Minor Consent To Pierce Release Of Claims: Fill & Download for Free

I am pro-choice, but I have never bought the argument that life doesn’t begin at conception, that it’s just a clump of cells and has no right to consideration. I prefer to think of the question as a conflict between two competing dreams of which only one can be the victor; although I side with the mother’s dream I see gray in this decision that so many paint in black and white.The crux of Tate’s position espouses this same conflict; the rights of individual ownership over a shared experience. A few hours ago, immediately after reading this question, then her story, then her arguments, I would have said that some mistakes were made but for the most part I thought she was right. Now, I just think that she’s right.As I see it, there are really two questions here, two foci of contention. The first is whether Tate has a right, in the context of her daughter’s expressed objection, to continue to press to write about her at all. The second is whether she had the right to do so when her children were too young to give an opinion or express consent. The consent issue is more straightforward, so I’ll take aim at that first.I’d like to be clear that although this question asks for my opinion on Tate’s claim, I want to separate the question of choices I would make from the question of choices that I could make; this distinction is the driving force of my shift away from my original position that perhaps she had made some mistakes. Like any pro-choice person who might never choose to have an abortion themselves, my answer needs to be not about my own personal choices, but about the range that is acceptable within our society, and I want this framing because I want you, readers, to look at it through the same lens. It’s easy to summon quick outrage in sympathy with her daughter’s upset, but in the absence of the expressed objection, would her actions in using details and images of her daughter’s life as a toddler and a pre-schooler have been outside the norm? I claim the answer is no.I have kids, and consequently I am a long-time peruser of a variety of one of the richest internet resources for kids’ arts and crafts, which is blogs. Quite frequently these blogs are lifestyle blogs, and names, ages, and small snippets about the family’s children are contained therein. I also come to these blogs via the internet recipe search route, and while details of the children’s lives are more often absent here unless the meal preparation was a joint activity with them, it’s reasonably common to see the home page with a nice family photo of the parents and all the kids.In fact, there is an entire blog (probably more than one) devoted to content exactly like that which Tate claims to have produced: thoughtful essays about parenting that may illustrate or support the writing using details or anecdotes about the kids.[1] Sometimes those essays have names and ages,[2] sometimes they don’t but contain far more details about a child’s actions.[3] I have seen links to articles from that blog here on Quora, and the questions I have seen on these links have never been about whether or not the author violated their kids’ privacy by telling these details of their preschoolers’ lives without their consent. I have seen authors here on Quora give details or stories about their kids in this fashion while answering questions, and the comment sections are never full of the readers’ reservations that the author gave specifics about their child.The point made by the above observations is that this type of content, content that references specifics of a child’s life before they are of age to even consent to their representation, sometimes with names and ages, is everywhere, and outrage about the violation of privacy of those too young to consent is not. Yes, there is occasional discussion about where the limits should be, as Tate notes herself, but in general it is accepted as within the norm.Hopefully, I have made this point well enough that you are now thinking about times in the past when you may have seen similar content and accepted it without a second thought, questions about whether or not the children were old enough to consent to use of their stories never having crossed your mind. Possibly, you may be thinking about the question of the value of that content. I certainly find it valuable, in ways that have benefited not only myself, but also my children. And judging by some of the comments that do appear on those blog articles and Quora answers — you know, the comments that aren’t about the author’s crime against the privacy of their children — many others find value in it too.Possibly you don’t find anything worthy in it, but rhetorically assuming that you do, or at least that you accept the argument that others do, perhaps you are now considering whether such compositions could be written to have the same impact and resonance in the absence of those stories. Anecdotally, I can tell you from my own experience here on Quora that I believe the answer to that question is no. In one of my recently written and most-upvoted-ever answers here,[4] I opened with what was functionally a tacit admission that my own 15-year old son struggles with chores and is routinely criticized for not making his family contribution. I don’t fool myself that that answer was such a high level above the rest of my content that it would have been so popular without that attention-grabbing first line.Maybe, you might not have gone in that direction of questioning whether that presentation is really necessary for the value of the content. Maybe you found that easy to accept because you think the real issue is about how much is OK. “Oh,” you might be thinking, “that answer where you talked about your son in the first line is alright, you didn’t really give anything away that’s so unique to him, and it was only the one sentence anyway.” One of the reasons that I have never liked the “it’s not really alive right after conception” argument for choice is that the question that immediately follows is “Well, then when is it really alive?” Despite the fact that there is an entire branch of mathematics built on the foundational concept that if you make a bunch of connected pieces tiny enough eventually they become one continuous thing and not a collection of separate things, this process doesn’t go well in reverse. Looking at a continuous spectrum and picking out a discrete point to be the bright, shining line of division where everything on one side is OK and everything on the other isn’t — that’s hard, and the answer is almost always one that everyone agrees is a compromise, a judgment call. So before you get too far down that path of “but”: but it’s OK if it’s not too much, but it’s OK if they don’t use the images, but it’s OK if they don’t use the real names, I’m just going to highlight what I view to be the extreme end of this spectrum that our culture considers acceptable. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Jon & Kate Plus 8, 19 Kids and Counting, and The Real Housewives of <insert locale here>.I have never watched these shows, nor paid more than passing attention to them as a cultural phenomenon, but in an (admittedly brief) stint of internet research, I don’t find any controversy over the parents’ right to place their children on these shows, to make them part of the focus of the shows, to intrude on their privacy. I found expressions of concern, but they were about working conditions, child labor laws, behavioral problems of the lifestyle and whether proper consideration is being taken for the child’s welfare.[5] [6] They were not about whether these shows should maybe not exist at all because they violated the children’s rights to privacy.For the Duggar family, I found criticism of their religious views, of their political views, and of their lifestyle, but the only criticism I found relating to anything that “maybe shouldn’t be aired to the public” was when they shared photos of their miscarried baby.[7] In light of the outrage expressed in the comments of Ms. Tate’s article I find this ironic. The veil of culturally acceptable privacy was pierced by photos of their dead child, when the dead are commonly considered not to have any rights of privacy to violate, but not one squeak about how nobody had asked the 3 children born during the tenure of the show if they wanted to participate and whether or not the parents had been presumptuous in simply adding them in.Of course, the fact that I did not find those discussions does not mean they are not occurring, or that they are not there to find. But I think the lack of prominence does mean that a parents’ right to make decisions about high level public access to details of their children’s private lives is not only a legal perspective, but a normative one. Maybe that won’t always be true. Maybe it will change. I’ve written elsewhere, many times, that just because something is legal or common doesn’t make it right. But before any change can happen I want to see conversation, not castigation. Consideration, not knee-jerk reaction. Evaluation of the pros and cons of all the parties with a stake, not just a confirmation-bias position taken with 20–20 hindsight.For myself, personally, I recognize that the slippery slope argument I gave above is a logical fallacy. Saying that it’s hard to know where to put the line is not a sufficient justification for not having one, nor is it even the case that one does not already exist here; there are laws about use of one’s own child’s images in the context of child pornography etc. Nonetheless, I feel that the value equation is sufficiently complex that I don’t believe the greatest benefit comes from an external mandate. I’ll note that my position that Ms. Tate should retain the right to make choices is not the same as saying that I don’t think she should have to answer for the choices she makes. It’s just that it’s not us that I think she should have to answer to, any more than I think that a woman who chooses to abort a baby should have to justify her decision to the public. And I concede that it’s possible I would feel differently about that, were it not that I so strongly agree with the other perspective of her position, that she has an ownership stake in this shared experience and that gives her rights too.My grandfather’s camera was everywhere, and I hated it. He was no respecter of whether or not you had a fork halfway into your asymmetrically opened mouth when the shutter went off, and I was an unpopular tween with self-esteem issues who couldn’t understand why I was so socially inept. The last thing I needed was six million bad pictures of myself. I eventually came to an agreement with my parents that I would allow my picture to be taken and stop hiding from the camera, if I were allowed to take possession of both the photograph and the negative of any picture I disliked. But should my desire to control those permanent recordings of myself have had primacy over my family’s desire to have permanent reminders of family gatherings, ones that would have failed to represent the family experience had I been universally absent from them? Have they no vested interest?While you are thinking about that, I’ll note that on a routine basis parents grant the interest of others in a shared environment under circumstances where the level of investment in a particular child is much less: I refer to the media release so common in waiver forms for children’s activities. Here is an example, from Part A of the medical form of the Boy Scouts of America that must be filled out by the parent for any child attending any camp or overnight scouting activity where their parent will not be present:I also hereby assign and grant to the local council and the Boy Scouts of America, as well as their authorized representatives, the right and permission to use and publish the photographs/film/videotapes/electronic representations and/or sound recordings made of me or my child at all Scouting activities, and I hereby release the Boy Scouts of America, the local council, the activity coordinators, and all employees, volunteers, related parties, or other organizations associated with the activity from any and all liability from such use and publication. I further authorize the reproduction, sale, copyright, exhibit, broadcast, electronic storage, and/or distribution of said photographs/film/videotapes/electronic representations and/or sound recordings without limitation at the discretion of the BSA, and I specifically waive any right to any compensation I may have for any of the foregoing.[8]Have you ever checked a box like this, giving permission for images and recordings of your child to be used? Did you do a serious assessment of the pros and cons? Did you ask your child first? If you did, were they of an age where their consent was in any way meaningful?I spend a week every summer volunteering at a Cub Scout camp in an administrative role, and I handle these forms. I can tell you that my experience is that very, very few parents withhold this permission. I suspect strongly that for most parents, the thought process is something like: “Well, of course it’s reasonable to expect that this organization will take pictures etc. for a variety of reasons including advertising, and of course it would be extremely difficult for them to single out my kid and make sure he isn’t in any photos when they’re just getting candid shots of a group while the kids are doing their stuff, and really, what’s the harm?” There is a casual assumption that in a group activity, where it’s reasonable to take pictures or video of the group, it’s reasonable to grant permission to other invested parties to have control of those images. That is not a legal assumption, or the waiver would not be required. But it is the way that average people