2008 Elections: Marriage-Absence, America’s Most Urgent Problem, Goes Ignored
America’s most urgent home-front problem went entirely unaddressed at both the Democratic and Republican conventions. This is very bad news for the plebiscite for billions of reasons.
Even in the early days of the welfare state, Daniel Patrick Moynihan mentioned the danger that it would destroy marriage. Today, perhaps half of marriages are aborted before they happen, and another half are terminated midstream, because federal expenditures (and pass-through funding requirements imposed on states) entitle everything but marriage — and at the direct expense of marriage.
Marriage-absence is driving massive social spending deficits. The spending comes around to wreak further havoc on the marriage market. HHS is the largest line item in the federal budget at over 700-billion last year, much of the expense going towards weakening the marriage market or attempting to Humpty-Dumpty the downstream wreckage.
Certainly, we should help the poor bridge from one marriage to another, as a temporary tithe. However, the practice of permanently entitling non-marriage via billions in benefits and huge inflexible child support entitlements must end.
About 70% of poverty is actually single mothers and children, the vast majority of which would rise out of poverty simply by marrying. Marriage is impossible when the majority of poor men are unmarriageable because they cannot afford to pay imputed child support obligations, which are what led weak-willed women to have children out of wedlock in the first place.
Poverty is a crime for poor men and an entitlement for poor women, the consequences for both triggered by a woman “accidentally†getting herself pregnant. This forms a permanent prophylactic to marriage, deeper poverty for women and children, and asocial responses from men who have no stake or position in society.
The Democrat Feminist Machine
Senator Obama has no interest in marriage (other than his own). Obama is a classic Saul Alinsky community welfare/feminist organizer, who transcended the limitations of Alinsky’s secular approach by importing it into the churches around Chicago. He joined a church not to become a religious man – but as a step towards his monolithic quest for power. He uses his law license similarly – threatening lawsuits against publications that question him – and apparently intends to launch criminal investigations against the Bush administration if he wins.
Many religions and churches nationwide – and even conservative religions — have been similarly compromised. These people actually believe that preventing abortion means pushing for more welfare and child support (somebody please tell these lost souls that illegitimacy does not happen, that three-quarters of poverty will disappear, and abortion will not necessary when federal policy is reformed so that women become interested in marriage again).
Most Christians generically blame the divorce revolution on male irresponsibility because Adam disobeyed God’s command. Certainly, we all agree there are some irresponsible men out there. But Roe v. Wade, invisible forms of birth control, welfare stimulae, and divorce statistics show that women hold the cards controlling reproductive and marriage decisions. The men who truly deserve blame are the men and women of Congress who enacted Pharaohesque entitlement laws disobeying God’s command to uphold marriage.
The serpent of modern radical feminism places women on a precarious but magnetic power-pedestal of sexual liberation, prostitution, and cheapened motherhood. The decisions of weak-willed women lead them out of marriage, and into the hands of alpha-feminist politicians who quickly inject more opiated venom into the anti-marriage machine. The feminist invasion of church and state drives entitlement of Serpentine federal policy that weakens or destroys all men and women in its path.
Church and marriage are today being eaten alive by subrogated “Christian†feminists. Real Christians must do business here on earth, holding feminists responsible for accomplishing what they set out to do in the 1970’s – to destroy the church, the imagined “patriarchyâ€, and subsequently the institution of marriage.
Obama is an alpha male-feminist, proven by N.O.W’s prompt endorsement of him upon his nomination. A casual look at Illiniois’ feminist welfare state is proof that he knows how to build and run an aggressive welfare nation.
I submit that Obama got the nomination because he, as a black male religious feminist, could get away with things that a strident Hillary Clinton would be pounded for. This frees up Hillary to use as Ambassador to the U.N. — to execute building the planned feminist world order — and later to appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court (which Hillary would accept in a heartbeat).
Senator Joe Biden is a feminist mannequin who inherited Senator Paul Wellstone’s feminist machine after he died in a plane crash. Biden staunchly blocked all opposing testimony (with Arlen Specter’s blessing) during the Violence Against Women (VAWA) reauthorization hearings — preventing volumes of documented truths of corruption, fraud, and abuse of women from becoming part of the public record.
But VAWA is not, in itself, the major issue. VAWA came about (and remains alive) because it is driven by profiteering corruption in the legal profession. Trial lawyers make billions arbitrarily destroying marriage. In a 2000 article “To Mock A Mockingbirdâ€, Ann Coulter vibrantly pointed out that VAWA’s footings are not based in our Constitution. This is precisely why Biden wanted to keep the Congressional record free of opposing testimony that would force him to drop the funding entirely.
Biden has been the front man for a number of expansionist feminist initiatives such as his “100,000 Lawyers†initiative that would federally fund lawyers to arbitrarily destroy marriage under the guise of preventing domestic violence.
I-VAWA is Biden’s bill to export corrupt VAWA program overseas. I-VAWA is a piece of CEDAW, and the first step in turning the Supremacy clause over to U.N. feminist lawyers. It would directly entitle U.N feminists with billions of federal dollars they can use to invade us from without. I-VAWA would attempt to inflict radical feminism on marriage-responsible countries such as China, which could deeply radicalize it against America just like marriage-based Muslim countries came to hate us.
Electing Obama/Biden would signal further social policy radicalization in America and further radicalize our enemies. An Obama/Biden administration would be a social nightmare for America. But electing McCain/Palin would not be much better.
Republicans: AWOL on Marriage Policy
Certainly, McCain/Palin is a much better choice on conventional issues. But America cannot be a strong nation leading the world while being the laughing stock of socially-responsible nations. We cannot afford borrowing from them to continue running the most expensive welfare nation in the history of civilization.
When I spoke with Senator McCain at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference last year, he had no comment on social issues. At a whistle stop this spring, he pretended that family issues are judicial matters that do not fall under the mantle of the presidency.
Former Senator Jim Talent, Senator Kit Bond, and Senator John Ashcroft all issued similarly evasive responses on social issues – telling me that the divorce problem is a state problem for which no federal response could apply. This is the greatest lie a federal legislator could make. Federal welfare funding, anti-marriage child support entitlements, the Violence Against Women Act, IMBRA, and other policies are destroying marriage and placing America at grave economic, social, and criminal risk. These programs were either forced on states or bought by pass-though funding requirements.
