“While I still am a staunch supporter of the Ku Klux Klan, and plan to cast my vote for David Duke, I want all you black folks to know that I have sympathy for your plight and I am in your corner pulling for you.”

Well?  What do you think?

Stupid?

Lame?

Dumb as a sack of hammers?

Something stronger?

This is why I stand in stupified amazement whenever I hear some ‘tard mention about what a Good and Loyal and True and Faithful member of the men’s movement – or sympathizer thereof – they are, and then profess their intention to vote for a ticket with “VAWA Joe” Biden on it.

Seriously?  I don’t have words.  Flabberghasted springs to mind.  Refer to the above inflammatory quotation.  Jumpin’ Jaysuz in a Motorized Wheelchair, it’s the same bloody thing. There’s only one person on either of the major tickets who voted against both VAWA and Son of VAWA, and his name isn’t Barack Hussein Obama.  And Biden sponsored the abortions.  And Sarah Palin wasn’t in the Senate to vote one way or the other.

That leaves Senator McCain.

And people in the Men’s Movement still profess their intent to vote for Teleprompter Jesus.  No joke?  Tell me, El Stupido, when you finish emptying that clip into your foot, you gonna reload?

No, I don’t want to hear excuses from morons.  It’s as dumb as a damn box of hair, and you know it.  Abject, drooling, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging stupidity like this is one of the reasons a woman in this country can shoot her husband in the back while he sleeps, rip the phone out of the wall so he can’t call for help, run off across state lines with the kids while leaving him to die, and still wind up serving – what? 90 days? – in jail for it, and regain custody of the children whose father she murdered in cold blood.  No wonder this movement can’t hardly get any traction, it’s inhabited by cretinous poster children for retroactive abortion.

And the reasons they give. Holy … “We have a woman on the ticket!”  Really?  Lessee – stayed married to her husband for 20+ years, gushes over him in public like a teenager still, bore four of his kids, raised them… Except for not remaining barefoot and in the Christianist Hajib, everything we supposedly crave in a woman.

That hussy.  Off with her Head!  Uppity beeyotch.

Oh, and here’s a good one, too.  Even though the Democrats would get lower than an F-minus were we allowed to give out such grades, “Well, the Republicans don’t score an A+!”

Well, yeah, I’d give them a C- on a good day, but talk about letting the perfect become the enemy of the good – or at least of the “Doesn’t suck 24-7.”  I swear to God.  Like a bunch of old biddy hens clucking.  I’d say it’s almost like they wanted to remain in a victim mentality because without something to whine about they wouldn’t know what to do with themselves – but that probably hits the bullseye.

So here’s your exercise for the day.  Grab hold of one ear.

Grab hold of the other.

Now pull your head out of your arse.

I will say this: Marriage is not just between a man and a woman. It is between the man, the woman – and the government!

And those of us in the anti-marriage camp – well, we don’t trust the government.

American Women – support holding the government, and the bad women accountable, and perhaps marriage will be something men can believe in again.

Or not. Your call.

Your feminist sisters pushed for this, and you stood by and let them. You can repudiate them and change it.

It’s up to you to join in and do your part.

Nowhere in there do I say Darren Mack is right.  The problem is, Glenn, that the system itself contributed mightily to the creation of Darren Mack, and countless others like him.  They have removed hope from such men.  I never turned into a Darren.  But I had hope.

Andrea Yates?  Open any phone book to the “W’s.”  Women’s this, and Women’s that, and Women’s the other.  Women have support.  They have no excuse.  Ever been to what passes for the government sponsored support system for displaced Dads?  “How to get a job, shut up, pay your child support, and quit “intruding” into the lives of your ex and her children” is the soup of the day there.

I used to know a guy (Jeff, to have a name to use) who kept ol’ coon dogs for hunting.  And all the time I knew him he complained how “mean” they were.  It seems at least once a year he’d have to put one down for going after his kids.  I never understood it until I went over there one afternoon and saw these kids tormenting the dogs.  Throwing rocks, zapping them with stun guns, spraying them with water and all the time these dogs in the dog run, helpless against their abusers.

No longer did I wonder why these dogs went after the kids when they could.

Were the dogs mean?  Yep.  Were they unfit for company? Yep.  Did they need to be put down?  Absolutely.  He’d have been foolish to do otherwise – dogs were going after all the kids, not just the ones tormenting them.

The $64,000 questions, though, are: Were these innately bad dogs?  Did the kids have any responsibility for what they did?  Did he have any responsibility for what he didn’t do – namely, STOP THEM?

It is possible to say – at the same time – that these dogs were vicious animals which needed to be put down, AND ALSO to say “You know, you need to stop your kids from torturing your dogs and maybe these things won’t happen on such a regular basis.”

It doesn’t require approval of the behavior to see that it is a logical consequence.  It doesn’t require approval of a dog biting a kid to acknowledge the dog had a right to be mad at the kids.

And what you’re sounding like here is the guy’s wife, who never went out to the dogs, took care of them, or had anything to do with them, calling the rest of the dogs (Who never bit any of the kids, but just growled at them and didn’t want sod-all to do with them) “mean-ass dogs that Jeff should get rid of” without seeing that they are really good dogs who are just tired of being poked at with sticks,who are exercising commendable restraint, and who have a right to not like the kids.

Darren Mack is a mean dog who has to be put down – or locked away.  ANd as true as that may be, I’m also sorry as hell we live in a society that lets the Darren Macks of  the world get poked at with sticks, pelted with rocks, sprayed with the hose, chased with noisemakers, have firecrackers thrown at them, and zapped with stun-guns.

The two positions are not mutually exclusive.  To suggest that they are is a false dilemma and just bad logic.

And by the same token, it is neither condoning nor applauding the actions of Darren Mack to observe that “Hey – maybe if you didn’t let your kids torment the dogs, you wouldn’t have to shoot so many of them.”

Or you can take Jeff’s attitude that they are only males dogs who will breed more, and bullets are cheap.  Of course, to go along with that, last I heard of Jeff, his kids were hooligans who were mostly in and out of trouble with the law themselves, and didn’t know how to behave.

Huh.  Wonder why that is?

Were Darren Mack an isolated aberration (Okay, statisticaslly, people like Darren Mack, since we live in a country of 300 million people) this would be one thing.  Even with this, it’s possible Darren Mack was a mean sonofabitch from the get-go, even before this.  I don’t know, there are conflicting reports.  But you, yourself, acknowledge that there is also a considerable amount of men who inflict violence, driven to the brink by the family court system, by being drive out of the lives of their children.

The only difference between them and those like Darren Mack is that their violence is directed inward, not outward. It is violence nonetheless, and not the least of which the consequences of that being an increase in the chance of THEIR children having mental problems and committing suicide.  This is quite arguably a cowardly and detestable act.  I live with bouts of suicidal major depression (Though unrelated to my divorces – but they don’t help) so I do know – suicide is an act of violence.  It affects not just you, but the people around you.

So what is it?  Are these men driven to their violence by the abuses of their person at the hands of the system because it is socially more acceptable to kill yourself?  But the Darren Macks are undeserving of any sympathy because their violence manifests in politically incorrect fashions?

Someone who commits suicide does have an impact on people around him – often especially their children.  It is indirect, to be sure, but it is tangible. Killing yourself does not just affect you.  It is as well an act of violence, with effects on others.

You seem to have sympathy for men who commit the violent act of suicide – and I’d hardly accuse you of advocating suicide, endorsing it, or calling for it as an act of protest or some such.  You seem to be able to say “These men need help and hope so we don’t have more of them,” and I don’t notice anyone saying “There goes that darn Glenn Sacks, glorifying suicide and encouraging people to shoot themselves on the courthouse steps.”

And you know why you can have that type of sympathy for them?  Because if you are like 90% or more of the people in the world, you have had that long dark night of the soul.  You have had that “Maybe the world would be better off without me” moment.  You’ve stood on the edge, stepped back, and now realize how easy it is to find yourself there even though it goes against the grain of everything you thought you knew about yourself.  You’ve realized that such a thing lives even in you.

And that is where “you don’t get it.”  You don’t stop at condemning the giving in - you condemn the temptation itself. 

And make no mistake – whether you sit in a room with the barrel of the gun at your own head, or sit in a bell tower, the desperation and hopelessness is the same – as well as it being taking the easy way out.  The difference between the two is only one of degree – not of principle.

Well, melting, smoking, and screaming. It’s a start, though. Now THIS is a real Father’s Day Present. (For me? I’d like to thank the academy…)

Let’s get something straight here, from the outset. The DA who took over from Nifong in the prosecution persecution of Dave Evans, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty concluded the three players were “innocent victims” of a rogue prosecutor’s “tragic rush to accuse.”

Innocent.

Not merely “Not Guilty.” Not “Unproven”

Innocent.

He – and his office, after a substantial investigation and review also concluded that as far as Crystal Gayle Mangum is concerned, nothing ever happened. Which means she did not “misindentify” anyone. Nothing happened to indentify. She made it up.

She lied.

She is a False Accuser.

She is a LIAR. She LIED ABOUT RAPE.

So – women do indeed lie about rape. And what we know right know is that anyone who says different is either (A) An Idiot, or (B) Lying for purposes of political posturing, out of hatred for men.

(NOTE FOR IDIOTS: What is the difference between these two sentences?

1. Women lie about rape.
2. ALL women lie about rape.

Please don’t mischaracterize me as saying the second if you are going to mendaciously cavil with me.)

Or both, actually. Burying your head in the sand about it is both stupid and intellectually dishonest.

There is no explaining this away. There is no rationalizing this, or denying it. This has been a high profile case, and has blown up in the faces of Nifong, and the Feminist Inquisition. Everyone sees it, and everyone sees them all standing their with egg on their face. It’s an embarassment for them.

Point and laugh.

Everyone wanted to make it not only about sex, but the race warlords and the class envy bigots jumped on the bandwagon too. This means that the Emperor, The Empress, and the Emperors’s Mistress all have no clothes.

Had Evans, Finnerty, and Seligmann not been “rich,” however, they’d have been crucified. Had they been poor black men, they’d have gotten an overworked Public Defender, and probably waiting to have their appeals heard while they rotted in jail.

This is what happens, of course, when you allow Star Chambers and Drumhead Trials to start. And this has been what this has been. Woman makes a claim. Press gets hold of it. Prosecutor starts to chest beat and posture. No evidence – well, unless you count the EXCULPATORY evidence that was concealed from the defense. But still it moves ahead. Women don’t lie. A claim is as good as proof.

This is exactly what has happened, undeniably. No proof. A claim. What we always have said, and always has been pooh-poohed as “Never happens.” Well, there is no covering this up. No moving this to the back pages of the paper. No paying off the victim with a agreement not to talk about it. Evans, Finnerty, and Seligmann aren’t going to let you. In your zeal to “nail ya a rich white boy” you have officially messed with the wrong people.

And you had better believe that the next time someone walks into a police station with nary but a sob-story, a voice is going to whisper in people’s heads “CRYSTAL GAYLE MANGUM.” And every step of the way, before someone moves ahead, that same voice is going to say, “MIKE NIFONG.” (And I pray that in not a few cases, that voice is mine.)

And yes, this is a good thing. This is just, right and fair. Because this is the way the justice system is supposed to work. Before one proves guilt, one must establish a crime occurred. I couldn’t so much as claim someone broke into my truck to steal CD’s without establishing I had CD’s to steal, and without showing the marks where they broke in at. This is because without that, I could just go in and make an accusation against anyone who pissed me off.