behave.My husband is sensitive to me telling other people (friends, etc.) stories about him that he perceives to portray him in a less than positive light. We don’t always agree about which stories these are; I’ve occasionally relayed something about a shared experience that I thought was fine in a group dinner with friends and had him tell me later that he was upset that I had shared that. Does he have the right to tell me that I am not allowed to discuss anything he does with other people, in order to guarantee that no mistakes are made? Forget the mistakes, does he even have the right to tell me that I can’t say anything about him to others, even if I am as much a part of the story as he is, unless he has approved it in advance? Let’s imagine that I came here on Quora and asked that question: “My husband won’t allow me to talk about him to others unless he approves what I have to say in advance, what should I do?” I’m willing to bet that after I waded through the ocean of responses telling me I was trolling because nobody could be so stupid as to not know that the right answer is to leave him, I would find some very helpful answers explaining to me that this was controlling and unhealthy behavior on the part of my spouse, and that I should consider leaving him or at a minimum seek counseling. I doubt that I would find any answers upholding his sole right to determine the use of our shared experience.Another answer here suggests that we should flip the tables; consider how we would feel about the child sharing their experience without the parents’ permission. Alright. I’ll go there. In an elementary-school assignment to tell which room in the house was their favorite and give five reasons why, one of my children wrote that one of the reasons he chose this room was that when Mom and Dad are arguing you can’t hear it in there. As you may imagine, I had an uncomfortable moment envisioning what the teacher would think as she read that. But should I have made him change his response? I can see the headlines now: “Parent forces child to rewrite schoolwork to conceal evidence of family dysfunction.”In each of those examples, it’s wrong for one party to have total control of the joint narrative, and Tate is not saying differently; she does not propose that her control at this point in time should be total. Of her daughter’s rights she notes:Certainly, my daughter is old enough now that I owe her a head’s up and a veto right on the pictures or on portions of the content … Amputating parts of my experience feels as abusive to our relationship as writing about her without any consideration for her feelings and privacy.There it is, clear as day, she feels that writing about her daughter without any consideration for her daughter’s perspective is abusive. That doesn’t appear to me as callous disregard for her daughter’s part-ownership of their mutual experiences. But note also a key point; her daughter’s right to consent is related to her age. Not a specific age, but it doesn’t need to be; this is about development and maturity. Maturity is always a key component of consent; no four year old could meaningfully consent to a parent’s use of content.That’s important, because Tate also says this:So my plan is to chart a middle course, where together we negotiate the boundaries of the stories I write and the images I include. This will entail hard conversations and compromises. But I prefer the hard work of charting the middle course to giving up altogether — an impulse that comes, in part, from the cultural pressure for mothers to be endlessly self-sacrificing on behalf of their children. As a mother, I’m not supposed to do anything that upsets my children or that makes them uncomfortable, certainly not for something as culturally devalued as my own creative labor.Writer Christine Organ has described how “we seem to be creating this unrealistic image of the mother as all-giving, all-knowing, selfless, superhuman who will gladly give up the last piece of apple pie to please her lip-smacking, big-eyed child.” Surely, there’s a way to cut the pie so that I can write about motherhood in a way that takes into account my daughter’s feelings and respects her boundaries. But if I simply cordoned off motherhood as a forbidden subject for my writing, we would never know.In my experience, Tate and Organ are right about the cultural pressure on mothers to place their children’s desires first, and their own needs last. And when children are very small that is not unreasonable. But I do not think it is the case that when parents become pregnant, they are signing up for 18 years of unmitigated second seat, 18 years of subjugating their individuality and personhood to their offspring. Rather, at some point during the process of maturation, children gradually become aware — or they should — that parents are people also, and sometimes they will come first. That 18 years of growth and maturation is a long, slow process of equalization of autonomy between parent and child. We cheer the developmental milestone when our toddlers begin staking out their territories of self-control. Yet over the years, increased privilege is built on the back of concomitant increased responsibility.When I was old enough to care about how I looked in photographs, old enough to be negotiated with on the basis of my consent, I was also old enough to understand that my parents and family had a right to want photographs of me. I think the situation is similar here; if Tate’s daughter has reached the age where she is mature enough to be owed consent, then she is also old enough to be expected to understand why it is unreasonable for her to expect totalitarian control over an experience that doesn’t belong only to her. Maybe she doesn’t understand it right now, but to me that simply means that she has growing to do; growth that will occur through that process of negotiating the boundaries. Growth that needs to occur, that should occur, that will inform her daughter of her own right to personhood when she is on the other side of this equation with children of her own. Growth that will never have a chance to happen if Tate cedes the battlefield immediately rather than pressing for a treaty as she proposes.Footnotes[1] Scary Mommy: A parenting community for imperfect parents[2] The Question That Changed The Co-Parenting Relationship With My Ex[3] If You See A Kid Having A Tantrum In Public, Do This[4] Jennifer Edeburn's answer to My mother says I don't 'contribute' to the family. How do I do so and become more responsible, practically?[5] Do children ever belong on reality TV?[6] ‘Kid Nation’ - Television[7] Duggars Share Photos Of Miscarried Baby At Memorial[8] https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/HealthSafety/pdf/680-001_ABC.pdf