Palin passes conservative litmus tests on abortion and economic issues. On a positive note, she apparently opposes sex education and programs that mollycoddle teen illegitimacy.
Unfortunately, Palin is not a pro-marriage social conservative. She is an alpha power-feminist who, in a divorce-related personal family vendetta, grossly abused her powers to influence a family law case and get her former brother-in-law fired from his job state trooper. We already have hundreds of alpha feminists tampering with marriage in Washington. We do not need one in the White House.
Party loyalists pretend this is a minor issue – which it most certainly is not. Tampering with court proceedings, litigants, witnesses, and evidence is a felony in most states.
Palin hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on her sister’s ex-husband because they were involved in a bitter custody dispute. Family law cases are classically won by hurling child abuse allegations and damaging the husband economically so he cannot afford to pursue the case. The PI came up with numerous allegations, including a serious child abuse allegation that Wooten used a taser on his child.
An internal police investigation found no wrongdoing on Wooten’s part, so the police commissioner refused to fire him. Upon election as Governor, Palin then pressured her newly-appointed Public Safety Director Walter Monegan to fire Wooten. Monegan refused, so Palin fired him.
The Chronology of the case suggests that Palin interfered heavily in the divorce case, injected very serious allegations against Wooten which were not found valid, with intent to influence the decision of the court.
False child abuse and domestic violence allegations are ruining marriage in America. Wooten was never tried or found guilty of child abuse or domestic violence. He was fired on allegations of improprieties.
Palin publicly pretends to be supportive of the father of her pregnant daughter, but quietly moved her daughter to another school to keep them apart. These are not behaviors consistent with one who believes in marriage or encouraging marital responsibility. Few teen girls get pregnant out of wedlock parents provide enough love, supervision, and guidance.
Tampering with family law court proceedings goes on every day in courts across the land. Horrendous feminist abuses of marriage will end only by firmly demanding that our elected representatives do not do it themselves. We should only support candidates who openly support “Responsible Marriage†reforms of federal laws.
Executing Marriage-Positive change
Historically, Republicans have done nothing to address the marriage-absence problem. After the 1994 “family values†landslide, Republicans promptly adopted Democrat plans to create an aggregated welfare/child support state, and to quickly pass the Violence Against Women Act. Republicans even put Democrats in charge of these committees!
The overwhelming majority of the electorate that voted for pro-marriage “family values†agenda was horrified. We eagerly anticipated change then, and Republicans delivered the exact opposite. Unsurprisingly, Republicans have mysteriously been losing elections ever since.
Today, Republicans don’t dare mention social issues because they are being blamed for what they permitted Democrats do for fourteen years. Republicans still have no pro-marriage policy ideas of their own. McCain is a deer in the headlights of social issues, and Obama plans to run him over this fall.
If Republicans had any brains attached to ethics and morals, they would reform federal programs to execute a painless and collaborative model of “responsible marriage†that is very attractive to almost all voters. (This will be discussed in my future articles).
American voters are far more ready for change than they were in 1994. But they will not get any of it yet. The 2008 elections feature machine candidates shilling to maintain the status quo for trial lawyers, K-street, and tremendous federal and state administrative bureaucracies that grow exponentially by destroying marriage.
Republican and Democrat analysts are worried because their constituencies are not excited about the candidates. The “family values†voting majority (that powered the 1994 Republican landslide) is disgusted with both parties. This constituency is now powering the “Ron Paul†revolution to a great degree. I know quite a few formerly-diehard liberals and conservatives who are voting Ron Paul this time around. Party pollsters are not asking questions to quantify this issues-based majority, because they do not want to recognize its existence. Recognizing us means changing the machine destroying America – a machine deeply embedded in both political parties. Whether they like it or not, our majority does exist. By not catering to us, Republicans are again taking tremendous risk of losing to Democrats in this cycle, and running even greater risk of political collapse in coming cycles.
Republicans have all the tools they need to effect positive change. They simply have to use the assets available to them. Certainly, getting support from the massive “system†(The A.B.A, A.P.A, federal and state administrative bureaucracies, and NGO’s), and winning support from the economic conservative community will take a lot of work. It is doable because the changes we propose will not kill the system, it will only change the nature of the work they do. I know many individuals who work in these fields who hate their work. The average bureaucrat will help us change their work so they can go home every night knowing they actually did something good.
There will be a sociopolitical revolution in America. The Klannish gender-based power liason between unethical lawyers, feminists, and politicians controlling Washington’s political machines will fail – hopefully before America fails entirely. Until this is accomplished, we will continue to see unethical lawyers driving the looting of marriages and assets, banking, oil futures, real estate, home loan sharking, and anything else that can make a fast buck while somebody else takes the rap and goes to jail.
America cannot survive the withering social, economic, and criminal costs of marriage-absence indefinitely. If Republican think tanks are wise, they will start planning positive forward-looking policy changes attractive to the majority of candidates and voters now, so conservatives are ready to win landslide elections perhaps in 2012 or 2016.
————————————————-
David R. Usher is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition
| More from David R. Usher
Stumble It!
September 10th, 2008 at 11:46 am
David
Cogent, and frightening, analysis.
You have one of the best minds “in the business.”
Thank you.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Having two married heterosexual parents, who are actively involved in raising the children, is categorically the best way to reduce teen drug abuse and juvenile delinquency, and in very large numbers.
Agreed. 100% end of story.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Squiggy: I have no problems with public facilities such as swimming pools, hockey rinks, etc. They are lots of fun. They are not a substitute parent. There are usually 1-2 adult managers supervising hundreds of kids and lots of nooks and crannies. The kids who do most of the monitoring are often the peers of the kids who are skating. Do the math yourself.
When somebody (who has no other stated views on social policy) claims that hockey rinks are the answer to drug abuse and juvenile delinquency, it is not I that has lost it.
Having two married heterosexual parents, who are actively involved in raising the children, is categorically the best way to reduce teen drug abuse and juvenile delinquency, and in very large numbers.