We instituted this because it used to be that there was held to be an innate and intrrinsic virtue to nobility, and that they wouldn’t lie – so we held their word as good as proof. They abused it. White people under reconstruction were held to be of intrinsic and innate integrity, so their words were taken when they accused black people. Whites abused that. We did away with it.

Feminists – your house is next. Time to surrender some of that power and privilege you talk about all the time. Time to step down off of Mount Olympus and join the rest of us mere mortals here in Midgard. (Yeah, I am mixing my mythology. Sue me.)

Our work is not done, Gents.

Crystal Gayle Mangum.

Mike Nifong.

Remember Durham.

Never again the witch hunts. We need to make sure Mike Nifong is made an example of, and a terrible warning. And his little dog Crystal Gayle Mangum, too.

Well, nobody’s perfect.

Often the fact that I have never been divorced or dealt with the family law system in my personal life is cited as the reason that I “just don’t get it.”

Well – if the shoe fits.

That’s absolutely correct. When you have the flesh of your flesh and blood of your blood stolen from you for years by a corrupt system, THEN – and ONLY then – will you have real moral authority to say what a man should or should not do in such a situation.

Those of us who have been through such a situation, like myself, can sit down and say “There but for the grace of God go I.” We are entitled to pass judgment on Darren Mack.

We who have been through having a child taken from us, denied visits, lied about, told by the supposedly fair system point blank that because we are men, screw us – and more – we who have felt the rage, and despair, and soul-sucking agony of being labelled “Nothings” – we have that right, because we know what we are talking about.

You don’t. You cannot possibly say, with any certainty, what you would or would not do in such a situation. You may say what you believe you should do. You may say what you would think – want – hope – to do.

But we – WE – who have stood on the edge of that abyss and looked in it, and stepped back – I can say that. I have done it. I have said “I love my children more than to do that, to take away my son and daughter’s father.”

David Chick can say that, too.

Glenn Sacks? Glenn Sacks can say what he should do. And I will defend to forever Glenn Sacks right to preach that. What would Glenn Sacks do?

We haven’t seen those cards yet. Glenn hasn’t even seen them. So nobody – not even Glenn – can talk about them yet.

I bet you probably wouldn’t. But then again, I know a black priest who told me while I was going through my ordeal “I used to think the word “nigger” was no big deal until I got called one in earnest.”

You’re a father, Glenn. Ever had one of your kids come in late – or get lost somewhere? What went through you mind? How long did it take for your annoyance and irritation take to turn to worry, and perhaps panic?

What’s wrong? Did someone grab them? Are they … okay? Even alive?

Multiply that by a few years. Try to imagine it. Maybe you will get a faint ghost of a vague idea of what I went through with one child.

Haw many years of your children’s lives did you miss out on, that are known to you only by pictures – if even that? A combined almost 16 for me. You?

Oh yeah – “I have never been divorced or dealt with the family law system in my personal life.” That’s right.

But you know enough about Darren Mack to have no compassion for him.

And that you know enough about me, or men like me, to say that our compassion for him – my intimate personal empathy with his situation via shared experience – is tantamount to approval and endorsement of it?

This is like saying that a psychologist who understands criminal motivations must necessarily approve of the actions. Just like it. Not a bit different.

You know one of the big reasons the Gonzman never became a Darren Mack? Because the Gonzman had people who let him vent his rage, and his pain even when it was unreasonable and he was beyond reason. He had a couple friends who would do things like get him so drunk he couldn’t do something stupid, and then ask him the next day, “Aren’t you glad you only have a hangover this morning?” He had people who gave him space when he needed it and a shoulder to lean on when he needed it, and never said he was a bad person for feeling like he did, and never told him he shouldn’t feel that way.

Your lack of experience with divorce or the family law system gives you a huge honking blind spot, Glenn. You have no idea what it is to be told you are a non-entity, a nothing, a totally unnecessary and optional part of your children’s lives.

You have yet to be called a “nigger” in earnest. But you’re quick as all hell (Metaphorically speaking) to pull the trigger on saying “It’s just a word”

For you to put something out like this when Father’s Day is mere hours away from us. Evil? No. Insensitive? I *HATE* that word – it’s politically correct newspeak. It’s a lack of foresight. A lack of – compassion. What the HELL were you thinking? It’s nearly Father’s Day. Do you know how many men are contemplating a lonely-assed day, trying to find the strength to go on, trying to convince themselves they still matter? Right now, reading this site here, are men who are in the middle of this kind of crap. Who are feeling the rage, the frustration, the hopelessness; and what you are doing, whether you intend to or not, is telling them they have no right to those feelings. That they are wrong. Bad People. Darren Macks in the making. Who are not worthy of compassion.

This is like when you have a couple of lesbians crowing about how they don’t need men, fathers are optional, men are replaceable by women – and the female version of “daddy” is not only just as good, but better – and so on, and so forth – AND YOU TAKE THEIR SIDE. You want to call yourself a “Father’s Rights Activist” and then you sit down and sup with people who not only say men – males – fathers are fungible, who not only say they are optional, who not only say they are unnecessary, but who say the world would be better off by doing away with fathers entirely – it’s just a “socially constructed” role, after all, that women could do as well, if not better. And you champion their cause.

Listen to yourself, Glenn. Yeah – I know. Not in so many words. Sorry, my brother, but what you are doing speaks so loudly I can’t make out your words.

It is time to take a breath and consider the tone of the message you are sending.

I don’t have a national pulpit, Glenn. I don’t want it. I’m much better suited to local, in person, helping of men. I’m passing along the compassion I received, and hoping some of it gets paid forward. I can more afford to be a bomb thrower than someone of your profile, and I can understand your need to be more moderate and concilatory in tone.

But criminetley, man – if you’re going to throw bombs, throw them AWAY from us, for pity’s sake.

You can condemn people surgically. It’s entirely possible to separate Darren Mack’s actions and condemn them fully. If you have some whack job saying “One Family Court Judge Down, How Many To Go?” By all means – call them out. By name. Don’t smear it around, though. Use a bullet – not a grenade.

Glenn, I have walked out of a court with $4,000 of receipts for child support, and been told they didn’t count – only to find out later they didn’t count because if they didn’t go through the county, they didn’t get the kickback from the Federal Government. I’ve sat across from a bloated, useless carcass of a social worker and been told I’m a man, so I don’t get assistance and what I needed to do was get a job and “give dose bebbies back to they momma where dey belong an’ pay her her chile suppawt.” I’ve sat in open court and had a judge tell me “I don’t care what the truth is.” I’ve been the one assaulted, and then handcuffed on the ground, and then told how “lucky” I was my ex-wife wasn’t going to prosecute me, and warned not to go to the hospital for stitches, and if I did to not claim spousal abuse or I’d be arrested after all.

We have men, who are putting their lives on the line for this country half a world away, and this country is debating – as if there could be a debate! – whether we should allow the system to screw them over and steal their children while they are doing it.

If I gave a litany of the injustices I alone have suffered by sheer virtue of my sex at the hands of Family and Domestic Law, we’d be here for days. Did that make me angry?

You betcha. I still am. If I think on it, I can still see those moments in my mind’s eye, and I still feel the towering rage and hopelessness. I still feel the betrayal. I can pull out pictures of my kids at a younger age .. my God. Do you have any idea what it is to see an image of your own flesh and blood and know that a particular chapter in their life is a closed book to you? That at that age, this was a stranger to you? Because you were a man, a father, and therefore unimportant? Irrelevant?

Do you?

Of course not.

Darren Mack did a bad thing. He committed an evil act. A moral outrage. Why didn’t I? Did I have more strength? Faith? Friends? Support? You tell me, Glenn, because I don’t know. I had equal indignity heaped upon me. Probably more. And for longer.

Don’t tell me it’s because I’m a good man and he an evil one. I hated them. I wished them ill. Still do hate them. I don’t use “hate” lightly, either. I have fifteen years with my children and some change lost. Gone forever. This can never be given back to me, never done over, and never made right. Those years with my children have been stolen as surely as if they had been dead. And don’t mistake me as reveling in it either – it is a very dark spot within me, but one I cannot say doesn’t exist and still remain honest, and unhypocritical. (And I don’t fail to notice, either, that those who have never been through it are the only ones to say “Let it go.” But that is another rant.)

So what is it, exactly, that I had that he lacked? Or he had that I lacked? Do you know? Because I sure as hell don’t. Kind of hard for me to condemn it, then, eh? You assert that he wasn’t a product of the system. That “Had there been no biased system, there would have been no Darren Mack” is contrary to fact. I am open to the deductive and syllogistic proofs you have to support this assertion with such certainty. By all means – set them forth.

It’s one thing to say, then, that such acts are unhelpful. Immoral. Wrong. An evil. They are not the answer. That no matter what the provocation, one should not let it consume you into doing monstrous and destructive things; that in so doing you destroy not only yourself, but your children. That Darren Mack is not only *NOT* a good example, but a terrible warning. “Don’t Be A Darren Mack.” I’m jiggy wid’ it, Glenn. But I can’t go any further.

I work with men going through this. I email men going through this. They email me. Some of the things I read – even what I went through pales in comparison. All of them are full of pain, and rage, and frustration, and loneliness, and despair, and betrayal. All these men want to lash out. All these men want to do is fight against it. All they want is a fair fight, even if they lose it. Just FAIR.

I have lost a few. Just the other week I wrote of some man being butt-stupid and shooting himself in the foot. Even worse, I have stood over more than a couple of holes in the ground, the last one a little over a year ago where the last email I got from the guy said “I swear, Pete, all I am anymore is an ATM as far as the state is concerned, and I’m worth more to my kids dead than alive.” Pity he never read the suicide clause in his life insurance; now his kids have neither.

I counsel every one of these men not to be a Darren Mack. Or a Martin Romanchick, or a Steven Cook, or a Darrin White, or a Derrick Miller. But I am not about to be a hypocrite and tell them they are not entitled to their feelings. A wise man told me once that “A man’s pain is invisible.” Another one once said of Derrick Miller that “We’ll never know exactly why Derrick Miller took his life and if his suicide could have been prevented.”

You’ll have to pardon me, then, for extending this courtesy to Darren Mack. For asking, “Maybe if he had been treated fairly, this never would have happened.” Maybe this tragedy could have been averted.

Maybe not. I’m honest enough to say “I don’t know.” I’m honest enough to admit, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” I’m honest enough, even though I can’t applaud what Darren Mack did, I do understand, in full and agonizing detail, what he could have gone through to push him over an edge, so I can’t do a posturing, sound-byte hatchet job on him. I have been through it.

Been there.

Done that.

Got the T-shirt.

You don’t. You CAN’T. But for some reason you seem to be able to sit in judgment of those of us who can, who have been through that hell, and to whom every time we hear of another man going through, tears open anew wounds we have that haven’t – and never will – heal?

How dare you?

I’m going to give you the highlights of a very unfunny joke.

A man is married for 8 years, and comes home one night to “the talk.” The one about the relationship, about the need for space, (I have a boyfriend, and it’s getting to hard to cover it up) – a lot of us know the drill. So, he agrees to move out “for a while” to “work on the relationship.”

Fast forward a couple months. Honeybunch is getting irritated at him “just dropping by” to spend time with his kids or pick them up (Again, read “How can I have my new thang over here when you might catch us and make me look bad?”) and after one marriage counseling session he’s hit with the double whammy. A divorce suit and – you guessed it – an ex-parte restraining order.