Sex scandals in American history have involved incumbent United States federal elected politicians, as well as persons appointed with the consent of the U.S. Senate.Sometimes the officials have denied the accusations, or have apologized, or have lost their office in consequence of the scandal (e.g. by resigning or being defeated or deciding not to run again).1776–1899Thomas Jefferson (DR-VA), President, was publicly accused of fathering the children of his slave Sally Hemings, by journalist James Callender (who had also publicized Alexander Hamilton's affair) in the Jefferson–Hemings controversy. Hemings was the half-sister of Jefferson's late wife Martha, and based partly upon DNA evidence there is now a scholarly consensus that either a relative of Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Jefferson himself fathered several of Sally Hemings' children. In January 2000, a Thomas Jefferson Foundation research committee concluded that all the known evidence indicated with high probability that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings, and that he was also likely the father of all six of Sally Hemings's children listed in Monticello records. A later report from a Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society committee differed and came to the conclusion that "Randolph" (presumably Thomas Jefferson Randolph, Jefferson's grandson; he was known to have been invited to visit Monticello around the time of Estons' conception, but no record of an actual visit has been found) is more likely the father, or possibly that one of Jefferson's Carr nephews is the father.James Buchanan (D), U.S. Senator, diplomat, later President of the United States, and William Rufus King (D-NC) who served as Vice-President under Franklin Pierce and who died in 1853 before Buchanan became president, were the subject of scandalous gossip alleging a homosexual affair in Washington, D.C., for many years. Andrew Jackson referred to King as "Miss Nancy".[23] (1850s)Grover Cleveland, President (D-NY): During the 1884 presidential race, the news broke that Cleveland had paid child support to the widowed Maria Crofts Halpin for her son Oscar Folsom Cleveland, born in 1874. Halpin accused Cleveland of raping her, leading to her pregnancy, and she also accused him of later institutionalizing her against her will to gain control of their child. Cleveland's acknowledgement of Oscar's paternity ameliorated the political situation but the controversy prompted Cleveland's opponents to adopt the chant, "Ma, ma, where's my pa?" After Cleveland won the election, the chant was answered by, "Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha!"1900–1969Woodrow Wilson President (D) allegedly had an affair with Mary Allen Hulbert, whom he met in 1907 when he was president of Princeton University.Warren Harding President (R), reportedly had affairs with Carrie Phillips and Nan Britton during the 1910s and early 1920s prior to his death in 1923. Britton claimed in a best-selling 1927 book, The President's Daughter, that her daughter had been fathered by Harding while he was a U.S. senator. Her assertion was finally established as factual in August 2015, when genetic tests confirmed Harding as the father of Elizabeth.John F. Kennedy President (D), has been linked to a number of extramarital affairs, including allegations of involvement with Marilyn Monroe, with Judith Campbell Exner] and with intern Mimi Alford during 1962–1963.Lyndon B. Johnson President (D), had extramarital affairs with multiple women over the years, in particular with Alice Marsh (née Glass) who assisted him politically.1970–1979No Presidents (but a lot of congressmen partied in the sheets).1980–1989No Presidents (but a lot of congressmen & Senators partied in the sheets).1990–1999Bill Clinton, President (D) Revelations that White House intern Monica Lewinsky had oral sex with Clinton in the Oval Office leading him to famously declare on TV on January 26, 1998, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."The scandal led to impeachment by the House for perjury, for lying about the affair under oath.He was acquitted in the Senate with 55 senators voting Not Guilty to 45 senators voting Guilty (falling 22 votes short of the two-thirds necessary to convict). (1998)In a plea bargain to avoid another trial alleging charges of impeding the initial investigation, Clinton's law license was suspended by the state of Arkansas for five years.Additionally, Clinton was accused by Juanita Broaddrick for sexual assault.2000–2009No Presidents (but a lot of congressmen & Senators partied in the sheets).2010–2019No Presidents (but a lot of congressmen & Senators partied in the sheets).Donald Trump (R), was accused of sexual assault by 13 women during the 2016 election and he denied the allegations. The allegations arose after The Washington Post released a 2005 video of Trump, recorded on a hot microphone by Access Hollywood, in which he bragged about sexually assaulting women, described as “locker-room talk”.Trump himself renewed the controversy a year later by alleging that the video was fake, to which Access Hollywood replied, "Let us make this perfectly clear — the tape is very real.The first reports of an alleged 2006 affair between Donald Trump and adult film star Stormy Daniels were published in October 2011 by the blog The Dirty and the magazine Life & Style.No allegations were proven to be factual.Now how about those in the House and Senate who chatter so much about the presidential sexual promiscuity and impeachable offenses ?House of Representatives, Senate & Appointed Cabinet scandalous affairs:Andrew Jackson (D-TN), U.S. Congressman, U.S. Senator, territorial (or military) governor (appointed) of Florida, and later President of the United States, had married Rachel Donelson Jackson in 1791. Both of them believed her divorce from her abusive, alcoholic first husband, Lewis Robards, was final. However, Robards had never completed his paperwork, rendering Jackson and Rachel's 1791 marriage void; and the couple married again in 1794. Throughout his later career, opponents of Jackson portrayed Rachel as a bigamist. Shortly after he was elected president in 1828 (but before the inauguration) Rachel suffered a nervous collapse and died. Jackson blamed this on the bigamy charges during the campaign, and he was bereft at the loss of his wife. (1828)Alexander Hamilton (F), Secretary of the Treasury, had an affair with Maria Reynolds while both were married to other people (see Hamilton-Reynolds sex scandal). Reynolds' husband blackmailed Hamilton who paid to maintain secrecy. In 1797, when Hamilton no longer held the post of Treasury Secretary, the affair was publicized by journalist James Callender, after which Hamilton publicly apologized. Said Hamilton: "This confession is not made without a blush....I can never cease to condemn myself for the pang which it may inflict in a bosom eminently entitled to all my gratitude, fidelity, and love." (1796)Andrew Jackson (D-TN), U.S. Congressman, U.S. Senator, territorial (or military) governor (appointed) of