In her column this week, “Goodbye, America! It was fun while it lasted“, Ann made a major factual error suggesting that welfare reform resulted in greatly reduced illegitimacy — our social problems resolved.

This rumor has been running in conservative circles for years.  It is a dangerously self-defeating old-wives tale preventing them from realizing what they missed in welfare reform — the marriage-positive aspects.

This is one reason why Republicans keep losing elections: they have no positions on social issues.

Why would she do this? Because she gets about eight times more welfare than women who merely shake down the welfare system one kid at a time.  The mother admitted she did it because she “got paid for it“.   In addition to a load of welfare the mother is entitled to, the sperm donor will be facing a whacking child support order if his identity is known. This forgets to mention that she wants $2M from Oprah for an interview.

Why does Congress continue expansions of federal policy entitling predatory economic demolition of marriage? Why do pro-life conservatives tacitly support the welfare state – imagining this reduces abortion?

Entitling irresponsible conception only brings on another round of helpless pregnant women who often change their mind and get an abortion anyway. Women interested in marriage are not interested in abortion. Entitling illegitimacy only guarantees the obsolescence of marriage, drives abortion, expands public funding of feminist agenda, and creates more votes for radical liberals.

The final defeat of the ERA June 30,1982 did not mark an end to the pogrom of feminist activism. It just meant feminists had to change their game. Instead of demanding vague equal rights, they began hawking hyper-sexist victim-fear campaigns designed to achieve the same ends targeted in the ERA. The 2008 elections prove this chicanery has been horrendously successful.

Post-ERA Lesbians and gays magically became victims of their genetic proclivities and supposed oppressors. Feminists began to make allegations of sexual improprieties against anyone who disagreed with them — blackmailing politicians into granting feminists the very economic rights, civil unions, and same-sex marriages that brought the ERA down.

“Trapped” housewives fearfully excommunicated themselves from the safe-haven of marriage, convinced that husbands are unnecessary rapists or abusers. A woman’s right to be supported and cared for by her husband became an ongoing public entitlement burden to be supported by Congress and screaming taxpayers.  The mutilated beggar children highlighted in Slumdog Millionaire have their American counterparts — leveraged away from one or both parents by feminist policy and then used to beg for more marriage-destructive entitlements.

Post-ERA feminist legal scams such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) were marched through Congress by feminist trial lawyers in 1996. The legal trade profits immensely by destroying the marriages and futures of America’s women. VAWA destroys marriage on allegation alone. This is why lawyers in Congress (on both sides of the aisle) automatically pass anything that A.B.A. feminists want.

A very convincing body of evidence proves that the American Bar Association’s approach to domestic violence is founded on feminist agitprop, and directly violates peer-reviewed science. [i]^[ii] And, an overwhelming body of scientific fact proves that VAWA does not reduce domestic violence.[iii]

The official A.B.A. “Standards of Practice For Lawyers Representing Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking” is a gross violation of ethics and Constitution. It consistently pre-declares the victim as “her”.[iv] Imagine, for a moment, what would happen if A.B.A. documents officially named victims “white” and criminals “black”?

$16-billion in TANF seed money is given to states to fertilize illegitimacy and divorce. States are rewarded for seizing it all back by locking up poor or unemployed fathers. Our jails are full of them. The vast majority of America’s 1-million gang members were raised absent marriage.

Why do Conservatives keep losing these battles, many of them fooled into supporting the feminist agenda? It is because post-ERA conservatives forgot how to fight feminism.

Recall that the ERA battle was won against all odds because Phyllis Schlafly constantly talked out how ERA would hurt women, in addition to pointing out the principles.  Most women (and politicians who fall over backwards to help women) ended up agreeing with Phyllis.  Modern conservatives and libertarians contest the principles only, and never get around to showing everyone how feminist agenda hurts women.

The result of Conservatives’ failure to stress the damaging consequences of feminist agenda is a nation of deeply troubled unmarried mothers, fathers, and children, who still think that feminist-liberalism is the answer.

The Republican party won the “family values” landslide in 1994 because of what those words actually meant to voters. Republicans essentially promised to end anti-marriage policies that have left about half of adult men and women and their children in great trouble.    

“Family Values” resonated wildly with a wide majority of voters. Today’s voters still know that their biggest problems — poverty, lack of health care coverage, child care problems, burgeoning gang-violence, crime, illegitimacy, home loan defaults, bankruptcy, and high taxes — are all somehow a consequence of marriage-absence.

Continuing Republican congressional losses cannot be reversed absent an aggressive focus on structural marriage and family issues. This focus must emphasize how feminist policies will continue harming men, women, and children, and continue customary education on the principles, and must offer attractive pro-marriage policies.

The optimal keywords to use in today’s politics are “Marriage Values”.  The issues registering at the top of political polls are all, truly, “Marriage Values” items. Legislative history proves that these problems cannot be resolved unless we address them at the causal source: marriage-absence:

Marriage-absence is the greatest social and economic problem America faces. Every one of our leading contemporary national problems arises substantially as a direct consequence of marriage-absence.

“Marriage Values” is the major and necessary component for restoration of our economy and banking system. The political game of ‘hot potato’ — passing the costs of marriage-absence onto to somebody else or sweeping it under the carpet — is over.

Economic conservatives must realize that applying trickle-down economics to social policy is a necessary prerequisite to stabilizing financial markets and balancing both state and federal budgets. Marriage-absence must be tracked just like we measure frictional unemployment — and social policies reshaped to reward marital responsibility. Entitled irresponsibility must be replaced with temporary help, just like we do with unemployment, via woman-friendly “Welfare to Marriage” policy changes.

“Marriage Values” policies Conservatives had not imagined in 1994 are now available. Policies that provide spouses necessary legal and support tools to improve their marriages will render feminist policies obsolete-in-place.

For example, proposed Missouri Family Violence Order (FIO) legislation will provide spouses with a powerful legal tool to make a substance-abusing partner choose between recovery or being ejected. 86% of serious domestic violence involves a spouse abusing drugs or alcohol. The vast majority of domestic violence and family conflict will disappear by addressing the problem at its source and many marriages saved by spouses.

According to Phyllis Schlafly (who stopped the ERA), FIO’s are a “wonderful idea”. She is right.

Another example of Marriage Values policy: Evidence strongly suggests that the A.B.A. has been behaving corruptly in family and financial law for many years. Large numbers of lawyers have been profitably planning and directing scams involving the financial industry, tax havens, oil trading, and family law. These scams have collectively brought America to its knees, while corporate Presidents, citizens and taxpayers bear the consequences. Unethical attorneys should not practice long enough to ruin America. The Bar is the only trade association in America with sole license to discipline itself. Lawyers must be disciplined by independent state commissions.

Politics have changed in the post-ERA era. To restore America’s ethical, economic and social dynamism to a level worthy of world leadership, two things must be done:

First: Feminism has controlled America for over forty years. During this time period, every social indicator measuring the well-being of women and children has declined substantially. Marriage remains the most likely safe haven for living the American dream. We must constantly remind women of this truth.

Second: Conservatives must formulate and aggressively socialize attractive pro-family “Marriage Values” policies, get them passed in the states, and later in Congress.

The National Organization for Women has a freight train of radical legislation set for passage. With über-feminists Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and the National Organization of Women running the White House, Congress fearfully passing anything feminists want, and 2010 another impending Waterloo, the RNC must make “Marriage Values” its top priority yesterday.

David R. Usher is President of the ACFC Missouri Coalition

[iv] American Bar Association, “Standards of Practice For Lawyers Representing Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking in Civil Protection Order Cases”; http://www.abanet.org/domviol/docs/StandardsCommentary.pdf

Our point was not to urge a boycott of the movie, but to do an informational picket at movie theaters everywhere reminding people that the movie was not a comedy — rather — it was the best documentary ever filmed on sexism in America.

As it turned out, a lot of people in media and the theaters we picketed agreed with us.  Some movie reviewers rated it that way.  You can see articles reporting our efforts in Time Magazine and the Washington Post (which agreed with us).