Let’s review real quick – go to my “Divorce Self-Defense 101” article from a few years back, and catalogue the errors that have been made.

Okay. One error you missed – because I didn’t tell you – is that Schmuckly here has yet – after almost 3 months! – to secure the services of an attorney. Let alone listen to said lawyer.

It’s at this point that Dingleberry gets himself drunk, tries to call her – Thank God she changed the phone number – and so he calls me to drive him over there. I manage to talk him out of it. I get him insensible, and in the morning when hung over and his resistance is low, I convince him to call an attorney. I convince him to part with the $2500 dollars he’s been saving for Sweetie-dumpling-who-has-just-backstabbed-me’s “real engagement ring.” She’s not going to need it or wear it.

This lawyer – from a prestigious law firm specializing in Men and Divorce – advises him that he has a hearing on the restraining order in three weeks, and to tough it out. After a couple days of interviewing people who knew them and the marriage, he informs him that he can get the TRO nullified, and get him mandated visitation – maybe even split custody in the interim. Just be patient.

This lasts 3 more days. So what does Dumbass do?

He buys two dozen roses, and goes to where she works. He asks to see her. He makes the receptionist deliver the flowers. He goes back into the private offices. He gets her to “agree” to “Not now – I’m at work. *I’LL CALL YOU* about lunch and we can talk…”

Dippysquat goes out to his car, starts it, and puts it in reverse about the time two police cars and a sheriff zoom in, and draw down on him. Of course, Cuddlebuns is standing behind the door of the office, looking stricken and fearful, being comforted, while the fat lesbian secretary is out waiving the restraining order at the officers. El Stupido is quickly slammed on the ground with a shotgun trained on him, cuffed and put in a paddy wagon.

I don’t think I need to break out the crayolas here, do I? No bail. No hearing till the next week. Of course he’s calling me and whining about “I need to get out!” – what the hell can I do? He CALLS HER WORK (Dammit!) collect from jail – THREE TIMES!!! And by the time he goes in front of a judge he’s given 30 days in jail. Which he does two weeks of for good behavior, including his time served. Needless to say, when he goes before the judge on the TRO, the once slam dunk nullification of it turns into a 1 year extension, and his visitation is now supervised.

But, hey – fugginay – he’s RIGHT. She’s WRONG. He didn’t do ANYTHING. He doesn’t deserve this. She lied. All true. Just as true as the pedestrian who walks out in front of the speeding truck because they have the “walk” light.

Absolutely right. Dead right.

So where is Senor Idiote today, four months later? He’s fired his attorney, because he didn’t like the advice. He’s become Mr. Chivalry, acceding to every demand “for his children.” (Though it seems that fighting to stay in their lives and BE A DAMN FATHER TO THEM doesn’t occur to him.) He’s lost his job – being in jail for two weeks does that. Given up his house. Had his car repossessed. Is paying $600 a month for supervised visitation he doesn’t go to – but Mr. Probono thinks he’ll get custody of the kids in the end “because he’s right, she’s a bitch, I didn’t do nuthin…” even though he doesn’t – oh, what is the term – BOTHER TO EVEN SEE THEM? It’s “just too humiliating.”

Oh – and he’s mad at me. I talked him into spending the money for the ring he still wants to get this bitch, so I’m a SOB who gave him bad advice. He didn’t follow it, got screwed doing it his way instead of mine, but it was bad advice. He’s a new MRA convert, though. All gung-ho about how unfair it all is. I expect I’ll see him on the net anytime – if he gets a job, a place to live, and his computer hooked up – talking about how “Gonzo gave me advice I ignored so he screwed up my life” which is the tune he’s been singing these past five or six months.

Yeah. I understand he’s a brother. He’s hurting. Been there.

He’s still as dumb as a bag of hair. Stupid. Just butt-stupid. Ever hear the joke about the preacher in the flood who turns away a guy in a truck, a boat, and a helicopter because “God Will Provide?” When he drowns and stands before the Lord, he asks, “What happened?” and God replies “Look, I sent you a truck, a boat, and a helicopter – what do you want?”

Yeah, I know. Blaming the victim. Yeah, I know. Co-operating with a corrupt system. I’ve heard it all. I’ve heard it from him – know what I told him?

“So how’s that whole not seeing your kids at all working for ya?”

Yes, Virginia, the system sucks. Until you replace it, it is what you have to work with. Drop out of it and not support it? Fine and dandy – but first you have to get to a place where it can’t touch you. Fight against it? Do it from within the system or outside of it. Hint: If you plan on working outside, buy lots of ammunition – it is the only way that will have any effect.

Hey – if you can snatch your kids away to some country which won’t extradite you, more power to you. Until you can do that, though, you’re kind of stuck. Not seeing your kids, and not being there for them – out of some sense of martyrdom – not real bright, if you ask me – but if your pride is more important than flesh of your flesh… Well, whatever.

But you are walking out on your kids then, and when the Femherroids make that charge on you, the shoe fits. You’re not helping. Joe Moron who added to the “Stalkers who violate TRO’s” stat? He doesn’t help either. Find a way to cut off your nose to spite your face that doesn’t ruin it for your brothers, what say?

I’m not on the side of shitheel men. Cheat on your wife, you’re just as wrong as an adulterous woman. Beat her? Beat your kids? Molest your kids? To hell with you. I may give a lot of men the benefit of the doubt because groundless charges are so frequently made, and I will preach to the ends of the earth that feminists way, way, way overstate the frequency of such things. This doesn’t mean such men don’t exist, and I am not going to “be like a feminist” and defend men who are like that. We laughed and sneered at the Feminazis in Dallas who stood up for Andrea Yates, the child-murderer so we need to be as accountable.

I’ve had a few guys who did crap like this and then come to me or write me. Well, what do you want? St. Gonz to intercede? I got real falsely accused men, real guys who have got the shaft for no reason, real guys willing to take guidance and get better than what they fear – I have time for you why? You did it? Suck it up and take your lumps. Ignored good advice? I tell you the same thing I’d tell a Britney Spears walking around in downtown Detroit in her pantiless miniskirtness: What do you expect, DUMBASS?

I am frankly appalled and flabbergasted at times by the blinkered and self-defeating attitude many men have. We have one guy running around who is constantly harping on the “Antipeonage Act.” Okay. I agree. It should apply. You know and I know that jailing men for child support is nothing less than debtor’s prison. Trouble is, the courts have rationalized and used legal and semantic masturbation to dismiss it. It is not going to work. They are not going to listen to you. They are going to say, “Doesn’t apply, you’re being jailed for contempt, not owing money” wham, bam. It has been argued. It has failed. Time to move on.

There is bias in the courts, and I am not going to say there isn’t. As men, we walk into family court at a disadvantage, and have an obstacle to overcome – in some places a small hop, in others a steep hill, and in some we are uckedfay. (Pig Latin).

But better than half our problems are attitude. Your biggest bias is in how the laws are set up, and in how you think.

As men, our nature is to protect – protect females, protect our young. Forget all the crap about “the female is deadlier than the male” or “lionesses and their cubs.” It’s crap, feel good, make the girl feel better bullshit. We see it over and over; feces hits the fan, women grab kids and run like scared rabbits, and Joe Dweeb the accountant grabs a stick and turns into Conan. It is built into you, hardwired, and reinforced by society.

No? Ask ya something, then. If a man broke a contract with you, and started proceedings to take your stuff, what would you do? Roll over? Or would you hire an attorney and rip his lungs out legally?

What I thought.

Somehow, get puddin-pop the contract breaker trying to steal your kids and your life’s work and savings, and you get all tender, and chivalrous, and say “Okay.” You’ll look like the bad guy. You don’t want to put your kids through it. You don’t want to drag the mother of your kids through it.

Well, why the hell not? She’s doing it to you. Lifetime TV is going to make a movie on how brave she is.

You’ve been schnooked. You’ve been painted into a corner where the only way you won’t “look bad” is to be a doormat and “Yes ma’am” her for the next 20 years. (And you may still look bad.) Any other move, and you’re a rat bastard.

So … be a bitch. It’s why she wins so often. She treats you like the enemy and goes into court to KICK YOUR ASS. Most men go in with some other purpose in mind.

Know what kind of men win? The ones who scream and leap for the throat. Who destroy not only her ability to wage war, but her will to do so.

No, you haven’t been taught to do this. No, you don’t have the “You GO, Grrrrrrrl!” chorus to support you. But guess what?

First time she loses a motion – well – that isn’t in the script.

Hardest thing for men – you need to beat you, first. You need to swallow your pride and get a lawyer – AND DO WHAT THEY SAY. You may have to hunt for a lawyer. The same one who will hint around that she should allege something false and horrible against you will suddenly find ethics if you are the client. You may have to interview a dozen before you find one who will go for the soft underbelly of her. I did in my second marriage.

You need to say no. No, I am not leaving the house – YOU leave. No, you are not taking the kids. No, you are not taking our furniture.

You have to be aware you are now under a microscope and behave accordingly, no matter how unfair it is that you have to behave twice as good as her to get half the regard. No drinking – the police, when she calls them, are going to ask “Have you been drinking?” They are not going to ask “Have you only had two beers over the last three hours?” If you answer yes – they will treat you like someone who is drunk. If you answer no, you are a liar. They will use that as their excuse to haul you off.

She will try to push your buttons. Swallow your pride and let her run her mouth. If you’re not drunk, disorderly, or threatening, they cannot make you leave. They will ask you to. Say “no.” Insist that the kids have their room, clothes, and all that here, school tomorrow, and she’s not getting them out of bed and taking them to Mommy’s. Stick to your guns. You will be badgered.

Have your attorney on speed dial on your cell. Nothing make a cop behave like “I’m an attorney and this is my client…” It strikes fear in their hearts.

This does not acknowledge the system as being “right.” It is wrong. It is messed up badly.

It is also the way it is, and the only game in town. Unless you’re one for a rifle and a Bell Tower, you have to play. Fail to play, and you lose. Again – that is the way it is.

The courts determine only winners and losers. Decide what you want to be. Deal with it. Grow up.

Until the laws get reformed, it is what you have to play with – these are the cards you have been dealt. Changing the system will take time. Probably more than you have if you are reading this in 2007.

It may be done in increments. Don’t be a dumbass like the Libertarians (I am one, so I can say that) and expect total reform instantly or it’s useless.

Adjust your attitude. Chivalry is one thing, but an entitlement of one-sided chivalry is useless. Its day has passed. Let it be buried. This is the age of equality. That means you too, in not having to put up with crap.

Be pragmatic and prioritize, for pity’s sake. Number one: Your kids need their Dad – you are not replaceable. Number two: You need your kids – they are not replaceable. Everything else takes a back seat. Her relationship with them is her problem – doesn’t even hit your list. Your property? Lower. “Getting the bitch?” Dead last. If you’re of a mind to that, it’s not a goal, it’s gravy. Let her do it to herself, and stand back while she ties the rope. Be more worried about being in the position to be magnanimous – then be magnanimous (Not a doormat!). It’ll make you look good, and piss her off.

Let her worry about being stupid then. Like I said, losing isn’t in her script. She will rarely disappoint you.

Our best weapon is taking these things, these unfair laws and attitudes, and turning them around and making them cut the other way. When the teeth of the law start biting women, they will howl for change, and scream “Uncle.” We are going through this in Indiana right now, and I plan to highlight and publicize how the new law – allowing them to seize assets, tax checks, and garnishee wages of live ins for child support – is hurting women. This will inflame public outrage. I will happily use women against feminists. I will happily create more women who see feminism and their man-hatred as dangerous to women. Feminism is already a five-letter word to a lot of the younger generation – I hear five, and I want four.