Florida, and later President of the United States, had married Rachel Donelson Jackson in 1791. Both of them believed her divorce from her abusive, alcoholic first husband, Lewis Robards, was final. However, Robards had never completed his paperwork, rendering Jackson and Rachel's 1791 marriage void; and the couple married again in 1794. Throughout his later career, opponents of Jackson portrayed Rachel as a bigamist. Shortly after he was elected president in 1828 (but before the inauguration) Rachel suffered a nervous collapse and died. Jackson blamed this on the bigamy charges during the campaign, and he was bereft at the loss of his wife. (1828)Richard Mentor Johnson, Senator (D-KY), did not attempt to hide his relationship with a slave named Julia Chinn, which caused his own party to distance themselves from him and contributed to his failed Senate re-election bid in 1828. Though they were prohibited from marrying, Johnson treated her as his common-law wife, and they had children. She died in 1833, before he became Vice-President under Martin Van Buren.John Henry Eaton (D), Secretary of War, allegedly had an affair with Margaret O'Neill Timberlake, the wife of John B. Timberlake, which allegedly drove Timberlake to suicide (see Petticoat Affair). Eaton then married the widow, Peggy, which led to social and political difficulties during the administration of President Andrew Jackson.James Henry Hammond (Nullifier Party - SC) U.S. Representative and later Senator, engaged in a homosexual relationship with a college friend, pursued what he called "a little dalliance" with his teenage nieces, and had sexual relationships with female slaves including a girl aged 12. The affair with his nieces became public in 1843, and forced Hammond to withdraw from his Senate bid in 1846, but he later became a U.S. Senator again in 1857.Daniel Webster, U.S. Senator (W-MA), was the subject of accusations by a reporter, Jane Grey Swisshelm, in May 1850 while he was married and still serving in Congress: "His mistresses are generally, if not always, colored women — some of them big black wenches as ugly and vulgar as himself". The national press widely copied the charges of infidelity, which are at least partly corroborated by other sources. (1850)William Campbell Preston Breckinridge, Representative (D-KY). Former mistress Madeleine Pollard sued Breckinridge for breach of promise after his wife died and he failed to marry Pollard as promised. The congressman was not reelected. (1894)George Q. Cannon (R) Utah Territorial Delegate, was refused his seat in the Congress due to his arrest for Unlawful Cohabitation (polygamy). He served nearly six months in penitentiary. (1888)1900–1969Arthur Brown (U.S. senator) (R-UT) US Senator, and founder of the Utah State Republican Party, was shot dead by his longtime mistress, Anne Maddison Bradley for having a second mistress. Bradley, who had two children by Brown, was tried, but acquitted on a defense of temporary insanity. (1906)David I. Walsh Senator (D-MA), was accused of visiting a male brothel frequented by Nazi spies in Brooklyn in 1942.[36]Styles Bridges (R-NH) US Senator, during the Lavender Scare of the 1950s, threatened to expose the son of US Senator Lester Hunt (D-WY) as a homosexual unless Hunt resigned from the senate, thus giving Republicans the majority. Hunt refused, but did not seek re-election and then shot himself (1954).William O. Douglas U.S. Supreme Court Justice, allegedly pursued other women while married to his third wife, which, combined with his three divorces and remarriages, was considered scandalous. He also reportedly tried to molest a flight attendant in his judicial chambers. Attempted impeachment based upon his moral character failed, when the House Judiciary Committee found insufficient grounds for impeachment. [self-published source] (1960s) [self-published source]1970–1979[edit]Wilbur Mills, Representative (D-AR), was found intoxicated with stripper Fanne Foxe. He was re-elected anyway, but resigned after giving an intoxicated press conference from Foxe's burlesque house dressing room. (1974)[46]Allan Howe, Representative (D-UT), was arrested for soliciting two police officers posing as prostitutes. (1976)[47]John Young, Representative (D-TX): A former female staffer said she received a pay raise after giving in to Young's sexual advances. (1976)Wayne Hays, Representative (D-OH): The Elizabeth Ray sex scandal ended his career in 1976. The Washington Post reported that Ray had been on the payroll of a committee run by Hays for two years as a clerk-secretary. During that time, she admitted, her actual job duties were providing Congressman Hays sexual favors: "I can't type, I can't file, I can't even answer the phone." (1976)Fred Richmond, Representative (D-NY): Charges that he solicited sex from a 16-year-old boy were dropped after he submitted to counseling. (1978)Robert L. Leggett, Representative (D-CA), acknowledged that he fathered two illegitimate children by a Congressional secretary, whom he supported financially. He then had an affair with another woman, who was an aide to Speaker Carl Albert. (1976)Joseph P. Wyatt, Jr., Representative (D-TX) was arrested on homosexual charges in 1979.John Andrew Young (D-TX) US Representative, a female staffer alleged she was forced to have sex in order to keep her job. Young referred to the charge as ‘poppycock’. His wife committed suicide the next year. He ran again, and lost his next primary election. (1976)1980–1989Donald "Buz" Lukens Representative (R-OH) Convicted of Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor for having sex with a 16 yr old girl. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $500. (1989)[58]Robert Bauman, Representative (R-MD), was charged with attempting to solicit sex from a 16-year-old male prostitute.[59] Upon completing an alcoholism rehabilitation program, the charges were dropped. Bauman apologized to voters for his indiscretions but was defeated for re-election. (1980)Jon Hinson, Representative (R-MS), resigned after being charged with attempted sodomy for performing oral sex on a male employee of the Library of Congress. (1981)Thomas Evans, Representative (R-DE), went golfing in Florida with nude model and lobbyist Paula Parkinson, who later suggested her lobbying techniques had been "unusually tactile". Though Evans apologized for any appearance of impropriety, he was voted out of office in 1982.Future Vice-President Dan Quayle and Congressman Tom Railsback went on the golf trip too but were not implicated in the sex. Marilyn Quayle said it was common knowledge that her husband would "rather play golf than have sex any day." (1981)John Schmitz, Representative (R-CA), leader of the ultra-conservative John Birch Society, admitted to having a second family, but refused to accept or support the two children he produced who became wards of the state. (1982)Dan Crane, Representative, (R-IL), was