Please take a few moments to realize that the men’s rights movement is growing.  We are finding acceptance in larger political circles, particularly where our work addresses larger pro-marriage ends.  This is something the MRM has never been able to accomplish  by griping about its own travails.  But this is not suprising: the “Titanic Principle” says that men must go down with the ship.  Our complaints still fall on deaf ears, yet many MRM’s insist on pursuing this historically and obviously useless approach.

I urge the leaders of this movement to refocus their work on Marriage Values and similar policy approaches.  This will finally empower us politically and in public policy.  It will restore not only men’s role in the family, but also end the tremendous problems marriage-absence has caused women and children.  After all, isn’t this what real men are supposed to do?

© 2009, David R. Usher

Kourtney Kardashian is one such woman, who admitted she regularly “forgets” to take her birth control pill. Of course she now accidentally pregnant by her revolving-door boyfriend Scott Disick.

Neither of them are famous or particularly rich, but Scott is no waif having an income between $150,000 to $200,000 per year.

One thing we can be very sure of: Kardashian did not tell Scott she “forgot” to take her pill.  By “forgetting”, one cannot possibly remember to mention it before having sex, right?

Now for the clincher:  Just before a woman has sex, if she really does not want a child out of wedlock, how could she possibly not think back about whether she took her pill or not?  If she cannot remember that she did take it, and if she has sex anyway without insisting on using some other form of protection,  she knows darned well what she is doing.

Any parent knows that kids apply “selective memory” as a standard ploy to avoid taking responsibility for things they do.  Most parents don’t fall for it.  So why do we let some fully -grown women get away with it and then pay them for doing so?

Kardashian certainly isn’t going to say she wanted to get pregnant.  Most folks ears go back when women say they intentionally become single mothers.   Kardashian knows she is safe pretending she is a victim of her own conveniently-feeble memory.

Kardashian is saying Scott is “way more” excited about it than she is (as if he forgot to take his pill and could hardly wait to impregnate her).  As we would expect, Kardashian does not appear to be interested in marriage — but certainly is not  considering an abortion (which is what women do when they really do not want an accidental pregnancy).  This combination of positions is a sure sign Kardashian wanted to get pregnant in the first place.

Scott has not said a thing about the pregnancy.  Had he been a willing participant in pregnancy, they would not be keeping him in the coal bin.  They don’t want him portraying Kourtney as the con artist she is.  Given all the money and lawyers the Kardashian family has, he does not dare talk about it.  He’s just hoping Kourtney will let him take on the visage of responsible fatherhood so Hollywood does not see him as just another rambling stud muffin.

The Big Picture

Certainly, a few accidents will happen.  But the occasional “accident” does not explain even a small percentage of America’s greatest and longest-running international embarrassment: an illegitimacy rate of over 40% (temporarily superceded by the economic crisis).  A nation of baseball players bawling about home runs being purely accidental would be met with laughter.  This is how America is viewed by the reproductively and maritally-responsible nations of the world — the correspondingly successful Asian and Arabic countries we are inextricably dependent on for energy and debt tolerance.  (I will not apologize for America, but I will not lie for it either).

I do not “have it in for women” (as some feminists suggest).  My point is heirarchical in nature — made for me by burlesque entertainer Evelyne West, who many years ago proudly proclaimed that “When women go wrong, men quickly follow”.   Indeed, when large numbers of women chase after men to create entitled child-pawns, guess what will happen?

We have all agreed for years that men should not be fooling around, and that men should not rape or take advantage of women.  We must now address the female part of the problem with equal vigor.  We simply cannot anticipate women observing moral values in large numbers when large sums of money strongly motivate them to become single mothers (often by being strippers too).

Any girl can take advantage of a guy over the long run by building up a little trust, “forgetting” to take her pill, and then basking in the sympathy of society while collecting  a load of child support (which is actually mostly hidden alimony).   Does everyone now understand why  illegitimacy is at new record levels?   Women no longer see marriage as the best path to motherhood and economic security.  They now prefer marrying the Department of Health and Human Services, but end up in poverty having to “do it all” on less money, because a check from the village does not nearly replace the human dynamic that occurs only within living marriage.

Kardashian is just one of many public role models sex bombs destroying marriage in the minds of the average woman.  In fact, its might take all week just to find a Hollywood starlet that actually had a child while married.  A lot of average woman want to live this new American dream.  Talking about morals in this equation is about as useful as handing somebody a kitchen sponge to clean up a Taiwanese typhoon.

Take John Edwards, a wealthy politician sporting a zipper matching his loose brain. He has already been blackmailed for large sums of hush money (which nobody has noticed).  He will soon be bled blue for child support by Rielle Hunter, a tantalizing camera girl (who decided to pursue the peculiar American institution of forced mistressing), turning Edwards into a long-term sugar-daddy in bondage.  Correction: John Edwards is not the money in the family — Elizabeth has the money and will be bled blue by marriage (but she could get it back by nailing Al Gore and raiding the Heintz estate for even more child support).

Take Louisville Cardinals coach Rick Pitino, another philanderer who got much more than advertised having an affair with the wife of his equipment manager.  Pitino found himself being blackmailed for $10 million by a pregnant Karen Sypher, who “wanted the baby” but later got an abortion when her slam-dunk didn’t result in a fat paycheck.  She is presently indicted for attempted extortion, claiming that Pitino paid her husband to marry her.

