freedom and justice to change the legislation on the abuse laws so that false allegations cannot be made so easily, destroying the life of one of America's citizens and hurting the most precious thing that God has given us, his children.
These are cold and hard facts, and our legislature must pass new laws stopping these allegation and the physical destruction of American families. People enter marriage as if it were a temporary contract, with the attitude "if it doesn't work out, we can always get a divorce". The problem with that is the children and the emotional effects caused to them by these parents’ attitude.


Posted by: Stan at November 1, 2005 07:43 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?