censured July 20, 1983, in the Congressional Page sex scandal for having sex with a young congressional page. (1983)Gerry Studds, Representative (D-MA), was censured July 20, 1983, in the Congressional Page sex scandal for having sex with a young congressional staffer. (1983)Gary Hart, Senator (D-CO), was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination in the 1988 presidential elections. He was photographed with model Donna Rice on a boat named 'Monkey Business' during a trip to the Bahamas, raising questions of infidelity. His popularity plummeted and he soon dropped out. (1987).Thirty years later it was alleged that the photo had been staged in a set-up, orchestrated by the rival campaign of then-Vice President George H. W. Bush.Ernie Konnyu, Representative (R-CA), Konnyu was accused of sexual harassment. He had asked a female aide to move a name tag she was wearing because it was drawing attention to her breasts, about which he later said: "She is not exactly heavily stacked, OK?" In another instance, he reportedly touched the knee of lobbyist Polly Minor during lunch, which caused a scene. GOP leaders were unhappy with Konnyu's temperament anyway, so they found Stanford professor Tom Campbell who ousted Konnyu the following June. (1987)Barney Frank, Representative (D-MA), was reprimanded by the House for fixing 33 parking tickets for Steve Gobie, a male escort who lived with Frank and claimed to have conducted an escort service from Frank's apartment without his knowledge. (1989)Gus Savage, Representative (D-IL), was accused of trying to force himself on a female Peace Corps worker while in Zaire. No action was taken by the House Ethics Committee after he apologized to her. (1989)1990–1999Arlan Stangeland (R-MN) U.S. House of Representatives (1977 – 1991). He lost his campaign for re-election in 1990, largely because of a scandal, having made several hundred long-distance phone calls on his House credit card to a female lobbyist from Virginia. He admitted that he had made the calls, but denied having a romantic relationship with the woman. After his loss he subsequently retired from politics.(1990)Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court justice, was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill and several other women prior to his Senate confirmation hearings. He later wrote an autobiography addressing Anita Hill's allegations, and she also wrote an autobiography addressing her experience in the hearings. (1991)Austin J. Murphy, Representative (D-PA), acknowledged fathering a child out of wedlock after a political opponent came forward with video of Murphy leaving the home of his mistress. (1990)Charles S. Robb Senator (D-VA) while married to Lynda Bird Johnson, Robb acknowledged drinking champagne and having a nude massage with Miss Virginia Tai Collins denying an affair, though he admitted an "indiscreet friendship." Collins claimed it was an 18-month affair. Soon after, Collins appeared nude in Playboy. (1991)Brock Adams, Senator (D-WA), was accused by eight women of committing various acts of sexual misconduct, ranging from sexual harassment to rape. Adams denied the accusations, there was no criminal prosecution, and he did not run for re-election. (1992)Robert Packwood, Senator (R-OR), resigned his office after 29 women came forward with claims of sexual harassment, abuse, and assaults. His denials of any wrongdoing were eventually contradicted by his own diaries boasting of his sexual conquests. (1995)Ken Calvert, Representative (R-CA), was involved with a prostitute, but claimed that no money was involved, and he was not arrested. Calvert apologized: "My conduct that evening was inappropriate.... it violated the values of the person I strive to be." (1993)Helen Chenoweth-Hage, Representative (R-ID), called for the resignation of Bill Clinton, and then admitted in 1998 to having had a six-year affair with a married rancher before she entered government. Chenoweth said: "Fourteen years ago, when I was a private citizen and a single woman, I was involved in a relationship that I came to regret, that I'm not proud of....I only wish I could have learned the lessons sooner." (1998)Bob Barr, Representative (R-GA), had an affair while married to his second wife. Barr was the first lawmaker in either chamber to call for Clinton's resignation due to the Lewinsky scandal. Barr lost a primary challenge less than three years after the impeachment proceedings. (1999)Dan Burton, Representative (R-IN): In 1995 speaking of the then-recent affairs of Republican Robert Packwood and the unfolding affair of Democrat Bill Clinton Burton stated "No one, regardless of what party they serve, no one, regardless of what branch of government they serve, should be allowed to get away with these alleged sexual improprieties...." In 1998 Vanity Fair printed an article detailing an affair which Burton himself had in 1983 which produced a child. Before publication Burton admitted to fathering a son with a former state employee.Robert Livingston, Representative (R-LA), called for the resignation of Bill Clinton and when his own extramarital affairs were leaked, his wife urged him to resign and urge Clinton to do likewise. (1998)Newt Gingrich, Representative (R-GA) and leader of the Republican Revolution of 1994, resigned from the House after admitting in 1998 to having had an affair with a staffer while he was married to his second wife, and at the same time he was leading the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury regarding an affair with his intern Monica Lewinsky. (1998)Henry Hyde, Representative (R-IL): in 1998, Salon.com stated that from 1965 to 1969 (before Hyde won federal office), he had an extramarital sexual affair with a married woman who had three children from her marriage. Hyde, was 41 years old and married when the affair occurred He admitted to the affair in 1998, calling the relationship a "youthful indiscretion". The revelation of this affair took place as Hyde was spearheading the impeachment hearings of President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.Pete Domenici Senator (R-NM) voted for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998 after his affair with Monica Lewinsky. In 2013 he confessed that in 1978 he fathered a son, Adam Laxalt, outside of his marriage; Adam Laxalt's mother is Michelle Laxalt, the daughter of Senator Paul Laxalt and a prominent Republican lobbyist.Mel Reynolds, Representative (D-IL), resigned from Congress in 1995 after a conviction for statutory rape. In August 1994, he was indicted for sexual assault and criminal sexual abuse for engaging in a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer that began during the 1992 campaign. Despite the charges, he continued his campaign and was re-elected that November; he had no opposition. Reynolds initially denied the charges, which he claimed were racially motivated. On August 22, 