When are we going to stop entitling the feminist con game?  It has tremendous financial consequences on others, not to mention the wide array of problems children usually face when not raised in the heterosexual married family.  The impact on marriage and other women is tremendous.

Everyone has a stake in changing public policy to not reward marital irresponsiblity — which includes not rewarding those who bypass the most important aspect of marriage — its necessary role in reproduction.  When  policy changes are accomplished, many more women (and men) will naturally return to moral values.  And, the marriages of married women will not be invaded so frequently by fast-moving gigalettes, who over time will be more interested in marriage than making a quick killing, often at the expense of another woman.

© 2009, David R. Usher

This is why my work has been re-focused on marriage movement and pro-family legislation.  I recommend that men’s organizations stop acting like Larry King.  Complaining never won any war.  While national media attention is certainly necessary, if the organizations behind our talking heads are not highly geared towards legislative change, our work amounts to nothing but hot air.

Certain men’s groups or activists (they know who they are) must stop selling out to horrendously anti-father feminist gay marriage and preclusive lesbian parental-rights agenda.  This is in full frontal conflict with men’s rights - courts are not going to give daddy a shot when two mommies are fighting over the children.  Those pushing feminist lesbian agenda are pre-empting the very purpose of this movement and leading it straight off a jagged feminist cliff.

Men’s advocates and organizations must focus their work serving the long-term legislative interests of men, publicly pushing positive legislative change beneficial to all men and women, in particular securing the generic restoration of heterosexual marriage as a protected institution of mutual rights, to be counted as legitimate men’s representatives.

It is manifestly clear that the men’s movement will never win the war on marriage by itself.  However, with proper guidance and direction from wise leaders, this movement can play a guiding and perhaps significant role in restoring America’s broken social fabric and economy.  We will know this is happening when men’s organizations are capable of introducing and  passing legislation in states and in Congress, and fall over backwards to work with those of us who focus our work on introducing and passing legislation such as below.

I am pleased to announce that sponsors for the following amendments to federal law have been secured by a leading pro-family advocate/lobbyist that I work with:

Bradley Amendment

Under the 18-yr-old statute, all judges are prohibited from retroactively modifying child support orders. This often produces unintended consequences such as when an obligor is in a coma, a POW, falsely incarcerated, etc. This change leaves important interstate mechanisms in place for enforcement of support while correcting the prohibition against judicial rectification of the unintended consequences that arose due to the wording of the statute. This modification gives courts additional leverage to encourage support compliance with enhanced equitable consideration.

Paternity Fraud

This change limits incentives to the States for “In-Hospital Paternity Establishment” to be granted only when those voluntary paternity establishments are accompanied by DNA proof of paternity. This will help eliminate fraud and ensure that the correct man is named as the biological father. This will provide uniformity throughout the states in dealing with paternity fraud and enable children to have access to their entire extended paternal family as well as allowing children to have the ability to obtain often vital medical history information that might save their lives.

Allowing Shared Parenting without loss of IV-D funding

Some States and NGO’s mistakenly believe that the incorporation of fatherhood programs, access programs, neutral drop-off centers, etc., that help remove obstacles to parental involvement, would jeopardize federal IV-D funds and Title I-V fund in total. This language alleviates those misconceptions and clarifies the intent of Congress to maximize parental involvement, not limit parental involvement.

Making Fatherhood Programs an Allowable Expense

This change allows IV-D Agencies to implement fatherhood programs, marriage initiatives, access and visitation programs, neutral drop-off locations, etc., as an allowable expense, rather than only through block grants, yet still pursuant to the approval of the Secretary.

Disabled Obligors – Credit for Payment

Not all states give credit for disability payments sent directly to the child. This change brings uniformity of process and eliminates jurisdictional conflicts.

© 2009, David R. Usher

Rich and powerful men ranging from Hollywood stars to politicians are literally stalked every day by lovely gigalettes in flirty clothing.  These women make conquests of powerful married men hoping to displace the man’s wife, blackmail him into supporting a single-mother lifestyle, or get famous and make it big in Hollywood.

Using power to get sex is illegal in business.  We call it sexual harassment.  Men get sued for this every day. But using sex to seize power and money in or out of business is a fully legal and entitled activity - especially when the woman gets herself pregnant.

In France, mistressing is not unusual, nor is it commonly a blackmail profession leading to forced entitlement by governmental fiat.  French socialist women don’t mind sharing the wealth a bit with other women.  Mistressing is morally corrupt — perhaps one step away from polygamy — but it is not as destructive as the American way.

American “mistressing” is far worse from perspectives of morals, marriage, and public safety because it is founded on entrepreneurial predatory behavior by women.  Our arrangement uses babies as pawns in the continuing feminist war on marriage.

In the U.S., there are many ladder-climbing gigalettes who have no qualms about becoming super-entitled single parents.  The Title IV system baits women to profitably invade the marriages of other women, and then we wonder why they do it.  The richer the man, the better.

As we see in the case of John Edwards, this attitude is moving to America.  There are simply too many single women willing to loot other women’s marriages, and a lot of married women not willing to give up their seat at the front of the bus when it happens.

Gigalettes certainly appear to want it that way — becoming freewheeling entitled mistresses living the feminist dream.  This is specifically why these women go after powerful married men, avoiding powerful single or available men.  Unfortunately, predatory mistressing often does not work well for them or their children.