For those who have not seen “First Wives Club”, here is the basic plot line: Three women who have supposedly been abused by their husbands terrorize them, steal their money, kill their businesses, destroy their lives, and abuse them in just about every way imaginable.  The husbands in the movie are portrayed as nice guys who apparently never did anything wrong and are shocked at what is going on. 

First Wives Club is truly a sick attempt to popularize Valerie Solanis’s ultra-radical hate of men with a sour candy coating. It is raw sexism equivalent to views once held by the Ku Klux Klan towards blacks.

Our protesting was quite successful.  The movie did not last long in the theaters, despite the huge opening. The uproar caused Universal to cancel the sequel which was already scripted and headed to pre-production.

Unfortunately, theatrical feminists in San Diego have not learned their lesson.  The Old Globe Theater is resurrecting a theatrical version of this diatribe, opening July 15 and running through August 23.

We need a dedicated group of activists in the San Diego area to contact the Globe management, express these truths, and then leaflet the dickens out of the Globe every possible night educating the public about the indefensible hate this play attempts to profit from.

The only difference between racism and sexism is the target of hate. Anybody who thinks hate is funny needs a good lesson in their face until they get it right.

There are libraries of misdirected books essentially covering downstream problems predominantly driven by marriage-absence, which include poverty for women and children, lack of health care, the home-loan crisis, youth problems in education, and the unsuccessful shuffling of resulting deficits from one place to another.  A remarkable portion of political corruption America is now experiencing is rooted in feminist abuses of power and the misdirection of federal funds in an attempt to conceal the marriage-absence problem.  None of these books are useful to the reader, for they start with the downstream problem and leave us with little more than a nasty overdose of adrenaline an paranoia.

Here is a short list of books I recommend for Christmas or holiday presents to your loved ones and family.  We cannot save America, but we can save ourselves and loved ones.  I know many men whose parents or relatives do not believe what we say about the predatory divorce, welfare, and child support systems.  There are many men who have justifiably given up on marriage for a variety of reasons and are “going their own way”.  Let us focus on our own betterment and survival during the coming period of American political, economic, and social upheaval.  Perhaps you can change somebody’s life with one of these books.

Taken Into Custody, by Dr. Stephen Baskerville: This book is the most thorough existing scholarly work documenting how feminism and governmental systems work perversely and gratuitously destroying the institution of marriage to the tragic detriment of women, men, children, and America.  It is fascinating reading particularly for those involved in politics and who are interested in the details about how things work.  Relatives, parents, and politicians will have completely different perspectives about the nature of the divorce problem after reading this book.  If you are a newly-divorced father, this is the first book you should buy — you will know that you were not singled out.  Millions of good husbands thrown out of their families every year because the system strongly encourages and entitles women to make bad decisions, which later come back to haunt them too.

How to Cut America’s Divorce Rate in Half: A Strategy Every State Should Adopt, by Mike McManus:  Mike is the most outspoken and effective mover and shaker in the pro-marriage movement.  He founded Marriage Savers, the most aggressive pro-marriage organization in America.  Like myself, he sees attacking the downstream effects a useless endeavor.  Community Marriage Programs (CMP’s) are far more than simple education programs.  CMP’s are effective, and Mike has a proven track record doing it.  If you want change in your state, this is an excellent book to use as a legislative and activist guideline.

Save the Males, by Kathleen Parker:  This first-rate book covers the same breadth of topical issues as Baskerville’s book Taken Into Custody, but is more conversational and less of an academic documentary.  It is an excellent read for those who those who need to develop a fundamental understanding without knowing all the details.  I have known Kathleen for years.  She is one of the first major syndicated writers who took on feminists rigorously in her daily work, and nearly lost her day job doing the right thing.  “Save the Males” is a particulary witty (and even funny) work — an astonishing accomplishment for such a painful subject — but the wit always goes towards making a very serious and convincing point.

The Myth of Male Power, by Warren Farrell, Ph.D. [topic summary]:  This historic book is a great read for those who do not understand the tremendous damage feminism has done to America.   Warren should know.  He was once a counselor and Vice President of N.O.W. New York, who walked away from feminism upon discovering that feminist psychology was a system of organized abuse demanding husbands cower in the corner and be doormats for their women or girlfriends.  Warren changed sides, and lost a lucrative career doing the right thing.  The Myth of Male Power is easy reading, and explains why many feminist myths about male power, income, fatherhood, abuse, and other issues are ironical falsehoods.

The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women, by Marc Rudov.  Let’s face it: one reason marriage is on the rocks is because nobody teaches men how to spot a good woman, or what to do when you find one.  Marc is the leading national media pro-male pundit, and a regular on Fox New’s Fridays with Bill O’Reilly and Neal Cavuto.  Nobody can leave a feminist with zero points in a debate better than Marc can. In this book, Marc shoots straight from the hip, and lays it all out cold.   If you are the kind of guy who always picks dysfunctional women, and want what most men want, this book is exactly what you need for Christmas.

10 Stupid Things Couples Do To Mess Up Their Relationships, and 10 Stupid Things Men Do To Mess Up Their Lives, by Dr. Laura Schlessinger.   Dr. Laura is reviled by feminists for her no-nonsense, unfeminist psychological positions.   Couples can give each other a wonderful present with the Relationships book to dig out and discard common marriage-destructive behaviors.  “10 Stupid Things Men Do” is a straight-shooting non-feminist guide that will help Men be a more solid bedrock marital partner.  Men who grew up without a father, or who would rather not find out how a marriage doesn’t work the hard way, really need this book for Christmas.

Love Life for Every Married Couple, by Dr. Ed Wheat:  This excellent book is ideal for couples who are bored with marriage or are not experiencing a spiritual sense of joy.  It can be useful in conjunction with addiction recovery programs and counseling helping spouses grow out of relationship problems, providing both spouses are willing or motivated to grow positively.  This book is not a substitute for dealing with serious personal or relationship problems, or a wayward spouse who is hell bent on pursuing selfish interests.  Love Life is has become a standard Christian work.  It is quite positive and spiritual in nature, but is written in a manner that couples of other religions can apply effectively.

Save the Males: It’s About Time, by Richard Doyle: Rich has been a leader of the men’s movement since the early 1960’s, and founded The Liberator, which has been published continuously since the 1960’s )I served as a section editor for the Liberator for a while).  Rich has perhaps the best historical view of men’s issues and the movement itself.  In the book, Rich identifies the source problem of feminism, and goes into some analytical depth covering the negative impact of welfare, child support, and the system on marriage.  This book is useful for recently divorced men who take their situation personally, and who don’t understand they are just one of millions similarly disposed of.  If you want a scholarly work that has more historical depth than Kathleen Parker offers, but without as much detail as Baskerville’s book, this is a great choice.

_______________________________________________

David R. Usher is President of the ACFC Missouri Coalition

[Author's Note: Over the years I have read many fine books by many authors, many of whom I know personally.  If your book is not listed in this piece, please do not take it negatively.  This piece is dedicated to recommending a very short list of books that can help people the most.]

Saturday, November 15^th marks a day of hateful community-organized demonstrations, and predictable violence as well. Already, we have seen an old lady with a Cross beaten, hateful slogans plastered all over Mormon Churches, police cars damaged, and queer advocates baiting people into physical altercations to make themselves look good.

Blacks know precisely why the queer marriage movement’s demands are fatally disingenuous. “It’s not a civil rights issue, because as African-Americans we can’t change the color of our skin,” said pastor Edward Smith, who supported the ban on gay marriage. That is why 70% of California blacks voted for proposition 8.

The language of queer marriage movement is as shifty as the Arabic sands. They claim homosexuality is purely genetic, but elsewhere preen young people to “choose” being a homosexual. They want to inculcate kindergartners by taking them on school field trips to witness lesbian marriages. They say they want “gay marriage”, but litigate strenuously for laws that let any two human beings marry regardless of sexual orientation.

