With 97 percent of the state’s precinct’s reporting, the child custody measure trailed 57 percent to 43 percent.
40 views
http://www.FIRMncp.com Eric
This is a sad commentary on how much men and their supporters truly want the rebuttable presumption of equal parenting (ESP) to be the law in their state let alone the nation and world.
But, it is typical of the apathy so rampant in this movement.
It has been shown that in theory, most feel that ESP is only right and proper via various polls and voters stating so in New Hampshire.
Not knowing about the atrocities is a common statement. I don’t buy it. Much comedy is based upon the truth. That is why comedians get such big laughs when joking about alimony, child support and custody. PEOPLE KNOW. They just don’t care enough to vote and/or tithe 10% or more of their income to the “movement” for the opportunity to be an equal care giver to their own children. Heck! We can’t even get fathers overall and their supporters to donate a buck a month to help make change…
I did what I could from afar knowing full well the outcome in advance from the dismal showings at various functions and demonstrations that support ESP in the past over the last 20 plus years.
So, what happened? I could understand it if the initiative that really only stated that the legislature would have to address the issue was defeated 49 to 51%. I don’t buy it as per the ACFC statement below my signature. I am not saying that the measure was outgunned with the twisting of the truth and outright lies plus the big money, did not have an impact. I just don’t see losing by such a large margin if fathers and thier supporters, in general, truly wanted a change in the system to give them equal access to their own children.
And, that’s the problem. Fathers, in general, don’t want it bad enough and only complain about it to others…for what reason(s)? I can only think of: to save face for obviously, fathers in total, do not want ESP for what ever reason(s).
We have had 40 plus years of our families breaking up leaving the mothers as the “head of the household” per the atrocities of the black robes of injustice and the feminazis dogmas. Our children don’t know any better and it will get worse over time as each generation gets weaker due to the brainwashing and governmental programs that attempt to replace a father, his love, his leadership and his male morals and willingness to sacrifice his life for his children.
I am saddened and I am ashamed.
Eric
P.S.: Any negativity to this post without a solution that will work to get others to truly participate not only falls on mute ears, but any such comments, are moot.
From ACFC:
Dear Eric,
Thanks to all of you who supported the citizen’s effort to enact shared parenting via ballot initiative in North Dakota. For those who have note yet heard, the vote was 43.58% in favor and 56.42% opposed. While we would obviously have preferred a win, a number of facets of this entire campaign provide reason for optimism. But before looking at a few of those, ACFC extends a tremendous thank you on behalf of all parents to Mitch Sanderson, the North Dakota Coalition for Families and Children and all citizens who supported Measure 3, both financially and by volunteering time.
Now, back to the positives…..
1) 44% of voters supported the measure, as written, in the face of vehement opposition by the state bar association, the child support bureaucracy, social workers, the domestic violence coalitions and several other groups which thrive on family breakdown. In the face of this level of opposition 44% support is a strong statement affirming Shared Parenting. And particularly, a definition of shared parenting as a rebuttable presumption of equal time sharing for fit parents. This is the proper legal standard…..we asked precisely for what we wanted and in the face of extremely well organized opposition over 91,000 voters agreed. There were more than a few pundits who believed we would never get anywhere near this level of support.
2) We received this much of the vote in the face of flat out, bald faced lies and misinformation from the opponents of family stability and shared parenting. It is a common courtroom tactic to create confusion and establish ungrounded fears in order for the ‘professionals’ to sort the situation out and impose their will on otherwise rational people. Unfortunately this tactic worked well and had its intended effect on the major media outlets, and in turn citizens, in the state. Even after it was disproved, editors of the largest state papers bought off on the idea that the measure would somehow create chaos within the courts.
Listen for yourself to the scare tactics and unfounded allegations about the impact of the bill on the citizens of the state. We are proud to have maintained the high road and did not resort to lies and fearmongering in order to influence the voter. (depending on the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment for the ad to play.)
Click here to listen to the first negative opposition ad.
Click here to listen to the second negative opposition ad.
The proper interpretation of these ‘professionals’ comments is that they are signaling, loud and clear, to the citizens their intent to undermine and frustrate implementation of the peoples will as expressed at the ballot box.
Just for background purposes, the sponsor of these commercials, The North Dakota Concerned Citizens for Children’s Rights (NDCCC), is the front organization for the opposition to Measure 3. Nearly 95% of all NDCCC funding came from the bar association.
3) On the other hand, we are pleased the public and the state newspaper editors did not buy – hook, line and sinker – the oppositions positions. By and large these influencers of public opinion recognize all is not well in the family courts of North Dakota and urged the legislature to address these issues so more children have the benefit of two parents in their lives.
4) The citizens of North Dakota are more determined than ever to see Shared Parenting enacted. Far from being defeated, supporters we spoke with today are dedicated to seeing the legislature improve the situation. They are committed to bringing this issue back to the voters in 2008 if the state fails to act decisively over the next two years. These two years will provide the opportunity for supporters and opponents of Measure 3 to work together to bring about substantial modification and improvement in domestic relations law.
5) Consider this….in less than 10 months measure supporters took shared parenting from zero visibility in the state and turned it into the hottest issue in this election. To say a nerve has been struck is an understatement.
With this level of positive support for reform legislators and elected judges understand they have a mandate and limited time opportunity to address these issues. This was not a few disgruntled individuals (as opponents routinely stated) who decided to put an initiative on the ballot, there is a substantial population calling for change. It is our opinion that a significant number of those voting in opposition to Measure 3 yesterday will change their position and vote favorably if the legislature and the ‘professions’ fail to act in a manner which protects the relationship children want and need with BOTH parents.
So What’s Next….
The head of the North Dakota Bar Association has announced his desire to have the legislature form a funded study committee to look at the issues raised. Of course the bar wants this decided in the legislature; they typically control the committees through which family law bills pass. North Dakota citizen’s have already indicated they will not allow any study to become a tactic for delaying reforms.
ACFC encourages the state bar association to consider, heed and return to the mission statement of the Family Law Section of the American Bar Association in 1952:
“The ultimate purpose of this organization shall be to bring about improvement in the laws of the several states relating to marriage and divorce and allied phases of family life, to the end that the law, in both philosophy and procedure, may tend to conserve, not disserve, family life; that it may be constructive, not destructive, as to marriage; that it may be helpful, not harmful, to the individual partners and their children; that it may be preventive, rather than punitive as to marriage and family failure.”
Our nation is poorer for the bar having moved away from these sentiments.
North Dakota citizens are preparing a series of family law reform bills for introduction by their legislators. It will be up to the bar association and other special interests to meet citizens and craft changes which reflect the will of the people and stop sacrificing families for special interest profits.
The battle for shared parenting has just begun in North Dakota, and has kicked off with a strong statement of support for reform, we thank all of you who have participated thus far and invite everyone to be a part of the continuing effort.
ACFC
http://www.FIRMncp.com Eric
This is a sad commentary on how much men and their supporters truly want the rebuttable presumption of equal parenting (ESP) to be the law in their state let alone the nation and world.
But, it is typical of the apathy so rampant in this movement.
It has been shown that in theory, most feel that ESP is only right and proper via various polls and voters stating so in New Hampshire.
Not knowing about the atrocities is a common statement. I don’t buy it. Much comedy is based upon the truth. That is why comedians get such big laughs when joking about alimony, child support and custody. PEOPLE KNOW. They just don’t care enough to vote and/or tithe 10% or more of their income to the “movement” for the opportunity to be an equal care giver to their own children. Heck! We can’t even get fathers overall and their supporters to donate a buck a month to help make change…
I did what I could from afar knowing full well the outcome in advance from the dismal showings at various functions and demonstrations that support ESP in the past over the last 20 plus years.
So, what happened? I could understand it if the initiative that really only stated that the legislature would have to address the issue was defeated 49 to 51%. I don’t buy it as per the ACFC statement below my signature. I am not saying that the measure was outgunned with the twisting of the truth and outright lies plus the big money, did not have an impact. I just don’t see losing by such a large margin if fathers and thier supporters, in general, truly wanted a change in the system to give them equal access to their own children.
And, that’s the problem. Fathers, in general, don’t want it bad enough and only complain about it to others…for what reason(s)? I can only think of: to save face for obviously, fathers in total, do not want ESP for what ever reason(s).
We have had 40 plus years of our families breaking up leaving the mothers as the “head of the household” per the atrocities of the black robes of injustice and the feminazis dogmas. Our children don’t know any better and it will get worse over time as each generation gets weaker due to the brainwashing and governmental programs that attempt to replace a father, his love, his leadership and his male morals and willingness to sacrifice his life for his children.
I am saddened and I am ashamed.
Eric
P.S.: Any negativity to this post without a solution that will work to get others to truly participate not only falls on mute ears, but any such comments, are moot.
From ACFC:
Dear Eric,
Thanks to all of you who supported the citizen’s effort to enact shared parenting via ballot initiative in North Dakota. For those who have note yet heard, the vote was 43.58% in favor and 56.42% opposed. While we would obviously have preferred a win, a number of facets of this entire campaign provide reason for optimism. But before looking at a few of those, ACFC extends a tremendous thank you on behalf of all parents to Mitch Sanderson, the North Dakota Coalition for Families and Children and all citizens who supported Measure 3, both financially and by volunteering time.
Now, back to the positives…..
1) 44% of voters supported the measure, as written, in the face of vehement opposition by the state bar association, the child support bureaucracy, social workers, the domestic violence coalitions and several other groups which thrive on family breakdown. In the face of this level of opposition 44% support is a strong statement affirming Shared Parenting. And particularly, a definition of shared parenting as a rebuttable presumption of equal time sharing for fit parents. This is the proper legal standard…..we asked precisely for what we wanted and in the face of extremely well organized opposition over 91,000 voters agreed. There were more than a few pundits who believed we would never get anywhere near this level of support.
2) We received this much of the vote in the face of flat out, bald faced lies and misinformation from the opponents of family stability and shared parenting. It is a common courtroom tactic to create confusion and establish ungrounded fears in order for the ‘professionals’ to sort the situation out and impose their will on otherwise rational people. Unfortunately this tactic worked well and had its intended effect on the major media outlets, and in turn citizens, in the state. Even after it was disproved, editors of the largest state papers bought off on the idea that the measure would somehow create chaos within the courts.