Men often take all the blame for these situations.  This is unfair to them.  It is not easy to rebuff the wiles of an army of captivating women expert at man magnetism.  Women who happily barge into other women’s marriages certainly deserve far more public attention and condemnation than currently paid.  After all, America has a record number of available unmarried men they should be focusing their futures on.

Some gigalettes are (at least to some degree) political operatives working to destroy the targeted politician.  Any woman can legally “assassinate” a politician by placing him in a sexually compromising position. You will notice there has been a lot of this style of community activism against key conservatives lately.   Feminists are experts at sexual warfare.  We can expect that at least some of the take-downs of conservatives were organized by liberal political action groups — the women likely paid to do so.

This effect is not limited to the tremendously rich or powerful men.  We see it happening to middle-class men who are often taken advantage of by poor or uneducated women looking for a steady gravy train to support a single-mother lifestyle.

Women who attack other women’s marriages make a tragic mistake: Marriage is the only institution that guarantees women everything they need from men.  A woman who take the cheap route rarely does anywhere near as well as she would if she were a man’s loving wife.

That wedding ring is there for a reason beyond the obvious one: to tell others to take their business elsewhere.  Wise men and women take their business elsewhere and end up successful for it.  The unwise usually end up in a mess.

But the root of the problem rests not with blaming men or women for these situations.  The finger must be pointed squarely at Congress for continuing to expand entitlements destroying marriage and the futures of millions of women and children.  We cannot blame women for pursuing fully legal entitlements.

We must hold Congress responsible for funding the wanton destruction of marriage and the widespread social and economic destruction.  A good chunk of the $800-billion HHS budget directly or indirectly drives America’s marriage-absence problem.

Marriage-absence drives our greatest national fiscal problems such as the lack of health care coverage, retirement shortfalls, the home loan crisis, exploding illegitimacy rates, and increasing poverty of women and children.  Marriage Values reforms of federal law are long overdue and will be welcomed by the vast majority of taxpayers and businesses.

Women who voted for Obama in droves will again be disappointed — Democrats cannot replace the natural advantages of marriage with governmental substitutes at any cost.  Women who voted for Obama will not get free housing, cars, or sustainable communities at any cost.

Conservatives will recapture Congress and the Presidency only when they pursue brilliant Marriage Values policy changes and demonstrate to both women and men that marriage always delivers the best prospects for individual and mutual success and happiness.

Behind every successful Congressperson is almost always a successful wife or husband.  While not everyone can be a Congressperson, just about everyone wants success.  The next conservative revolution will begin with inclusive and strong Marriage Values leadership that will lead by example and then deliver to all Americans policy changes ensuring the freedom, liberty, and benefits that only marriage delivers.

© 2009, David R. Usher

This book is available now at Barnes and Noble, and will be available elsewhere soon.

My piece constitutes chapter 9 of the book.  This marks the first publication of my leading premise about the fundamental and exquisitely harmful inequality of same sex marriage:

Heterosexual marriage is the only institution that fully and naturally erases all physical, economic, social, elective, legally-imposed, and culturally-imposed differences that exist between women and men”.

The chapter includes a detailed analysis about what this premise means in human, general principles of law, and civil rights terms.

I encourage all serious pro-family advocates, college students, and law students to get a copy of this book and research how this thesis can be applied to relevant civil rights case law to argue against the alleged constitutionality of same-sex marriage. [Disclosure: I do not receive royalties from this book].

Anything that would immediately create organized statutory discrimination based on sex (particularly with regard to natural reproductive ability and the social, political, parental , and economic rights that exist only when one is a fully-vested participant in heterosexual marriage), cannot be held to be subsequently argued to be a valid constitutional right in itself.

I regret that I cannot publish the article here because it is copyrighted material. I do have some similar articles on the internet similarly discussing these issues.

However, I can mention one new major point about same-sex marriage I recently realized that is not included in the article: Feminism is actually a Eugenics movement, and same-sex marriage is the goal modern eugenicists intent to achieve to fully end the participation of men in marriage, family, society, and economy.

Margaret Sanger and various feminists and racists of the early eugenics  movement attempted to eradicate blacks and others by interfering with their ability to reproduce. This backfired and fell into disfavor because, unlike the Ku Klux Klan’s method of discrimination primarily targeting men, eugenics primarily targeted women.

It was not until years later that the Ku Klux Klan fell out of favor — because racism targeting black men invariably comes full circle to harm black women (My grandmother Florence Richardson Usher, a Missouri  suffragette leader, realized this and was one of the few suffragettes who strongly advocated for bringing black women into the suffragette movement as early as 1911).

Historians must note that the Ku Klux Klan was the home base for feminism until the mid-1930’s, and was run by a woman.  Women no longer needed the KKK and abandoned it to study the teachings of Freud and the Frankfurt School intellectuals who immigrated to New York at the end of World War 1.  These principles, combined with sexual liberation principles learned from Kinsey and Masters and Johnson, powered the explosive  entrance of the modern sex-eugenicist movement on the American scene in the early 1960’s.  The modern eugenicist movement was successful primarily because of the overwhelming magnetism of the primordial soup of organized sexual, social, psychoactive, pseudo-scientific, and political messages it delivered concurrently.

Modern feminism is now a fully-blown, mature eugenics movement that has devoted its major resources since the mid-1980’s towards creating a form of eugenicist  marriage handing women chattel control of marriage, children, society, politics, and income.  It has fooled several states into approving same-sex marriage and civil unions.

Same-sex marriage is designed to replace men (using seduction or outright fraud to get men’s sperm) and force them into monetary slavery via the widespread custom of “child support”.

Since modern eugenics only targets men — and discriminating against men is still widely considered politically-correct — modern eugenics has been successful but has been falling out of favor with women at large.

Gay mens’ vigorous participation in eugenics is horrendously paradoxical.  We know that gay men have six to eight times more sex partners than heterosexual men, and AIDs is the leading cause of their deaths or permanent disability.  Yet, gay men blame everyone else for the problems they have — claiming that “homophobia” somehow causes the very gay  behavioral problems they also often claim are “genetic”.  The litany of Freudian or Socratic rationalizations justifying blind pursuit of death is endless — and not unlike the “Officer Krupke” scene from West Side Story in which gang members justify themselves by saying “I’m depraved on account of I’m deprived”.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that gay men are part of a self-inflicted death cult — the penultimate form of emasculation and self-destruction of rights — turning inwards the feminist hate for men inculcated in all men by feminists, mothers, and academia over the past 45 years. I do sincerely hope that gay men see what feminists are doing to them, and walk away from this cult before it kills them.

Modern eugenics will fall out of favor once everyone understands it for what it is. Like racism, modern sexual eugenics always comes full-circle to greatly harm women and children who live in poverty and unsafe cities. Men will not disappear from earth as eugenicists hope will happen — rather — most women will never subscribe to sex eugenics and will flatly reject this movement the moment they realize what it really is.

Let us devote ourselves towards ending the modern sex-eugenics movement.  The principles and facts are on our side.  All we have to do is teach everyone about it.

© 2009, David R. Usher

[Note: comments have been disabled because gay activists are monitoring my RSS feed and swarm in large numbers to make hateful comments intended to confuse readers or make them think that I hate gays and lesbians.]

There are millions of analog TV sets that will become worthless on June 12 unless you have a digital converter box.  There will be millions of very nice analog TV’s ready for free curbside pick up in the coming weeks.

If you are a disposable dad who does not have one nickel to rub together, there is an opportunity here.  Or, you might have cable on one TV and other TV’s not hooked up that will go dark.

Here is the solution.  On Ebay, you can get a nice low power analog TV transmitter that broadcasts on UHF for $28.  This is very nice because you only need one transmitter to cover everything around the house. One ebay seller has them. I have had one for years hooked up to cable and transmitting to the other TV sets around the house.

The picture quality is actually pretty decent.  These analog TV transmitters have inputs for RF, RCA composite video, and RCA stereo input jacks (the audio in transmitted in mono). You get the best picture using the RCA jack inputs — so use them if possible.

Note: Older analog TV’s get a pretty good picture from this transmitter.  Newer digital TV’s that also receive analog signals do not do as well because their analog tuner sections are usually poorly designed, not very sensitive, and are not properly engineered  to handle analog signals that drift and are often slightly off frequency.

To cover the house, all you need is to connect one of these transmitters to the output of a cable box, satellite box, digital converter box, or other analog TV source.

RV owners will be excited to know that some digital converter boxes run on a 12vdc wall wart power supply.  You can install a converter box in your RV somewhere between the antenna and TV, and continue to use the TV built into your RV.  The powered amplified antennas installed in RV’s are usually compatible with digital signals and should work great on a converter box.

Disclaimer: I do not know about the legality of these transmitters.  They are very low power and should not affect anybody nearby.  How well the transmitter will work once the old analog channels are used for digital services is also unknown.  My best guess is that the effective transmission range will be reduced substantially.  So, locate your transmitter as close to your other TV’s as possible.

We need not take this like doormats ever again.  Technology is on our side now.  You can protect yourself for as little as $20, and have a good quality date-stamped video recording of any situation using a covert USB pen digital video camera. Just keep it in your shirt pocket and turn it on anytime you need it.

If you are experiencing conflict in any relationship, (marital or otherwise) you must protect yourself.  Keep the camera in your pocket and nonchalantly turn it on when you sense a situation developing.

Pen cameras are also invaluable for other purposes.  You can protect yourself from abuses often committed by officials.  You can easily document interviews with social services child abuse investigators, and interaction between yourself and caseworkers during supervised visitation sessions.  When they lie, they will pay for it.

Those who do protests must document their every move.  When you meet with public officials, it is wise to document every face-to-face meeting.  I have seen men’s advocates accused of serious crimes they did not commit  after meeting privately with legislators and other public officials.  Unbelievable admissions of wrongdoing or insolence are sometimes made by public officials when you are meeting with them behind closed doors.  When you put it on Youtube — you have checkmated them.

If you are involved in an auto accident, videos made immediately of tiremarks, location of vehicles, damage to the vehicles, admissions  made by the other person, and their disposition and sobriety are the best way to prove fault later. You can save yourself a lot of money by proving complete innocence.

I am a lifelong electronics geek, and took the time to find a few of the best deals on pen cameras.  Here are links to a few inexpensive ones that produce PC-compatible AVI files, make good covert video and sound recordings, take pictures, and run for two or three hours without recharging the internal Li-on battery.  Of course, you need a computer to load the videos to.

• 2 GB pen cam, rechargeable, 352×288 resolution, $20.
• 4 GB pen cam, rechargeable, 352×288 resolution, $29.
• 4 GB pen cam, rechargeable, 352×288 resolution, $30.
• 4 GB pen cam, rechargeable, 640×480 resolution, $37.
• 4 GB pen cam, rechargeable, 640×480 resolution, also works in low light conditions and has webcam functionality, $59.

These devices appear to be nicely designed and well suited for covert, instantaneous activation.  Most of them are available from other sources but at often much higher prices.  I have not actually purchased any of them.  If you purchase one, please leave a comment so others can benefit from your experience.

For courtroom use, portable playback in meetings, or for proving abuses to the media, you might also need a small personal media player (PMP), which the above website also sells very inexpensively.  If you get one, I recommend purchasing one that accepts an SD card so you are not limited by the memory on the PMP.

Use: I strongly recommend not letting anyone know that you have a pen camera or are making the recordings — especially the person(s) you wish to document, relatives, and your children. Word gets around.  Once it is known you have a pen camera or may be recording, the person will cover their tracks find other ways to make your life miserable.  Most importantly, you never want to put the kids in the middle of adult problems.

Note: I am not an attorney and cannot speak to legal issues regarding covert recordings.  Nothing in this article should be construed as being legal advice.  I do believe that federal law does permit covert recording of you personal interactions as long as it is not for purpose of blackmail or some other defined illegal activity (make sure it is off when you go in the rest room or going up escalators)!  States are permitted to enact more restrictive regulations, so you should ask your attorney before making recordings. For various reasons, you should not put recordings of your estranging spouse on Youtube, unless there is exceptional reason (which should be cleared with your attorney).  Never put videos of your children on Youtube under any circumstances — that is the fastest way to get cut off from your children.

If it is legal, a video of your interview with the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) may be quite useful if it was a “trip to Guantanamo”.  The GAL represents the “interests of the child” in the dissolution (but does not represent the child).  The GAL is supposed to neutrally consider both parents as potential custodians.  The GAL has tremendous arbitrary power directing the outcome of the case.  Due to back-room dealings, the function of the GAL is often an expedient and corrupt operative substituting for hearing and judicial observation.  In practice, interviews with the father are often more pejorative than probative. GAL’s often do the dirty work making life easy for the judge, who then issues a thoughtless decision giving the kids to mom, which is difficult to appeal for lack of evidence on the record.   If you can demonstrate that the GAL had his mind made up before your interrogation and knowingly lied on major facts about what was said in the interview or done during the marriage, you might change the entire course of your dissolution for the better.

If MMPI tests are done, it may be useful to have a recording of your interview with the psychologist.  Like the GAL, courtroom psychologists are often also corrupt instruments of the system.

If it is legal to do so, have your pen cam in your pocket to document interactions in the hallway outside the courtroom (never in the courtroom). Always clear this with your attorney, and give the pen cam to him or a trusty relative or friend in the hallway before entering the courtroom.

Hearings are very emotional events.  Spouses often let their guard down in conversations before or after hearings.  They are likely to make damning off-the-cuff statements in the hallway, the elevators, and standing in front of the courthouse. You would be surprised how easy it is to get your estranging partner to make admissions of guilt if you are reasonable, friendly, play “stupid”, and do your best to strike up a friendly conversation with them. A good method to evoke an admission is to nonchalantly say “Remember when you said [blah] …. I’m not sure I understood what you meant”.  This tends to make the other person replay and reassert a magnified admission of dishonesty made in a prior undocumented  conversation right in front of you and your trusty pen cam.  Documentation of interactions outside the courtroom also prevents opposition from making false claims you were abusive or threatening in the hallway.

For example:  Those who make false allegations often feel terrible about taking advantage of you.  They will often make confidential admissions to assuage their guilty feelings just before or after hearings.  If your hearing is about a domestic violence charge, and you sadly mention how much the whole affair is destroying you, and she might well say  “We both know you didn’t really hit me — I just want you to give me sole custody”.  You now have nearly irrefutable evidence that the allegation was made for tortious and contemnable purpose.

Too often in divorce, men either lay down like slaves before Pharoah, or worse, pursue an angry offensive campaign in response.  Both approaches are recipes for disaster.  The old saying “the best defense is a good offense” is ruinously backwards for men in divorce courts.  For us, “the best offense is a good defense”.  Your little pen camera is your high-tech equalizer and suit of armor.  Wear it all the time, demurely, as if the rest of your life depends on it.

I recommend that men’s organizations give a pen cam to each new member with their dues and have them available at meetings for purchase by existing members.  You might need to raise your dues a bit, but it is well worth it to give new members that are freaking out something to protect themselves with.  The biggest problem in support group work is getting new members to stop going nuts and start working their cases intelligently.  When your group starts seeing improvements in individual case outcomes, the group esteem will increase substantially.  Attorneys will love your organization because the majority of serious “client management” problems will go away naturally.

__________________________

David R. Usher is President of the ACFC Missouri Coalition
© 2009, David R. Usher

I predict that Hillary Clinton will be Obama’s nominee for Supreme Court.  If not this time, she will most certainly get it the next time around.

Why?

During the elections, a mysterious transition occurred.  Hillary went from slinging brickbats one day to being submissive and agreeable to everything Obama said the next – gazing upon him with eyes not unlike a teenage girl fulminating about her first dream prom date.

Obama is the master back-room dealer who either destroys the competition or buys them out.  The only thing Hillary could possibly be bought off with during the elections is the promise of a Supreme Court seat.

The Ambassadorial position Hillary currently occupies is merely a parking space — and not a good one — because the Chinese greatly  dislike Hillary and the feminist liberation movement she marshals. I know because I worked in China during the mid-1990’s and witnessed the tart rejection of Hillary’s torrid male-bashing screed issued in Chinglish at the Beijing Women’s Conference — a horrifying speech never broadcast in America.

Why would Hillary drop her quest for the presidency overnight?

Hillary knew that being President would subject her to perennial withering assaults from the media and Republicans in a never-ending replay of the Clinton-era scandals.  Our formidable economic problems were enough to cause even a confident person to have second thoughts about being the leader of this pack of rabid cats. Hillary wants total unquestioned power and autonomy — not qualities inherent in the presidency.

Obama’s great political skill rests in figuring out what people really want and then offering it to them. The Obama team undoubtedly assembled the most thorough dossier ever made in history about Hillary.  They knew her better than she did. Obama assessed Hillary’s power goals and offered her something far better than the Presidency.

A Supreme Court seat is exactly what Hillary wants.  She can rule the country from behind the bench, and nobody can say or do anything about it.  It would keep her in power until her skin falls off without having to run for re-election.  This is the dream slot for execution of the radical feminist agenda to re-engineer America.

And Obama wants her there: Hillary is the empathetic person who will write crafty rulings ignoring the rule of law in favor of liberal agenda.  She is an outspoken alpha female that will run over other justices to get what she wants.  She will do whatever the National Organization for Women wants in every respect — as dictated from the White House Office on Women and Girls.

This is one reason why Obama does not need to get involved in the gay marriage issue: he knows that the ABA intends to subvert America via the courts — and will put Hillary there to do it.

Republicans will have cataclysmic infarctions over Hillary’s nomination.  Unfortunately, Republicans do not have enough power to stop a model train, much less a Supreme Court appointment.  Since Hillary has never sat on a bench, she does not have a history of rulings to pick apart in public. She would pass scrutiny with groans after the requisite offertory of derogatory salutes is trumpeted by all the right people.

One last prediction: if Hillary gets a Supreme Court seat, the Clinton’s will finally divorce — and quietly.  Their mutual power-sharing pogrom will be effectively at an end.  She will no longer need him, and she will no longer be of much use to him either.

Having made this prediction, I sincerely hope the calculus is utterly wrong.  I can think of no worse possible appointment to the Supreme Court than Hillary Clinton.  Truly, this is the very reason why Obama will appoint her.

_________________________

David R. Usher is President of the ACFC Missouri Coalition

© 2009, David R. Usher

I will not mention names, although it might be obvious who I am referring to.  I will say that it involves two organizations who, despite the prevalence in the movement (and often excellent work), have only succeeded in their efforts when I have been involved.

I have seen great successes when we work as a team.  In fact, every team effort I have worked on has been either partially or totally successful.  Recent efforts by the two organizations that I was not involved in failed.  We always win in our joint efforts  because my style of activism goes well beyond the usual complaining.  Three things are necessary to win most public activist issues.  Men’s activists are very good at complaining, but few know how to “pull the issue” or how to hit the target in the pocketbook.

A couple of days ago, a leader suggested I work the issue independently.  That is why men’s movement activism fails.  Football games are always won with teamwork, never by disorganized entrepreneurial pigskin grabbers.  I could not possibly work independently.  I would end up the scapegoat if the initiative fails.  As it stands, the issue-du-jours will be won or lost, and the organization involved will not have anyone to blame if it is unsuccessful.

Homosexuality and homosexual rights are feminist power agenda

Supporting gay rights is a fatal mistake for the men’s movement.  The idea of beheading the men’s movement with homosexual issues arose in the late 1980’s, and was implemented by N.O.W. in colleges and universities.  In 1990, noted radical feminist Dr. Lenore Weitzman and others were sent into our academic institutions to start the Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity (SPSSM).  SPSSM was presented as a “men’s rights” organization, but its focus was primarily on encouraging homosexuality in colleges and universities. The strategic purpose of  SPSSM to N.O.W. was to establish a feminist-controlled “men’s rights movement” — preventing a real one from gaining a foothold.  Today, the SPSSM is now an standing project of the APA’s Division 51, long known to be controlled by radical feminists.

Nineteen years later, we have far too many men in this movement who somehow think that men’s rights has something to do with supporting the agenda National Organization for Women. Gay rights is funded and powered by the National Organization for Women, which is the power base of the DNC and Obama Administration.  Obama’s Office on Women and Children is out to destroy men, not help any man regardless of his political thinking on homosexuality.

Making it across the existing political minefield

Congressional Republicans learned the hard way that passing feminist federal legislation does not result in votes from feminists.  I can point to two Missouri federal legislators who lost their seats trying to play both ends off the middle. Supporting feminists alienates most conservatives and many libertarians (that is half the audience that men’s advocates must win).  Conservatives and libertarians have historically been our strongest supporters — liberals our worst — although there are a few exceptions at the state level.

N.O.W. has historically blocked everything we do.   Men’s activists supporting radical feminist agenda, to the detriment of advances in Men’s rights, can only result in continued failure of the movement. To the extent the organizations and individuals are leaders, they should be held accountable for hurting the movement.

Speaking politically: those in the movement who think that log cabin men’s activism will make Democrats stop unilaterally supporting radical feminism are fatally mistaken.   Most Republicans run from anyone supporting gay marriage.  An issue without major support from a party will never attain political traction.  Therefore, men’s leaders of political wisdom must either support heterosexual marriage or not take the issue on at all.

Today’s political arena is an dizzying hurricane of smoke, mirrors, and jockeys trading horses with lap around the track.  Everyone is desperately looking for something to anchor to.  So are the leaders of this movement.  Those who latch on to the flying door as it sails by will eventually get it in their face.   From a satellite view, a hurricane is much easier to understand.  It becomes far easier to see that we must step out of the hurricane.  Those who stay in the hurricane will end up flattened.  The best weather for men in the future is without doubt the marriage movement.

It is necessary for us all to abandon thinking along the knee-jerk labels of “liberal” and “conservative”.   It is quite clear that both parties have been on wrong tracks for many years, and that at least one of them needs to remake itself.  As a staunch independent, I have been critical of both liberals and conservatives for many years.

My work is intended to pull support for positive change from both liberals and conservatives who wish to end the problems arising from our national tragedy of marriage-absence.   From this seat I have found that in most cases, conservatives are much more willing to change and adapt to solid pro-marriage agenda.  The regime running Washington greatly improves the chances that conservatives will find it necessary to thoroughly examine past precepts and change for the better.  This transformation is at work as I write.

Speaking socially: “Marriage values” restores men as necessary humans in the fabric of American society via heterosexual marriage, and will resolve the majority of the problems that divorced or unmarried individuals of both sexes complain about incessantly.  That gives us the widest possible audience spanning all political parties.  Marriage values is equally women-friendly and man-friendly, and naturally ensures men their social, economic, and parental rights 100% of the time. Since that is what we are all here for, and we know after 45 years of mens activism that you can’t glue Humpty Dumpty back together again, the only path that makes sense is “marriage values”.

Conversely, same-sex marriage will not help men. Male-male marriages will still ride at the back of the bus while female marriages have chattel control over children, politics, and police.  Handing our power over to the National Organization for Women is unquestionably the most dangerous suggestion any leader of this movement could possibly make.

Marriage values calls for policy changes that will fully restructure the marriage market, impacting marriage decisions of both women and men.  When economic policy is reshaped such that women prefer marriage, and men feel more secure in it, everything else will change.  Men who have a sea of women interested in marriage to choose from simply do not need to settle for marrying other men.

Men who marry women are full members of society and have natural protections for parental and economic rights.  Men who marry other men would be on the last rung of society.  Let us reach for the answer, not sell ourselves deeper into the problem.

Where the men’s movement is presently substantially controlled by individuals adamantly supporting gay rights and same-sex marriage, serious men’s rights activists should consider abandoning the men’s movement (which after 40 years of hard work has never been able to get off the ground).

The “Titanic Principle” (Copyright David R. Usher) says that “men must always go down with the ship”.  After 18 years of watching this movement never leave the starting gate, I found it necessary to pursue a different approach: marriage values.

The efforts I have made in this direction are beginning to show real political traction.  By the time we build the marriage movement into congressional politics, the men’s movement will be fully irrelevant given the current leadership direction.

Case in point: In standing up for “opposite marriage”, Carrie Prejean unintentionally became the most covered men’s rights activist in the history of this movement. America enthusiastically backs her by a large majority.  The backing of the overwhelming public majority is available to us if we have the guts to get off the Titanic.  Political history strongly suggests we will arrive at our destination if we ride the unsinkable ship of marriage values.

“Marriage values” are the policies that will restore the institution of “opposite marriage” as the social norm. When this fire ignites, all political hell will break loose, a new national debate will take place, and marriage will again be on the front-burner.  Leaders of this movement must choose their politics wisely now.  Those who are not on the ship when it pulls out of port will be left to sink on the Titanic of feminist politics.

I challenge men’s leaders who support gay marriage to work as a team advocating for men’s and father’s rights in public alongside those of us who oppose same sex marriage.  It is certainly intolerant of those who support gay marriage to refuse to work with leaders of the men’s movement willing to serve the movement regardless of one’s beliefs on SSM. Heterosexual men are by far the majority of this movement, and our primary constituency.  If leaders fail to work together, men’s rights is a dead issue.

————————————————

For the past 15 years, liberals have abused the consequences of marriage-absence as political wildcards to justify legislation entitling even more of it.

The term “marriage-absence” refers to adults of marriageable age living outside the institution of heterosexual marriage.

In the vast majority of cases, living in a state of marriage-absence drives our most costly and urgent social and economic problems, including the majority of poverty for women and children, lack of health care coverage, intergenerational illegitimacy, child educational and mental health issues, substance abuse, domestic violence and much of our crime problem. The budget burden is growing explosively. Economic conservatives must note that tremendous costs of marriage-absence imposed on business and taxpayers has historically precluded sustainable zero-deficit spending since the 1960s.

Living outside the institution of marriage is often thought to be a lifestyle choice. However, this simplistic view ignores the vast array of federal and state policies baiting individual to prefer non-marriage, to the ultimate detriment of themselves, their children, society and taxpayers. The problem of intergenerational marriage-absence will not abate, and the success of the American Experiment is already in great danger. It is now necessary to address the policies entitling harmful lifestyle choices, replacing them with policies that encourage positive lifestyle choices.

Conservatives fail to grasp the necessity of positively applying these problems as motivators to effect marriage-positive change for the benefit of everyone.

Welfare reform was unsuccessful because the important goals of improving marriage rates and reducing out-of-wedlock births were not addressed. Single mothers must work full time and children must be raised by day-care centers and schools – driving the day-care and schools-as-parent crises. Welfare reform turned fathers into status criminals facing jail if they cannot provide a mandated welfare payment often in excess of real earning capacity.

Since welfare reform was enacted in 1996, out-of-wedlock births skyrocketed and marriage rates continue to slide. Robert Rector pointed to the missing policy link in 2007: “If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation’s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.”

The recently enacted SCHIP program is national health care in the name of marriage-absent children. It is just another entitlement luring more bad marital and reproductive decisions that invariably come full circle to hurt most women.

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was hastily re-authorized with full bipartisan support in late 2007. Unfortunately, VAWA is a primary destroyer of marriage, immigration law and due process standards. Only a sworn statement is required to instantly seize marriages, assets, green cards and a breathtaking array of free benefits. VAWA has historically provided no salient results and has harmed marriage because it fails to positively address the primary driver of spousal violence – substance abuse – a preventable and very treatable addictive disorder.

Democrats have briskly accelerated execution of the National Organization for Women’s gender juggernaut since the elections. President Obama anointed eponymous lesbian Kim Gandy as social policy guru by creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. Gandy ecstatically bragged, “We got the entire Cabinet.” She forgot to mention the rest of Congress and America, too.

Liberals know that Republicans always go along with feminist social legislation if it is unrelated to abortion or gay marriage. Liberals now see a fantastic opportunity to sneak volumes of legislation through Congress while Republican attention is focused on tumultuous economic and war issues.

In the coming months, we will witness a torrent of gender-based federal legislation designed to further destroy heterosexual marriage and force everyone with cash to subsidize it.

For example, the National Organization for Women wants legislation ensuring that America’s economic vicissitudes impact only men (who have already sustained nearly 80 percent of job losses in the current recession). The Security and Financial Empowerment Act (H.R. 739) would make it difficult or risky for businesses to dismiss women who claim to be victims of domestic violence, and leave businesses on the hook for unemployment benefits if a woman claims she cannot work due to alleged abuse. The existence of evidence of abuse or trauma is not required.

President Obama wants to expand marriage-absence by creating “baby colleges.” This is a dangerous merger of the nanny state with education. It would form a leviathan encouraging unmarried mothers to become workaholics while their parental roles are further weakened. More children will be raised at the whim of the state (like Maoist China once did), while more essentially parentless children will end up in foster care.

Additionally, we will soon see legislation to enact I-VAWA (which would directly entitle U.N. feminists to destroy marriage around the world), reverse the Defense of Marriage Act, criminalize those who oppose gay marriage, ratify CEDAW (placing our laws, customs and educational materials under control of U.N. feminists) and enact the “Freedom of Choice Act,” repealing all state controls on abortion.

Realizing achievable conservative answers

Republicans were overrun by Herbert Marcuse’s new-left war on marriage-based capitalism because the RNC lacks policy positively addressing the desperate problems of women living in marriage-absence. The RNC still does not understand it will continue losing elections until carefully crafted marriage-positive policies attractive to women (and men) are brought forth.

Marriage-absence is the greatest social and economic problem we face. The vast majority of poverty, crime, child problems, the “need” for abortion and deficits would disappear if we develop policies that stimulate women to choose marriage, reward marital responsibility, provide simple elective programs helping spouses rise above or recover from common problems such as substance abuse, and smoothly transition men and women from the claws of the welfare shredder to marriage.

Marriage is the only institution guaranteeing women economic support and the necessary assistance of an invested husband. Conservatives who wish to win must build their races on “marriage values” – restoring the right of women to enjoy these benefits – while short-circuiting programs encouraging or enticing women to throw their rights out at a weak moment.

Marriage predicts the best outcomes for women and children. The conservative agenda must promise women better futures than merely surviving as perennial wards of Washington – living in unsustainable communities full of disaffected men.

Ronald Reagan set an end-goal we have not yet pursued when he said, “Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.” Marriage is unquestionably the replacement for welfare. Trickle-down socioeconomic policies will build strong marriages as successfully as trickle-down economics builds the economy. Concurrent application of trickle-down social and economic polices confidently predicts an era of consistent zero deficits, a stronger and more competitive workforce, and substantial budget left over for the war on terror and rebuilding the economy.

My college classmate John Podesta established the Center for American Progress not as a think tank, but an “action tank” designed to formulate, market, organize and enact liberal policies. Without a similarly aggressive conservative organization bearing brilliant marriage-values policy, Republicans will never muster the votes necessary to retake Congress and the White House. I urge Republican leadership to actively pursue “marriage values” as soon as conservatively possible.

———————————————–

David R. Usher is President of the ACFC Missouri Coalition,

a social policy analyst for over twenty years,

and a 1974 graduate of Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois.

Copyright 2009, David R. Usher