Men have got to take their power back, and there is no way to do it but to do it. Gents, we are a minority. One the dating scene – for every 10 attached women, there is one floating around free. Know what that does? It gives you power – please me, or there is another who will.

Push for male birth control – and use it. We can stomp out paternity fraud, and trap pregnancies, in one generation. If not for you, for your sons and brothers.

Start filing Title IX suits. Start using “Anti-Discrimination” laws to shut down women-only spaces.

Use the courts. Clog them up. Petition for review of custody, of child support, even if you know things won’t change. Show up. Shut down the machinery of misandry.

You men who have custody – go after deadbeat moms. Make the state – make feminist inspired laws – hurt women. No matter how much it sucks, that is the only way they will pay attention to how draconian the laws are. That is the only way they will review them. I didn’t, and I regret it. No more Mister Nice Guy.

We can break them. We just have to be smart, and stop being stupid.

After two people, Emily Jane Hilscher, a freshman, and Ryan Clark, the resident adviser whose room was nearby in the dormitory, were shot dead, the campus police began searching for Karl D. Thornhill, who was described in Internet memorials as Ms. Hilscher’s boyfriend.

Because, as we know, whenever a woman is murdered, it’s the boyfriend who did it. Or the Husband.

According to a search warrant filed by the police, Ms. Hilscher’s roommate had told the police that Mr. Thornhill, a student at nearby Radford University, had guns at his town house. The roommate told the police that she had recently been at a shooting range with Mr. Thornhill, the affidavit said, leading the police to believe he may have been the gunman.

Those darn gun-owners. It’s such suspicious behavior, legally owning a firearm.

But as they were questioning Mr. Thornhill, reports of widespread shooting at Norris Hall came in, making it clear that they had not contained the threat on campus. Mr. Thornhill was not arrested, although he continues to be an important witness in the case, the police said.

OOOOOOOOPS!

At the time of the dormitory shootings, Col. W. Steven Flaherty, the superintendent of the Virginia State Police, said, “There was certainly no evidence or no reason to think that there was anyone else at that particular point in time.”

Um … Colonel? Usually helps to actually LOOK for evidence. Just a thought. I know it is cheap and easy to just jump to conclusions and tag the man, but some small pretense of some actual police work might be in order.

State officials continued to defend the actions of the campus authorities. John W. Marshall, the Virginia secretary of public safety, said Charles W. Steger, the president of Virginia Tech, and Chief Wendell Flinchum of the campus police “made the right decisions based on the best information that they had available at the time.”

Gee. Govenment officials closing ranks and excusing their own.

There’s a shock.

At an afternoon news briefing, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said Dr. Steger had asked him to appoint a committee to examine the university’s response and try to answer some of the remaining questions about the gunman’s actions.

In other words, exoneration of the guilty, punishment of the innocent, and citations of merit for the non-participants.

Same old, same old.

Oh – lest I disappoint the femherroid trolls who prowl here – let’s see – who is the biggest proponent of “blame the man first?” That’s right. Feminists. You can thank them in a good part that two dead turned into thirty-three dead. But hey – the meme was followed. All hail the ideology.

Consider them thirty one sacrifices to the Goddess.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Except for the charge of Rape.

Well, that’s the way feminists wish the Constitution was written, anyway.

Let’s get one thing straight. Cooper, the guy who took over the clusterf*ck that Mike “Nodong” Nifong f*cked up like a soup sandwich, did not say that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. He did not use any weasel words. He said the Duke 3 were INNOCENT. And that the event NEVER HAPPENED.

However you slice it, Crystal Gail Mangum is a lying sack of shit. And a Nappy-haired Ho. (I throw that in because it seems to be the worst thing you can call someone and can scar them for life. Is it working? I hope the f*ck so.) I’ve asked a few women over the past few days, “Hey – you ever been in doubt you were having sex? Ever confuse getting laid with something else?” The answer is a universal no. What this means, if you are one of these assbags who still insists that Crystal Gail Mangum had even a nodding acquaintance with the truth, is that she has no grip on reality and is nuttier than a squirrel turd.

And a Nappy-Haired Ho. But I digress.

We have one lesson to learn from the Duke Fiasco.

Yes, Virginia, Some Women do LIE about rape. Not that we really needed to learn this if we go all the way back to Tawana Brawley, and the many, many men who have been released from prison after a recanted accusation or DNA evidence proving it impossible. But I hope this very public cock-up has branded it into the American Psyche. I will do my best to heat the brand.

Now, Feminists, bless their black and mendacious little hearts, will try to say that this means that I say ALL women who say they are raped are liars. And this is manifestly not true. Lets compare and contrast real quick:

• Some Women lie about Rape
• All Women who claim to be raped are liars.

Hmm. Doesn’t look the same to me. Well, who can figure their thought process out? If they could think, they wouldn’t be feminists.

Now, since some women do lie about rape, this means that not all accusations are true. Which means holding an accusation as evidence is dumb as a sack of hair. So – we need this little thing that centuries of jurisprudence have come to call EVIDENCE. This evidence needs to be presented to a jury, and he gets to confront his accuser. This doesn’t even account for faulty or misleading ID’s or evidence.

I know. DAMN that pesky Constitution!

So – next time the Feminist Inquisitors pull on their black robes, gather in the Star Chamber, and commence to hunting them some witches – just keep in this in mind. Remember how good their track record is. Remember how well they accepted innocence with grace.

And then judge them accordingly.

Towering Rage. That’s what I am really feeling.

Where to start? Where to begin? I feel like I could curse her for two full days before I begin to repeat myself.

Nappy-haired ho? Suddenly the Don Imus thing seems oddly appropriate. Have that leftist windbag get his ass in a sling for using the term, then have a real one show up. Karma doing a little compare and contrast.

Seriously – think about this. Don Imus uses a bad-taste insult about a bunch of black girls, and he’s off the air. Gone. Like *that*! A black slut falsely accuses 3 boys of a horrific crime and it takes over a year for their name to be cleared. Jail. Humiliation. Lawyers, and expulsion, and having their pictures and names dragged through the mud…

And we’re supposed to believe that minorities, women, the “poor” are powerless? Looks to me like the white males have no power in either case, but guess who does seem to have a lot of power? Hell, Crystal Gail Mangum will get off scot-f*cking-free.

Not a damn thing will happen to her. Fuck up three kids lives and not a damn. F*cking. Thing.

Well, she doesn’t get a pass from me. Or here.

Here’s the nasty bitch. Here’s what a false accusing cum-dumpster looks like. Crystal Gail Mangum, and here’s hoping she gets what is coming to her, and in wholesale quantities. I’m not going to call for this oxygen thief to be put out of our misery; though God knows it would improve the quality of the gene pool by at least a percentage point. I’ll tell you what, though – if she were to turn up in a ditch with a bullet in her head, I sure as hell aren’t going to be for wasting the money to track down who did her in, and I’ll put topics on this blog just so I can file it under “Public Improvements.”

Let’s take a look at this poster child for female victimhood, taken from the net:

1. DNA results revealed that she had sex with a man who was not a Duke lacrosse player. Attorney Joseph Cheshire said the tests indicated DNA from a “single male source” came from a vaginal swab taken from Mangum. Media outlets reported that this DNA was from her boyfriend.
2. A DNA report released in December 2006 revealed that sperm from several males was found in her body and on her underwear; none of which was from any of the Duke players. Mangum has denied engaging in any sexual activity in the days before the assault, saying that she last had sex a week earlier. She also said that her attackers did not use condoms and ejaculated.
3. She had made a similar claim in the past which she did not pursue. “On Aug. 18, 1996, the dancer – then 18 years old – told a police officer in Creedmoor she had been raped by three men in June 1993, according to a police document. She did not pursue the allegations. The officer who took the woman’s report 10 years ago asked her to write a detailed timeline of the night’s events and bring the account back to the police. “Apparently she never returned,” Granville County DA Sam Currin said.”
4. She told authorities that in 1998, her husband threatened to kill her. However, she did not appear at the court hearing and thus the charges were dropped.
5. She frequently passed out while performing as an exotic dancer at the Platinum Club in Hillsborough, according to the former club manager. The former manager also stated that Mangum had to be dragged out of the establishment onto gravel either one or two nights prior to the March 13th party: “She was heavy. It took four or five of us to carry her outside. She was dead weight. That’s how passed out she was. She never woke up. We could have put the scratches on her. That could be how she got them.” The former manager went on to describe the accuser as “a club employee whose problems with other dancers and customers sometimes made it hard for her to make money,” citing an event in which she started to pull a female customer’s hair.
6. According to the Platinum Club owner, she danced at the club on March 23, 24, and 25. Those were the same dates she told doctors she was “in excruciating pain from the … beating.” The owner said the accuser did not say anything about being raped 10 days earlier. Similarly, 60 Minutes released a video of her allegedly dancing at the club less than two weeks after the alleged incident, again leading to the media doubting how traumatized and in pain she actually was.
7. The strip club’s security officer said that the accuser told co-workers four days after the alleged incident that she “was going to get money from some boys at a Duke party who had not paid her,” adding that she essentially said, “I’m going to get paid by the white boys.” The security guard did not make a big deal of it “because no one takes her seriously.”
8. In 2002, she stole a taxi from a man to whom she was giving a lap dance. A high speed chase then ensued, and when the deputy chasing her approached the stolen taxi on foot, she tried to run over him. She pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of larceny, speeding to elude arrest, assault on a government official and driving while impaired. She was sentenced to 3 weekends in detention.

Jesus. She makes Paris Hilton look like Mary F*cking Poppins.

And let’s not overlook her story. Or stories. She has more than Stephen King.

1. Durham police said Mangum “kept changing her story and is not credible,” reporting that she initially told them she was raped by 20 white men, later reducing the number to only three.
2. Another police report states that the accuser initially claimed she was only groped, rather than raped, but changed her story before going to the hospital.
3. The second stripper who performed at the house, Kim Roberts, said that Mangum was not raped. She stated that the accuser “obviously was not hurt … because she was fine.” Likewise, she refuted other aspects of the accuser’s story including denying that she helped dress the accuser after the alleged incident and saying that they were not forcefully separated by players like the accuser reported.
4. Mangum did not consistently choose the same three defendants in the photo lineups. Media reports have disclosed at least two photo lineups that occurred in March and April. In the March lineup, she did not choose Dave Evans at all. There was only one individual she identified as her assailant with 100% certainty during both procedures – Brad Ross. After being identified, Ross provided to police investigators indisputable evidence that he was with his girlfriend at North Carolina State University before, during, and after the party through cell phone records and a sworn affidavit from a witness.
5. A police report released June 23, 2006, said that Mangum initially claimed she was “attacked by five men … and changed her story several times.”
6. On December 22, 2006, Nifong dropped the rape charges after Mangum stated that “she was penetrated from behind … but did not know with what.” In North Carolina, penetration with an object is considered sexual assault, not rape.
7. On January 11, 2007, several more inconsistencies came to light after the defense filed a motion detailing her interview on December 21, 2006. For example, she changed details about when she was attacked, who attacked her, and how they attacked her:

1. Mangum claims she was attacked from 11:35 p.m. to midnight, much earlier than her previous accusations. This new timing is before the well-documented alibi evidence for Reade Seligmann that places him away from the house. However, the defense revealed that this new timing would suggest Seligmann was on the phone with his girlfriend during the height of the attack. Additionally, she received an incoming call at 11:36 p.m. and somebody stayed on the line for 3 minutes, which would be during the alleged attack according to the new timetable.
2. The new statement contradicts time stamped photos that show her dancing between 12:00 and 12:04 a.m. It would also mean that they stayed at the party for nearly an hour after the supposed attack since Kim Roberts drove her away at 12:53 a.m. In her April statement, Mangum said they left immediately after the attack.
3. Mangum changed the names of her alleged attackers, saying they used multiple pseudonyms. While Dave Evans went by “Dan, Adam and Brett,” Reade Seligmann used the names “Adam and Matt,” while Collin Finnerty either did not have a name or was not called by name, Mangum claimed.
4. The accuser also changed her description of Evans. She previously claimed that she was attacked by a man that looked like Evans except with a “mustache,” but more recently stated that the assailant just had a “five o’clock shadow.”
5. Mangum claimed that Evans stood in front of her, making her perform oral sex on him. Previously, she stated that Seligmann did this. In the latest statement, she stated that Seligmann “did not commit any sex act on her … [H]e said he could not participate because he was getting married.” Although he has a girlfriend, there has never been anything to suggest he was engaged or getting married.