Listen for yourself to the scare tactics and unfounded allegations about the impact of the bill on the citizens of the state. We are proud to have maintained the high road and did not resort to lies and fearmongering in order to influence the voter. (depending on the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment for the ad to play.)
Click here to listen to the first negative opposition ad.
Click here to listen to the second negative opposition ad.
The proper interpretation of these ‘professionals’ comments is that they are signaling, loud and clear, to the citizens their intent to undermine and frustrate implementation of the peoples will as expressed at the ballot box.
Just for background purposes, the sponsor of these commercials, The North Dakota Concerned Citizens for Children’s Rights (NDCCC), is the front organization for the opposition to Measure 3. Nearly 95% of all NDCCC funding came from the bar association.
3) On the other hand, we are pleased the public and the state newspaper editors did not buy – hook, line and sinker – the oppositions positions. By and large these influencers of public opinion recognize all is not well in the family courts of North Dakota and urged the legislature to address these issues so more children have the benefit of two parents in their lives.
4) The citizens of North Dakota are more determined than ever to see Shared Parenting enacted. Far from being defeated, supporters we spoke with today are dedicated to seeing the legislature improve the situation. They are committed to bringing this issue back to the voters in 2008 if the state fails to act decisively over the next two years. These two years will provide the opportunity for supporters and opponents of Measure 3 to work together to bring about substantial modification and improvement in domestic relations law.
5) Consider this….in less than 10 months measure supporters took shared parenting from zero visibility in the state and turned it into the hottest issue in this election. To say a nerve has been struck is an understatement.
With this level of positive support for reform legislators and elected judges understand they have a mandate and limited time opportunity to address these issues. This was not a few disgruntled individuals (as opponents routinely stated) who decided to put an initiative on the ballot, there is a substantial population calling for change. It is our opinion that a significant number of those voting in opposition to Measure 3 yesterday will change their position and vote favorably if the legislature and the ‘professions’ fail to act in a manner which protects the relationship children want and need with BOTH parents.
So What’s Next….
The head of the North Dakota Bar Association has announced his desire to have the legislature form a funded study committee to look at the issues raised. Of course the bar wants this decided in the legislature; they typically control the committees through which family law bills pass. North Dakota citizen’s have already indicated they will not allow any study to become a tactic for delaying reforms.
ACFC encourages the state bar association to consider, heed and return to the mission statement of the Family Law Section of the American Bar Association in 1952:
“The ultimate purpose of this organization shall be to bring about improvement in the laws of the several states relating to marriage and divorce and allied phases of family life, to the end that the law, in both philosophy and procedure, may tend to conserve, not disserve, family life; that it may be constructive, not destructive, as to marriage; that it may be helpful, not harmful, to the individual partners and their children; that it may be preventive, rather than punitive as to marriage and family failure.”
Our nation is poorer for the bar having moved away from these sentiments.
North Dakota citizens are preparing a series of family law reform bills for introduction by their legislators. It will be up to the bar association and other special interests to meet citizens and craft changes which reflect the will of the people and stop sacrificing families for special interest profits.
The battle for shared parenting has just begun in North Dakota, and has kicked off with a strong statement of support for reform, we thank all of you who have participated thus far and invite everyone to be a part of the continuing effort.
ACFC
http://www.FIRMncp.com Eric
This is a sad commentary on how much men and their supporters truly want the rebuttable presumption of equal parenting (ESP) to be the law in their state let alone the nation and world.
But, it is typical of the apathy so rampant in this movement.
It has been shown that in theory, most feel that ESP is only right and proper via various polls and voters stating so in New Hampshire.
Not knowing about the atrocities is a common statement. I don’t buy it. Much comedy is based upon the truth. That is why comedians get such big laughs when joking about alimony, child support and custody. PEOPLE KNOW. They just don’t care enough to vote and/or tithe 10% or more of their income to the “movement” for the opportunity to be an equal care giver to their own children. Heck! We can’t even get fathers overall and their supporters to donate a buck a month to help make change…
I did what I could from afar knowing full well the outcome in advance from the dismal showings at various functions and demonstrations that support ESP in the past over the last 20 plus years.
So, what happened? I could understand it if the initiative that really only stated that the legislature would have to address the issue was defeated 49 to 51%. I don’t buy it as per the ACFC statement below my signature. I am not saying that the measure was outgunned with the twisting of the truth and outright lies plus the big money, did not have an impact. I just don’t see losing by such a large margin if fathers and thier supporters, in general, truly wanted a change in the system to give them equal access to their own children.
And, that’s the problem. Fathers, in general, don’t want it bad enough and only complain about it to others…for what reason(s)? I can only think of: to save face for obviously, fathers in total, do not want ESP for what ever reason(s).
We have had 40 plus years of our families breaking up leaving the mothers as the “head of the household” per the atrocities of the black robes of injustice and the feminazis dogmas. Our children don’t know any better and it will get worse over time as each generation gets weaker due to the brainwashing and governmental programs that attempt to replace a father, his love, his leadership and his male morals and willingness to sacrifice his life for his children.
I am saddened and I am ashamed.
Eric
P.S.: Any negativity to this post without a solution that will work to get others to truly participate not only falls on mute ears, but any such comments, are moot.
From ACFC:
Dear Eric,
Thanks to all of you who supported the citizen’s effort to enact shared parenting via ballot initiative in North Dakota. For those who have note yet heard, the vote was 43.58% in favor and 56.42% opposed. While we would obviously have preferred a win, a number of facets of this entire campaign provide reason for optimism. But before looking at a few of those, ACFC extends a tremendous thank you on behalf of all parents to Mitch Sanderson, the North Dakota Coalition for Families and Children and all citizens who supported Measure 3, both financially and by volunteering time.
Now, back to the positives…..
1) 44% of voters supported the measure, as written, in the face of vehement opposition by the state bar association, the child support bureaucracy, social workers, the domestic violence coalitions and several other groups which thrive on family breakdown. In the face of this level of opposition 44% support is a strong statement affirming Shared Parenting. And particularly, a definition of shared parenting as a rebuttable presumption of equal time sharing for fit parents. This is the proper legal standard…..we asked precisely for what we wanted and in the face of extremely well organized opposition over 91,000 voters agreed. There were more than a few pundits who believed we would never get anywhere near this level of support.
2) We received this much of the vote in the face of flat out, bald faced lies and misinformation from the opponents of family stability and shared parenting. It is a common courtroom tactic to create confusion and establish ungrounded fears in order for the ‘professionals’ to sort the situation out and impose their will on otherwise rational people. Unfortunately this tactic worked well and had its intended effect on the major media outlets, and in turn citizens, in the state. Even after it was disproved, editors of the largest state papers bought off on the idea that the measure would somehow create chaos within the courts.
Listen for yourself to the scare tactics and unfounded allegations about the impact of the bill on the citizens of the state. We are proud to have maintained the high road and did not resort to lies and fearmongering in order to influence the voter. (depending on the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment for the ad to play.)
Click here to listen to the first negative opposition ad.
Click here to listen to the second negative opposition ad.
The proper interpretation of these ‘professionals’ comments is that they are signaling, loud and clear, to the citizens their intent to undermine and frustrate implementation of the peoples will as expressed at the ballot box.
Just for background purposes, the sponsor of these commercials, The North Dakota Concerned Citizens for Children’s Rights (NDCCC), is the front organization for the opposition to Measure 3. Nearly 95% of all NDCCC funding came from the bar association.
3) On the other hand, we are pleased the public and the state newspaper editors did not buy – hook, line and sinker – the oppositions positions. By and large these influencers of public opinion recognize all is not well in the family courts of North Dakota and urged the legislature to address these issues so more children have the benefit of two parents in their lives.
4) The citizens of North Dakota are more determined than ever to see Shared Parenting enacted. Far from being defeated, supporters we spoke with today are dedicated to seeing the legislature improve the situation. They are committed to bringing this issue back to the voters in 2008 if the state fails to act decisively over the next two years. These two years will provide the opportunity for supporters and opponents of Measure 3 to work together to bring about substantial modification and improvement in domestic relations law.
5) Consider this….in less than 10 months measure supporters took shared parenting from zero visibility in the state and turned it into the hottest issue in this election. To say a nerve has been struck is an understatement.
With this level of positive support for reform legislators and elected judges understand they have a mandate and limited time opportunity to address these issues. This was not a few disgruntled individuals (as opponents routinely stated) who decided to put an initiative on the ballot, there is a substantial population calling for change. It is our opinion that a significant number of those voting in opposition to Measure 3 yesterday will change their position and vote favorably if the legislature and the ‘professions’ fail to act in a manner which protects the relationship children want and need with BOTH parents.
So What’s Next….
The head of the North Dakota Bar Association has announced his desire to have the legislature form a funded study committee to look at the issues raised. Of course the bar wants this decided in the legislature; they typically control the committees through which family law bills pass. North Dakota citizen’s have already indicated they will not allow any study to become a tactic for delaying reforms.
ACFC encourages the state bar association to consider, heed and return to the mission statement of the Family Law Section of the American Bar Association in 1952:
“The ultimate purpose of this organization shall be to bring about improvement in the laws of the several states relating to marriage and divorce and allied phases of family life, to the end that the law, in both philosophy and procedure, may tend to conserve, not disserve, family life; that it may be constructive, not destructive, as to marriage; that it may be helpful, not harmful, to the individual partners and their children; that it may be preventive, rather than punitive as to marriage and family failure.”
Our nation is poorer for the bar having moved away from these sentiments.
North Dakota citizens are preparing a series of family law reform bills for introduction by their legislators. It will be up to the bar association and other special interests to meet citizens and craft changes which reflect the will of the people and stop sacrificing families for special interest profits.
The battle for shared parenting has just begun in North Dakota, and has kicked off with a strong statement of support for reform, we thank all of you who have participated thus far and invite everyone to be a part of the continuing effort.
ACFC
http://www.FIRMncp.com Eric
I am pleased to post my response to Stephen Baskervilles e-mail to me (probably others, too) that is not related to this thread, but indirectly is:
The tone of your new website has been a long time a coming…
You are a respected leader of the “movement” and I certainly have supported all of your efforts.
Thankfully, you are finally putting things in perspective without the politically correct stance that so many, erroneously try to avoid.