We need federal policies that expect and reward marital responsibility, and never reward personal irresponsibility regardless of sex. Hockey rinks do not fall in this category.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
David, every time I read your work I learn a lot. Keep up the good work my friend.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Pretty cynical David. I’ve also heard a hockey rink is where you go to play some type of sport (curling maybe?).
We don’t have much hockey here in the deep south, but we have lots of football and baseball fields. Yes, there can be thugs there, but mostly there are lots of good kids, who might not be such good kids without good clean recreation. It is possible to see things in a positive light.
David, I think you’re totally losing it with regards to Sarah. I have no idea how “proving” she’s no good helps us. Do you honestly think the OB ticket will be better?
September 9th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Here is Palin’s answer to social problems of juvenile delinquency and drug abuse: build a hockey rink (read: surrogate babysitter). Having been a kid myself with a local hockey rink, this is where kids go to sell/buy drugs, where teen girls and boys hook up, go elsewhere, and sometimes get pregnant, and where parents who don’t raise their kids themselves send kids to offload them.
We have a nation full of mall rats, YWCA wards, park waifs, day-care inmates, and parents who think that government should be the surrogate parent. Palin’s concept of social policy is a bridge to nowhere….
see: Palin: Government Can Fix Social Ills
September 8th, 2008 at 2:36 am
Squiggy,
Sounds like you are getting a bit wound up.
Four items:
1. I don’t feel cornered. Chronologists of liberal persuasion are not always wrong (Fox also has to be thoroughly vetted on social issues, and as you know we have had to go after them too — as in the “Deadbeat Dad” reality show). Nixon/Watergate is another example. Bias and hystericysm runs deep in both camps right now and I’m not going to get snockered by it.
2. Both this blog, and the news trail it documents, has been developed for quite some time prior to Palin’s appointment. It didn’t just fall out of the sky last week like 99% of the noise elsewhere. There is more detail here than I have seen elsewhere.
3. I have never said I am decisively right about the Palin affair. My conclusion is based on the best case-documentation I can find. I don’t see that Conservatives have put a case record out there (if their case is strong, why haven’t they?). I don’t see this blogger making hysterical statements. I’m not distracted by hysterics of political addicts on either the left or the right. What I see here does add up and make sense.
4. The Palin issue is tertiary to the meaning and value of this article. “Marriage values” and core social policy is not on the 2008 Republican menu. It is thoroughly documented that Republicans sold out “family values” voters to Democrats after winning in 1994. There is zero evidence McCain/Palin are interested in doing anything other than maintaining status quo lip-lock on social policy. There is evidence that Palin is some sort of mixed-bag neocon feminist. We know where McCain stands. While McCain is better than Obama on some other key important issues, he will not pull America out of the entitlement sewer causing our greatest socioeconomic/debt problems. So I’m not excited about him.
Palin is a story that will continue unfolding. I see no value in further debating this tertiary issue here. I think this should be taken up in an article focusing on Palin, taking what I and Ned have sourced. Perhaps you might want to tackle this one since you are apparently interested in it. My focus is on the larger political issues, and I don’t have time to debate/investigate/rehash this further.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:02 am
David, the website you are taking as gospel on this subject is written by nutcases.
They now have a headline “The difference between the KKK and Sarah Palin?” (They’re claiming she hates “Sambo”, even though there are no blacks in Alaska – I lived there for years, I know).
Oh, and don’t forget this one – “the difference between Britney and Sarah Palin”. (They compare Britney driving with her baby in her lap, to Sarah being a passenger getting driven around the yard – at a walking speed – for a few minutes – sure, no difference at all.)
They quote USA Today, the Washington Post, the LA Progressive and other leftist rags. And that’s ALL they quote. See the trend? They are LEFTIST! They are OBAMA/BIDEN shills!
These people WANT SARAH TO LOSE! Everything they say is intended to help Sarah and John lose the election. That is it’s purpose. Everything they say is suspect, unless proven otherwise (and funny – none of it can be proven right or wrong – why is that?). Remember “fake, but accurate”?
David, please don’t get that “backed into a corner” mentality. One of the main tenets of ours is that we admit when we are wrong. It makes us stronger.
September 7th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
David: I hope I’ve made myself clear. I looked into it, and my impression is that the case consists of gossip and rumor. I’m not spending my time compiling evidence one way or another. I further think we need to know about Palin as a politician and this “scandal” has nothing to do with it. I have no inside track for insight and information anyway – so I think additonal effort would merely waste my time.
I can see that the site you refer to and quote is trying to build a case against Palin – for whatever reason – maybe just trying to find out if there is a real case, and therefore leaning as far as they can toward finding one.
I recognize the taped conversation. It’s the one I listened to. Someone at some time said they wondered why Wooten still had a job. OK – so? I listened to the whole thing – it wasn’t improper. The conversation wasn’t even with Monegan.
Has the Palin admin. been caught being inconsistent (or lying?) about all this? Not from the information in the news cast that raised that question – no, I cannot reach that conclusion. For example – Palin wanted to move Monegon so he could concentrate more effort on boot-legging etc. – clearly consistent with her concern that there should have been more focus on the problem etc. – not an inconsistency as the news cast suggests.
The information at the site may have cleared up the idea how Sarah Palin fit into the “family feud” thing – and if it has, now defines concretely what Ned Holstein was referring to when he looked into it and concluded Sarah Palin did not make a false accusation.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Roger,
The information I am working from is primarily a chronology of the case located at http://apocalyptickiwi.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/palin-vs-wooten/. Somebody has been tracking this case for a long time and done a pretty thorough job of it.
Excerpts:
When a Governor alleges danger to family, police always take it very very seriously. Given the prompt and extensive investigational scrutiny, they apparently did.
Note that the restraining order was lifted because of an intervention by Wooten’s supervisors. Apparently the police leadership decided that Palin was off the wall.
There is no doubt that the Palins’ newly-appointed public safety director unquestionably would also take allegations from her very seriously and act on them if there was merit.
We have two individuals responsible for firing police officers who could not substantiate Palin’s allegations and refused to fire him.
I well know there are police officers who lie and abuse their authority. I have gone after a few myself. But I have also seen a lot of good cops get creamed in divorces because they are painted as being nasty controlling insensitive jerks by the wife’s attorney. The St. Louis County police are among my strongest local supporters for this very reason.