The queer marriage movement is indeed a hate movement targeting everything heterosexual. We are known as “breeders”. Marilyn French, an advisor to Al Gore’s presidential campaign, believes that “All men are rapists and that’s all they are.” Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan insisted, “I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.” Gloria Steinem (who was sidelined by feminists for not being radical enough) believed that “The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women.”

Why do feminist leaders, who for forty years have erupted rivers of hate for marriage and husbands, now desperately want the entire socioeconomic institution of marriage for themselves? Why are they so hateful in their protesting to encourage the California Supreme Court to block Proposition 8?

In the January, 1988 issue of the N.O.W. Times, radical feminist oracle Sheila Cronan had a featured inset that speaks volumes: “The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.” At the 1988 N.O.W convention in Houston, Cronin declared; “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage’.

Why would N.O.W. expect all women to pretend they are lesbians and fully devote themselves towards achieving a goal that only a few lesbians want? Why would N.O.W litigate vociferously for gay men while continuing to do everything possible to destroy the social rights of heterosexual men?

“Heather has two mommies” explains it all. It is a feminist vision for taking over the economic institution of marriage and the social institution of family (men cannot be parents outside marriage, unless they go to great lengths to adopt). Billions in federal social entitlement seed money is already available to feminists to buy out the marriage market, beginning with $16-billion in TANF block grants to states every year. This is why two-thirds of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts involve women – whose sexual preference is unknown.

N.O.W. cares nothing about gay men. It is using them as political fools to make SSM appear “gender neutral”. Gay men would receive little out of marriage. For them, marriage is largely an illusion masking a treatable and healable sexual disorder that is often disabling or fatal: gay men have 800% more sexual partners than heterosexual men. Like hetero men, gay men will be sucked dry for child support, but more stiffly be denied parental rights because they are gay.

It is astonishing that gay men imagine N.O.W. is really working for them. Heterosexual men thought the feminist equal rights movement (since the 1970’s) stood for equality, and strongly supported it, until they found out personally what it means via a bankrupting surprise divorce or impossible child support order.

Indeed, same sex marriage would result in severe societal stratification. It would place dual-female marriages-of-socioeconomic-convenience at the top of the socioeconopolitical diaspora, heterosexual marriages in the middle, and gay men at the very bottom.

In 1970, noted feminist author Shulamith Firestone issued a firebrand call predicting the demise of heterosexual marriage and the subsequent rise of the feminist same-sex marriage movement we see today:

“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.”

Now, I turn the tables on feminists, proving that what they want cannot be a Constitutional right:

“Heterosexual marriage is the only institution that fully and naturally erases all physical, economic, social, elective, legally-imposed, and culturally-imposed differences that exist between women and men. It is the only institution that harnesses the entire human race to work hard together and raise children in prosocial manner. It is the only institution that naturally assures everyone equal rights of every description regardless of race, sex, or creed. It is the whole cloth establishing one cooperative human race. Same-sex marriage cannot be constitutional because it would be the antithesis of equality structurally magnifying every tangible difference and disparity that exists between women and men, segregating marriages into at least three obviously dissimilar classes (female-female, heterosexual, and male-male), each with substantively different social, economic, and legal rights at law and public policy.”

This declaration of fact is easily proven by first pointing out that Roe v. Wade gives women exclusive control over reproduction and surrounding decisions. This precedent immediately translates into a strong or unilateral presumption assigning females custody of children, together with the social institution of family and the rights, privileges, protections, and social welfare benefits thereto; even in the elective absence of marriage. The list of downstream family law statistical citations proving how the sexes are treated vastly differently, on the basis of sex alone, is nearly endless and manifestly evident in all aspects of family law and social policy.

Where the sexes are unquestionably treated differently before law in all these matters, an elective marriage between two women and another elective marriage between two men would facially enjoy vastly dissimilar rights, benefits, and protections. Both would be unreasonably burdened with tremendously different responsibilities and sanctions before the law, regardless of sexual orientation of participants in elective gender-segregated marriages.

Where women have automatic control of children absent marriage, and would have chattel ownership of children borne into elective same-sex marriages, men’s ability to be parents and to participate in the very fabric of society would be fully abrogated; while men would be required to economically support feminist marriages via an arrangement not dissimilar to indentured servitude.

Same sex marriages are therefore not equivalent or similarly situated for the purpose of asserting an equal rights claim of action on which high courts could justify issuance of broad orders forcing states to perform or recognize “same sex marriage”. Rather, the above analysis suggests that courts must ban same sex marriage, on its face, to protect fundamental constitutional equal rights of men and women.

George Washington was married without a state marriage license, as was everyone else back then. The Constitution was written intending for Churches to have exclusive control of marriage – protected as a fundamental right. Marriage did not fall under the purvue of the state in any way. In the mid 1800’s some states began requiring marriage licenses for interracial marriages as a way to track miscegenation and discourage the practice. In 1923, the federal government enacted the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act. By 1929, all states required marriage licenses.

Courts have dramatically seized incremental powers over marriage for states and trial lawyers to gratuitously manipulate, initially by giving the state sole control over divorce. With the passage of time, the notion of the separation between church and state has far exceeded its original dubious intent, and it being abused as a predatory devise. Feminists are now demanding courts seize control of marriage itself, at the complete disenfranchisement of Church.

Feminists have nearly fooled America into handing the institution of marriage over to them lock, stock, and barrel. The impact of this would be additionally as devastating to America as the feminist-inspired divorce and entitled-illegitimacy revolutions were.

Few thought that the divorce revolution would have a major impact on society or government. We now know that the impact has devastated state and federal budgets, created two generations of impoverished women and children, and a nation of disaffected men living on the fringes of society who cannot be responsible for their families because they are arbitrarily denied the fundamental right to be husbands and fathers. Many are brought up with no social proscript other than “getting by”, playing video games, virtual relationships, and “shacking up”.

Politicians have the audacity to call them “deadbeat dads”, while mainstream television portrays them as idiots and jerks. I cannot imagine how it is possible for most boys to become mature, healthy adults in this contemporary diaspora. Images are powerful. Discrimination against boys in public education and the substituting of Ritalin for proper recreation and education is widespread. Boys brought up rarely seeing positive futures for themselves, while drugged with speed in school, will likely become intergenerational reflections of their massively abusive upbringing, with downward pressures on future generations.

We must recognize now that, if permitted, same sex marriage will become commonplace within two generations, causing serious compound socioeconomic problems. No large country has survived for long absent a strong institution of heterosexual marriage. Rome and the former U.S.S.R. are two primary examples that went morally, and subsequently economically bankrupt.

We cannot afford to roll over when barraged with terroristic admonitions uttered by hateful feminists. We will stand our ground. We will not sit on out thumbs or back down. Let us talk about it directly and factually. Let feminists isolate themselves as the radicals they truly are. Let us show them the door, as they walk their own gangplank right into the Pacific ocean.

————————————————-

David R. Usher is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

J.P. Morgan Chase’s money is being misused  by The Family Place to build egregious and unscientific hate of men and fathers in the minds of women, children, and even other men.

So Ulf did what an intelligent man would do.  He pulled his retirement funds from J.P. Morgan and placed them elsewhere.

This advertising campaign is not only hate of men, it bears hate of afro-Americans as well.   The greatest danger of the DART campaign is that it builds the false notion that children are safer in the custody of mothers.

An analysis¹ of the data in the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services Child Maltreatment reports from 2001-2006, shows that:

70.8% of children killed by one parent are killed by their mothers!
70.6% of children abused by one parent are abused by their mothers!
60% of the victims are boys!

Last week, Glenn Sacks² and Ned Holstein³ notified the public that for the month of October, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) has plastered billboards all over its buses, promoting the falsehood that only men ever commit domestic violence.

See the pictures below:

Now, let everyone draw this bank down to the ground. In addition to withdrawing your funds, please contact Elaine Agather, Chairman of Chase Bank, Dallas Region at elaine.agather@jpmorganchase.com.  Give her a firm but polite piece of your mind.