It is “okay” to be angry. And, why not?
I do appreciate all that you have done.
I have been in jail for things that I have never done and would not even think of doing. You can name me, if you would like in those that “may not” want their names mentioned including those that have been physcially beaten.
Eric Ericson
—– Original Message —–
From: Stephen Baskerville
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:50 PM
Subject: New Web Site
Thanks to Ed Truncellito, my personal web site is back up with a new look and a new introductory home page. I apologize for the months when it was not functional and I am grateful for the help and patience of the many people who wrote to me about the spam attacks.
This is work in progress, so I would appreciate feedback. Given events in North Dakota, it might be a good time to take stock and reassess our strategy and techniques. I would be grateful to know if you think the tone of this website is the right one for our movement.
Stephen Baskerville
“A single, seemingly powerless person who dares to cry out the word of truth and to stand behind it with all his person and all his life, ready to pay a high price, has, surprisingly, greater power, though formally disfranchised, than do thousands of anonymous voters.â€ÂÂ
– Vaclav Havel
In Stephen Baskerville’s web site:
The divorce regime is the most totalitarian institution ever to arise in the United States. Its operatives in the family courts and the social service agencies recognize no private sphere of life. “The power of family court judges is almost unlimited,” according to Judge Robert Page of the New Jersey family court. “Social workers are perceived to have nearly unlimited power,” a San Diego Grand Jury concludes. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Total immunity [enjoyed by social workers] is absolute power.”
The divorce regime is much more serious than simply “unfairness” or “gender bias” against fathers in custody proceedings. It is the government’s machine for destroying the principal check on its power – the family – and criminalizing its main rival: fathers. The most basic human and constitutional rights are routinely violated in America’s family courts. The lives of children and parents are in serious danger once they are, as the phrase goes, taken into “custody.” Systemic conflicts-of-interest among government and private officials charged with child custody, child support, child protection, and connected matters have created a witch hunt against plainly innocent citizens.
The terror of the divorce regime is not a future possibility; it is a present reality. The following methods are currently employed by family courts and other government agents. These practices are now widespread in America:
mass incarcerations without trial or charge
forced confessions
children forcibly separated from parents who are under no suspicion of legal wrongdoing and parents stripped of the care, custody, and companionship of their children without explanation
government agents entering the homes, demanding and examining private papers and personal effects, and seizing the property of citizens who are under no suspicion of legal wrongdoing
official court records, including hearing tapes and transcripts, doctored and falsified with the knowledge of court officials and evidence fabricated against the innocent
defendants denied the constitutional right to face their accusers
bureaucratic police authorized to issue subpoenas and arrest warrants against parents, with no hearing and contrary to due process of law
special courts created specifically to process parents for political offenses
forced labor facilities created specifically for parents
children instructed to hate their parents with the backing of government officials
children forced by government officials to act as informers against their parents
children abused and killed with the backing of government officials
knowingly false allegations, for which no evidence is presented, accepted as fact without proof, overturning the presumption of innocence, and not punished when demonstrated to be untrue
parents ordered by government officials to separate from their spouses, on pain of losing their children
parents forced to pay the private fees of court officials they have not hired and whose services they have not sought or used, on pain of incarceration
parents suspected of no legal wrongdoing punitively stripped of their property and income, sometimes at gunpoint, and reduced to penury
government officials using the mass media to vilify private American citizens, and political leaders using their offices as platforms to verbally attack private American citizens, who have no right of reply or opportunity to defend themselves
parents jailed without trial reportedly beaten, in at least one case fatally, and denied medical attention while in police custody.
I have made these charges in some of the most reputable publications in the English language. They have never been refuted. Yet neither have they been corrected or even addressed by public officials, the media, or academics.
This site will tell you the truth about the divorce regime. It contains virtually all my published works – over 50 articles – on the fatherhood crisis and the corruption of the divorce industry (except book reviews and radio commentaries). For better or worse, these are the most strongly worded writings to appear on this subject in mainstream publications.
I am heavily indebted for the many letters, stories, documents, clippings, studies, citations, books, e-mail communications, and telephone calls – collected and sent to me by hundreds, perhaps thousands of people. It is not possible to name all these people, and many prefer not to be named.
Stephen Baskerville
November 2006
http://www.FIRMncp.com Eric
I am pleased to post my response to Stephen Baskervilles e-mail to me (probably others, too) that is not related to this thread, but indirectly is:
The tone of your new website has been a long time a coming…
You are a respected leader of the “movement” and I certainly have supported all of your efforts.
Thankfully, you are finally putting things in perspective without the politically correct stance that so many, erroneously try to avoid.
It is “okay” to be angry. And, why not?
I do appreciate all that you have done.
I have been in jail for things that I have never done and would not even think of doing. You can name me, if you would like in those that “may not” want their names mentioned including those that have been physcially beaten.
Eric Ericson
—– Original Message —–
From: Stephen Baskerville
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:50 PM
Subject: New Web Site
Thanks to Ed Truncellito, my personal web site is back up with a new look and a new introductory home page. I apologize for the months when it was not functional and I am grateful for the help and patience of the many people who wrote to me about the spam attacks.
This is work in progress, so I would appreciate feedback. Given events in North Dakota, it might be a good time to take stock and reassess our strategy and techniques. I would be grateful to know if you think the tone of this website is the right one for our movement.
Stephen Baskerville
“A single, seemingly powerless person who dares to cry out the word of truth and to stand behind it with all his person and all his life, ready to pay a high price, has, surprisingly, greater power, though formally disfranchised, than do thousands of anonymous voters.â€ÂÂ
– Vaclav Havel
In Stephen Baskerville’s web site:
The divorce regime is the most totalitarian institution ever to arise in the United States. Its operatives in the family courts and the social service agencies recognize no private sphere of life. “The power of family court judges is almost unlimited,” according to Judge Robert Page of the New Jersey family court. “Social workers are perceived to have nearly unlimited power,” a San Diego Grand Jury concludes. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Total immunity [enjoyed by social workers] is absolute power.”
The divorce regime is much more serious than simply “unfairness” or “gender bias” against fathers in custody proceedings. It is the government’s machine for destroying the principal check on its power – the family – and criminalizing its main rival: fathers. The most basic human and constitutional rights are routinely violated in America’s family courts. The lives of children and parents are in serious danger once they are, as the phrase goes, taken into “custody.” Systemic conflicts-of-interest among government and private officials charged with child custody, child support, child protection, and connected matters have created a witch hunt against plainly innocent citizens.
The terror of the divorce regime is not a future possibility; it is a present reality. The following methods are currently employed by family courts and other government agents. These practices are now widespread in America:
mass incarcerations without trial or charge
forced confessions
children forcibly separated from parents who are under no suspicion of legal wrongdoing and parents stripped of the care, custody, and companionship of their children without explanation
government agents entering the homes, demanding and examining private papers and personal effects, and seizing the property of citizens who are under no suspicion of legal wrongdoing
official court records, including hearing tapes and transcripts, doctored and falsified with the knowledge of court officials and evidence fabricated against the innocent
defendants denied the constitutional right to face their accusers
bureaucratic police authorized to issue subpoenas and arrest warrants against parents, with no hearing and contrary to due process of law
special courts created specifically to process parents for political offenses
forced labor facilities created specifically for parents
children instructed to hate their parents with the backing of government officials
children forced by government officials to act as informers against their parents
children abused and killed with the backing of government officials
knowingly false allegations, for which no evidence is presented, accepted as fact without proof, overturning the presumption of innocence, and not punished when demonstrated to be untrue
parents ordered by government officials to separate from their spouses, on pain of losing their children
parents forced to pay the private fees of court officials they have not hired and whose services they have not sought or used, on pain of incarceration
parents suspected of no legal wrongdoing punitively stripped of their property and income, sometimes at gunpoint, and reduced to penury
government officials using the mass media to vilify private American citizens, and political leaders using their offices as platforms to verbally attack private American citizens, who have no right of reply or opportunity to defend themselves
parents jailed without trial reportedly beaten, in at least one case fatally, and denied medical attention while in police custody.
I have made these charges in some of the most reputable publications in the English language. They have never been refuted. Yet neither have they been corrected or even addressed by public officials, the media, or academics.
This site will tell you the truth about the divorce regime. It contains virtually all my published works – over 50 articles – on the fatherhood crisis and the corruption of the divorce industry (except book reviews and radio commentaries). For better or worse, these are the most strongly worded writings to appear on this subject in mainstream publications.
I am heavily indebted for the many letters, stories, documents, clippings, studies, citations, books, e-mail communications, and telephone calls – collected and sent to me by hundreds, perhaps thousands of people. It is not possible to name all these people, and many prefer not to be named.
Stephen Baskerville
November 2006
http://www.FIRMncp.com Eric
If the above does not get your adrenalin moving, the following should to get your butts off of that chair you are sitting in. Make a difference!
(I am now off of my soap box, Mike… )
FEMINAZI FRAUD EXPOSED
FEMINAZI FRAUD EXPOSED
OPEN LETTER, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE US CONGRESS
(HOUSE AND SENATE) IN SEPTEMBER OF 2000 RELATED TO THE REAUTHORIZATION OF VAWA.
A very powerful Neo-Marxist Hate Group[i],[ii],[iii],[iv],[v] is attempting to
deceive the Congress of the United States yet again [vi],[vii],[viii]. This
organization’s goals and objectives are to destroy families, marriages, and yes,
even to wipe out children [ix],[x],[xi],[xii],[xiii],[xiv]. Leaders of this
organization have even promoted [xv] and supported [xvi] INCEST with children.
This same ADVOCATE FOR INCEST has MOCKED THE US CONGRESS for not knowing what
they had passed in dealing with this legislation which is now up for renewal
[xvii]. This organization has become a powerful but seditious group seeking to
destroy the Constitution [xviii],[xix]. Their leaders have proclaimed that the
overwhelming majority of the US Congress are rapists
[xx],[xxi],[xxii],[xxiii],[xxiv],[xxv],[xxvi],[xxvii] and that Congress is
twisted for supporting marriage [xxviii].