1995, he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1 of that year.2000–2009Gary Condit, Representative (D-CA): his affair with 23-year-old intern Chandra Levy was exposed after Levy disappeared. Her body was found a year later and in 2008, an illegal immigrant with no relation to Condit was charged with her murder but years later all charges against the suspect were dropped. The murder of Chandra Levy remains unsolved. Condit had often demanded that Bill Clinton "come clean" about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. (2001)Ed Schrock, Representative (R-VA), announced he would abort his 2004 attempt for a third term in Congress after allegedly being caught on tape soliciting sex with men after having aggressively opposed various gay-rights issues in Congress, such as same-sex marriage and gays in the military.Strom Thurmond, Senator before 1964(D-SC), after 1964 (R-SC), noted segregationist, fathered a child, Essie Mae Washington-Williams, with a 16-year-old African American in 1925 who was employed by the Thurmond family. (2003)Steven C. LaTourette, Representative (R-OH), was elected in 1994 and had voted to impeach Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky scandal. He himself had a long-term affair with his chief of staff, Jennifer Laptook, while he was married. He married Laptook after his divorce. (2003)David Dreier, Representative (R-CA), voted against a number of gay rights proposals, but was outed concerning his relationship with his chief of staff. (2004) He is featured in the 2009 documentary film Outrage.Don Sherwood, Representative (R-PA), failed to win re-election following revelations of a five-year extramarital affair with Cynthia Ore, who accused him of physically abusing her. (2004)Mark Foley, Representative (R-FL), resigned his House seat when accused of sending sexually explicit e-mails to teenage male congressional pages. He was replaced by Tim Mahoney. (2006)Jim Gibbons (R-NV) US House of Representatives from the 2nd District was campaigning for Governor when he walked waitress Chrissy Mazzeo to her car. She claimed he threw her against a wall and threatened to sexually assault her. He claimed she tripped and he caught her. The civil lawsuit was settled by the payment of $50,000 to Mazzeo. Six weeks later he was elected governor.David Vitter, Senator (R-LA), took over the House seat of former Congressman Robert Livingston, who resigned in 1999 following revelations of an extramarital affair. At the time, Vitter stated, "I think Livingston's stepping down makes a very powerful argument that (Bill) Clinton should resign as well...." Vitter's name was then discovered in the address book of Deborah Jeane Palfrey (the "D.C. Madam"). (2007)Randall L. Tobias (R), Deputy Secretary of State and former "AIDS Czar" appointed by George W. Bush, stated that U.S. funds should be denied to countries that permitted prostitution. He resigned on April 27, 2007, after confirming that he had been a customer of Deborah Jeane Palfrey (the "D.C. Madam").Larry Craig (R-ID), a U.S. Senator for 18 years, was arrested on June 11, 2007 and charged with lewd conduct arising from his behavior in a men's restroom at the Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport. Craig pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of disorderly conduct; he later unsuccessfully sought to withdraw his guilty plea. He announced his resignation three months later on September 1, 2007, but changed his mind again, although he did not seek re-election in 2008. (2007)Tim Mahoney, Representative (D-FL), was elected to the seat of Mark Foley, who had resigned following sexual harassment charges from his congressional interns. Mahoney ran on a campaign promise to make "a world that is safer, more moral". In October 2008, he admitted he placed his mistress on his staff and then fired her, saying, "You work at my pleasure." He then admitted to multiple other affairs.Vito Fossella, Representative (R-NY), was arrested for drunken driving. Under questioning, the married Congressman and father of three admitted to an affair with Laura Fay that produced a daughter. (2008)John Edwards, Senator (D-NC), admitted to an extramarital affair with actress and film producer Rielle Hunter, which produced a child, seriously undercutting his 2008 presidential campaign. (see federal political scandals)John Ensign, Senator (R-NV), resigned his position as chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee on June 16, 2009, after admitting he had an affair with the wife of a close friend, both of whom were working on his campaign. Under investigation, he then resigned his Senate seat 20 months early in 2011. In 1998, Senator Ensign had called for President Bill Clinton (D) to resign after admitting to sexual acts with Monica Lewinsky. (2009)Chip Pickering, Representative (R-MS): on July 16, 2009, it was announced that his wife had filed an alienation of affection lawsuit against a woman with whom Chip allegedly had an affair. The lawsuit claimed the adulterous relationship ruined the Pickerings' marriage and his political career. (2009)2010–2019Eric Massa, Representative (D-NY), resigned to avoid an ethics investigation into his admitted groping and tickling of multiple male staffers. He later stated on Fox News, "not only did I grope [a staffer], I tickled him until he couldn't breathe," (2010)Mark Souder, Representative (R-IN), a staunch advocate of abstinence and family values, resigned to avoid an ethics investigation into his admitted extramarital affair with a female staffer. (2010)Chris Lee, Representative (R-NY), resigned hours after a news report that he had sent a shirtless picture of himself flexing his muscles to a woman via Craigslist, along with flirtatious e-mails. He did not rely on a pseudonym or a false e-mail address but used his official Congressional e-mail for all communication. Lee said: "I regret the harm that my actions have caused my family, my staff and my constituents.... I have made profound mistakes and I promise to work as hard as I can to seek their forgiveness." (2011)Anthony Weiner, Representative (D-NY), admitted to sending sexually explicit photos of himself to several women through his Twitter account. He resigned from Congress on June 16, 2011, but kept sexting after his resignation. (2011) On Nov 6, 2017, Weiner began serving a 21-month sentence for sexting a 15-year-old girl.Scott DesJarlais, Representative (R-TN), admitted under oath to at least six affairs, including two affairs with his patients and staffers while he was a physician at Grandview Medical Center in Jasper, TN. Additionally, while running on a pro-life platform, DesJarlais made his ex-wife have two abortions, and tried to persuade a mistress who was his patient, into an abortion as well.David Wu, Representative (D-OR), resigned from the House of Representatives after being accused of making unwanted sexual advances toward a fundraiser's