Let her know that:

• 71% of children killed by one parent are killed by their mothers.⁵
• DART’s publicity campaign promoting the falsehood that women are always victims, never abusers, has the effect of promoting policies that will inevitably cause more child deaths.
• Since DART’s publicity campaign is already in progress, simply stopping the campaign will not undo the damage they’ve already done.
• The only way DART can undo the damage and save the lives of the children they’ve put at risk is for them to:
  
  1. Immediately take down all signs and billboards and stop all advertisement related to their current campaign, and
  2. Require the Family Place to allocate a budget equal to the budget for the current campaign, and run an equally prominent campaign to inform the public: “Fathers Are Best: 71% of children killed by one parent are killed by their mothers, and 60% of the dead children are boys.”  This might sound a bit aggressive, but it is necessary to correct the hateful attitudes inculcated by the current advertising campaign.

—————————–

David R. Usher is President of the ACFC Missouri Coalition

It also marks the collapse of the Republican Party as it was.  There will be a massive purge of party machine heads, who will be replaced with leaders more amenable to working on real conservative economic and social “Marriage Values” programs.   I met with Missouri party leaders over the past couple of weeks, and a few tonight as well.  Most Republican leaders I have spoken with are ready to pick up the pieces and restart the Republican revolution, and do it right this time.  The ears are open, and they are looking for answers.

This passage of same-sex marriage bans in Florida, Arizona, and apparently California speaks volumes. How could “conservative” legislation win, while radical liberalism swept away Congress and the Presidency?   Because America is, at its core, far less liberal than  federal elections might suggest.

Republicans lost (again) because they failed to deliver pro-social reforms they promised in 1994.  When Republicans won the 1994 landslide, they had few actual policy ideas of their own, so they adopted Democrat ideas and put Democrats in charge of most social issues committees (such as Wellstone and Biden).  This further stimulated illegitimacy.  Even more women fell into poverty, have to “do it all”, and work full time as well. The numbers of women on welfare rolls declined only because single mothers also must work full time.  This left more children neglected or raised by kids down the street, resulting in higher rates of teen incarceration, drug use, crime, poor school performance, and illegitimacy.  There are few voters trapped in this system who are happy.  Republicans got it between the eyes on November 4th.

Republicans were also blamed for the home loan and banking collapse, which again was caused by liberal Democrat home-loan policies that Republicans did not fight hard enough.  George W. Bush is being held responsible for all these problems, despite the fact he was nowhere near Washington when legislation creating these problems was passed by Congress.

Obama won on anger, not because America has become radically liberal.  Obama captured the anger and the dreams, and Americans bought it.  Anger is the most dangerous of all human emotions, and it flowed out of millions of ballot boxes on November 4th.  The same thing happens to the first person standing in front of a pack of angry bulls.

Analysis of the Same-sex marriage issue is an excellent opportunity to realize a much broader set of emerging conservative social policy directions based on a solid combination of “Marriage Values” social and economic policies positively addressing problems at the source in ways helpful to women, men, children, the economy, and the taxpayer.

Many conservatives and liberals complain intensely about the problems that radical feminists wrought via the divorce revolution.  Conservatives never discovered firm political or policy ground to get in front of feminists.  The problems grew tremendously since 1965.  We still have not yet found productive politics and policies to unwind this problem to let womena and men have what most of them want and need.

In the mid-1980’s feminists launched “gay marriage” as a victim-class attempt to feminize marriage entirely.  Female-female marriage places feminists in full Supremacist control of the nuclear family and child-rearing.  Their idea is to leave men with no constitutional rights to be a part of legitimate society, and to render them nothing more than servant to the established child support (nee welfare) state.   “Gay marriage” victimology always expands into “same-sex” marriage when N.O.W. shows up to impose their agenda on unwitting courts or legislatures, because N.O.W. has always been out to accomplish much more than permitting lesbians to marry each other.

Here is the plain-earth secular Marriage Values analysis that conservatives failed to recognize and apply in court cases they lost:

Heterosexual marriage is the only institution that fully erases all physical, economic, social, and culturally-imposed differences between women and men.  It is the only institution that harnesses the entire human race to work hard together and raise children in prosocial manner.  It is the only institution that naturally assures everyone equal rights of every description regardless of race, sex, or creed.  Same-sex marriage is the polar antithesis of equality because it maximizes every tangible disparity that exists between women and men.

The above analysis predicts that same-sex marriage would be much more attractive to feminists than men.  Massachusetts has been permitting same-sex marriages since 2004, and is the only state with enough historical data to study.  80% of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts involve females, and only 20% involve males.  This is precisely what a social and economic cost/benefit analysis predicts: men get little or nothing out of marrying each other.

Like the ERA, same-sex marriage is a equal-rights trojan horse.  It must be stopped. The greatest socioeconomic problems are still caused by the feminist-inspired divorce revolution.  The immediate and downstream costs to women, children, men, and the taxpayer are horrendous. We see them reflected every day in the media .. the plight of dissatisfied heroic single mothers; children abused or neglected, children in trouble, and “deadbeat dads” whose crime is often that they, too, are poor or underemployed.

These problems cannot be impacted by subsequently turning the entire institution of marriage over to feminists.  Major contemporary problems such as poverty, crime, teen pregnancy, child discipline, and massive welfare outlays will abate only when the divorce revolution itself is unwound, federal programs modified, and heterosexual marriage once again becomes the most advantageous route to success for all Americans.

When Republicans finally realize the vast importance of enacting solid “Marriage Values” policies, America will stand a chance of realizing what Republicans promised in 1994.  Proposed policies include a “Welfare to Marriage” transition, effective prevention of family violence, marital discord, social violence, child abuse, and traffic fatalities via programs that apply the courts to help responsible spouses get a drug or alcohol-abusing spouse into treatment and recovery.  Marriage Values policies will ensure that marital responsibility is always rewarded in the event of divorce or unwed childbirth, and marital irresponsibility always gets shown the door.

Far fewer Americans will become trapped in the tragically problematic diaspora of marriage-absence when federal programs expect and reward marital responsibility, and no longer bait Americans into making very bad choices that harm themselves and their children.

The passage of same-sex marriage bans will help keep the liberal core of radical feminism in check during the next few years.  The divorce revolution should be held in check.  Feminists will not be able to convert the discontent of single mothers into “female-female” marriage.

In the meantime, we must rebuild conservative values from the ground up, beginning with a refocusing on the fundamental tenets of social conservatism, capturing what was not realized during the Reagan era, recognizing that pro-marriage reforms are a prerequisite to the success of economic plans within a balanced budget.

The discontent of single mothers and disenfranchised fathers will be unresolved and continue to fester under Obama.  We must act, preparing the Republican party to apply this massive energy towards winning a second Republican landslide, based on Marriage Values, with a sound set of social and free-marriage-market economic policies ready to enact upon victory.

Obama is a wild card.  Nobody knows his history, what he has done, and what is positions really are because they have either been locked down or not released.

Warning: there is a reason why people hide their histories.  There is a lot of stuff there they don’t want you to know about.

Here is a list of what we do NOT know about Obama.  If you are willing to trust a slick orator who hides his past, you will get everything you didn’t vote for.

1. Occidental College records — Not released
2. Columbia College records — Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — not available, locked down by faculty
4. Harvard College records — Not released, locked down by faculty
5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
6. Medical records — Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘not available’
8. Law practice client list — Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate – - Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper ‘Certification of Live Birth’ –Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published — None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
13. Record of baptism– Not released or ‘not available’ [ or non-existent?]
14. Illinois State Senate records–’not available’

Now, here is one thing we do know about Mr. Obama. He seems to feel that the gutter belongs in the White House.

Now, here is one thing we do know about Mr. Obama. He seems to feel that the gutter belongs in the White House.  That is why he gave John McCain the “finger” in a speech today, and why he did the same to Hillary too.

What is the substance of a man who refuses to reveal his history and makes obscene gestures at people he disagrees with in very public speeches?  How will he conduct himself in less-public situations where his actions cannot be known to the public?  Does this behavior deserve elevation to the highest office of the land?

The future of America under Obama, and particularly foreign relations, is indeed a frightful thought.