This organization supports special legislation that is patently unconstitutional
by their own admission [xxix],[xxx]. And through this organization’s contempt
and hatred of marriage and families, THEY SUPPORT AND PROMOTE CHILD ABUSE
[xxxi],[xxxii] while perpetrating a FRAUD ON THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
[xxxiii],[xxxiv],[xxxv],[xxxvi],[xxxvii],[xxxviii],[xxxix],[xl],[xli],[xlii].
This organization’s name is NOW, and the legislation they support is VAWAII.
And by the way, in some US Cities, SILENCE is now Domestic Violence as well
[xliii].
Ask yourself, with as well supported as these simple paragraphs and statements
are, how will VAWAII, supported by this seditious HATE GROUP, be used to destroy
the marriages of your family, your children, or your grandchildren? Ask
yourself, will you vote for political expedience and political correctness and
side with the Divorce Industry? As NOW, and the various members of their HATE
GROUP assemble over the next several weeks, will you bow to the pressure as over
5,000 marriages and their children are destroyed each day in America? Or will
you stand up and be counted as one who would make the difficult decisions
necessary to look into the FRAUD of the entire Divorce Industry? Will you be
courageous enough to call for OPEN HEARINGS AND INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE INDUSTRY, THE DIVORCE INDUSTRY, AND INTO NOW??
How many more children and families will be sacrificed on the alter of political
correctness and FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED FRAUD [xliv],[xlv],[xlvi],[xlvii]??
This short piece is a SMALL SAMPLE OF OVER 1,000 CITABLE SOURCES SHOWING THAT
THE ENTIRE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INDUSTRY IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL FRAUD DESIGNED TO
DEFRAUD THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS while undermining and
DESTROYING the SOCIAL FABRIC of our country and our culture.
SOLUTION:
Make VAWA TRULY about Domestic Violence and MAKE IT GENDER NEUTRAL. It is
imperative that the Federal Government, through tying it to funding, or through
DIRECT PROVISION make false claims a SPECIAL CRIMINAL OFFENSE. ANY organization
that is found to encourage the use of false claims, or questionable claims,
should be open to having ALL funding IMMEDIATELY suspended pending a FULL
INVESTIGATION AND SPECIAL CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR ANYONE FOUND ENCOURAGING SUCH
FALSE CLAIMS –; unless LAWLESSNESS is the ultimate GOAL of VAWA. Certainly the
Constitution is of little or no concern.
General Reno, using the DOJ has also released a “special supplement” to the VAWA
act. The composition of this group, was overwhelmingly those with a VESTED
INTEREST IN MORE FEDERAL FUNDING AT THE FEDERAL GRANT TROUGH, and those with a
FEMINIST AND NOW bent to their work [xlviii]. It isn’t surprising with the
BILLIONS at stake to continue to destroy families. After reviewing even a
FRACTION of the attached citations, it should become readily apparent that NOW
and the Feminist supported DOMESTIC VIOLENCE networks consider the Congress and
the Judiciary FOOLS who will do their special interest bidding.
by Bill Wood
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[i] Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse. ‘……Women’s liberation, if not the most
extreme then certainly the most influential neo-marxist movement in America, has
done to the American home what communism did to the Russian economy, and most of
the ruin is irreversible. By defining between men and women in terms of power
and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart
the most basic and fragile contract in human society, the unit from which all
other social institutions draw their strength.’
[ii] “Destroy the family,” as Lenin said, “and you destroy society.” Thereby he
merely repeated what Socrates had said before and what Friedrich Engels and Karl
Marx put into words. Lenin set out to do just that, hoping that a new society
– with the State as the ultimate father — could be constructed.
[iii] “Feminism is the intellectual organization of gender hatred, just as
Marxism was the intellectual organization of class hatred. Feminism’s business
is fashioning weapons to be used against men in society, education, politics,
law and divorce court. The feminist aim is to overthrow “patriarchal tyranny.”
In this undertaking, the male’s civil rights count for no more than those of the
bourgeoisie in Soviet Russia or the Jews in National Socialist Germany.” What
civil rights has wrought. Paul Craig Roberts, July 26, 2000. Townhall.com –
Creators Syndicate.
[iv] “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that
the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing
them.” — Robin Morgan, (editor of MS magazine)
[v] “The cultural institutions which embody and enforce those interlocked
aberrations–for instance, law, art, religion, nation-states, the family, tribe,
or commune based on father-right–these institutions are real and they must be
destroyed.” (Andrea Dworkin) [THIS COMMENTARY IS CLEARLY SUBVERSIVE AND DESIGNED
TO UNDERMINE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!]
[vi] N.O.W. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE – June 12, 2000; NOW claims that VAWA is Gender
Neutral and that it provides protection for men and children when a simple
reading of VAWA shows that it CLEARLY EXCLUDES help for children and men.
[vii] NOW’s LDEF (Legal Defense Education Fund) sponsors and helped to WRITE the
VAWA legislation and therefore NOW is AWARE that the language of the bill
**specifically** excludes children and is gender biased. Yet NOW is KNOWINGLY
LYING to the Congress of the United States of America and ellicits help from
Congress and the Judiciary to destroy more families and children.
[viii] N.O.W. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE – June 12, 2000
HATCH PROMISES TO BRING VAWA REAUTHORIZATION TO SENATE FLOOR VOTE
http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/06-12-2000.html#hatch_vawa “…it is
important to stress that the Violence Against **WOMEN** Act [emphasis added] is
gender neutral. Funds are available to support programs which assist men as well
as women; if the language in the act were not gender neutral, it could not meet
a Constitutionality challenge.” [Obvious "talking point" propaganda]
“And, any statistics that our opponents may cite that suggest that as many women
as men are batterers are simply inaccurate and cannot be substantiated by sound
scientific research.”
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm – these “statistics” are from A
PARTIAL LIST of approximately 117 studies showing that the NOW CLAIM IS YET
AGAIN ANOTHER FRUAD!!!
[ix] “How will the family unit be destroyed? … the demand alone will throw the
whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing
a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will
feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either
through a job or welfare.” — From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar.
[x] “The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of
living together. … Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now
is an objectively revolutionary process. … “Families have supported oppression
by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to
fight for common interests. … — Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN:
A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.
[xi] “The Feminists -v- The Marriage License Bureau of the State of New
York…All the discriminatory practices against women are patterned and
rationalized by this slavery-like practice. We can’t destroy the inequities
between men and women until we destroy marriage.” — From Sisterhood Is
Powerful, Morgan (ed), 1970 p. 537.
[xii] Lenore Walker, speaking at a Laguna Beach conference, as reported in the
SF Chronicle “Our research and most other studies show that wife-battering
occurs in 50 percent of families throughout the nation.” The SF Chronicle
comments, “Only the most crazed man-hater could believe that.”
Lenore Walker, after visiting one of the early shelters for battered women,
wrote “I was struck by what a beneficial alternative to the nuclear family this
arrangement [communal housing and child raising] was for these women and
children.” (p.195) The Battered Woman
Gordon Fitch: The nuclear family is a hotbed of violence and depravity.
“Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and
drudgery for women.” — From article, “Is Marriage the Answer?” by Barbara
Findlen, Ms magazine, May-June, 1995
“Only when manhood is dead–and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer
sustains it” — (Andrea Dworkin)
“Families make possible the super-exploitation of women by training them to look
upon their work outside the home as peripheral to their ‘true’ role. — (Andrea
Dworkin)
… No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her
special responsibilities to her children. … Families will be finally destroyed
only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people’s
needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of
labor, or any external roles, at all.” — Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon,
WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.
The belief that married-couple families are superior is probably the most
pervasive prejudice in the Western world. — Judith Stacey
The little nuclear family is a paradigm that just doesn’t work — Toni Morrison
“[M]ost mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may
have when they ‘marry’ and raise children.” — From Phyllis Chesler, Women and
Madness, p. 294
Barbara Ehrenreich, as quoted by Stephen Chapman, from Time — Ms. Ehrenreich
extols the “long and honorable tradition of ‘anti-family’ thought,” waxing
nostalgic for those early feminists who regarded marriage as just another
version of prostitution. This deeply defective institution “can hardly be the
moral foundation of everything else,” she argues, pining for the day when
“someone invents a sustainable alternative.”
Barbara Ehrenreich in Time: Only with the occasional celebrity crime do we
allow ourselves to think the nearly unthinkable: that the family may not be the
ideal and perfect living arrangement after all that it can be a nest of
pathology and a cradle of gruesome violence,… Even in the ostensibly
“functional,” nonviolent family, where no one is killed or maimed, feelings are
routinely bruised and often twisted out of shape. There is the slap or the
put-down that violates a child’s shaky sense of self, the cold, distracted stare
that drives a spouse to tears, the little digs and rivalries…
From Sisterhood Is Powerful, Robin Morgan (ed), 1970, p. 537: We can’t destroy
the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the
oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing
them.” — Robin Morgan, (editor of MS magazine)
“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not
been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.” — –
From Robin Morgan, “Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape” in “Going to
Far,” 1974.
“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for
women’s bodies.” — Andrea Dworkin
“In every century, there are a handful of writers who help the human race to
evolve. Andrea is one of them.”–Gloria Steinem
“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant
heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” — Susan
Griffin “Rape: The All-American Crime”
“The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist” — Ti-Grace Atkinson
“Amazon Odyssey” (p. 86)
“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the
patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression…” — Sheila Jeffrys
“Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had
over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn.
My only comment to men is, if you don’t like it, bad luck – and if you get in my
way I’ll run you down.” — Letter to the Editor: “Women’s Turn to Dominate” —
Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia — Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia – 9
February 1996
[xiii] It is well known, well understood, and widely accepted that divorce is
destructive to children especially, but it also has detrimental psychological
affects on women and men as well…
“In summary, 30% of the children in the present study experienced a marked
decrease in their academic performance following parental separation, and this
was evident three years later. Access to both parents seemed to be the most
protective factor, in that it was associated with better academic
adjustment…Moreover, data revealed that noncustodial parents (mostly fathers)
were very influential in their children’s development…These data also support
the interpretation that the more time a child spends with the noncustodial
parent the better the overall adjustment of the child.”