daughter. July 26, 2011.Vance McAllister, Representative (R-LA), who is married and the father of five, was caught on surveillance camera deeply kissing a married staffer. Several prominent Republicans asked McAllister to resign. In response, he stated he would not seek re-election in 2016. McCallister said: "There's no doubt I've fallen short and I'm asking for forgiveness. I'm asking for forgiveness from God, my wife, my kids, my staff, and my constituents who elected me to serve". (2014)Blake Farenthold, US Representative (R-TX) was reported to have paid $84,000 of taxpayer money, via the House of Representatives Office of Compliance, to settle a sexual harassment complaint from a former staffer. Farenthold's former communications director Lauren Greene sued the congressman in December 2014,[160] and a settlement was reached in 2015. The identity of Farenthold with respect to taxpayer involvement was made public in 2017. This was the first documented case of taxpayer funds being used to settle sexual harassment complaints against a member of Congress. (2014)Dennis Hastert, former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives (R-IL), pled guilty to structuring bank withdrawals in order to conceal deliberately-unspecified misconduct by Hastert against an unnamed individual years earlier. At a sentencing hearing in October 2015, Hastert admitted that he had sexually abused boys while he worked as a high school wrestling coach decades earlier. (2015)Tim Murphy, Representative (R-PA), had an extramarital affair with Shannon Edwards, a 32-year-old forensic psychologist. The pro-life Murphy asked Edwards to have an abortion after she became pregnant. The information was revealed as part of Murphy's divorce proceedings and published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette after it fought in Pennsylvania state court to have the documents unsealed. Murphy resigned his seat in Congress.Al Franken Senator (D-MN), was accused by radio newscaster Leeann Tweeden of forcibly kissing her as part of a skit and later being in a photo pretending to grope her without consent (there was no actual physical contact) during a U.S.O. tour in 2006. Tweeden produced photo evidence of the pretend grope, taken of Franken when Tweeden was asleep. Franken admitted to the allegations and apologized for his actions and then resigned.Joe Barton (R-TX) US Representative, acknowledged he took and emailed nude photos of himself in 2015, following their leak in November 2017.John Conyers Jr. US Congressman (D-MI), A former staffer for Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan accused the Detroit Democrat of unwanted sexual advances. A woman who had settled a sexual harassment claim against him stated that the lawmaker had "violated" her body, repeatedly propositioned her for sex and asked her to touch his genitals. He then resigned. (2017)Trent Franks (R-AZ) US Representative, was investigated by the House Ethics Commission about allegations of improper conduct. Before the study concluded, Franks abruptly resigned. (2017)Pat Meehan (R-PA) US Representative In January, 2018, it was revealed that Pat Meehan used tax payer funds to settle a sexual harassment claim by a female staffer. He was removed from the House Ethics Committee, but remained in office until he resigned on April 27, 2018, stating that he would repay the taxpayer money used to settle the suit. (2018)Brett Kavanaugh, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, was accused of sexual assault and misconduct by Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and three other women, in alleged incidents that occurred during his high school and college years. Some Senators demanded an F.B.I. investigation into the allegations as part of his background check. The ensuing investigation by the F.B.I. included additional interviews with alleged witnesses pursuant especially to the Ford accusation, but was criticized by some for the decision to not pursue the testimony of some college classmates and to rely on Ford's senate testimony instead of obtaining a new interview with her. The FBI concluded that there was no corroboration of the accusations.One of his accusers falsely claimed credit for a "Jane Doe" letter, but later recanted authorship, admitting that an unknown person actually wrote and submitted it. Kavanaugh vehemently denied all of the allegations. He was confirmed by the Senate in a party line vote and was sworn in as a justice of the Supreme Court.Hmmm, sure seemed like a majority of Democrats appeared on the lists gatheredOf a Total of 88 incidents………41 were Democrats(stop for supper) to be continued…….. Republicans…………………………………………………………… Other

Voting for a Biden or a Clinton.. or any other *3rd Way corporatist, makes you an establishment “Democrat” by your actions supporting establishment “Democrats” in voting for them..Let's look at what money funds these 3rd Way people and who they serve in their votes and actions, shall we?GOP Donors and K Street Fuel Third Way’s Advice for the Democratic PartyNow folk who are actually progressive will not vote for candidates supported by these GOP corporate donors because those candidates have been screwing us ordinary folks over while claiming to help us since before the government murdered Kennedy and MLK.People who vote for such gaslit turd fires are known as “liberals.” Which is to say that they “support reform" right up to the point where it might possibly impact their wallet, and after that point they will drop a dime on you.Here's a progressive calling out those liberals in song circa 1967Here's another progressive calling out those back-stabbing liberals in prose. Let me know if you hear any prevarication in either of their words."Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]"AFRICAN STUDIES CENTER - UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA"Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]"16 April 1963My Dear Fellow Clergymen:While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants--for example, to remove the stores' humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer.You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some -such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle--have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty nigger-lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation. Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?"Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are.But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation -and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands. Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy two year old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest." They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood, Martin Luther King, Jr.Published in:King, Martin Luther Jr.Page Editor: Ali B. Ali-Dinar, Ph.D.Previous MenuHome PageWhat's NewSearchCountry Specific