David R. Usher is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

]]> http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/11/03/obamas-history-missing-wyswnyg/feed/ 3 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/11/01/mccain-why-we-must-elect-a-non-lawyer/ http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/11/01/mccain-why-we-must-elect-a-non-lawyer/#comments Sun, 02 Nov 2008 07:43:51 +0000 David R. Usher http://mensnewsdaily.com/?p=82880 The State of Florida has a very interesting Constitutional provision, one that should be expanded to include the federal level: Lawyers are not permitted to run for non-judicial offices.

The Separation of Powers Doctrine forms a delicate balance. The Judicial, Executive, and Administrative branches should operate independently of each other, with nothing invisibly orchestrating the three.

To the extent that lawyers have invaded the Administrative and Executive branches, often terrorizing non-lawyers by abusing their law degrees and threatening to sue people they do not like, America has become a legal dictatorship operated by the American Bar Association (which happens to be headquartered on Chicago’s Michigan Boulevard, in Barack Obama’s back yard).

This does not suggest that lawyers are bad people. It reflects the truth that when any trade association can arbitrarily control nations or the world, the outcome will necessarily become evil and perverse, as predicted in Scott Peck’s book “People Of the Lie”. [i]

The American Bar Association and the various state Bar Associations have demonstrated vast hegemony controlling all state institutions, often overtly applying outrageous unconstitutional standards of practice and opinions about how America will be run.

Take for example the Violence Against Women Act, which happens to be Joe Biden’s favorite hobby that is sponsored by Barack Obama’s biggest political supporters – feminists.

Many billions have been spent in the name of “ending violence against women”. But domestic violence has not abated. Why? Because VAWA funds feminists to destroy marriage according to the feminist dictates of the 1970’s, and little of the money is used to help women living in violence. Secondly, VAWA does not permit one nickel to be spent where women are the violent partner, which statistically is half of all cases.

The ABA expressly endorses VAWA, despite the fact that the official ABA Standards of Practice document expressly and unconstitutionally predeclares the petitioner as female and the defendant as male. [ii] VAWA is nothing less than “Uncle Tom” with a feminist law license.

In support of radical destruction of marriage by socialist-feminists, at tremendous profit to trial lawyers, A.B.A. President William H. Neukom urges more funding for VAWA legal services! [iii]

The Bar is the only trade association in America permitted to discipline itself exclusively. It controls the majority of activities of both federal and state Legislative, Administrative, and Judicial branches from one office building in Chicago, Illinois.

Barack Obama, a slick Harvard lawyer, has expressly declared his intent to eviscerate the Constitution and courts to become handmaidens for mob rule founded on gross personal irresponsibility:

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he [Obama] said: “[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra ….

He also noted that the Court “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.” That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government — and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.[iv]

Bob Bertrand, a gentleman who works with http://judicialaccountability.org, attended a McCain book-signing event at a book store in Florida not long ago. Bertrand was handing out bumper stickers saying “Don’t Vote For Lawyers”. McCain asked the book store manger to let Bertrand hand them out inside the store, and even invited Bertrand to meet with him privately later. McCain thanked Bertrand for his work.

In addition to being a power-lawyer who openly practices the murder of free speech via scurrilous tort suits and community-organized prosecutorial assaults, Obama runs closely with Marxist-feminists. Marxist-feminists are the primary historical source of all anti-marriage and anti-religious policies, such as abortion, no-fault divorce, illegitimacy entitlements, legalized suicide, sexual liberation, gay rights, and gay marriage.

Let us not elevate a power-hungry male Marxist-feminist to the Presidency on Tuesday.

While McCain is not the ideal candidate we were looking for, he is not a lawyer or a card-carrying feminist. McCain will not send America into Constitutional anarchy driven by ACORN and its radical sister organizations who believe that that Saul Alinksy is God.

American feminist-socialists are presently drooling at the prospect of enacting the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which will permit them to dictate American policy from law offices overseas. We must not turn the Constitution over to A.B.A. globalist legal dictators.

On Tuesday, let us vote for John McCain, the only candidate who will prevent the American Bar Association from turning America over to globalist Star-Chamber lawyers in Geneva and Brussels.

————————————————-

David R. Usher is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

Back then, this folk tale was sheer silliness falling far outside the American reality.  Shockingly, on Tuesday we might just elevate a radical Chicago slum-entitlement lawyer to the Presidency, from whence radical socialist methodology would be practiced forcefully, and at the afore-stated destruction of the Constitution.

“Down East Socialism”

“Eben Robey went down to the Tremont Temple in Boston to hear Norman Thomas speak. When he come back he was out preachin’ socialism ‘cross the back fence to Enoch Turner.

“You know, Enoch,” Eben was sayin’, “under socialism everybody shares everythin’”.

“Is that so?”

“Ayuup.”

“You mean to tell me, Eben, that if you had 2 fahms and I had none, you’d give me one of ‘em?”

“Ayup. Under socialism I’d give you one of ‘em.”

“And if you had two hay rigs?

“Under socialism, if I had two hay rigs and you had none, I’d give you one of ‘em.”

“Well, Eben, suppose you had two hogs?”

“Damn you, Enoch! You know I got two hogs.”

————————————————-

David R. Usher is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

I have written many articles nipping at Republicans for completely failing to address federal social policies destroying marriage in America. McCain gave social conservatives the coldest of all shoulders in this regard.

However, his shortcomings pale in comparison to Obama. We have all heard that Obama’s best friends to this day are feminists, Marxists, white-haters, and revolution-for-the-hell-of-it bomb-slingers and constitutional anarchists. A fair amount of this is actually true in the present-day sense.

Sure we are mad at Bush for some things. Much of our anger should be directed at Congress – from whence legislation flows.  The vast majority of insane federal social legislation was created by Democrats (while Republicans often avoided the issues).

We are very upset about the breakdown of our financial systems triggered by the home loan crisis. To this end, McCain deserves very high marks: he opposed loose loan legislation enacted by Democrats giving home loans to the poor, unemployed, and single mothers who simply cannot afford them.

But these are all externals. They have little impact on responsible Americans who work hard and do not live on credit.

We must look forward to titrate the future consequences of our vote. After a great deal of contemplation, it seems my vote boils down to one thing: my inheritance.

In 2010, the moratorium on the death tax is set to expire. Everyone with an inheritance, particularly if it is bigger than a breadbox, should vote for McCain.

Obama has lowered the bar several times in his speeches on taxation. He started out taxing folks that make more than $350,000. In just four weeks time, that amount has dropped to $120,000. It will quickly evaporate to include just about anyone over a poverty-level income.

That’s Obama’s theme – Marxist redistribution — mob rule modeled on Chicago south-side Daley-machine ward scumbags who never worked a day in their lives (and on weekends hang out in holy-rolling white-hating welfare churches elevating personal irresponsibility into an excusable religion).

If McCain is President, we are far more likely to see the death tax moratorium extended or made permanent. I cannot envision McCain vetoing such legislation.

So, unless you want to throw away half your inheritance to irresponsible people who for years have had every choice and affirmation to change their lives but do not, vote for McCain.

And, if you want to preserve the inheritance intended for your children, so you can retire and still have something left to give them, vote McCain.

Obama claims that us hard-working Americans are selfish for not wanting to entitle sloth and personal irresponsibility. May I remind His Highness that the consequences for one’s slothful actions are not a punishment meted by those who chose to work and save.

Do not be distracted by the externals. Vote your pocketbook. While McCain leaves much to be desired, he’s still the best choice.

————————————————-

David R. Usher is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

Apple just announced dedicated support for same-sex marriage, and a donation of $100,000 to kill Proposition 8 in California:

“No on Prop 8

October 24, 2008

Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.” [i]

Gay marriage (actually “same-sex” marriage as the courts in three states have ordered) is not about equality. Civil rights do not rise from human behavior, especially behaviors known to kill people in large numbers and impose tremendous medical costs on society.

I don’t care what people do in their bedrooms. That is their business and their problem. But when they claim this somehow imbues a right to marry, we all become very interested.