Having a badge means little when the Governor is after you. There was nothing protecting him from facing consequences of whatever he did, which apparently was relatively minor. Tasing your kid (at low stun level) at his request is a pretty stupid thing to do. There is no evidence that the child was harmed. If the divorce court judge did not deny him visitation, whatever transpired was obviously not serious (judges lean towards overprotectiveness anyway).
Hunting on somebody else’s license is stupid too. I’ll bet that he is not an experienced hunter, and she probably told him that he was covered. Given the proximity to the divorce, she may well have been setting him up. Wooten might have done some stupid things, but that does not make him a bad cop who should be fired.
There is more. Check it out. Roger, please post your cites so we can see them.
September 7th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Well, what I read was that Wooten admitted the tasing, shooting the moose without a license, and a couple of other things. The tasing, he said, was at the boy’s request and was done on a low stun level. He said he was with his wife (Sarah’s sister) when he shot the moose and said he thought he was hunting on her license.
You say “the record shows” that Palin was quite involed in the case. What record? I said in my comment above that I did find information about a staff member who had a phone conversation with a consultant who was working for the dept. of safety or something – about Wooten. It was recorded and I listened to the whole thing. According to the blogger who provided the link to the audio – this was the magic bullet that demonstrated Palin’s involvement. But listening to the whole conversation – I found nothing that warrents an investigation. The comments made by the staff member were within bounds and misrepresented as something unethical. I didn’t seem to me that she’s being let off the hook for letting aides do the footwork in something unethical. I haven’t found anything (other than vague or inconsistent accusations) that even staff did anything unethical or showed any sign of unethical intent.
The stuff that sounded bad for Palin was rumor and gossip only, not actually supported by fact.
September 7th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Hi Roger,
I have not seen anything to the effect that Wooten admitted to tasering his child, etc. The police investigation is of course closed, so I doubt we will ever see the real deal. Now, if the child did get tasered, the question is how did it happen? If he left his taser out and the child played with it, he should get a few days off with a black mark on his record.
However, if he did taser the child, it is far more than a police situation. Police are mandated child abuse reporters. Since there is no evidence that he was charged with child abuse by social services or found to have done so by the divorce court, the taser thing is likely a straw issue.
The record shows that Palin was quite involved in this case. She did have her aides do some of the footwork. Now she is being let off the hook and the aides are being investigated. That is a classic cover-up — blame it on your footmen and let them hang for it.
It appears the allegedly-biased (democrat) legislative investigator is happily cooperating by not subpoenaing Palin. Party politics aside, AK dems would love to see Palin in the White House. Her position alone would put AK at the top of the favors chain. Lots of work and business to be had. We can expect them to “handle” the issue and dither it down to nothing. The allegations of bias are there as a smokescreen to make it sound like a serious investigation is being done.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Palin investigator is biased Democrat, says Alaska Republican
September 7th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Congratulations David. Looks like your message RE: Ron Paul got some attention. There’s apparently still a contingency out there. His readers will get the rest of your message.
Roger Knight: Good catch. As indicated, I stopped looking into detail on the Wooten case when I discovered it was composed of rumor and gossip. I don’t spend my time at this point checking facts. David – is Wooten still on the force?
September 7th, 2008 at 10:23 am
All,
EIN News has picked up this piece.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Roger, David, here is a relevant question to ask:
Is Mike Wooten still an Alaska State Trooper?
I believe he is. If so, then perhaps Palin’s intention for dismissing Monegan has nothing to do with Wooten’s status as a Trooper. Should a reporter ask Sarah point blank if Mike Wooten is still a Trooper, she might well respond:
“Mike Wooten is presently a Trooper in good standing with the Alaska State Patrol. If you exceed the speed limit on a highway he is assigned to patrol, he will pull you over and write you up!”
As for Sarah not wanting to get involved with her sister’s divorce and custody battle, that is a perfectly reasonable position for a governor to take!
One of the things about posting my own website on these issues is that I receive feedback from custodial parents as well as non-custodial parents and from those closely related to divorce litigants, and they often say that I am essentially RIGHT in everything I say. Sarah has had an exposure to how the divorce system actually works through its effects on her sister and on Mike Wooten.
Therefore it is possible should any of us have an audience with the next Vice President to discuss these matters, we might not have the “talking to a brick wall” effect that we usually have with elected officials.
Which would be an improvement, incremental though it be.
September 7th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Nation’s Largest Police Organization Endorses McCain-Palin
September 7th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Just to fill in some details: The investigation is looking at allegations that she dismissed safety commissioner Walt Monegan, because he refused to bow to pressure to fire Palin’s former brother-in-law (Wooten) from the state police force.
As a matter of law, the safety commissioner serves at the pleasure of the Governor; which means that it is impossible for it to have been illegal for Palin to fire Monegan – regardless of why she fired him. The investigation is an ethics investigation that – so far as I can see – cannot result in any legal charges – only judgments about her decision.
From what I’ve seen so far, there is and is unlikely to be any real, hard evidence to contradict Palin’s stated reason for firing Monegan – something she clearly had the authority to do (regardless of reason).
There is no charge that Palin may have interferred with court proceedings – which would of course be a very serious charge that could result in criminal proceedings if there was strong evidence to support it (however – it would not necessarily proceed if she’s elected given the Clinton precedent).
September 7th, 2008 at 8:37 am
David;
It’s my understanding that Wooten admitted having done both those things and some others and was suspended for a period of time as punishment. Officially a 10 day suspension, he was allowed to return to work after 5. It’s also not clear that Sarah Palin was the person who made the charges, and given that they were true, I don’t see how they could be classified as false allegations.
The investigation into possible abuse of power, as I understand it, has to do with the firing of Wooten and the firing of the guy who had the authority to fire Wooten. I haven’t completed a thurough investigation – at this point it doesn’t appear as though everyone has and not everyone is satisfied.
It’s my understanding that the accusations of abuse of power are from her political rival, and the guy she fired (can’t remember his name – head of safety dept. Moogen or something) – said he really didn’t have any hard reason for feeling he was pressured to fire Wooten, etc.