Factors Associated with Academic Achievement in Children Following Parental
Separation, L. Bisnaire, PhD; P. Firestone, PhD; D. Rynard, MA Sc American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60(1), January, 1990
********************
[THE WOMEN OF TOMORROW THAT NOW SEEKS TO DESTROY!!] “While in most instances
adolescents from recently disrupted household were more negatively affected by
their parents’ divorce, some findings did identify long-term effects of earlier
disruption. Adolescent girls who had experienced parental divorce when they were
younger than six or between six and nine years old reported becoming involved
with alcohol or drugs in proportions higher than did girls from intact families.
Adolescent girls whose experience of divorce occurred before they were six more
frequently reported skipping school than did girls from intact families or girls
whose parents divorced when they were between the ages of six and nine.”
“These findings underscore the vulnerability of adolescents whose parents have
divorced within the last five years. The impact of the marital disruption was
most pronounced among girls, who skipped school more frequently, reported more
depress ehavior, and described social support in more negative terms than did
boys from recently disrupted homes.”
The Effects of Marital Disruption on Adolescents: Time as a Dynamic A. Frost,
PhD; B. Pakiz, EdM, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60(4), October, 1990
********************
[MORE FEMALE NOW VICTIMS] “Among teenage and adult populations of females,
parental divorce has been associated with lower self-esteem, precocious sexual
activity, greater delinquent-like behavior, and more difficulty establishing
gratifying, lasting adult heterosexual relationships. It is especially
intriguing to note that, in these studies, the parental divorce typically
occurred years before any difficulties were observed..
“At the time of the marital separation, when (as is typical) father leaves the
family home and becomes progressively less involved with his children over the
ensuing years, it appears that young girls experience the emotional loss of
father egocentrically as a rejection of them. While more common among preschool
and early elementary school girls, we have observed this phenomenon clinically
in later elementary school and young adolescent children. Here the continued
lack of involvement is experienced as an ongoing rejection by him. Many girls
attribute this rejection to their not being pretty enough, affectionate enough,
athletic enough, or smart enough to please father and engage him in regular,
frequent contacts”.
“Finally, girls whose parents divorce may grow up without the day to day
experience of interacting with a man who is attentive, caring and loving. The
continuous sense of being valued and loved as a female seems an especially key
element in the development of the conviction that one is indeed femininely
lovable. Without this regular source of nourishment, a girl’s sense of being
valued as a female does not seem to thrive.”
Long-Term Effects of Divorce on Children: A Developmental Vulnerability Model
Neil Kalter, Ph.D., University of Michigan, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
57(4), October, 1987
********************
“Because divorce is a process, not an isolated event, the effects of the divorce
may be cumulative and early intervention would therefore be beneficial.
The continued involvement of the non- custodial parent in the child’s life
appears crucial in preventing an intense sense of loss in the child…. The
importance of the relationship with the non-custodial parent may also have
implications for the legal issues of custodial arrangements and visitation. The
results of this study indicate that arrangements where both parents are equally
involved with the child are optimal. When this type of arrangement is not
possible, the child’s continued relationship with the
non-custodial parent remains essential.”
Young Adult Children of Divorced Parents: Depression and the Perception of Loss,
Rebecca L. Drill, Ph.D., Harvard University. Journal of Divorce, V. 10, #1/2,
Fall/Winter 1986
********************
“The impact of parental divorce and subsequent father absence in the wake of
this event has long been thought to affect children quite negatively. For
instance, parental divorce and father loss has been associated with difficulties
in school adjustment (e.g. Felner, Ginter, Boike, & Cowen), Social Adjustment
(e.g. Fry & Grover) and personal adjustment (e.g. Covell & Turnbull)…
********************
“The results of the present study suggest that father loss through divorce is
associated with diminished self-concepts in children…at least for this sample
of children from the midwestern United States.”
Children’s Self Concepts: Are They Affected by Parental Divorce and Remarriage
Thomas S. Parish, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 1987, V 2, #4,
559-562
********************
NOW PROMOTES the destruction of marriages as noted above in footnotes [ix]
through [xiv].
[xiv] *N* *O* *W* Action Alert — October 20, 1999 — Fathers’ Rights Bill
Advances in the House. This Action alert explains that the Father’s Rights
legislation before Congress is “bad for women and children” because it will
“promote marriage” and “disseminat[e] information about the advantages of
marriage”, “promote successful parenting” and “disseminat[e] information about
good parenting practices”, and “help fathers and their families … leave …
welfare”. A plain reading of the Action Alert [put link here] shows that when
read in full context NOW will do ANYTHING to destroy marriages, families, and
even children.
[xv] From “Woman Hating”by Andrea Dworkin, Penguin Books, 1974 p. 189, Chapter
entitled “Androgyny, Androgyny F&$%@ng and Community”
Incest
“The parent-child relationship is primarily erotic because all human
relationships are primarily erotic. The incest taboo is a particularized form of
repression, one which functions as the bulwark of all the other repressions. The
incest taboo ensures that however free we become, we never become genuinely
free. The incest taboo, because it denies us essential
fulfillment with the parents whom we love with our primary energy, forces us to
internalize those parents and constantly seek them, or seek to negate them, in
the minds, bodies and hearts of other humans who are not our parents and never
will be.
“The incest taboo does the worst work of the culture: it teaches us the
mechanisms of repressing and internalizing erotic feeling-it forces us to
develop those mechanisms in the first place; it forces us to particularize
sexual feeling, so that it congeals into a need for a particular sexual
“object”; it demands that we place the nuclear family above the human family.
The destruction of the incest taboo is essential to the development of
cooperative human community based on free-flow of natural and androgynous
eroticism.
The Family
“For if we grant that the sexual drive is at birth diffuse and
undifferentiated from the total personality (Freud’s polymorphous perversity”)
and … becomes differentiated only in response to the incest taboo; and that…
the incest taboo is now necessarily only in order to preserve the family; and if
we did away with the family we would in effect be doing away with repressions
that mould sexuality into specific formations. Shulamith Firestone, The
Dialectics of Sex
“The incest taboo can be destroyed only by destroying the nuclear family as
the primary institution of the culture. The nuclear family is the school of
values in a sexist, sexually repressed society… The alternative to the nuclear
family at the moment is the extended family or the tribe. The growth of tribe is
part of the process of destroying particularized roles and
fixed erotic identity. As people develop fluid androgynous identity, they will
also develop the forms of community appropriate to it. We cannot really imagine
what those forms will be.”
[xvi] “In every century, there are a handful of writers who help the human race
to evolve. Andrea is one of them.” — Gloria Steinem
[xvii] U. S. News, page 12, John Leo. January 24, 2000 — “The Violence Against
Women Act slipped into law in 1994 without most members of Congress quite
knowing what they were passing. We have Andrea Dworkin’s word on this. Dworkin
is surely a contender for the North American title of most overwrought,
man-hating feminist. She told the New Republic at the time that the only
possible explanation for the bill’s popularity in the Senate was the ‘senators
don’t understand the meaning of the legislation that they pass.’ In plain
English, she seemed to mean that Congress was naively institutionalizing the
radical view of domestic violence as antifemale terrorism by a relentless
oppressor class  men.
[xviii] A NOW Legislative Alert dated June 12, 2000 FRAUDULENTLY states: “. . .
the Violence Against Women Act is gender neutral. Funds are available to
support programs which assist men as well as women. . . .” and then says “. .
.if the language in the act were not gender neutral, it could not meet a
constitutionality challenge.”
[xix] NOW LDEF to Rep. Nancy L. Johnson, October 4, 1999, gender based language
is unconstitutional when it “. . . tie[s] the federal benefits available under
the act to gender . . . violate[s] the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth
Amendment. . . .”
“Further, to the extent that Act targets certain grants to state programs
offering gender-specific benefits, it would operate to encourage states to
violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
As recently set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Saenz v. Roe, 119 S. Ct. 1518
(1999), Congress cannot authorize states to accomplish indirectly what Congress
itself is constitutionally prohibited from doing.”
The VAWAII act specifically states in part “Ineligible activities” include
“projects that focus on “children or men.”
[xx] “All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French Author,
“The Women’s Room” (quoted again in People Magazine) “All men are rapists and
that’s all they are …” –Feminist Marilyn French, People Magazine (Percent of
reported rape or near-rape incidents = .07% [The FBI's Uniform Crime Report
lists for the year 1996])
[xxi] “[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation
by which ALL MEN KEEP ALL WOMEN IN A STATE OF FEAR” [emphasis added] — Susan
Brownmiller (Against Our Will p. 6)
[xxii] “Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape,
originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the
taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or
ownership.” — Andrea Dworkin.
Also, see footnotes [ix] through [xiv] related to the Feminist Position on
marriage and its destruction.
[xxiii] “…[A]ll heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are
not strong enough to give meaningful consent” — Catherine MacKinnon,
“Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From The Strange World of Women’s
Studies”
[xxiv] “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt
for women’s bodies.” — Andrea Dworkin
[xxv] As cited in Andrea Dworkin’s “Right-Wing Women” “…I submit that any
sexual intercourse between a free man and a human being he owns or controls is
rape.” — Alice Walker in “Embracing the Dark and the Light,” Essence, July
1982.
[xxvi] “Compare victims’ reports of rape with women’s reports of sex. They look
a lot alike….[T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape
(abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see
anything wrong with it.” Catherine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers,
“Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation,” Wall Street Journal,
November 7, 1991.
[xxvii] “One can know everything and still be unable to accept the fact that sex
and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that the one without the
imminent possibly of the other is unthinkable and impossible.” Andrea Dworkin,
Letters from a War Zone, p. 21..
[xxviii] Patricia Ireland of NOW has referred to the Congress of the United
States of America as “twisted” for supporting such notions as marriage and
family in a publication titled “Father’s Count Act will hurt Women and Kids”,
January 28, 2000, by Patricia Ireland
[xxix] A NOW Legislative Alert dated June 12, 2000 FRAUDULENTLY states: “. . .
the Violence Against Women Act is gender neutral. Funds are available to
support programs which assist men as well as women. . . .” and then says “. .
.if the language in the act were not gender neutral, it could not meet a
constitutionality challenge.”
[xxx] NOW LDEF to Rep. Nancy L. Johnson, October 4, 1999, gender based language
is unconstitutional when it “. . . tie[s] the federal benefits available under
the act to gender . . . violate[s] the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth
Amendment. . . .”