Now, absorb the following legal tenet I realized in 2002 a few times until the full scope of the meaning sinks in.

Heterosexual marriage is the only legal institution that absolutely erases all physical, reproductive, economic, social, and culturally-imposed differences that exist between men and women. Same-sex marriage magnifies all disparities to maximal proportion, and essentially leaves men with substantively diminished or non-existent social, parental economic, voting, and legal rights in a society founded on predatory feminist socioeconomic chivalry.

The National Organization for Women has litigated heavily for same-sex marriage since the mid-80s. They desperately want it because they know damned well that when any two women can marry each other, feminist supremacy over family, children, and men’s incomes is assured; women having all the rights and no responsibilities to men, with women liberated absolutely from men.

Same-sex marriage (SSM) is an unconstitutional, dangerous hyper-Marxist extension of Roe v. Wade. Roe granted women absolute rights to their bodies, extending to the point of killing live babies. SSM extends this absolute right to fully subrogate the institution of heterosexual marriage to the heavy hand of predatory feminist choices.

Feminists intend to empower women to take over the institution of marriage, have as many lover children and sexual enounters as they want with whatever hot studs suits their fancy, collect child support and various welfare entitlements every step of the way.

When women learn they can marry their college roommate, keep their two incomes entirely, and get as many hefty child support orders, and welfare and S-Chip health care entitlements besides, there is no question this will happen in large numbers. Why would any woman marry a man, and have only two income sources and taxes, when she could marry another woman and have at least six sources of income, at least four of them being tax-free?

An average middle-class child support order is not a small sum. It amounts to an working income of at least $6.25 per hour salary for doing nothing but being a “custodial parent”. For four children this amounts to a tax-free working income of $24 per hour minimum.

Guess who pays this? Men who have no choice, except perhaps to marry other men for lack of marriage prospects; men who have no rights imbued under heterosexual marrage, but are mandated to assume most of the economic responsibilities.

This is why I call same-sex marriage the “penultimate system of predatory feminist chivalry”.

If San Francisco is shallow enough to decriminalize prostitution, prostitutes will simply marry each other and set out destroying men in every direction. Many women will take up prostitution for the additional benefits imbued: Very high incomes for short working hours. Married prostitute couples could easily make a minimum of $250,000 per year, plus at least $25,000 per year in child support, and retire into glam spinsterhood by age 35. With prospects like this, who needs to work, attend college, or make something of oneself?

Of course, married men will lose careers, jobs, and be ousted from politics when discovered fooling around with married prostitutes (whose marital fidelity will never be questioned). Where prostitution is considered a woman’s right, and a man’s wrong, there is no question who will dominate politics and policy in San Francisco.

Women cannot afford failure of Proposition 8. Any society comprised of large numbers of detached men, with no stake or rights in society, is guaranteed to be dangerous, nonproductive, and deficit-prone. Ask anybody trying to survive life in Oakland.

Now imagine expanding this to encompass the entire state of California.

Heterosexual marriage must be protected by Proposition 8. Advancement of the human race depends decisively on cooperation and equal legal, social, and parental rights for men and women. Heterosexual marriage is the only institution insuring this equality and a stable society for raising children into adulthood.

Vote “Yes” on Proposition 8!. In addition, drag out your old Smith Corona typewriter or hook up string between two bean cans before considering buying an Apple product.

————————————————-

David R. Usher is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

Unfortunately, United Way funds a very long list of radical feminist advocacy organizations — organizations that hurt us all.

MND is still a young and coming publication, one that does great work and no harm.  Those who wish to ensure that the leading online men’s and marriage movement publication grows should consider making a nice donation to MND instead of United Way.

UPDATE: MND also accepts checks or money orders. Please make your check out to “JAVA KING, INC.” (MND’s parent corporation) and send to:

JAVA KING, INC.
PMB 349, 16-540 Keaau Rd, Ste. 2
Keaau, HI
96749

PayPal You can also contribute via PayPal. Send PayPal payments to: paypal [at] mensnewsdaily.com

Click the subscribe button below to begin contributing $5/month…..

Or contribute any amount toward MND’s year-end fund raising goal…

————————————————-

David R. Usher is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

The Violence Against Women Act is a tremendously ineffective program that has demonstrated no impact on domestic violence. It suppressed men’s violence, but encouraged women’s violence by blaming all family discord on men and insulating women from responsibility for making false allegations.

VAWA is also the leading driver of predatory divorce and single motherhood. It is commonly used to peel men away from their marriages and children, replacing them with big feminist government.

Verizon’s approach to domestic violence crassly focuses solely on the “who” (men). We could as inappropriately blame men for the real estate crisis, global warming, the high cost of medical care, the stock market crash, and even old age itself.

The problem of domestic violence truly revolves around the scientific context of the “what”, and “why”, not the “who”. Correspondingly, Verizon’s approach is appallingly sexist and does not touch on the real causes of domestic violence or what should be done about it.

Verizon must fully understand that every credible major study indicates that men and women are equal initiators of both minor and serious domestic conflict. Policy that begins and ends with feminist trope is dangerous, destructive and drives tremendous abuses of marital, parental, and economic rights; and places innocent children in the custody of an abusive mother in about half of all divorces and cases of illegitimacy today.

The Verizon Foundation is heavily involved in the vast feminist conspiracy against men and marriage. Verizon spouts the leading feminist lies about domestic violence on its website.[i] Verizon has a domestic violence “HopeLine” on its Consumer web site proffering more tragic statistical lies about domestic violence. Verizon brags about giving $5.6 million, 60,000 wireless phones, and 180 million minutes to radical feminist advocacy organizations.

Verizon has been funding public domestic violence events with NFL Football teams such as the Buffalo Bills and the Atlanta Falcons. I doubt there would be a man on the field if the players realized that Verizon’s thrust is to blame them for all family disagreements and empower their wives to become millionaire spinsters without rhyme or reason.

Verizon sponsored the “National Domestic Violence Summit 2008” held in San Francisco.[ii] It recently gave $130,000 to radical feminist activists in Massachusetts.[iii]

Verizon’s has forced a similarly-sexist radical sex-indoctrination on 2,927 Corporate managers and countless employees.[iv] Good luck to the unlucky employees of Verizon. They need it.

In January, Verizon begged feminist activists[v] in Michigan to apply for free money to achieve the feminist dream of liberation from marriage and men.

There is no alleged fact on Verizon’s websites that has not been thoroughly debunked as flat-out lies. See the Respecting Accuracy In Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR) web site for the real truths about domestic violence.[vi]

How can Verizon entitle radical feminists when we know that 86% of serious domestic violence involves one or more spouses abusing mood-altering chemicals? [vii] Nothing has a higher causal correlation with domestic violence than abuse of mood altering chemicals. Both men and women abuse alcohol, drugs, and prescription drugs.

We must provide public tools to help responsible spouses perform family interventions to get sick spouses into treatment. Recovery rates in Betty Ford style treatment programs are about 70%. Few men and women want a divorce – they want and need their partner to get well. Living with the problem is not the answer either. Children raised in heterosexual married families fare far better than their peers in non-intact living arrangements. Children desperately need policies to help parents keep their marriages on track.

Under VAWA, divorce is the ordained result. In about half of cases, children end up being raised by a frustrated chemical-abusing mother, who has to “do it all” on less money. That is why at least two-thirds of serious and fatal child abuse and neglect is associated with single-mother households, and the lowest child abuse rates are associated with married and single-father households.

Why does Verizon insist on destroying the nearest man and the woman’s marriage instead of funding organizations who urge policy changes to provide pro-marriage counseling or chemical dependency treatment — programs that provide useful prevention and intervention services?

This is hate of men and marriage. There is no explaining this away.

A housecleaning must be made at Verizon’s Corporate level, beginning with Patrick Gaston, President of the Verizon Foundation. Public apologies should be made to men as well.