And finally, In its own investigation, The News & Observer, North Carolina’s second largest newspaper, determined that the accuser gave at least five different versions of the alleged rape to police and medical interviewers.

Of course, let’s not just heap all the blame on CRYSTAL GAIL MANGUM. Mike Nifong, indicted, vote seeking, race panderer was in a big hurry to bring a “po black chile” some “justice” to win votes for his re-election. The “Gang of 88″ was in a big f*cking hurry to hound, harass, and lynch these boys. And feminists everywhere are still in denial.

Which well they should be – the silence, again, is deafening from the feminist blogosphere. And if nobody knows why – or even if you do – I will say it out loud:

IT’S BECAUSE FEMINISTS HAVE CREATED THIS SICK AND TWISTED WITCH HUNT CLIMATE TO BEGIN WITH. They’ve pushed for rape shield laws that have had the effect of hiding a false accuser from any accountability for their actions. They whine and plead that such women as CRYSTAL GAIL MANGUM should get off with no consequences because of some bogus “chilling effect.” (Yeah – punish false accusers and what might happen? Other false accusers might not jump out to level charges against their favorite whipping boy for the evils of the world – men. Oh, horrors. Well we can’t have THAT, can we?) And the few feminists who have been speaking out have all been excusing her.

Well, you’re all scum. Choke on it. Choke on it that you have pontificated on it, preached, and been sanctimonious twats over the past year and some change. Choke on it that you are suckers, and fell for the lies and manipulations of a scumbag. And choke on it that you did it because she was black and female. Just like your “KKKlansman” boogeymen who believe anyone because they are white male good ole boys.

That would be Racist. And Sexist. And while it’s an ugly damn shoe, it sure fits you all real well.

Here’s another thing you can choke on, too. This scuzzbucket you have championed has set your cause back immeasurably, the more so for your constant harping on it. I wouldn’t be surprised to find some of your draconian laws you have pushed to put the screws to men rolled back – I’m not holding my breath, but there is real hope there.

And one more thing you can choke down – along with that helping of crow you are eating. One day another woman will actually be raped. And their rapists will walk free after invoking a new incantation: Crystal Gail Mangum.

I am sure they will thank you, then. Yeah, your blind, lemming-like, blinkered, knee-jerk support for this ho simply because of her race and sex has left your credibility and moral voice in tatters and shreds. You have given your foes a mighty weapon of righteous indignation from which to speak loudly. And I know I will use it as often as I can, for one.

You can rage all you want about “privilege” but the fact remains that if it wasn’t for privilege these young men would have been up shit creek without a paddle long ago, sold out more than likely by an underpaid and overworked public defender who didn’t have the time for it, or failed by one who didn’t have the resources.

But don’t worry, ladies. Even if you can’t “nail” well-off white men, maybe all the poorer black men your hateful and misandric laws have shafted will make you sleep easier of nights.

Screw you all.

Oh – before I forget, one last thing:

We Told You So.

She cites Vox Day, who discusses that (female) anger seems irrational; she in turn states that female anger is very rational – which underlines my whole point is that men and women are different; and to men, female anger thus often makes no sense. As a result, when confronted with an angry female who is bent out of shape over a point most men see as trivial, at best, the reaction of most men is stupefaction.

Most men, mind you. As for me – being a devout asshole – I usually respond to female anger with sarcasm and provoking them to further pouts and foot stomps.

Femherroids will – of course, in the face of scientific, peer reviewed study after study after study after study – deny any innate or intrinsic psychological difference between most men and women (And only grudgingly admit any physical differences). However, to watch groups of males and femals together, and observe the dynamics produces some interesting results.

A few years back I was one of the chaperones for a youth retreat through my church. We had the boys and girls seperate (Never mix 14 year olds and sleeping quarters!) and come the night, myself and the lady chaperoning the girls decided that the kids would have pizza, so we ordered out. Two for the boys. Two for the girls. (Six boys and seven girls – and these were some big honking pies). The boys quickly hammered out their order – I forget it exactly, but it was like one pie with pepperoni and sausage, and another half- and – half of something).

We waited fifteen more minutes for the girls order. Know what it was when it came?

Two cheese pizzas.

Because that was the only thing EVERYONE could agree on.

It was very important to have a consensus. A couple girls had been cajoled (bullied) into going along with what everyone else was getting. And my quizzing over the night revealed that it would have been quite easy for there to have been two half-and-half pies and pleased everyone.

Further – one girl wasn’t going to eat (one of the ones bullied into changing her vote). So – nobody in the girls cabin ate until she was again, cajoled, into taking a piece, which she picked at.

The boys had a couple slices left over, and four of them wanting it. And they were ready to arm-wrestle for it until I just cut the slices in half. Girls had three left over, and four wanting them.

So nobody had any.

None of this made any sense to any of the boys – or me. To the girls, this made perfect sense, and I gotta tell you – socialization only covers part of this. This is an entirely different thought process. Girls are brought up among men, and are exposed to their problem solving techniques – the whole idea is far from alien to them. One thing is apparent, though, is that the girls and boys had different priorities. And “being ladylike” in front of the boys wasn’t part of it.

You tell me. I’m sure many of my female readers nod their head in understanding. I’m sure many men shake their head – in stupefaction.

Men often, as well, don’t know how to respond to women’s anger because they don’t understand WHY women are angry. They see them as being angry about a problem that is easily solved – or which isn’t a problem to begin with.

Something similar happeed to me in my second marriage – one day I decided to have a Mongolian BBQ; my big ol’ hammered wok, a gas turkey-fryer burner, and all kinds of meat, vegetables, and sauces – pick your own, and I cook it. My wife was aghast. “Why can’t everyone eat the SAME thing?” she plaintively asked. She bitched the whole time, and by the time of the cooking, most the women just decided on a common bowl of stuff, and some had cajoled (bullied) their husbands into it too. It was interesting that the exceptions were those couples who were dating, but not living together.

Women and men THINK different. We are different. Watch a husband and wife when she wants to go shopping. It is insufficient that he go. He has to WANT to go – and once she decides “he really doesn’t want to” no amount of “Honey, yes I do” will budge her from her position. To him – she wants to go shopping, apparently she needs a pack mule, he agreed to it – problem solved. Those aren’t the issues for her, and she is frustrated. And angry.

Angry primarily because feminism has set women up for the thoroughly unreasonable expectation that men are really just women with penises – that otherwise they think and react like women. Our feminised Publik Skule system consitantly tries to hammer the square pegs of boys into the round holes of feminine behavior, and drugs them when it predictably fails. Feminism chirps over and over “All the same, all the same, all the same” and when women believe this – and then slam up into reality – the reaction is one of dismay, frustration – and anger.

I can only imagine what would have happened years ago had we put all the boys and girls together and ordered the pizzas. It’s one of the reasons I like to tell women “You want shopping and someone to just listen to you complain? Get one of your friends. You want a problem solved – come see me.”

The sooner women put the nonsense about the equivalence of the sexes aside, the happier they will be.. Your great grandmothers realized this, and it’s why their incidence of stress induced heart problems was so much lower.

This is the asshat at the Roanoke Times, the sissified wussy, the fucknozzle, the shitbean…

Ah, I could go on for at least three hours without repeating myself.

The left-wing, bedwetting faggoty dick-with-ears who decided that he needed to publish and arrange to be put online as a database a list of concealed carry license holders, and their names and addresses, becwauwse the were “Pubwic Knowwdge.”

Far be it from me, then, to withhold anything from the public.  They have a right to know, dontchaknow?

Christian R Trejbal
675 School Ln
Christiansburg, VA 24073.
christian.trejbal@roanoke.com
ctrejbal@bendbulletin.com
541-617-7837
540-381-1645

Just in case it scrolled up to far for you to read.  Wouldn’t want you inconvenienced in your efforts to let him know how you feel.

Now, I am certainly not advocating doing anything illegal.  Don’t.  Bomb threats, packages of shit, and such do not help the cause, and the whiney weasel  already called the bomb squad over a package of DHL labels.

NorI am certainly not advocating doing anything like filling out mailer cards for info, signing him up for spam,  putting him on gay porn lists, sending him copies of “Spank me Mommy” magazine, or any of a number of things like that either.  Nope, not me.  That would be Not Nice.

But you could drop him a line and let him know how you feel.  What?  You need that address again?

Christian R Trejbal
675 School Ln
Christiansburg, VA 24073.
christian.trejbal@roanoke.com
ctrejbal@bendbulletin.com
541-617-7837
540-381-1645

Oh, and Chrissy – I have a lifetime permit to carry.  And I don’t give a fuck who knows.  And I would consider it a favor if weak-sister anti-gunners would stay away from me – less chance I might have to protect one of their asses with one of my weapons.  And where I live we have a specific stand your ground law, and if someone breaks into my house and I blow his ass to hell, I stand a good chance of suing his estate for cleanup costs.

And ALL carry is concealed carry.

You know – I have a sticker on my door: “These Premises Insured By Mossberg.”  I have the courage of MY convictions to display it proudly.  To the anti-gun whack-jobs, then, I have a challenge:   Post a sign with your convictions boldly on your doorand vehicle, someething like “Repeal the 2nd Amendment – No Guns Here!”

I’m not going to hold my breath for any takers.

Oh, that address again?

Christian R Trejbal
675 School Ln
Christiansburg, VA 24073.
christian.trejbal@roanoke.com
ctrejbal@bendbulletin.com
541-617-7837
540-381-1645

*sigh*

Hugo, Hugo, Hugo. Where to start?

At the end. Here is what kills me. I could let the rest slide as a hand wringing whine-fest, but this takes the cake:

And if that means that some of the boys need to go and spend a few minutes taking over Martha’s duties so she can take a break, then they damned well can step up and do it.

Believe me, this isn’t hyperbole from Hugo.

I hardly know where to begin.  On second thought, yes, I do.  A long time ago in a galaxy far far away – well, a few moons back, in the blogosphere of the Femiplex, Barry/Ampersand put out his “Male Privilege Checklist”  Which was within hours fisked as example after example of self-created problems and pressures put on women by other women.

Most notable – (drumroll) – FEMINISTS! 

That is right.  Feminists.  Who is it that is saying if women get their “Mrs” degree, they are wasting their lives?  Who is it that says if women stay home with their kids they are betraying women?

Ladies – if you forget to paint one of your nails, and one is a different shade, tell me – who is going to be catty and whisper about you behind your back?  Your relatives come over and the house isn’t “perfect.”  Is it your uncles that are going to slam you later on? Isn’t it your husband or boyfriend who is telling you, “Good enough, take a rest?”  Isn’t it your husband or boyfriend who is saying, “For Pity’s sake, honey, you look gorgeous!?”

Who is your biggest critic?  Men?

Or other Women?  Who created the pressure to be “Superwoman?”  Men?

Or FEMINISTS?

So – in the name of all of the Gods at once – WHY THE HELL IS IT THE JOB OF “THE BOYS” TO “DAMNED WELL” STEP UP?  (THat is a rhetorical question, lads, we all know the answer.)

Here’s an idea – lay off your sisters, ladies.  If they don’t want to be uberwench, give ‘em a fuckin’ break.

 I have been busy working, and swamped – get up, slave, come home, crash.

 I hope to have things cleared up this weekend.

If you have ever met a feminist, especially one of the male variety, you’ve probably learned rather quickly that they are fixated on the idea that women are somehow morally superior, and perpetual victims. Thus, when confronted with evidence to the contrary their first reaction is to dismiss the evidence, and then to try to *EXPLAIN* it away.

Most of the data which supports the Men’s Rights position on domestic violence comes from the research of Martin S. Fiebert, Professor of Psychology at CSU Long Beach. Time and time again his research is used to suggest it is men who are the victims of relationship violence, not women. Even a cursory look on the internet finds his research is used internationally by men’s activists to justify attacks on feminism. It is true that Fiebert’s data suggests that women are as aggressive, if nor more aggressive, then men are in the context of domestic abuse. But what men’s rights activists continually misinterpret is the nature of that aggression, and Fiebert’s own view of Patriarchy and the interpretation of his data.

Correction – the Fiebert list is not research in and of itself, but a collection of statistics gleaned from literally HUNDREDS of other studies.

In a 2002 interview with the LA Times, Fiebert was quoted as saying that part of the reason society thinks men are not abused by women is because men are afraid to come forward and admit they’ve been beat up by a woman.

Note that “PART” of the reason….

“That comes from a culture of patriarchy,” Fiebert argues, “In western society, [men are] in charge of the family, and the economics and the power of the family. Therefore when it’s demonstrated that the person in position of power doesn’t have the power, it’s an area of ridicule and humiliation.”

…Quickly becomes the whole of the reason.

Quick – for 20 points, name that logical fallacy!

Fiebert’s analysis is certainly in line with many prominent feminist theories on the subject. In her short essay, Supremacy Crimes, Gloria Steinem suggests that masculinity is built on the assumption “that males are superior to females, that they must find a place in a male hierarchy, and that the ability to dominate someone is… important.” If Steinem’s view is correct, then a woman who is able to dominate a man is considered humiliating from a masculine point of view since it inverts the hierarchy and makes a female physically superior to a male.

*IF* Steinems view is correct. Which it is not.

Contrary to Gloria’s – and most feminist’s – warped view of reality, the very vast and very overwhelming majority of men – hell, people – will generally turn only to violence out of a last resort. I am quite capable of breaking any assailant in about 1.2 seconds flat. In my days as a bouncer, I was known to do so in the line of my job. In my private life, I am much more likely to “just hand over the wallet.”

What the real problem is centers around the fact that if a man does come forward, the probability is almost certain that nothing will be done unless such evidence exists as can’t be pooh-poohed away; that if something is done, it will be a mere token admonishment, and that in all likelihood it will be him who is punished instead under feminist-lobbied-for “primary aggressor” doctrines.

Both Fiebert and Steinem are saying what Men’s Rights Activists won’t: a patriarchy suppresses or ridicules stories about violence and rape committed against men because they portray women in a dominant role. In fact, an organization devoted to battered men writes, “Domestic violence against women is not socially condoned. Men who do beat women typically feel shame and try to keep it a secret. Most men have little respect for a man who “beats his woman.””

This is a half truth, at best. In a REAL patriarchy, the law and culture would give carte blanche to a man keeping his woman in line; hence, if one’s wife were to assault or otherwise defy her social master, he could discipline her with the full blessing of law and society. You can see real patriarchal cultures in the Muslim world where this is so.

In 1997, Fiebert found that the most prominent reason why women attacked men without regard to their safety was “I believe that men can readily protect themselves so I don t worry when I become physically aggressive.” In other words, the perception of men as the more powerful figure was one of the main reasons why women felt they could attack their husbands or boyfriends.

Here’s where the bullshit starts rolling in.

Three words: Little Man Disease.

This is the phenomena whereby a scrawny little runt feels they can walk up to the biggest guy in the bar and begin abusing him. He knows he can’t lose. If the big guy backs off – he’s a pussy. If he doesn’t, his usual posse will stand up saying, “Hey, you big bully, pick on someone your own size.”

Same thing. And it arises from the same lack of moral character when such women do that.

Blaming the victim, Steven. Bad troll. No biscuit.

While his study did suggest that women are more likely than men to use household objects as weapons in domestic violence cases, Fiebert never suggested that men suffer more injuries than women as a result of their violence. In part then, the assertion then that women are more dangerous than men in society is patently sexist.

Claptrap and codswaddle, in that order. Neither Feibert nor Men’s Activists claim a greater incidence of injury, Steven. It is still criminal. If one drives drunk and doesn’t get caught, one is still a criminal, the same as if they do get caught and “nobody was hurt” or if they run down a 10 year old. “No harm, no foul” is crap – and you know it.

Second – to say that a woman with a weapon swinging isn’t dangerous is also bullshit. I may be a monster of a man with a collection of black belts and have small risk to all but an ambush, but put a club in anyone’s hand, and they are indeed dangerous. Even if they are female.

Your claim that they are less dangerous – because they are mere women – is the sexist claim, Steven.

And yet, Men’s Rights Activists turn the issue against feminists, suggesting that it’s feminism which teaches that violence committed against men is unimportant or nonexistent. Daran, writing from Creative Destruction, writes that feminism. “looks at female oppression through a microscope, and male oppression through a telescope.” The overarching message is that both men and women are oppressed by society, and that feminism cares only for female oppression and not male oppression. This fits into the idea that feminism is “whitewashing” the violence women perpetrate against men and other women, while vilifying men as being the big bad rapist. Of course, it is difficult to make a case for inequality while arguing that both men and women are equally unequal.

Duluth Model, Steven. Erin Pizzey, Steven.

The perception that feminism is the reason society is not sensitive to the needs of men is quite backward. According to feminism, society is purposely not sensitive to the needs of men as a right of passage, calling on men to dominate their rivals or face humiliation, to be a provider and not need the help of anyone. This is a major reason why men would not wish to come forward to talk about their experiences out of shame and humiliation. It is the perception of men as the protector, the provider, rather than the nurturer and healer, which accounts for much of the social organizing and family disputes which assign gender roles that many men and women rightly view us unfavorable to their preferences and needs.

Back to the whole “Patriarchy” crap.

Steven, your statements are so patently untrue I will call them for what they are – bald faced lies and propaganda, as only can be spouted by a kool-aid swilling true believer. The fact of the matter is that most men would come forward – many do, and it is only after being treated like crap by the system, and seeing other men treated like crap by the same system, that men don’t.

Riddle me this, Batman: Why is it that FEMINISTS are the ones complaining when police abandon psychobabble nonsense, and start arresting women for DV? Why are FEMINISTS arguing that men should have to privately fund shelters for men, for fear of taking away “women’s” share of the pie? Why when you propose some rectification of this is it that FEMINISTS are the first to bitterly complain, and advocate maintaining the status quo? Why did FEMINISTS oppose the creation of the New Hampshire Commission on Men?

What feminists DO speaks so loudly, I am afraid, that what they say gets lost. Mainly because it shows that they really don’t believe what they say.

No, I am not accusing feminists of hypocrisy, but of mendacity.

Contrary to the assertion of Mens Rights Activists, many feminist organizations and individuals have begun talking about the objectification, exploitation, and oppression of men. One group, CAFRA, writes:

the objectification of men’s bodies is associated with the emergence of a new consumer culture. Men have long held the power of ‘the gaze’ over women’s bodies and still do. With the growth of men’s style magazines and male modeling, men are being subjected to ‘the look’ of both women and men. This is exemplified by the range of new body-sculpting magazines and exercise machines that are being promoted. Men are being encouraged to have “rock hard abs” and a totally toned physique (a hard body) Also, men are proving to be almost as susceptible as women to a loss of self-esteem and dissatisfaction with their body image. The male image is increasingly being sexualized, eroticized and so feminized.” But while many feminists are willing to take on part of the issues raised by Men’s Rights Activists, they fall short of wanting to call back progress made on women’s liberation.

The last line says it all. Feminists are willing to make a show of ineffectual hand wringing and false concern. They are not willing, however, to actually DO anything about it. Women first.

Feminists consider men to be potential victims of the Patriarchial society in addition to women. But as Keith Nurse, a feminist writer for CAFRA, correctly points out “the men as victims argument is associated with a counter movement to reassert the dominance of men and masculinity.” To portray women as dominating society and men as suffering is a complete distortion from reality.

I repeat, for your answering, a challenge issued years ago. Ready?

• Name one way that western society oppresses women that is socially condoned.

To be socially condoned a oppressive meme, law or social bias has to be one of several things:

1. Invisible with no high profile, government funded groups educating the public about it.

2. Visible but socially acceptable with no high profile government funded groups or enforced laws attempting to eliminate it.

3. Visible and socially promoted with high profile government funded groups or enforced laws upholding it.

Conditions

1. Which gender enforces the meme, law or social bias has no bearing. (If it did then female genital mutilation would not be oppression suffered by women in developing countries since it is mandated and carried out most often by other women.)

2. To be oppressive the meme, law or social bias merely has to restrict the choices and freedoms of one gender without corresponding restriction on the other. (For instance citing the restriction of females to certain roles would not count if males are likewise restricted to certain roles.)

Until, Steven, you can answer this, your whole “Patriarchy” claim is an unproven assertion and unfounded premise.

Given the evidence, and given the feminist research on these issues, I think it’s only fair that Mens Rights Activsts be more honest about domestic violence issues instead of misinterpreting data and laying the blame for insensitivity towards men on feminists rather than the Patriarchy feminists spend their time talking about.

When we have prominent feminists in good standing who talk about how valuable an experience it is for men to be raped, or falsely accused of rape, I think that shoe fits nicely, Steven.

The words of your side. Not ours. I only quote them.

If you don’t like it, I suggest you do one of two things: Clean your house, or find a different place to live.

And Mexican consular officials also demanded the prosecution of Texas Sheriff’s Deputy Guillermo “Gilmer” Hernandez, who subsequently was brought to trial by Sutton, the documents reveal.

Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas – among a number of congressman who have fiercely opposed the prosecution of Ramos and Compean – told WND he has “long suspected that Mexican government officials ordered the prosecution of our law enforcement agents.”

“Mexico wants to intimidate our law enforcement into leaving our border unprotected, and we now have confirmation of it in writing,” Culberson said.

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, was equally outraged.

“The Mexican government should do more to keep illegals from Mexico from crossing into the United States, especially drug dealers, rather than be concerned about our border agents,” he told WND. “The U.S. Justice Department should not be working for the Mexican government.”

The White House and Sutton’s office in El Paso, Texas, did not respond to calls from WND asking for comment.

Hernandez’s attorney Jimmy Parks of San Antonio, Texas, told WND the documents “prove that it is wrong for my client to be in jail.”

“The prosecution of my client sends a wrong message to criminal illegal immigrants who are being tempted to cross our borders with impunity,” he said.

Mexico intervenes

WND has obtained a copy of a letter written April 18, 2005, by Mexican Consul Jorge Ernesto Espejel Montes in Eagle Pass, Texas, demanding Hernandez be prosecuted for injuring a Mexican national, Marciela Rodriguez Garcia.

[Page 1 of the letter can be seen here and page 2 here.]

The first two paragraphs of the letter set out the facts of the case as understood by the Mexican consul. The letter is reproduced here as written:

I am addressing to you, regarding the case of the Mexican national, Ms. MARICELA RODRIGUEZ GARCIA (DOB 4-11-1979), who based on the information obtained by this Consulate, received a gunshot wound by an agent of the Sheriff Department of Edward County, that caused injuries in her face.As far aw we know, last April 15, 2005, the Mexican national was transported in first insistence to Val Verde Hospital in Del Rio, Tx, and then to San Antonio, Tx., where she was attended at the University Hospital. Today, Mr. Gabriel Salas a member of the staff of this office had the opportunity of interviewed Ms. RODRIGUEZ who confirms the facts of the incident.

The final two paragraphs contain the demands of the Mexican consul:

Based on the Consular Convention between Mexico and the United States and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Consulate of Mexico is entitled to represent, protect and defend the rights of Mexican nationals in this country. Therefore, I would like to point out, that is the care of my Country that this kind of incidents against our nationals, do not remain unpunished.According to the information provided above, I would appreciate your kind assistance, so this Consulate can be informed of the current investigation, and your support, so you present and file a complaint with the necessaries arraignments.

WND has learned the Mexican consul addressed separate copies of the letter to the following parties:

• Don Lettsinger, Sheriff, Edward County, Rocksprings, Texas
• Norman Townsent, Supervisor Senior Special Agent, FBI, Laredo, Texas
• Bobby Smith, Texas Rangers, Del Rio, Texas
• Fred Hernandez, District Attorney, Del Rio, Texas
• J.A. Garcia, Attorney at Law, San Antonio,Texas
• Lieutenant Gerónimo Gutiérrez Fernández, Subsecretario para América del Norte
• Minister Miguel Gutiérrez Tinoco, Director General de Protección y Asuntos Consulares
• Emb. Arturo Aquiles Dáger Gómez, Consultor Juridico
• Emb. Carlos de Leaza, Embajador de México, Washington, D.C.
• Emb. Martha I. Lara, Cónsul General de México, San Antonio, Texas

WND also has learned that on April 29, 2005, Sheriff Lettsinger in Edwards County advised that the Texas Rangers met with the district attorney in Del Rio and was told the state of Texas had been removed from the Hernandez case because the FBI and the federal government were taking over.

The Mexican national Rodriguez was in a Chevrolet Suburban van full of illegals that attempted to run over Hernandez after he had stopped the vehicle for running a stop sign April 14, 2005, in Rocksprings, Texas. Firing his weapon at the rear tires, a bullet fragment hit Rodriguez in the mouth, cutting her lip and breaking two teeth.

Hernandez, convicted of felony civil rights violations, is incarcerated in a Del Rio prison waiting sentencing.

In the case of agents Ramos and Compean, WND has obtained notes made by a congressional staff member who attended the Sept. 26, 2006, meeting with three investigators from the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General’s office.

The staff member’s notes indicate the Inspector General’s office briefed the congressmen that the Mexican consul had also intervened in the Ramos and Compean case.

According to the notes obtained by WND, the congressmen were told:

Several weeks later (after the February 17, 2005 event near Fabens, Texas), the Mexican Consulate contacted the U.S. Consulate in Mexico saying that they have a person who claims to have been shot by a Border Patrol agent. On March 4, 2005, the U.S. Consulate contacted the U.S. attorney.

DHS investigative reports filed by Special Agent Christopher Sanchez document that March 4, 2005, is the date on which DHS initiated the Ramos-Compean investigation.

WND can find no evidence the Border Patrol, DHS, or U.S. Attorney Sutton had started any investigation of Ramos or Compean concerning the events of Feb. 17, 2005, prior to March 4, 2005.

‘Dictating’ policy

“The Mexican government should not be dictating United States border policy,” Poe told WND after learning of the Mexican consul’s involvement in both cases.

Culberson agreed.

“We have it in writing,” he told WND, “a letter from the Mexican Consulate in the case of the deputy sheriff from Edwards County and verbal confirmation of the Mexican Consulate’s complaint in the case of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean.”

Culberson told WND it is “outrageous and unacceptable that our government is prosecuting U.S. law enforcement officials at the request of the Mexican government.”

The congressman said the revelations suggest national security may be at risk:

“U.S. national security interests in the war on terror must determine how we protect our border, not the opinions of the Mexican government,” he said.

Culberson called for a congressional investigation, telling WND, “We’ve now got to find out how many other Mexican government complaints have led to the prosecutions of our law enforcement officers on the border, and this intimidation must stop.”

Previous accounts in question

Sutton’s claim he learned about the identity of the drug smuggler in the Ramos-Compean case, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, through consular contacts originating in Mexico apparently contradicts his explanation in an exclusive interview with WND Jan. 19, Sutton said his office learned the identity of Aldrete-Davila from a lawyer in Mexico representing the drug smuggler.

WND: So, Aldrete-Davila ran away, and as you say, at the time you didn’t have any basis to know who he was and there were no fingerprints. But yet, you found the guy. If you found the guy to give him immunity, why couldn’t you have found the guy to punish him?SUTTON: The way we found him is that he came forward and was in Mexico with a lawyer. So, the only way to get him to testify was to give him immunity from being prosecuted. He wasn’t going to agree to come to the United States, he wasn’t going to agree to talk, unless he had some kind of immunity from being prosecuted for that load. So, that puts the prosecutor in the terrible choice of everyone goes free, we got no case against the dope dealer, we cannot make a case against the dope dealer because there’s no evidence, thanks to agents and other factors.

Sutton’s account also appears to contradict the March 14, 2005, memo from Special Agent Christopher Sanchez which claimed the government learned Aldrete-Davila’s identity from Border Patrol Agent Rene Sanchez in Willcox, Ariz.

As WND reported, Christopher Sanchez’s memo had claimed Rene Sanchez and Aldrete-Davila grew up together in Mexico. Rene Sanchez, the memo said, learned Aldrete-Davila was the drug smuggler involved in the incident with agents Ramos and Compean after his mother-in-law had a phone call with Aldrete-Davila’s mother in Mexico.

The memo also indicates the shooting was reported to the Mexican Consulate.

Rene Sanchez said that his mother-in-law Gregoria Toquinto went to Mexico to help her friend Marcadia take her son Osbaldo to the Mexican Consulate to report the shooting incident. However, Osbaldo declined to go. Marcadia advised Toquinto that Osbaldo did not want to report the incident, because he had actually been transporting a load of marijuana and was afraid the Mexican and/or U.S. authorities would put him in jail.

Staff notes WND obtained from the Sept. 26, 2006, meeting Poe, Culberson and two other Texas Republican congressmen had with three investigators in the Inspector General’s office indicate the Mexican Consulate knew all about Aldrete-Davila. That conflicts with Sutton’s claim the drug smuggler was so concerned about prosecution he was afraid to talk to the Mexican Consulate.

It also contradicts the DHS Report of Investigation released by Assistant Inspector General Elizabeth Redman to Congress in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by Poe. On a page numbered as “4 of 33,” the DHS report appears to have a heavily redacted version of the Rene Sanchez mother-in-law story.

Redman was one of three DHS investigators who attended the Sept. 26, 2006, meeting with the four Texas Republican congressman. The other two investigators were identified to WND as Tamara Faulkner and James Taylor.

As WND reported, DHS Inspector General Richard L. Skinner admitted under oath Feb. 6 that Redman and the other investigators had misled the Texas congressmen. Skinner was responding to questioning by Culberson before the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.

Skinner admitted, contrary to previous claims, DHS did not have investigative reports that would prove Ramos and Compean were rogue Border Patrol agents who told investigators they were “out to shoot some Mexicans” the day of the incident with Aldrete-Davila.

Culberson since has called for the resignation of the investigators.

Ramos-Compean trial

The Mexican consul’s role in revealing the identity of Aldrete-Davila also conflicts with prosecutor Debra Kanof’s opening statement to the jury in the Ramos-Compean trial.

According to a copy of the statement obtained by WND, Kanof explained the following to the jury Feb. 21, 2006:

Rene Sanchez is stationed in Willcox, Arizona. He’s actually from El Paso. And sometime in the last couple of days of February he got a phone call from his mother-in-law. And his mother-in-law lives in Mexico, in a little town on the outskirts of Juarez. And she told him that she had been talking to a friend of hers, a girlfriend of hers, and that that girlfriend had told her that her son, the girlfriend’s son, had been shot in back by a Border Patrol agent outside of El Paso, Texas, somewhere near San Elizario.

From there, Kanof explained how Rene Sanchez investigated.

So Rene Sanchez investigated. He made some phone calls to people he knew in El Paso and asked if there was a shooting.First he needed to find out, however, when that occurred and approximately where it occurred. So he immediately reported it to his supervisor in Willcox, Arizona, who told him to get more information, which he did by calling his mother-in-law. And he instructed his mother-in-law to take a cell phone – his mother-in-law actually lives in El Paso – to take a cell phone to Mexico, give that cell phone to the individual who was shot, and have them call me, so I can get some facts. And that, he did.

The individual who shot is an individual by the name of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila. And Rene Sanchez spoke with him on the phone, and he gave him information about what occurred that day.

Kanof said nothing to the jury suggesting the information about Aldrete-Davila actually came from the Mexican consul, who contacted the American Consulate in Mexico, who in turn contacted DHS and prosecutor Sutton’s office.

While Ramos and Compean are in federal prison, Aldrete-Davila has found an American lawyer and plans to sue the Border Patrol for $5 million for allegedly violating his civil rights.

Google cannot censor a video. Google is a private entity. Censoring is defined as prior restraint by a governmental entity. The government – and the government alone – has the power to censor.

As a private individual, if someone does something which you deem objectionable, be they words, speech, or anything else, you may deny them the use of your property, facilities, or resources to continue to do that. You are not obliged to listen to them.

This is freedom. Kindly extend that to others as well. Google- as a private entity – is likewise entitled to that same freedom.

Your “Communist China” comparison is not merely inappropriate, but full of hysterical hyperbole, and makes the whole of your argument fatally flawed since it proceeds from a false premise.

 

Since he will probably exercise his privilege here to remove my comment.  Just saying…

But that will be “different.”

Well, I can tell you certain ones are obvious, and probably already known – namely, politicians shouldn’t hire people because they are somehow trendy or edgy without checking them out first. This is lost on people who value symbolism over substance, by and large, though. I imagine there are people on the left still shaking their heads and wondering, what in the name of secular humanism went wrong?

No, even a beating with Gonz’s patented Clue-by-Four O’ Doom isn’t going to help this lot.

Nor, I am afraid, is it going to help the perpetually useful idiots who classify themselves as liberal and so-called Christians. You know the type, I am sure. “I’m a Christian. But those Ten Commandments – well, they are a little out of date, more suggestions really. And God was kidding about the whole sexual morality issue. Hell is just symbolic. Jesus claiming to be God incarnate – he who has seen Me has seen the Father – not so much. No one comes to the Father except by Him – a little – well – intolerant? Virgin Birth? Resurrection? Miracles? How amusing. Judgement? That’s so judgemental. But other than that, I am *SO* a Christian!” Repentance and faith are optional. But Good Works, in the name of – well, in the name of nothing because that could offend someone – there’s salvation!

For those of you who catch the irony, I will pause for the chuckles to subside. For those who don’t – don’t worry. Lots of people have computers smarter than they are.

I’ve noticed a lot of those people being puzzled that anyone could be offended by Amandagons bigoted tirades against religion in general, Christians in particular, and Catholics in specific. I’ll just observe that it’s pretty hard to be offended about something that you only pay lip service to in any event. Not that I pay much attention to being offended, myself. It’s Amanda Marcotte for pity’s sake. Long ago I learned to only bother to be upset by people of consequence – and the beginning of her slide into obscurity has surely commenced.

Hell, you don’t have to go far to find evidence of just what the left wing really thinks of religious folks – right here on MND you’ll find someone who would have no problem with nationally televised sodomy, but regards Tony Dungy thanking his Creator for his success as a horrid breach of manners. At best, such people regard religion as a dirty secret best kept in your closet – and many have advocated taking away rights to vote, to hold public office, to raise one’s own children – the list goes on.

A lot of liberal “Christians” would more than likely be the ones who burned the incense and ate the sacrifices in Rome. After all, Caesar said to, and he is our Great Leader, isn’t he?

Yeah, I know some of you asswipes think I am being harsh on ya’ll. Well, you vote for these libtards, don’t you? I mean, don’t take my word – go read for yourself. You tell me your erstwhile allies aren’t all but ready to toss you into a camp for your religion. Hell, in Canada they are talking about removing the official legitimacy of any church that doesn’t toe the “progressive” line. I don’t see any of your progressive buddies giving a thoughful pause and saying, “That’s a bit extreme.” I notice more than a few applauding it.

You really gonna tell me there is absolutely no danger of having one of their jackbooted goons telling you one day, “Your beliefs don’t meet government approval. Submit to re-education or submit to registration and start wearing a yellow cross on your chest.”

I mean, Robert Paul Reyes, on these very pages, has pretty much said he’d like to stamp out religion. You think he’s going to give up that goal if “sweet reason” won’t prevail? What if him or his kind get in power? Think they’ll just go – “Gee, whiz – we tried! Oh well!” and let it drop?

Yeah. We have a Constitution. So did the Weimar Republic, and the Elections of ‘32 changed that in no time flat.

You think you are somehow excepted from their contempt for faith just because you vote Democrat?

Yeah, you’d speak up before it went *that* far. Tell that to the Christians in Red China. At least the ones who haven’t been bulldozed into mass graves and paved over. Your left wing buddies have a real stellar record of just how reasonable they are when uppity religious people question their sacred “State.” But I am sure it is going to be “different” with you. You just keep telling yourself that, pal. I’m sure when they are talking about mother-f*ck*ing, jeebus-worshipping, christofascist godbags they are also saying “Except for that ____________(insert your name here), and friends; they’re different.”

The lesson here to be learned for you people, after John Edward’s weak denunciation of Missy and Mandy, and the silence from the left, is that if you call yourself a Christian – let alone religious – and specifically if you’re Catholic, you’re as dumb as a sack of hammers to pull any lever for a Democrat, or any of the other left wing parties. You can be best likened to a Jew voting National Socialist, or a black guy voting for David Duke.

They have shown their colors. This is what they really think about you. And you can go look up what Amanda and her kind have said about you – as a Christian – and do my grandpappy’s old test – substitute “black” in place of whatever group they are talking about, and see if it is offensive.

And religious black people – I will just refer you to Bob Parks, and maybe you will believe him:

“Hollywood liberals love to bash Republicans and religion in public and in their media. Christians, in particular. But if these same civil rights minded limousine liberals were to traverse the inner city, they would find more places of worship per square block than anywhere in the world. But their apparent subconscious disrespect for black people is manifest in their glee in insulting all things we consider religious. Yet, we idolize these people, and purchase products from companies and executives that portray black people as Ebonics-talking, hip hop dancing, basketball playing pets. And yet, we embrace them.

“Yes, that’s right. I said it. Pets.

“If your cat urinates on the carpet, you don’t get mad at the cat because it doesn’t know any better. So when certain black people go astray, liberals in the media find the anointed black “leaders” to tell the world what made them do what they did and blame it on society’s inequities. It’s never our fault. It’s the socio-economic conditions, it’s racism, it’s Reaganomics, and it’s always understandable.”

And since I have enough Indian in me to be a minority, I’ll say it: These annointed black leaders are just Liberal, Democratic house niggers. This is the same party that wanted you kept in chains, and fooled you into thinking they liked you because they decided to turn you into dependants, destroy your families, and sit here and encourage you all as your culture falls into gang warfare, drug use, illegitimacy, illiteracy – Margaret Sanger, one of the annoited Saints of Liberals and Feminists was promoting a “Final Solution” for you long before Adolf Hitler came along. And given the abortion rate of black people, a lot at the hands of Planned Parenthood – an organization she founded for Pete’s sake – it’s progressing nicely. And all the time, they nod their heads, applaud, and tell you to “keep going – self-destruction is your cultural HERITAGE!”"
Look at how they go after – absolutely SAVAGE – any black person who dares to step off the liberal plantation. These are your friends? You VOTE for them? And white people, and people on the right, who want you to go to school, get educated, get jobs, get rich, own businesses, and own property are your racist enemies?

How is that again?

Let’s hope to hell we have some lessons learned.

Me, I’m not going to sweat it.  The Catholic Church was founded in persecution.  We could go underground *snap* like that.  Almost a century behind the Iron Curtain – you think the Vatican doesn’t have the notes on “How to Survive and Prosper Underground?”  You think they don’t have operatives ready to come in and help organize?  We came out of some of these communist countries stronger than we went in.  And a lot of your Protestant “Fundies” who operate missions in such countries could just as easily do it here, too.  It’s you all, who always kowtow to the secular authority, who would be lost and clueless.

Your call – and your lesson to learn or not.

Happy Valentine’s Day — Let’s Get Divorced!!

Valentine's Day is the Most Popular Time of Year to Seek a Divorce Attorney

BOSTON, Feb. 5 /PRNewswire/ -- Valentine's Day. Some say it's the most
romantic day of the year. Others dismiss it as merely a commercial scam.
Still others find themselves dateless and depressed. But it could be worse;
according to Forbes, the day of love is the year's most popular time to
seek a divorce attorney.
It seems Valentine's Day may be a dual holiday for lovers and
leavers... New York City Divorce Attorney Sherri Donovan, in her new book
HIT HIM WHERE IT HURTS: The Take-No-Prisoners Guide to Divorce - Alimony,
Custody, Child Support, and More offers advice for women in their moment of
realization -- that on this day of romance they have none...and their
decision to jump ship. "You may simply decide that you can't face another
Valentine's Day living a lie," Donovan says. "But don't throw those
drugstore chocolates in his face and storm out quite yet. Do your homework
first -- or you could end up broke and bitter by the next time February
14th rolls around."
The numbers echo Donovan's cautionary warning. Eighty-five percent of
the time, it is the woman who initiates the divorce. Amidst the staggering
emotional turmoil, they too often make hasty decisions and "play-nice" to
get the proceedings behind them. The result: They get screwed. How screwed?
Consider this:
* The average woman experiences a forty-five percent drop in her
standard of living after divorce
* Eighty-five percent of custodial parents are mothers and, of those
female-headed households, forty-five percent exist at or near the poverty
line
* Only fifty percent of custodial parents are awarded child support,
and of those granted support, only forty-five percent receive the full
amount on a regular basis
Clearly, women preparing to go through the nightmare of divorce need a
game plan that ensures they get what they deserve. "You don't want to end
up like these women," says Donovan. "Ultimately, your divorce can be a
liberating experience that jumpstarts a better, happier life for you, but
only if you're prepared for the worst that can-and too often does-happen."
HIT HIM WHERE IT HURTS: The Take-No-Prisoners Guide to Divorce - Alimony,
Child Support, and More by respected NYC matrimonial attorney Sherri
Donovan is a must-read resource (a guerilla guide of sorts) for any woman
about to leave a bad marriage behind.
SHERRI DONOVAN IS AVAILABLE FOR INTERVIEW

              To arrange, contact Beth Gissinger @ 508/427-6757

Hmmmm.  Speaks for itself, eh?

Ah.  You know, it has been my fervent wish to see one – JUST ONE – of these jackasses named Jane.  Why?  So I could respond, “Jane, you ignorant slut…”

I’ve always wanted to do that

You know, I’m pretty tolerant of Catholics, and…

Ho! Whoa! Hold, wait, wait, waitwaitwait – GONZ! Flag on the play. You are Catholic. You’re so Catholic, I’ve heard you occasionally call Benedict XVI too liberal. How the hell can you be “Tolerant” of Catholics? You agree with them You’re ONE of them. You make no sense!

Ah. Caught out. Let me try again.

You know, I’m pretty tolerant of Protestants….

No objection? Yeah, I guess I can be tolerant of Protestants. I don’t agree with them. Hell, some of them even hand out tracts talking about how I am going to hell, and am a servant of Satan for “Worshipping the Pope.” Of course, I don’t associate with the latter kind. Don’t go to church with Protestants, though I will go to weddings, funerals, etc.

Of course, I think they are heretics. I think some of them have some whacked out and twisted beliefs. (Let’s not get into “Predestination.) But I am everything from Good Buddies with Protestants, all the way down to people who would like to see me strung u. We disagree. But I tolerate that.

It’d be pretty hard for me not to tolerate something I agree with. The idea of “tolerating” something I practice is ludicrous. Tolerance must come about in an environment where you do not practice something, or do not agree with it. Or both. Liking it isn’t the point. Live and let live is the point.

Liberals tend to abuse the notion of tolerance. But we knew that. Sometimes, though, it is the obvious which bears being said outright, as it is often overlooked. Liberals tend to conflate the notions of tolerance and acceptance with “embracing” and “celebrating” and nothing could be further from the truth. I tolerate my son’s choices in music, as did my own father before me. I hardly celebrate or embrace the noise that emanates from his room.

Because something is legal, it has government mandated tolerance – but it does not make it moral or right necessarily. There are a great many things which are ostensibly legal, and should remain so. If I rent my property to someone, a legal process exists for me to evict them. If they do not pay rent, I may do so. If it turns out that I will be putting a family out on the street due to a run of hard luck, this may not be moral for me to do. If, however, I am finding trash cans full of expensive booze, it sheds a different context on this.

If a gay couple moves in down the road, we rightfully expect people to tolerate them. To not commit crimes against their person or property.  To not slander them, or libel them.  To not interfere with their access to courts, or other public facilities.  It does not, however, oblige anyone to invite them to the Sunday barbeque.

And that is alright, because it works both ways.  The gay couple can have their own Sunday barbeque.  And they can exclude the “m*th*rf*ck*ng fundie Xtian godbags” as Liberal John Edwards chief blogger, Amanda Marcotte, would so delicately put it, if they wish.
(Guess that is some of that wonderful Liberal Tolerance, eh wot?)

Business as usual, though.  One standard for the left.  Another standard for everyone else.  But that is another – and more perpetual – topic.