“Further, to the extent that Act targets certain grants to state programs
offering gender-specific benefits, it would operate to encourage states to
violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
As recently set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Saenz v. Roe, 119 S. Ct. 1518
(1999), Congress cannot authorize states to accomplish indirectly what Congress
itself is constitutionally prohibited from doing.”
[xxxi] Absent fathers, which NOW STRINGENTLY SUPPORTS, is EASILY documented as
one of the most devastating trends in our culture today. Just a few of the
abstracts about the destructive nature of absent fathers can be seen here;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AND HERE IS THE OUTCOME OF THE FEMINIST AGENDA ~~~!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and
neglect data system, put out by the US DHHS “Section 7.2 — DCDC data reveal
that 184,152 perpetrators (62.3%) were female, and 111,473 (37.7%) were male.”
From the “Executive Summary” The Advisory Board put forth 26 recommendations for
solving child abuse problems. Rec. 23 reads: “State and local agencies should
design prevention programs for men. Programs should integrate services on child
abuse and domestic violence and address the need for interagency training.
Specific strategies must reach men and alert women to the potential role of men
in abuse.” THERE IS NO RECOMMENDATION REGARDING WOMEN.
********************
[DESTRUCTION OF GIRLS] Clinical Observations on Interferences of Early Father
Absence in the Achievement of Femininity by R. Lohr, C. g, A. Mendell and B.
Riemer, Clinical Social Work Journal, V. 17, #4, Winter, 1989
“In an earlier study by Kalter and Rembar at [Children's Psychiatric Hospital,
University of Michigan], a sample of 144 child and adolescent patients, whose
parents had divorced, presented [for evaluation and treatment] with three most
commonly occurring problems:
63% Subjective psychological problem (defined as anxiety, sadness, pronounced
moodiness, phobias, and depression)
56% Poor grades or grades substantially below ability and/or recent past
performance
43% Aggression toward parents
Important features of the subgroup of 32 latency aged girls were in the same
order:
69% indicating subjective psychological distress
47% academic problems
41% aggression toward parents.
[Note: These same destructive traits are likely to be carried over into
adulthood and perpetuated yet again on their own children. Hence the cycle of
destruction continues as noted in the *extremely* high rates of female
perpetrated child abuse.]
********************
[Excerpt from US House of Representatives written testimony of Richard Weiss and
William Wood re: HR1488. Hearing held March 16, 2000]
It is finally becoming widely understood that father-absence is one of the most
destructive forces to children in our society –; fatherless homes account for
63% of youth suicides, 90% of all homeless and runaway children,[51] 85% of all
children exhibiting behavioral disorders,[52] 80% of rapists motivated with
displaced anger,[53] 71% of all high school dropouts,[54] 75% of all adolescent
patients in chemical abuse centers,[55] 70% of juveniles in state-operated
institutions,[56] and 85% of prison youths.[57]
Contrast this with 37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights[58].
Non-compliance with court ordered visitation by custodial mothers prevents 77%
of non-custodial fathers from being able to “visit” their children[59].
Non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of
non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of
divorce even more. 40% of custodial mother SELF-REPORTS indicate they
interfered with the father’s visitation to “punish” them,[60] ~50% see no value
in the father’s involvement with the child,[61] and many use the children to
retaliate against the father for their own ongoing personal problems.[62]
The court system does not enforce orders for “visitation” but jails for
non-compliance with a “child” support order. This is a clear indication that
the whole DIVORCE INDUSTRY is about money and children are just the “poker
chips” in this high stakes “game”. Their destruction is just “collateral
damage” for the marriage hating special interests pushing their junk data.
[51] U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census
[52] Center for Disease Control
[53] Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978
[54] National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools
[55] Rainbows for all God`s Children
[56] U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988
[57] Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992
[58] p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991
[59] Visitational Interference – A National Study, Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W.
and Edward Nichols, M.S.W. (September 1992)
[60] p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by
Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver
et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.
[61] Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125
[62] Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, Seltzer, Shaeffer &
Charing, November 1989
********************
1) BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS/ RUNAWAYS/ HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS/CHEMICAL
ABUSERS/SUICIDES
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes
(Source: Center for Disease Control)
90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S.
D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National
Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless
homes (Source: Rainbows for all God’s Children.)
63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau
of the Census)
RE: Youth Suicide and Divorce/ Single parent Homes:
“In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens
living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but
also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens
living in intact families.” Source: David A. Brent, (et. al.) “Post-traumatic
Stress Disorders in Peers of Adolescent Suicide Victims: Predisposing Factors
and Phenomenology.” Journal of the AMerican Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry 34 (1995): 209-215.
“Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide.” Source: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics,
Survey on Child Health, Washington, D.C., 1993.
“Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been
absent.” Source: Jean Beth Eshtain, “Family Matters: The Plight of America’s
Children.” The Christian Century (July 1993): 14-21.
“A family structure index – a composite index based on the annual rate of
children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children
present that are female-headed – is a strong predictor of suicide among young
adult and adolescent white males.” Source: Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C.
Land, “Trends in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult, and Elderly Suicide: Are
Ther Common Underlying Structural Factors?” Social Science Research 23 (1994):
57-81
2) JUVENILE DELINQUENCY/ CRIME/ GANGS
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes
(Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978)
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes
(Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source:
Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)
California has the nation’s highest juvenile incarceration rate and the nation’s
highest juvenile unemployment rate. Vincent Schiraldi, Executive Director,
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, “What Hallinan’s Victory Means,” San
Francisco Chronicle (12/28/95).
These statistics translate to mean that children from a fatherless home are:
5 times more likely to commit suicide.
32 times more likely to run away.
20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.
14 times more likely to commit rape
9 times more likely to drop out of high school.
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.
9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution.
20 times more likely to end up in prison.
Juveniles have become the driving force behind the nation’s alarming increases
in violent crime, with juvenile arrests for murder, rape, robbery and aggravated
assault growing sharply in the past decade as pistols and drugs became more
available, and expected to continue at the same alarming rate during the next
decade. “Justice Dept. Issues Scary Report on Juvenile Crime,” San Francisco
Chronicle (9/8/95).
“Crime Wave Forecast With Teenager Boom,” San Francisco Chronicle (2/15/95).
Criminal behavior experts and social scientists are finding intriguing evidence
that the epidemic of youth violence and gangs is related to the breakdown of the
two-parent family.
“New Evidence That Quayle Was Right: Young Offenders Tell What Went Wrong at
Home,” San Francisco Chronicle
(12/9/94).
3) TEENAGE PREGNANCY
“Daughters of single parents are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 164%
more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92% more likely to dissolve their
own marriages. All these intergenerational consequences of single motherhood
increase the likelihood of chronic welfare dependency.” Barbara Dafoe
Whitehead, Atlantic Monthly (April 1993).
Daughters of single parents are 2.1 times more likely to have children during
their teenage years than are daughters from intact families. The Good Family
Man, David Blankenhorn.
71% of teenage pregnancies are to children of single parents. U.S. Dept. of
Health and Human Services.
4) CHILD ABUSE
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that there were more
than 1,000,000 documented child abuse cases in 1990. In 1983, it found that 60%
of perpetrators were women with sole custody. Shared parenting can significantly
reduce the stress associated with sole custody, and reduce the isolation of
children in abusive situations by allowing both parents’ to
monitor the children’s health and welfare and to protect them.
5) POVERTY
“The National Fatherhood Institute reports that 18 million children live in
single-parent homes. Nearly 75% of American children living in single-parent
families will experience poverty before they turn 11. Only 20% in two-parent
families will experience poverty.”
Melinda Sacks, “Fatherhood in the 90′s: Kids of absent fathers more “at risk”,”
San Jose Mercury News (10/29/95).
“The feminization of poverty is linked to the feminization of custody, as well
as linked to lower earnings for women. Greater opportunity for education and
jobs through shared parenting can help break the cycle.” David Levy, Ed., The
Best Parent is Both Parents (1993).
6) KIDNAPPING
Family abductions were 163,200 compared to non-family abductions of 200-300.
The parental abductions were attributed to the parents’ disenchantment with the
legal system. David Levy, Ed., The Best Parent is Both Parents (1993), citing a
report from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice (May
1990).
********************
Ninety percent of divorced fathers have less than full custody of their
children.” Jonathan M. Honeycutt, Ph.D.(c), M.P.A., M.A., I.P.C. Director of
Research, Clinical & Consulting Psychotherapist, National Institute for Divorce
Research, Panama City, Florida.
********************
The State of Fatherhood
37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6, col.II, para.
6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)
“40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial
father’s visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse.” (Source:
p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced
Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al,
Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)
“Overall, approximately 50% of mothers “see no value in the father`s continued
contact with his children….” (Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly &
Judith Wallerstein, p. 125)
Only 11% of mothers value their husband’s input when it comes to handling
problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and close friends &
relatives rated %16.(Source: EDK Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook
Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36)
“The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent
contact with the children.” (Source: Increasing our understanding of fathers who
have infrequent contact with their children, James Dudley, Family Relations,
Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.)
“A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with their
children.” (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Mary Ann Kock &
Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54, Winter 1984.)
“Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their
fathers, after divorce.” (Source: Visitation and the
Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8,
No. 2, p. 50, Winter 1984.)
“Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective involvement
on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes sabotage father’s efforts
to visit their children.” (Source: Ahrons and Miller, Am. Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July `93.)
“Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their
marital or post-marital relationship.” (Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing,
Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.)
In a study: “Visitational Interference – A National Study” by Ms. J Annette
Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of
non-custodial fathers are NOT able to “visit” their children, as ordered by the
court, as a result of “visitation interference” perpetuated by the custodial
parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three
times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts
the children of divorce even more.Originally published Sept. 1992
The US’s NIS-3 study, expanded data sources to include untrained people (e.g.
sheriff’s offices), but still indicate the patterns of maltreatment for various
types of parents. The report indicates that natural parents account for some 78%
of child maltreatment and, of that 46% of the time the natural father was
involved and 75% of the time the natural mother was involved (sometimes both
were involved). It also notes that natural mothers tend to inflict more fatal
(78% of the time, too low to measure for natural fathers), serious (81% vs. 43%)
and moderate (72% vs 48%) abuse on the child than do natural fathers. You can
see this from these NIS tables from Chapter 6 in PDF format
(http://millennium.fortunecity.com/sweetvalley/206/vac/nis3t6.pdf). For those
with the desire for more information we have the entire Chapter 6 in PDF format
(http://millennium.fortunecity.com/sweetvalley/206/vac/nisc6.pdf). We would
recommend that you look at attaining the entire report from DHHS if this
information is relevant to you.
NIS-3, Table 6-4 shows that 1,500 children were fatally abused in 1993–1,200 by
natural parents, and 78% by females. Since the data for the percent of
non-natural parents [read: step-fathers and live-in boyfriends] who fatally
abused their chilidren is missing, the assumption is made that the percent of
perpetrators of fatal abuse by non-natural fathers is an average of Table 6-3
(90%, 97%, 74%, 82%, or 86%). 28 million children are now growing up in
fatherless households, where the rate of fatal child abuse is 0.017 per 1,000
children, so 476 children were fatally abused in mother-only households in 1993.
2.8 million children are now growing up in father-only households where the
rate of fatal abuse is .005 per 1,000 children, so 14 children were fatally
abused in father-only households in 1993.
US Office of Technology Assessment,Howard Dubowitz, through a health program to
evaluate child abuse, dated May 1987, entitled “Child Maltreatment in the US”
…concludes that 2.3% of sexual abuse of girls was by biological fathers versus
17% by stepfathers
********************
Single Mother Households (SMH) are the most dangerous living arrangement to
Children.
In Single Mother Households, 422 children are fatally abused each year.
In Single Father Households, 25 children are fatally abused each year.
In Dual Parent Families, 16 children are fatally abused each year.
430 children are killed by firearm accidents each year. Of 430 children killed
by firearms, 322 are killed in Single Mother
Households. Single Mother Households account for 70% of fatal child abuse and
accidental firearm deaths.
Source: Donna Shalala, “National Child Abuse Prevention Month” and “Child
Maltreatment 1994: Reports from the States to the National Center on Child Abuse
and Neglect”. Patrick Fagan, Heritage Foundation, “THE CHILD ABUSE CRISIS: THE
DISINTEGRATION OF MARRIAGE, FAMILY, AND THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY”, Rick Thomas,
“The Dirty Little Secret: Abuse in Foster Care”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Heritage Foundation report “The Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of
Marriage, Family, and the American Community,” May 15, 1997 notes that: “[due
to] … the disintegration of family and community … America’s infants and
young chilren, about 2,000 of whom — 6 per day — die each year,” and provides
the following estimate:
Total Children Killed Per Year 2,000
Killed by Mothers 1,100 55.0%
Killed by Stepfathers 250 12.5%
Killed by Live-In Boyfriends 513 25.7%
Killed by Biological Fathers 137 6.9%
Killed by being in SMH 1863 93.2% (55%+12.5+25.7)
This study demonstrates that the least dangerous place for a child is with the
father by a margin of over 14 to 1 ( 2000 / 137 = 14.5985 ). Directly or
indirectly, the stepfathers and live-in boyfriends are associated with the
mother’s household and therefore a child is conversely 14 times more likely to
be killed in the mother’s care. Excluding Stepfathers and Live-in boyfriends,
mothers are 8 times as likely to kill a child than the biological father ( 1100
/ 137 = 8.0291 ).
********************
Many apologists for maternal abuse/neglect claim “opportunity” as a
justification for the higher maternal-abuse figures, and with some
justification. For instance, a study of inner city child abuse (Lansing)
published in a major journal in 1984 indicated that approximately 50% of the
confirmed child abuse/neglect was committed by single parent mothers.
“Opportunity” is somewhat offset by the “you just wait until your father gets
home” pressure for a father to punish children for an infraction committed under
the mother’s supervision.
The “opportunity” excuse fades further in a 10-year study of confirmed parental
child abuse/neglect in a state that awards over 40% “visitation” time to
separated noncustodial parents (usually fathers). In that state, prior to the
state-wide guideline, 64% of confirmed child abuse was committed by mothers, 36%
by fathers. Following implementation of the “visitation” guideline, the gap has
widened and now stands at 69%-70% mothers, 30%-31% fathers. [by this study,
CHILDREN ARE SAFER WITH THEIR FATHERS when considering the OPPORUNITY EXCUSE!!]
[xxxii] Cutting Off Children’s Noses to Spite Men’s Faces — By Armin Brott –
Knight-Ridder
The National Organization for Women (NOW) has finally done it. By vehemently
opposing a piece of legislation that promotes marriage, successful parenting,
and keeping families off welfare, the radical women’s group has clearly
demonstrated that it has outlived its usefulness and that it’s doing more harm
to women and children than good.
At issue is the Fatherhood Counts Act of 1999, which would give $150 million in
grants over five years to public and private organizations that will provide
poor under- and unemployed fathers with parenting and
marital-skills training, special visitation centers, classes on money
management, help improving their credit records, and job training so they can
meet child support obligations. As a result, the bill would enable millions of
low-income parents and their children to get off welfare and could potentially
save Federal and state governments billions in social services expenditures.
Sounds like something women’s groups would support. After all, wouldn’t most
women want men to take some parenting and relationship-skills classes? And
wouldn’t it be good for women if men could get decent jobs, support their
families, and spend more time with their kids? Well, apparently that’s not good
enough for NOW, which last week fired off an “Action Alert,” warning its members
that the Act is “bad for women and children” and urging them to lobby against
it.
What’s so objectionable about Fatherhood Counts? In written testimony submitted
to Congress, NOW’s Legal Defense and Education Fund claimed that the Act is
unconstitutional because it ties “federal benefits available under the Act to
gender (i.e., ‘fatherhood’).” Who are they kidding? Where are NOW’s
constitutional objections to the billions of dollars (including over $1 million
to NOW itself) that women’s groups receive under the Violence Against Women Act?
And where are the objections to the millions of dollars that fund federal,
state, and local Commissions on the Status of Women? Commissions on the Status
of Men do not exist.
NOW complains that the bill allows states to suspend (but not cancel) child
support arrearages if the father “is unemployed, underemployed, or having
difficulty in paying child support obligations.” Fatherhood Counts doesn’t
protect rich men who don’t pay child support. It offers help only to men who’ve
been on welfare or received food stamps in the past 24 months-fathers who are
simply incapable of paying. Wouldn’t women and children be better off if these
men learned some marketable skills so they could go to work instead of to jail?
NOW also claims that by promoting marriage, the Act doesn’t protect women who
are the victims of domestic violence. In truth, the bill has extensive
provisions that do exactly that. And NOW worries that the Act could give money
to fathers’ rights groups. So what? If women’s groups get money to help battered
women, shouldn’t fathers’ groups get money to work with disenfranchised fathers?
Children-the people who need the most help-are the biggest victims of NOW’s
ill-conceived positions. It’s common and irrefutable knowledge that kids who
have a father in their lives are less likely to smoke or abuse drugs or alcohol,
less likely to become teen parents or get involved in crime, and far more likely
to finish high school and go to college.
So why deny millions of children the chance to reestablish relationships with
their fathers and experience the benefits that having a father around provides?
And why deny poor mothers a long-overdue chance to improve their lives? It’s
painfully simple: although Fatherhood Counts benefits women and children, it
benefits men too.
NOW once helped empower millions of women. But today it has become so consumed
by hate that it would rather harm our children (and their mothers) than back
anything that might make life a little easier for men. It’s like a twisted
version of Gore Vidal’s observation that, “It’s not enough that I succeed. My
friends must fail.”
One really has to wonder why anyone pays any attention to NOW anymore. The
group has only a few thousand members, according to the Washington Post, and Ms.
magazine’s circulation is insignificant compared to the more popular women’s
magazines. Clearly, women, many of whom consider themselves
feminists, have begun to distance themselves from NOW’s intellectual dishonesty
and harmful rhetoric. Isn’t it time that the media, Congress, and the rest of us
did the same? The future of America’s children may depend on it.
Armin Brott’s most recent book is Throwaway Dads: The Myths and Barriers That
Keep Men From Being the Fathers They Want to Be. E-mail him at armin@MrDad.com.
[xxxiii] “A NOW LDEF staff attorney has been appointed to the American Bar
Association Custody Executive Committee. From that vantage point, we [NOW]
successfully opposed a proposed A.B.A. model statute that would PERMIT [emphasis
added] judges to impose joint custody over a parent’s opposition.” — A NOW
Legal Defense and Education Fund, November 16, 1988.
“….when the non-custodial parent is perceived as “lost,” the young adult is
more depressed. When a divorce occurs, the perception of the non-custodial
father has been shown to change in a negative direction, while the perception
of the mother (whether custodon-custodial) remains relatively stable. ”
“It is ironic, and of some interest, that we have subjected joint custody to a
level and intensity of scrutiny that was never directed toward the traditional
post-divorce arrangement (sole legal and physical custody to the mother and
two weekends each month of visiting to the father.) Developmental and
relationship theory should have alerted the mental health field to the
potential immediate and long range consequences for the child of only seeing a
parent four days each month. And yet until recently, there was no particular
challenge to this traditional post-divorce parenting arrangement, despite
growing evidence that such post-divorce relationships were not sufficiently
nurturing or stabilizing for many children and parents.”
“There is some evidence that in our well-meaning efforts to save children in
the immediate post-separation period from anxiety, confusion, and the
normative divorce-engendered conflict, we have set the stage in the longer run
for the more ominous symptoms of anger, depression, and a deep sense of loss
by depriving the child of the opportunity to maintain a full relationship with
each parent.”
Examining Resistance to Joint Custody, Monograph by Joan Kelly, Ph.D.
(associate of Judith Wallerstein, Ph.D) From the 1991 Book Joint Custody and
Shared Parenting, second edition, Guilford Press, 1991.
[xxxiv] Lenore Walker, speaking at a Laguna Beach conference, as reported in the
SF Chronicle “Our research and most other studies show that wife-battering
occurs in 50 percent of families throughout the nation.” The SF Chronicle
comments, “Only the most crazed man-hater could believe that.”
Lenore Walker, after visiting one of the early shelters for battered women,
wrote “I was struck by what a beneficial alternative to the nuclear family this
arrangement [communal housing and child raising] was for these women and
children.” (p.195) The Battered Woman
[xxxv] Lesbians and Domestic Violence – From HHS web site.
By definition, Lesbian relationships do NOT have men involved. So then, are we
to believe the lying PROPAGANDA from NOW about Domestic Violence being ONLY a
male on female issue??
These studies are [or were] POSTED on the US Department of Health and Human
services PSC (Program Support Center) web site. http://library.psc.gov/library/women_and_violence.html#lesbians
Bailey GR. “Treatment of domestic violence in gay and lesbian relationships.”
Journal of Psychological Practice 2 (2): 1-8, 1996.
Bernhard LK. “Physical and sexual violence experienced by lesbian and
heterosexual women.” Violence Against Women 6 (1): 68-79, 2000.
Burke LK, Follingstad DR. “Violence in lesbian and gay relationships: Theory,
prevalence, and correlational factors.” Clinical Psychology Review 19 (5):
487-512, 1999.
Coleman VE. “Lesbian battering: The relationship between personality and the
perpetration of violence.” Violence and Victims 9 (2): 139-152, 1994.
Farley N. “A survey of factors contributing to gay and lesbian domestic
violence.” In: Renzetti CM, Miley CH, ed. Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic
Partnerships: 35-42. New York: Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press, Inc., 1996.
Fortunata B. “Lesbian experience of domestic violence.” Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering 60 (2-B): 0872, 1999.
Hanson B. “The violence we face as lesbians and gay men: The landscape both
outside and inside our communities.” Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services 4
(2): 95-113, 1996.
Istar A. “Couple assessment: Identifying and intervening in domestic violence in
lesbian relationships.” In: Renzetti CM, Miley CH, ed. Violence in Gay and
Lesbian Domestic Partnerships: 93-160. New York: Harrington Park Press/Haworth
Press, Inc., 1996.
Klinger RL, Stein TS. “Impact of violence, childhood sexual abuse, and domestic
violence and abuse on lesbians, bisexuals, and gay men.” In: Cabaj RP, Stein TS,
ed. Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health: 801-818. Washington DC:
American Psychiatric Press, Inc., 1996.
Lockhart LL, White BW, Causby V. “Letting out the secret: Violence in lesbian
relationships.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (4): 469-492, 1994.
Margolies L, Leeder E. “Violence at the door: Treatment of lesbian batterers.”
Violence Against Women 1 (2): 139-157, 1995.
Marrujo B, Kreger M. “Definition of roles in abusive lesbian relationships.” In:
Renzetti CM, Miley CH, ed. Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Partnerships:
23-33. New York: Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press, Inc., 1996.
Mendez JM. “Serving gays and lesbians of color who are survivors of domestic
violence.” In: Renzetti CM, Miley CH, ed. Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic
Partnerships: 53-59. New York: Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press, Inc., 1996.
Renzetti CM. “The poverty of services for battered lesbians.” In: Renzetti CM,
Miley CH, ed. Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Partnerships: 61-68. New
York: Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press, Inc., 1996.
Renzetti CM. “Violence and abuse in lesbian relationships: Theoretical and
empirical issues.” In: Bergen R, ed. Issues in Intimate Violence: 117-127.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1998.
Renzetti CM, Miley CH, Dandeneau C. “Violence in gay and lesbian domestic
partnerships.” Sex Roles 36 (5-6): 431-432, 1997.
Renzetti CM. “Violence in lesbian and gay relationships.” In: O’Tolle L,
Schiffman JR, ed. Gender Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives: 285-293. New
York: New York University Press, 1997.
Scherzer T. “Domestic violence in lesbian relationships: Findings of the Lesbian
Relationships Research Project.” In: Ponticilli C, ed. Gateways to Improving
Lesbian Health and Health Care: Opening Doors: 29-47. New York: Harrington Park
Press/ The Haworth Press, Inc., 1998.
Sloan L, Edmond T. “Shifting the focus: Recognizing the needs of lesbian and gay
survivors of sexual violence.” Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 5 (4):
33-52, 1996.
Stahly GB, Lie GY. “Women and violence: A comparison of lesbian and heterosexual
battering relationships.” In: Chrisler JC, Hemstreet AH, ed. Variations on a
Theme: Diversity and the Psychology of Women: 51-78. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 1995.
Taylor J, Chandler T, Cross EJ. “Lesbians talk violent relationships.” Women’s
Studies International Forum 19 (3): 345-346, 1996.
Waldron CM. “Lesbians of color and the domestic violence movement.” In: Renzetti
CM, Miley CH, ed. Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Partnerships: 43-51. New
York: Harrington Park Press/Haworth Press, Inc., 1996.
VAWA, as a GENDER BIASED BILL is TAXPAYER FRAUD!!! Not to mention that it is
patently unconstitutional… Let’s SAVE the taxpayers 4 BILLION dollars while
having a FULL IN DEPTH INVESTIGATION INTO VAWA *AND* NOW!!!
[xxxvi] ” …eighty percent of those polled said they had actually handled a
case where they believed there was false accusation of abuse, as in disputes
over custody of children, for instance.”[News Release, from The Dilenschneider
Group Inc., representing the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers), Three
First National Place, 70 West Madison Street, Chicago, IL 60602, 11/91.]
This was over 10 years ago, and under VAWA and RADICAL PROSECUTORIAL ACTION, as
well as the high stakes child support scam, this number is surely nearer 100%
today.
[xxxvii] An epidemic of lies, Backlash Magazine, August 1999, Dennis Austin
The use of false allegations in divorce is rapidly becoming an epidemic which is
spreading throughout the world. According to the National Shared Parenting
Association (Saskatchewan Chapter), in Canada a Children’s Aid Society study
showed that of 1200 complaints of abuse, 900 involved custody disputes. Of those
900 allegations, two thirds (600) were found to be false.
Millions of false allegations
In Armin A. Brott’s article A system out of control: The epidemic of false
allegations of child abuse, he states, “In California, for example, the
Victim/Witness program will pay directly to a licensed therapist up to $10,000
per child for counseling – as long as the child was alleged to have been abused.
An additional $10,000 is available to counsel the child’s mother. The only
catch: to get their therapy paid for, the child victim and her mother must see a
therapist from an approved list. Guess who directs the mother to a therapist who
would be best for her and her child? CPS, of course.”
These CPS workers often ask leading questions which can distort the children’s
memories. In their reports to the court, they often ignore evidences that would
clear the accused, such as lie detector tests and outside therapist evaluations
and rely solely on the child’s evaluations which have been skewed by the CPS and
the therapists that they recommend.
In a report disseminated by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect
(NCCAN) Child Maltreatment 1995 Reports From the States to the National Child
Abuse and Neglect Data System depicts more than three million reports of alleged
child abuse and neglect in 1995 of which two million of those complaints were
without foundation.
False allegations of abuse in divorce is an epidemic that is sweeping the world.
Children are becoming heirs to hatred passed down to them from their parents and
because this is all they know, they in turn foster this pain, hatred and
deceptiveness in their own adult relationships. The children are crushed under
the weight of the system and a parent that is only looking out for their own
best interests.
[xxxviii] Many innocent men accused of abuse. Montgomery Advertiser. July 10,
2000. Page 7A.
[xxx
http://www.dontmakehermad.com/ John Dias
I think that the measure failed not because too few self-interested parents didn’t stand up for their rights; too few were probably directly affected to see a vote for Equal Shared Parenting as in their best interest. No, this was about ideology — and more specifically about party. The Democratic Party, and its liberal constituencies. The measure went down because it was a Democratic year, rather than a Republican year. And yet if it had been a Republican year, I doubt the measure would have fared substantially better.
I think that with all the soul-searching that is now going on in the Republican party about what Republicans stand for, the time is ripe to push for a “pro-family” GOP agenda that includes Equal Shared Parenting as an essential element. I think the effort to include a plank in each state party platform for Equal Shared Parenting is the way to go. Such an effort would define the GOP as officially backing Equal Shared Parenting, and there would be a certain level of permanency to a ESP-friendly plank in the GOP party platform.
I know that ESP is not a “partisan” issue, but lets recognize the political realities. The groups that organized against the North Dakota ESP initiative were Democratic constituency groups. The GOP has just not woken up to this issue yet, and I believe it probably could if our efforts were to institutionalize the ESP movement in the state and national platforms of the Republican party. Even a moral cynic who supports the GOP could see the benefits of this effort (as it would present an opportunity to “de-fund the Left.” Of course, the real merit is that children of two non-abusive parents should have equal time (and thus twice the parental benefit) with both of their parents.
We have two years to make this happen, before the backlash against inevitable Democratic excesses turn the public back to the Republicans. If we can define the GOP as the party that favors Equal Shared Parenting between equally fit parents, when the pendulum swerves back toward the Republicans we will be ready.
John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
http://www.dontmakehermad.com/ John Dias
I think that the measure failed not because too few self-interested parents didn’t stand up for their rights; too few were probably directly affected to see a vote for Equal Shared Parenting as in their best interest. No, this was about ideology — and more specifically about party. The Democratic Party, and its liberal constituencies. The measure went down because it was a Democratic year, rather than a Republican year. And yet if it had been a Republican year, I doubt the measure would have fared substantially better.
I think that with all the soul-searching that is now going on in the Republican party about what Republicans stand for, the time is ripe to push for a “pro-family” GOP agenda that includes Equal Shared Parenting as an essential element. I think the effort to include a plank in each state party platform for Equal Shared Parenting is the way to go. Such an effort would define the GOP as officially backing Equal Shared Parenting, and there would be a certain level of permanency to a ESP-friendly plank in the GOP party platform.
I know that ESP is not a “partisan” issue, but lets recognize the political realities. The groups that organized against the North Dakota ESP initiative were Democratic constituency groups. The GOP has just not woken up to this issue yet, and I believe it probably could if our efforts were to institutionalize the ESP movement in the state and national platforms of the Republican party. Even a moral cynic who supports the GOP could see the benefits of this effort (as it would present an opportunity to “de-fund the Left.” Of course, the real merit is that children of two non-abusive parents should have equal time (and thus twice the parental benefit) with both of their parents.
We have two years to make this happen, before the backlash against inevitable Democratic excesses turn the public back to the Republicans. If we can define the GOP as the party that favors Equal Shared Parenting between equally fit parents, when the pendulum swerves back toward the Republicans we will be ready.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
–Dwight David Eisenhower, “The Chance for Peace,” speech given to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Apr. 16, 1953.
Latest News Headlines