I urge everyone to contact Verizon’s media representatives Phil Santoro (617-743-4760) and Stephanie Lee (617-743-5440). Politely and firmly register your shock at their hateful behavior, and let them know you won’t spend a nickel with Verizon. Demand an internal investigation and removal of those who push the radical feminist agenda at Verizon and its Foundation. The housecleaning must begin with Patrick Gaston. Please urge Verizon to fund only organizations working proactively to help heal troubled marriages, especially where alcohol or drug abuse is involved.

————————————————-

David R. Usher is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

The Palin-Biden debate highlighted the vast disconnect between the Party and its core constituency. Both Biden and Palin agreed that same-sex marriage is not acceptable. This might sound excellent to political neophytes who don’t look under the hood before buying used cars.

The truth was outed when Biden promised undying support for every stripe of “same-sex benefits” for “same sex partners”. Palin waffled on the issue and had no comment opposing it. Both Palin and Biden back undermining the social and legal institution of heterosexual marriage by replacing it with a secular wild-card: a civil marriage license entirely eviscerating the ecclesiastical value of marriage.

Be forewarned: when a marriage license allows any two humans to marry each other, regardless of sexual orientation, it is a prescription for replacement of heterosexual marriage with unisex marriage comprised of any two women. This is precisely why the National Organization for Women has been desperately battling for SSM since recognizing its penultimate feminist potential in the late 1970’s.

Feminists know that current law heavily entitles women to irresponsibly divorce and have children out of wedlock. Men are called deadbeats and thrown in jail to support this arrangement, which has already aborted over half of all marriages in America.

Feminists also know that when any two women can marry, they will command at least six sources of income: their own incomes, at least two child support orders, two sets of welfare entitlements, and plenty of alpha-troglodytes in Washington to make sure the arrangement between big government, trial lawyers, and feminists continues to run America into the dark ages.

Some imagine my prediction that same-sex marriage between heterosexual women will become widespread is absurd. May I point out that women will do whatever makes the most money. Six or more incomes are far better than two. You do the math.

Same-sex marriage would inevitably, over time, reduce America to a nation of predatory Constitutional polyandry. The average woman would garner the total sexual liberation feminists long demanded, and could sleep around with every hot stud that catches her eye at everyone else’s expense – simply by “marrying” another woman.

Feminists and an impossible coalition of disillusioned Christians, conservatives, liberals improperly blame men for both the divorce and illegitimacy revolutions. Let everyone finally understand that it is not men who “forget” to take birth control pills or misrepresent use of other invisible forms of birth control. Let everyone understand that feminists demanded the divorce revolution, not the good men of America.

The blind majority could only be right if half the men in America are the violent, irresponsible animals that feminists pretend we are. They are vastly wrong – their beliefs making them docile servants of radical-feminist evil.

A lot of folks thought that the divorce revolution would never happen, and that illegitimacy would never become a major problem. Peter Sprigg of Family Research Council pointed out a few years ago that Conservatives were asleep at the switch. They failed to take the feminist revolution seriously, despite the clear fact that its thinking and methodology was deeply rooted in Hitlerian Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and the Women’s Ku Klux Klan.

Analysts still fail to recognize that the large increases Los Angeles crime and violence that began in the 1970’s were caused by maturing young men raised in fatherless families in the 1960’s. Former LAPD Chief Daryl Gates could not explain it. This problem rippled across America: Chicago, New York, just about every other city have crime rates considered unbelievable before 1960. The only thing we have to show for are is the highest incarceration rates in the world.

Millions of good men have been patriotically fighting irresponsible divorce since the late 1960’s. Some do it publicly – and many get arrested for it. The vast majority are quietly executed behind closed doors of courtrooms every day. Many good men live in great anger, angst and nightmare. Many formerly-good men, particularly poor or underemployed men, turn to crime to earn the incomes government demands of them. Many leave the country, never to return.

Others kill themselves or others. How many news stories of good men with no criminal history going insane will it take before we change America?

We now have even more evidence that McCain/Palin is just as bad for America as Obama/Biden. Shelly Mandell, president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women endorsed Palin before an audience of 20,000 at a tennis stadium in Carson California.

“A woman who will fight for women’s rights, a woman who will fight for the middle class, a woman who will – Lord knows – shake things up. I know Sarah Palin cares about women’s rights . As vice president, she will fight for you … She cares about our children and she cares about women’s lives. She’s an athlete, and knows what Title IX did for girls like her … I know that Sarah Palin is a reformer that will break up the old boy network (oh yea!) … This Is What A Feminist Looks Like’ “. [see video]

Palin later responded with “There’s a place in hell reserved for women who don’t support other women.”

With endorsements like this, and Palin having become the latest fierce feminist in our faces, we can expect an endorsement from Nancy Pelosi any moment. Barney Frank should be hosting a wild costume fundraising luau for Mrs. “six-pack” in Hawaii no later than this weekend.

Mark my words: when the majority of young men grow up knowing they will be nothing more than slaves to the child support system, and have no constitutional rights to life, liberty, or the actual pursuit of happiness, America will become a very dangerous and uncivilized country. Abraham Lincoln ended slavery once. We now must end it a second time.

In her new book “The Shock Doctrine”, Naomi Klein points out how government and media create and magnify crises to gargantuan proportions knowing that the public will stand aside and trust their leaders “no matter what” to clean up the mess. Both Republicans and Democrats have regularly applied this effect to place tremendous sums of public monies in private hands. With the 700-billion bailout, they succeeded in forcing tremendous sums of private debt on the backs of each and every American. These are the same political solutions used to export the divorce revolution on the backs of good men, very few of whom deserved or wanted the divorces forced on them.

About fifteen years ago, I was taken aback by a framed plaque hanging on the wall of a conservative Republican Missouri state legislator I was working with on some legislation. It said, “The best way to resolve a problem is to export it”. Well, we have exported the problem to ourselves. Now, it is a much bigger one – big enough that California now requires a bailout and New York is queuing up for one too. Running these things through the pig again will avail nothing but compounded fetid results.

The 2008 elections are a sham of shills bought and paid for by the bloated federal beast and the tremendous array of companies and industries now living on the “privatized” dole.

I have been aware for nearly two years that big government would win in 2008 and the voters would lose. We actually have nothing in 2008 truly worth voting for. In the end, and no matter what we do, the winners will be sotted salespeople of sodden swampland inside the Beltway.

The numbers dictate that a day of economic reckoning will inevitably arrive — when the only option is to actually change Washington. When this unavoidable reality arrives, America will adopt and execute “Responsible Marriage” policies as the preferred and stimulated norm and restore real ethics and tough punitive measures to the legal, psychological, educational, and financial professions.

————————————————-

David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

The last time I checked, marriage forms a strong shield of privacy and a presumption that sex is consensual. Wisconsin treats married individuals as presumed rapists.

David W. Johnson, found out the hard way. His wife of nearly twenty years had a stroke and had been unconscious for some time. He loved her, and hoped his love would help bring her around. There is no evidence that their marriage was on the rocks. Feminist prosecutors working for the state, who apparently believe that all husbands are rapists, went to great lengths attempting to reincarnate Johnson as one.

It would have been far more expedient for Johnson to cut life support at the first moment and take up with some chick at the supermarket starting on day one.

Fortunately for Mr. Johnson, charges were eventually dismissed by the District 4 Court of Appeals for invasion of privacy because police placed a hidden camera in the nursing home and took videos at a time when Johnson had the door closed.

How dare Wisconsin prosecutors criminalize marital responsibility, loyalty, and love. Justice must never be blind to marriage.

The indviduals who prosecuted Mr. Wilson are Supremacist barbarians. The case should have been TUA’d on day one. These prosecutors should be fired immediately.

Wisconsiners who stand for life and marriage should stridently call for addition of a marital exception to Wisconsin statute 940.225(2)(d). To ignore this is to sentence ill married individuals to torporific lives of coldness, isolation, and complete abandonment.

Until revisions are enacted, if you live in Wisconsin and your spouse becomes severely ill, it would be wise to have them treated in another state. Elderly couples should not retire to Wisconsin. If you live there, relocating now to a state that permits you to love a wife or husband who is very ill would be a very loving move.