The “hard evidence” presented by one left wing blogger – the only alleged “hard evidence” I’ve seen, consisted of a staffer having what seemed to me to be a conversation within the boundary of reason with a consultant in the safety dept. or some such – in which the staffer said the Palins didn’t understand why Wooten was still being used as a poster boy for recruiting. I didn’t really understand his comment to mean that he had actually literally discussed it with the Palins and what he talked about seemed well within the boundaries of the Governor’s proper interest and authority anyway, and no one was threatened. Perhaps he had some indication from the Palins who may have expressed concern, but there’s nothing there to suggest wrongdoing from what I have seen.
During that same conversation, the staffer indicated that Sarah Palin did not want to be drawn into the divorce / custody battle. She did not want to get involved. That was the clear message from the staffer, and he was interested in information that would help her stay out of it – specifically not to get blind sided.
Of course – the rumor mill characterized the conversation differently. If I hadn’t listened to the full audio myself – a long conversation linked to the blog commentary – I wouldn’t have known that the blogger was either lying or incapable of making a reasonable judgment about the conversation.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Hi Roger,
I read Ned’s piece while writing this one. Ned is another one of the credible voices on these issues. However, my conclusion is different than his. After looking at the record, it appears that the very serious allegation that Palin vociferously asserted (that Wooten threatened Palin’s father) are without merit.
My conclusion is that if the major allegations are, in fact, without merit; Palin either knew or should have known that they were without merit. Palin was not a party to the case, but a third party who appears to have abused her office to improperly influence a court proceeding for the benefit of her sister. The fact that she refuses to cooperate with the investigation suggests that her activities were not on the up-and-up.
In partisan politics, and particularly where one’s actions are proper, it is wise to lay it out and get it over with. She could get this cleared up in ten minutes if she truly did not do anything wrong. The fact she is trying to politically bury the situation indicates there is something they desperately want to bury.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Note also Ned Holsteins article: Governor Sarah Palin: Did She Make False Allegations Against a Father?
September 7th, 2008 at 7:21 am
David,
You continue among the brightest intelligencia of our cultural defense system. Like some commenting above however, I also think a deep breath is in order re: Palin’s alleged abuse of power. I must also wonder – even if she did do something wrong in favor of her sister – whether we should immediately conclude that she would carry such feelings on to the point of supporting corruption in the nation’s laws.
It can be a rough world out there and I can myself imagine doing something “wrong” (in a more general perspective) if it was both right and very important to the defense of my family. That’s not justification at this point, or an excuse. It’s just true. I think attention needs to be focused elsewhere to see who Sarah Palin is as a working politician.
In the case of Palin’s alleged abuse of power – I don’t see the facts in existence that tell us that she ever did abuse her power. I, for one, am not going to rely on Daily Kos and will be skeptical about CBS/NBC/…. about the facts in the matter. So let’s just wait and see – in this very politically charged situation – whether or not we get facts we can believe in – and what those are.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Squiggy, I am an analyst and policy expert, not a political operative. I have to call it like it is so that folks can decide what they want to do. Both Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin were reviewed with regard to the marriage-absence issue. Neither get a passing score.
Please note that I did say that McCain/Palin is the lesser of two evils(for other reasons). I have some cohorts in very high political places who agree with this analysis.
Republicans are in huge trouble this cycle, and they know it. They have been losing congressional elections, in progressively worse numbers, ever since they blew the 1994 “family values” reforms. The last two Presidential elections were won by Republicans on razor-thin margins. A lot of folks are in trouble and want more attention paid to home-front issues. Others no longer line up behind the guy who promises to wipe out radical muslimism.
Obama is an expert on social-issues manipulation. His party will be pushing social issues and the plight of the people. Republicans still think that social issues starts and ends with being pro-life. Entirely lacking a message on home-front social issues, McCain and Republicans are going to war with a wet noodle. They are at a tremendous disadvantage.
I project that McCain will lose, and Congressional races will be yet another Republican nightmare, because of the party’s complete ignorance on core social issues.
If you check my previous articles, I have been predicting this would come to pass for about two years. See: Republicans Must Transform the Welfare State (2/22/2006).
The American Conservative Union Foundation (CPAC) published one of my pieces in May 2007 warning Republicans they would lose in 2008 if they do not pay attention to social issues. See: Ending Father-Absence
Beyond this sad election cycle: The combination of war costs, social expenses, unrestrained gambling for cash by mutuals (who work with public money) in the oil futures market have sandbagged the dollar to the point that the Euro stands a chance of becoming the world standard. The effects here are profound. The Fed is about to nationalize most of the loan industry (much of the foreclosure debacle is comprised of single individuals who are the highest loan risks, and divorced/divorcing individuals are house-poor and go under). A lot of these folks were in debt trouble, took a balloon refi, and went bust with the balloons.
The costs of marriage-absence are manifestly evident everywhere. This nation is at great risk. In the end, Republicans must take up marriage-absence as a major issue, and implement some of our policy recommendations, if they want to save the American Experiment from collapse.
September 7th, 2008 at 2:56 am
Squiggy…
The simple fact is that her statement in which palin claimed to have sold the jet on ebay is absolutely false…What part of, “Thou shalt not lie.” don’t you understand?…By not including the fact that she sold the jet to a private business owner because it didn’t sell on ebay…As well as by failing to disclose the fact that she supported the bridge to no where while running for governor and only opposed it after the public outcry as well as the fact that she kept the money that was earmarked for the bridge to no where…palin has made a conscious choice to lie and since palin is a proven liar the question that now begs to be answered is what other lies is she telling…
Since mccain chose palin to bring back the religious right many of whom had decided not to vote in this election into the repub. party…It is both fair and reasonable to hold palin up to the Biblical standards the religious espouses especially since the religious right wants to force them upon the rest of the country…
Many years ago the 16 yr. old mother of a child who lived across the street from us told me when I asked her why she chose not to nurse her child that she refused to nurse her newborn because she thought it was nasty…Now we have a educated women in her 40’s who should know better but has chosen to abandoned the care of her infant into the hands of others in order to sate her selfish and self serving ambition of ruling over others…
This is not the character of a God fearing woman but that of a selfish harpie who, like the feminists on the left, have chosen to rebel against Biblical principles…And as any Christian who has read the bible knows the good book makes it absolutely clear that the sin of rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft…
September 7th, 2008 at 1:19 am
Mr. Usher?
I don’t know why you have this animosity toward a woman who obviously loves her husband, and treats him like an equal, but your attitude does not help the mens rights movement. By attacking Sarah Palin, you backhandedly help the Obama/Biden train wreck. The author, and the supporter of the VAWA (just one among their many different knives in our back) must really love the help you’re giving. We don’t need enemies – we’ll self-destruct quite well on our own.
September 7th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Dabir Dalton said,
Squiggy wrote: He deserves it, and it proves that we’re the honest side in this argument.
__________________________________________
The fact is Squiggy both palin and mccain have been caught in more then one lie…Remember the jet palin claimed to have sold on ebay and mccain claimed that she sold it at a profit…The fact is that the jet didn’t sell on ebay and was sold at a loss (below the asking price)to a private business owner
Really? Ask high, take less? Duh. And I’ve heard others say it went for less than they originally paid (a used jet went for less than a new one)? Once again, duh.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Thanks, David, for yet another article spelling out the situation.
The Republican platform per the link you provided shows clearly where they stand, shows that they are on the same side as the Democrat party in the gender war fueled in large part by the government of the past several generations. Page 3, center inset text:
“In our multiethnic nation, everyone — immigrants and nativeborn alike — must embrace our core values of liberty, equality, meritocracy, and respect for human dignity and the rights of women.”
On page 51 the document says:
“We consider discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin to be immoral, and we will strongly enforce anti-discrimination statutes.”
To that, all I can say is bullspit. The Republican Party could do something TODAY to prove this; they could easily have done something any day for the past several decades, but they haven’t. Their words are empty.
Fathers have endured reproductive-rights discrimination based solely on their gender (”sex” to use their language) since Roe v. Wade (in an unconstitutional act of judicial legislation) gave women all the rights and men all the responsibilities generations ago.
In the same paragraph the platform says that it supports fathers, it also says (more vigorously) that it supports “courageous” single parents (aka mothers), who in most cases are anything but courageous.
While page 53 has a one-sentence paragraph that says families are important, it has many paragraphs that say many things antithetical to that. (And, recent decades of history of the Republican party, prove they are talking out of both sides of their mouth.)
Note also (page 52) that Republicans plan only to protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape, not boys.
While they claim that Republicans recognize that children in homes without fathers have all sorts of problems, they fail utterly to convey any sense of understanding the real causes of fatherless homes. (An understanding they could achieve simply by reading, for example, Stephen Baskerville’s book “Taken Into Custody,” or any number of your articles…)
The inset on page 53 says:
“Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose lifeâ€
This shouldn’t be a choice made by only half of the child-to-be’s progenitors!
Fathers are either important or they are not. The Republican Party reaches the same conclusion as the Democratic Party.
So sad.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
David…
Thank-you for the link…
By allowing palin to front for him mccain has chosen to hide behind a woman’s skirts…Because he knows or has been advised that the more the dem’s (obama and biden) challenge her and her record no matter how legitimate…The more many voters will become sympathetic to her and will as a result be more inclined to vote for mccain then they otherwise would have been…
After all who would be willing to vote for a man who is perceived as beating up on a woman…
September 6th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I’m reserving judgment on the Mike Wooten situation until I know more. I know this sounds like a copout, but please consider this:
It is vital that all police officers be held to a high level of accountability. We give them an immense amount of power and unfortunately some have abused it. Precisely because Wooten is married to and divorced from the sister of his state’s Governor, the situation places Sarah Palin in a damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t situation. Either 1) she will be accused of using her position to damage him to further her sister’s position in the divorce, or 2) she will be accused of using her position to protect him from the consequences of his actions.
It is true that Mike Wooten was suspended for a few days for misconduct.
So yes, I am deeply concerned for all of the reasons expressed herein by David Usher.
At the same time there is much to like and admire about Sarah Palin. She has stood by her husband and shared poarenting is what they practice, not just preach. She does not buy the Global Warming Hoax and is getting that gas pipeline built, something that should have been done 30 years ago! She favors drilling into the big anticline in ANWR, which is the most obvious thing we can do in the face of depending upon Venezuela, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Russia for our liquid fuel supply. The environmental impact of drilling in ANWR will probably be less than that of this nation building exercise we are currently engaged in Iraq.
I can be forgiven for thinking that the Iraq War is a mercenary exercise for the benefit of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
The other impressive thing that Sarah Palin has done is to invite Levi Johnson into her family with love and affection! If we are to expect fathers to take responsibility for our chidren, that is precisely what we need to do!
Sarah has got to be thinking about how disruptive any intervention of the Child Support Crusade into the lives of Bristol Palin and Levi Johnson can be and how it can get in the way of their formation of their family.
In which case, what we all have been saying might just penetrate the brain of a state governor and a vice president. One who has proven to be willing to do something about it once she decides something needs to be done about it!
So Dave, I hear what you are saying. But perhaps some positive thinking is in order.
I would love to have Sarah Barracuda on our side!
September 6th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Here is an interesting article by a Christian organization who has also realized that Palin is a feminist. They arrive at their conclusion for different reasons than I do.
see:
Christian Mothers, Pastors, Writers, Students Communicate Their Opposition To A Feminist Vision of Family Life and the American Presidency
I think McCain is going to have a real rough time getting support from the larger Christian community. Being pro-life is no longer enough to win their support. “Submarine feminism” no longer works.
“Marriage Values” is the new standard. The sooner Republicans figure this out and start working on it, the better off America will be. The first step is to walk away from feminists and ignore them. Feminists will never vote Republican under any circumstances. Republicans have nothing to lose by walking away from feminism, and everything to gain by doing so. Two examples: former Missouri senators Jim Talent and John Ashcroft lost their congressional seats because they catered to feminists on VAWA and other social issues. I warned them and the Limbaugh family they would lose if they didn’t change their game. The they didn’t listen — the grassroots was alienated, and they lost.
September 6th, 2008 at 11:04 am
David…
I agree and currently consider your voice in the MM as the most knowledgeable and reasonable…Neither the dem’s or the repub’s care about marriage and are too beholden to the special interest groups supporting them to do so…So for the time being the old saying that goes, “The more things change the more they stay the same.” will unfortunately ring true for quite some time to come…
Just before I came back on the net I watched a conservative right wing commentator on the Fox network declare that palin was the ultimate feminist…To me that says a lot and as far as I’m concerned any MRA who willingly supports the repub’s even as they spit in our faces is a fool and quite frankly I have no intention of sailing on a ship of fools…
September 6th, 2008 at 7:03 am
All,
The 2008 Republican platform is excellent on many issues, but entirely lacks the critical core components that would bring about real change.
Opposing abortion and encouraging abstinence does not drive marriage/divorce decisions. These activists have it completely backwards: women who are primarily interested in marriage are not the ones who give it away cheaply, get pregnant out of wedlock, or settle for having a child out of wedlock. Those who wish to (finally) end abortion will do better by helping us enact “Responsible Marriage” initiatives. Fact: When marriage is important, abortion is not necessary.
The Platform is silent about the millions of women who marry the federal welfare nation because they think it is better economic or trendy alternative social option.
The most crucial error in the Platform is the continuing imagination that marriage-absence is strictly a state-level problem. The only reference in the platform that speaks to restoring marriage as an institution is (page 60):
There is no policy and no direction — it is absolutely meaningless. It is an absurd position (imagine Republicans also pretending that abortion is strictly a state-level issue).
We know that illegitimacy and divorce is driven by feminist entitlement programs. DOMA and blocking gay marriage does not build marriage itself. Until rebuilding heterosexual marriage is a front-line party issue, marriage will be slowly winnowed down to serve feminist agenda.
Republicans blew it again. They do not understand the issues or the interests of the majority of mainstream “normal” voters. They do not have the guts to point out what radical feminism has inflicted on women, their children, and marriage. Their visions say one thing, but their Congressional feet consistently move the feminist direction. This is entirely unacceptable.
Maintaining status quo and being spineless wimps is not good enough. We still expect action from Republicans, and they will not earn the loyal support of mainstream marriage-values voters until they do.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Squiggy wrote: He deserves it, and it proves that we’re the honest side in this argument.
__________________________________________
The fact is Squiggy both palin and mccain have been caught in more then one lie…Remember the jet palin claimed to have sold on ebay and mccain claimed that she sold it at a profit…The fact is that the jet didn’t sell on ebay and was sold at a loss (below the asking price)to a private business owner…Remember the bridge to no where that palin claimed to have said thanks but no thanks to congress…Well she actually supported the bridge to no where while running for gov. of alaska and only reversed herself when there was a public outcry against it plus instead of returning the money earmarked for the bridge to no where she kept it…
David Usher is being extremely fair to palin who is quickly proving to be both a liar and vindictive when she doesn’t get her way…
September 6th, 2008 at 12:33 am
David, I still stand by what I said. The link you put up sort of, kind of backs up what you said. But not really, as it’s still a he said/she said from one end to the other. As I stated before, it looks like you went into this with an opinion, and focused on evidence to back it up.
That is exactly what MRA’s can’t do. For example, we know that the majority of child abuse is committed by women (and we want them prosecuted and locked up for a long time), but there is still the occasional dirtbag male too. We don’t hide that. Instead we bust on that guy hard (we want the penalties to be severe, and equal to the females penalties). He deserves it, and it proves that we’re the honest side in this argument.
I know I’m not going to change your opinion – you’ve obviously made up your mind. But I’m right – you’re being unfair to Sarah Palin, and backing someone who just might be the bad guy (libtard Washington Post notwithstanding).
September 6th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Until men are politicaly unified in solidarity around their own gender in spiritual bond and moral union, tighter than that found in marriage itself, we are doomed.
It is historically a classic failing of so called conservative leaders, whom continue enphasising old themes and old structural solutions to novel problems of novel circumstance. This weakness stems from their age, which binds them to familiar models and methods but which renders them frightened of the radical and effective.
The simple answer to them is this. Your prefered medicine to our problem is in the first place, not strong enough. Then again, it’s further compromised by being formulated from an initial misdiagnosis.
Good honourable marriages cannot come of representatives from the dishonoured gender. Dishonoured for our perfidy and treachery towards ourselves and everything advantageous to the male.
Only in a society where males are born into good standing for the preciousness and esteem of their gender, can they grow up as proud, honoured and honourable ambassadors of their sex. And in this society, good marriages would chase men and not vice versa.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Great piece, David. Very passionate.
“But VAWA is not, in itself, the major issue”
THE major issue it may not be, but as a profoundly influential target, an Octopus with tentacles into every community, it is possibly the biggest and most visible. A nuclear strike on VAWA would send shock waves not only through American society but around the whole Anglophile world.
It would energise a mass of activity among Fathers groups, Men’s groups, Families groups, church groups, Women’s groups. That last is women’s, not feminist. The feminist groups would reel from the shock and most, funded by VAWA, would collapse.
You have made restoration of Marriage and the Family your battlefield objective. I have a huge admiration for your stance, energy and intellect. VAWA is a combined force of 20 Regiments of Tanks standing in your way. There are other forces of course, but you have to eradicate, wipe out, totally destroy VAWA before these other forces can be mopped up.
VAWA needs to be nuked.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Hi Julie,
Keep an eye on my work. We will meet in Washington one day, and we will win. There are too many voters unhappy with the system who will adamantly support our work.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
David, NZ has the highest number of single parents in the world. (sad)
Probably the biggest obstacle we have is indoctrination and feminist programs. Everyone else is having to work around them. It is really hard to do so. It is a mountain that doesn’t seem to have a top. lol
I can see you point now.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Squiggy: If you read the Troopergate chronology linked in the article, you will see that Palin made the allegation that Wooten threatened Palin’s father. Palin either made the allegation as “hearsay” (most likely invented by Palin or her sister or her sister’s attorney), or Wooten called up Palin and made the threat to her (extremely unlikely). There does not appear to be one ounce of truth to this allegation, and no indication in the record there was any merit to it whatsoever. Nor does it make sense.
Why would Wooten threaten Palin’s father? There is no evidence that the father was actively involved in the case. If Wooten were nuts enough to threaten anybody, the threat would have been made against Palin, his estranged wife, the judge, or the opposing attorney.
The judge in the case had a few tart words about what Palin and her sister were doing. When a judge makes this style of statement on the record, you know the judge was quite upset with what Palin and her sister were doing.
It is clear that the 20-day temporary restraining order had little or no merit. It was dropped, and the husband and wife mutually agreed to a “no contact” order being entered into the divorce record. In legal parlance, that means there was no imminent danger in the case, but that the parties are at loggerheads so it is best they be kept apart. If there was any truth behind the restraining order, a permanent order would have been granted in a quick 10-minute hearing (customary for DV courts).
The fact is this: The police chief and the Public Safety Director, who had full access to all information, could not find reason to warrant firing Wooten. Palin hand-picked another public safety director to fire Wooten.
This case sounds like a mini “Duke Lacrosse” case — long on allegations and extremely short on evidence that Wooten did anything remarkably wrong.
But there is a lot of evidence that Palin grossly exceeded her authority as Governor, and may have committed multiple felonies tampering with an ongoing court case.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Hi Julie,
I’m glad you finally understood the whole issue. I’m aware the piece is a bit long. But the interrelated issues are complex, and a “narrow issue” piece cannot possibly capture the whole thing.
Sure, programs can positively help limited numbers of individuals in certain situations. If we had limited numbers of individuals, it would not be a crushing problem for agencies inundated with women and men in troubles that all point back to the lack of marriage. Marriage and parenting-positive programs are certainly necessary no matter what.
The only answer to the huge array of problems resulting from the massive lack of marriage is to change the federal programs that make marriage a secondary option.
New Zealand has a massive problem resulting from a lack of marriage. We should focus on resolving the problem at the source, while refining the marriage-positive programs that we have.
September 5th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
MRA’s.
*sigh*
September 5th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Wooten was never tried or found guilty of child abuse or domestic violence. He was fired on allegations of improprieties.
They don’t have to convict a police officer in court in order to fire him. He wasn’t tried for threatening to blow Sarah’s fathers head off either, but I’m pretty sure it’s against most precincts policy. Nor was he arrested for poaching moose out of season. Nor dui in his police cruiser.
David, you are jumping to conclusions without evidence (other than allegations by people neither you nor I know to be truthful) against Mrs. Palin. I really hate it when MRI’s act like the other side.
September 5th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
OK, now I read the whole thing.
Wow! David R. Usher. You sure know your politics. Why don’t some of these parties start programs like NZ is and other countries that are taking on men’s issues.
Another one is subsidising sports for boys and programs for youth males. Fatherlessness at least should be an election issue.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Couldn’t read the whole thing. David you are behind the times.
When I started a single parent trust the council was concerned about a membership fee because poor women could not afford it.
Funny thing, single mothers are not that often poor. So much money has been spent on training them in skills that they are earning more than their ex partners.
This in turn has boosted single mother’s egos and they enjoy careers alongside being mothers. This in turn has created a greater want to share the parenting with the father.
This in turn allows the father to also enjoy the new programs being set in place to build his skills for work and parenting.
The council in my area was shocked also when I told them that we had as many single fathers as mothers since many women are opting out of caring for the children and fathers are enjoying it. Also they were shocked to see the lack of poverty.
Don’t underestimate a leader who knows the ghetto.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:28 am
[...] R. Usher, writing at MND: America’s most urgent home-front problem went entirely unaddressed at both the Democratic [...]
September 5th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Hillary is without question first on Obama’s Supreme Court short list. There is nothing else that could possibly buy her Presidential aspirations off. It is the only chit that could secure her undying support and shut her mouth (and Bill’s too).
An SC seat would give her far more power than the presidency for the rest of her life, put her in a position where nobody could stop her, and she could walk away from the political messes that keep haunting her.
If you study how Obama rose to power in Illinois, and even secured the strong support of the second-generation Chicago Daley machine (which did not like him), you will see this is exactly what Obama has mapped out.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Hillary as supreme court appointee?
Didn’t she actually fail her first bar exam?
Is this who would be a supreme court justice?
September 5th, 2008 at 9:59 am
poiuyt,
The ill-will among men is the result of feminism, which brought up boys and scared men into only trusting feminists, using sex, beration, and “making the personal political” to make them do it. Even many religious and “traditional” men fall for this trick.
The men’s and larger conservative movement remains an inconsistent mess because it is comprised of three groups, two of them tremendously problematic. I am in the first, the “problem solvers” group. There aren’t many of us — but we are the ones who are seen as leaders by the majority. We view the mess from the high-level, call it like it is, and identify policy changes that will put America back on track.
Then there are men and women who still “think” feminist, and who blame men (or other men)for what happened to them. They can’t trust women, but are completely unable to trust men either (I get attacked by these folks a lot).
Last, there are a lot of men who, instead of attacking feminism for what it is, either hate or distrust all women. These are guys who are fatally angry over their divorces and attempt to get their anger out on MND and elsewhere by attacking women. Feminists stop our agenda by pointing out the woman-haters, and then nobody wants to listen to us. These guys need to stop taking it personally, let go of all that anger and turn it into love, and start working on the larger issues for the benefit of everyone (please note that few women are truly happy with their lot in the welfare nation).
The agenda and methodology feminists developed to convert men to feminists is discussed in great detail in many of the 1970’s second-wave books and writings. As we can see, it worked.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:45 am
David
Great analysis.
Anyone exposed to the Family Law system, immediately realizes that none of it is Constitutional. It would be refreshing to elect a president who would immediately endeavor to defend the Constitution as soon as he took the oath of office. Immediately repeal all laws that are foreign to our Constitution and restore our confidence in government.
“Surviving the Globalist Currency Wars by rebooting America”
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/08/04/surviving-the-globalist-currency-wars-by-rebooting-america/
September 5th, 2008 at 9:37 am
‘Tis not in the attitude of males to females in or without of marriage wherin our problems lie, but in our attitude to ourselves as men. Men whom have forsaken their sons and fathers for a theoretical ideal in a way women will never of their daughters and mothers.
And no, it isnt an abberation of politics or policy this dysfuction of marriage and the family, but one amongst many other comming consequential conclusions of ill-will amongst men.