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 “patriarchy”, 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 Mockingbird”, 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

Readers will remember that I was the first to call the Duke case a farcical abuse of the justice system in the article “The Hazards Of Duke: Predatory Feminism”.

Batman’s arrest is no less of a debacle. It is known that money is the motivation behind the entire incident. Bale is set to become the top paid male star in Hollywood. His mother and sister want a piece of the action and aren’t going to take “no” for an answer.

According to The Sun, they have been badgering him for $200,000 to help his sister “raise her three children”. Bale (unsurprisingly) found the demand unreasonable. A family disagreement ensued. Bale’s sister hurled insults at his wife. Bale pushed or shoved the mother aside (apparently they were blocking egress or cornering him).

In a family situation where the mother and sister are clearly the aggressors, they would have us believe that Bale somehow bullied them and “want him to be taught a lesson”?

Then the police mysteriously dropped the charges and issued a “warning”.

These women knew exactly what they were doing: blackmailing Batman. How do we know this? The first thing they did was to raise the ante by having an uncooperative Batman arrested on criminal assault charges for saying a few nasty things and pushing a blackmailing mother and sister aside.

When the story went international, instead of touting their case (which of course would expose the blackmail attempt), they wanted to keep it a “private family matter” (to keep the leverage quietly in place).

These women are crooks, just like the Duke Stripper. Enough information has now emerged to add the Batman to the long list of victims of treacherous domestic violence policy in Western countries.

Domestic violence laws are not tailored to serve the stated purpose. They require nothing more than an unsupported allegation to bring about criminal arrest or civil punishment of an individual leading to a later criminal arrest.

Allegations are not evidence, and do not establish probable cause for purposes of arrest. Allegations are merely assertions that have no meaning lacking evidence that probable cause exists.

Truly, the most fundamental principles of free and just countries go out the window whenever somebody mentions “domestic violence”. The do the same in Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Columbia for slightly different reasons.

So, why do Western domestic violence laws behave like nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists?

They are designed to make years of unnecessary work for trial lawyers, psychologists, medical professionals, foster care, adoption services, and gossip columnists at the expense of male monetary, political, or marital targets (a few individuals genuinely at risk are saved along the way to justify town square “lynchings” of a much larger number of innocent individuals).

The interaction of the gears comprising the domestic violence machine is so obvious as to be undeniable. A chronic pattern of collaborative racketeering and fraud clanks noisily behind these showcase situations (and the many invisible family law cases nobody ever hears about).

The Batman caper has a particularly sinister twist to it: the British police are essentially accomplices to blackmail by two women (who would drop the criminal charges immediately if Bale gave in to their monetary demands).

The police should have arrested the mother and sister, and TUA’d the charges against Bale. He handled himself reasonably well in the face of crass insults and an ongoing familial extortion attempt.

Christian Bale should stick to his guns and never give his mother or sister a nickel. He (and other celebrities similarly milked by the corrupt cabal of trial lawyers and politicians) would be wise and even politically-correct to philanthropically support organizations that are fighting hard on the front lines to reform domestic violence laws, and prevent globalist expansions proposed by radical feminists at the United Nations. The system is senselessly destroying many marriages and leaving many men and women in desperate straits. It is time for Celebrities to step up to do great public works rebalancing our domestic violence laws.

I know a few good organizations worthy of philanthropic support if Christian is inclined to help change the system of organized Jokers who nearly brought him down.

————————————————-

David R. Usher is President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

Or ask Kathleen Parker, who points out in her new book Save The Males, “In our rush to save those women who desperately need saving, we’ve criminalized ordinary men who may never have raised a hand against their spouse … this often takes place with little due process, without proof of guilt … or any chance to defend himself”.

The principles of national domestic violence policy were established in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a law crafted by the ABA and steered by the ABA Commission On Domestic Violence (CODV). Federal provisions were subsequently implemented at the state level via pass-through funding requirements and by ensuring that federal funding is channeled only by radical feminist non-governmental organizations.

The thinking of the CODV was recently found “unethical and unworthy for use in policy” in RADAR’s recent report “Myths of the ABA Commission On Domestic Violence”. The ABA Standards of Practice for family practitioners is unconstitutional on its face: The petitioner is repeatedly referred to as “she”, despite the fact that men initiate less the half of all serious spousal altercations.

In June, New Jersey trial court judge Francis B. Schultz did his judicial homework and found portions of the New Jersey domestic violence laws are unconstitutional. Attorney David Heleniak, who is also a board member of the True Equality Network, represented the husband in this ground-breaking decision.

In Crespo v. Crespo, Judge Schultz applied the Matthews-Eldridge balancing test to properly assess the standard of review required for these cases (trial court judges rarely do this on the notion that only high courts need weigh fundamental elements of due process). He found that since restraining orders impact constitutionally protected parental rights, the highest evidentiary standard of “clear and convincing evidence” applies when determining if restraining orders are issued.

In his decision, Schultz also rejected a common practice of state legislatures who often improperly dictate evidentiary standards and due-process provisions to the courts. It is long held that the standard of review and procedural matters are exclusively the venue of the courts.

The difference between applying the “preponderance of evidence” standard and the strict-scrutiny “clear and convincing” standard in domestic violence cases is important. The “preponderance of evidence” standard, and the lower standard of review presently applied, encourages and rewards false assertions by trial lawyers or clients whose cases have little or no merit whatsoever. Under this standard, evidence is unimportant or even unnecessary. The “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard brings evidence to the forefront of the decision. If evidence of past or future serious violence exists, a restraining order will be issued.

The Supremacists-at-Bar were horrified about the decision. It means the collapse of their arrangement running trial courts as renegade Star Chambers.

The position of big-government advocates on domestic violence is absurd. They pretend having to present evidence that violence will (or has) occurred will make it impossible to get restraining orders. Of course, having to present a little hard evidence never stopped a court from making a prompt ruling. Having to present evidence means that trial lawyers could no longer abuse restraining orders as roadside bombs to commandeer families, children, and assets in divorce, immigration, and fantasy litigation cases (such as the woman who actually got a restraining order against David Letterman for being on television).

Readers must understand that radicals steering big government are not individuals who truly care about women or equality. They are individuals lobbying to expand the business base for trial lawyers, psychologists, foster care, adoption services, and a Colosseum full of other businesses that profit from deconstructing marriage.

This political-industrial complex reshaped government so that the only options available to women are the ones that put them at the mercy of big government that often later takes their children. Terri Lynn Tersak, True Equality Network’s CEO, sums it up precisely: ”these individuals are to feminism, what false prophets are to religion”.

Upholding Crespo predicts decreases in domestic violence and better service for women who have been abused. Abuse of restraining orders injects tremendous conflict into spousal relationships. For this reason, the vast majority of domestic violence occurs after issuance of a restraining order. Women’s abuse centers and courts are clogged with thousands of cases filed for strategic purposes. Truly abused women fall through the cracks.

If divorce is necessary, the dissolution and custody of children should be determined on the merits. Those who are irresponsible to the marriage or abuse mood altering chemicals should not be the victor – which is often the case when domestic violence laws are misused.

According to an Associated Press article, the New Jersey Attorney General’s office is presently seeking leave to appeal this decision, which is likely to ultimately wind up in the New Jersey Supreme Court.

We shall soon see if the New Jersey Supreme Court is working for the people, or for trade lobbies. Unquestionably, the court must uphold Crespo if its members place the Constitution and Separation of Powers doctrines before the vicarious demands of profiteering trial lawyers and other anti-marriage advocates.

————————————————-

David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition

A shocking story about child sex abuse in women’s abuse centers is posted here.

This is the first of many cases involving an astonishing amount of child abuse, child molestation, abuse of women in women’s shelters, organized operation of prostitution, sales of illegal drugs, misuse of federal funds, and violations of employment laws in women’s shelters that will be brought out in the future.

National focus about this problem will occur all in good time. When this happens, the Violence Against Women Act will be reformed faster than you can say “Joe Biden”.

————————————————-

David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition