Complaints are currently being filed against the owners and operators of the internet website known as allaboutcounseling.com

These events began as an almost routine story about a mental health advocacy website spreading disinformation about domestic violence that demonizes men, denies male victims and shields female perpetrators.

And while the disinformation is there in abundance, more digging behind the scenes at allaboutcounseling.com revealed what appears to be gross professional misconduct and an ongoing scheme involving psychological extortion, abuse and depraved indifference. Multiple sources have alleged that the site management is preying on and manipulating site users for cash with the finesse and brio reminiscent of a corrupt televangelist operation.

And they are reportedly heaping a plethora of emotional abuses and threats on site users who speak up against it.

All of this is being conducted under the auspices of mental health advocacy; with the professional blessings (and under the state license number) of a clinical psychologist.

The details of this story have the expected intricacies and complications of most scandals, especially with the efforts that the alleged perpetrators have made to disconnect their names from their actions. But the scam runs something like this:

Allaboutcounseling.com runs a members only on-line forum in which individuals are invited to join and participate for the benefit of “Confronting fears, honest feedback and active growth through the use and benefits of anonymity and healthy communication.”

Users are made to believe that there interactions there are completely anonymous and conducted in an environment where it is safe to be openly vulnerable and to disclose intimate details of problems in their lives.

For some this seems to be the case.

But many former site users are saying that frequently what happens there is markedly different. In fact, after a month long study of the site and several interviews with former ACC members, the reports have enough consistency to raise eyebrows.

In what appears to be a systematic pattern of significant abuses, the site management presents professional psychological qualifications, induces users to rely on the forum as a source of peer and arguably professional support, but subsequently acts toward many of the members with the following:

• Banning users without notice, reason and without a referral to other help.
• Redirecting banned users to pornography websites when they attempt to log on.
• Tacit email threats to expose users identities publicly for dissenting from site management
• Site management “diagnosing” members with personality disorders as a reaction to dissent.
• Regularly threatening members who depend on the site forum to close it unless money is donated.
• Encouraging the abuse of most male members and abusively targeting female members who had congenial communications with males.
• Fomenting conflict between forum members and encouraging some individuals to abuse others.

In fact, as I studied reports of the abuses from some of the sites former members, the picture that clearly emerged was that of tactics used by cult leaders to control and manipulated their followers. Or, as one member, who requested anonymity, put it, “I felt that it was abusive because of the way {they} chummed vulnerable, trusting people who came to the site, and drew them in to a charmer/abuser codependency cult.”

This same member, after posting that she felt the instigated conflict helped the hit count of the site was reportedly told publicly by site management that she was “delusional, sick and paranoid.”

Another member, again speaking on the condition of anonymity, reported being banned from the site without notification and then being redirected to a pornography site when he attempted to log on.

Part of his reaction to this, taken from a statement which is available in the comments section at avoiceformen.com, was unsettling. “I had always respected the site coordinator,” he said, “but after she did this to me I was sad to say the least. I was hurt. I felt deeply betrayed, humiliated and abused.”

Another former member reported that she too was redirected to a pornography site after being banned from the forum.

And yet another member reported getting an email from site management that repeatedly demeaned her, and made multiple references to her location, number of children and her profession. This was interpreted as a veiled threat to reveal her identity or worse. And it is of particular concern because there are many members who have joined the allaboutcounseling.com forum for support when escaping abusive relationships in which they were or are being stalked.

Such a breech of confidence in those situations could have disastrous results.

On the surface, some of this behavior may appear part and parcel to the internet. There is a lot of flaming going on, and capricious site administration is hardly rare. It happens on a lot of websites. But this isn’t just a lot of websites. It is a site that proffers, with professional credibility, to extend support to people at highly vulnerable moments in their lives. Indeed, it beckons them to participate throughout most pages on the site and assures them they are in a safe environment.

These actions not only reflect a moral deficit, but are likely in violation of the State of Ohio’s rules and regulations governing professional counselors, the American Psychological Associations Code of Conduct, and various other state laws. This is especially true as site management presents professional credentials, accepts money and has no disclaimer regarding participation in the forums.

“Site management” is most likely better identified as Heidi Raynor, M.Ed., who in her bio claims to be an experienced counselor with two years of individual counseling experience, but lists no license information or professional references.

She also apparently doubles in the site forum as “Site Coordinator or “SC” as users refer to her. Raynor herself never openly makes the admission that she is SC, but in several posts, SC claims ownership of the site and solicits for donations regularly. Those donations have to be made payable directly to Raynor and are to be mailed to 4227 W. 15^th, Cleveland, Ohio.

Raynor states in her solicitations that checks must be made out to her personally, and not to allaboutcounseling.com, leaving the speculation open to whether or not she is claiming the income when filing taxes.

Raynor is not acting alone. According to information provided on the site, the content on allaboutcounseling.com was authored by River Smith, Ph.D.. Further investigation revealed that Smith is an Ohio based clinical psychologist who practices under Ohio State license number 4658, at 11206 Clifton Blvd., Cleveland, Ohio tel. 216-651-1302

According to information received from a source at the State Board of Psychology of Ohio, Dr. Smith’s presence as one of the creators of that site, and the provision of his license number, inextricably ties him to the conduct and practices of it’s managers, whether that conduct comes directly from Dr. Smith or not.

And under those circumstances, that translates legally to the site and everyone who manages it being subject to all applicable statutes and codes of conduct for that profession.

Most of Smith’s role appears to be providing content related to mental health issues, making him the direct source of the misleading statistics and disinformation. But also by attaching his credentials to a site that is taking money, he puts his license on the line for any improprieties and ethical violations that transpire.

It also raises the significant question of whether the site is, in reality, an online psychology practice. Early information from the state of Ohio suggests that it is, though there will not be a final determination on this until complaints about the site have been investigated by officials in Ohio.

According to several of the former members of the site, Dr. Smith may be in direct violation of several statutes that govern the practice of psychology in that state. These include, but are not limited to the following:

• Failure to report sexual abuse of children to authorities (there were several posts by members that reported their children being abused)
• Failure to report physical abuse of children
• Failure to report suicide threats by members
• Children being allowed to log on and read detailed and sexually explicit accounts of other members lives.
• Domestic abuse reports ignored by site management
• Questionable solicitations for money
• Presentation of misleading information
• Proffering false counseling qualifications

Regarding the child molestations, according to a source at the Ohio State Board of Psychology, psychologists are mandated to report knowledge of child abuse to authorities and it makes no difference that the reports were received online, nor does it matter that the reports came from anonymous sources. Discovery of the sources is a police matter, not one for the psychologist to undertake or even be concerned with. Their mandate under state law is to report these incidents immediately.

There is no evidence that any reports with police were filed, meaning that a licensed psychologist and another individual claiming to be a professional counselor knew or should have known that children were being abused and did nothing– but ask for more money.

At the time this article goes live, at least two and perhaps more individuals are compiling complaints against allaboutcounseling.com which will be filed with The Ohio State Board of Psychology and The American Psychological Association. This summary and a copy of the complaints will also be forwarded to the Ohio State Attorney General’s Office for consideration.  Other former members have indicated they are considering complaints or other actions against the site’s ownership and management.

When I first brought this story to avoiceformen.com and mensnewsdaily.com, I also forwarded it to about two hundred psychotherapists that supported the site by listing their services there and by purchasing an enhanced presence in the site directory.

To their credit, several of those clinicians directed allaboutcounseling.com to remove their listings. Most did not, however, and did not respond to my emails. Their practice information is listed below.

Once the complaints with the named agencies and the State Attorney General have been filed, an update will be provided regarding this matter. And in the update, I will begin exploring how the practice of “feminist therapy” has naturally led to such abuses of ethics and hopefully what can be done to stop it.

I ask your pardon for the lengthy list of professionals included here, but it is necessary to the process to get the information disseminated through the internet.  This list is just a fraction of the counseling professionals that list their services on ACC.

Evelyn Goodman, Psy.D., MFT

12313 Havelock Avenue,

Culver City

310-391-3853

drevelyn@anxietyrecovery.com

http://www.anxietyrecovery.com/

No License FOund.

Dr. Aaron Berger

1821 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 411,

Culver city

No E-mail Found.

http://www.draaronberger.com/

Lic.# PSY21079

Sue Shepard MFT

2900 Bristol St., Suite G-201,

Costa Mesa

714-751-0888

No E-mail found.

http://therapybysue.com/

License #MFC37470

Help Talking

2900 Bristol A207,

Costa Mesa

714-969-9691

http://www.helptalking.com/contact/

http://www.helptalking.com

No License found.

Cheryl Chase

219 N. Indian Hill Suite 203,

Claremont

909-982-5095

No E-mail found

http://www.cherylchase.com/  (coming soon)

No License Found.

Rosanna Reyes Feet, MFT

2521 Windward Way

Chula Vista CA 91914

6196184529

rosannamft@gmail.com

http://www.rosannamft.org/

MFC 44002

Fall Creek Counseling Associates

5900 Coyle Avenue & 775 Sunrise Avenue,

Carmichael & Roseville (greater Sacramento)

916-344-0900

drdmoore@mac.com

http://www.sacramentopsychology.com/

No License Found.

Sara Darnley, Ph.D.

621 E. Campbell Ave., Suite 7,

Campbell

(408) 267-4702

No E-mail Found.

http://saradarnleyphd.com

PSY 15742

A Place To Grow

P. O. Box 1641,

Big Bear Lake

909-585-7228

info@aplacetogrow.com

http://www.aplacetogrow.com/medicinewheel.html

No License Found.

Personal Communication Solutions (Karen Wulfson, LMFT)

420 South Beverly Drive; Suite 100,

Beverly HIlls, CA

310 475-1759

karen@karenwulfson.com

http://www.karenwulfson.com/

No License Found.

Leslie Davis Therapy

9171 Wilshire Blvd. Penthouse 7,

Beverly Hills, CA

310-582-5890

info@lesliedavistherapy.com

http://lesliedavistherapy.com

No License Found.

Beverly Hills Family Counseling

204 S. Beverly Drive, #116,

Beverly Hills, CA

310-271-3784

BHCounseling@aol.com

http://www.shrinkg.com/

Jim Gordon, Ph.D, license M.F.T. #12651,

Nectar & Flame Consulting

3179 College Avenue, #4,

Berkeley, CA

510-277-0440

dr.amymarshsexologist@gmail.com

http://dramymarshsexologist.tripod.com/

No License Found

Laura Gardner

2025 Lincoln St.

Berkeley, CA

510-594-4300

http://www.holisticgardner.com/contact.html

http://www.holisticgardner.com/

No License Found.

Inner Child Healing

147 Alameda deLas Pulgas

Belmont, CA

415-337-9474

lila@innerchildhealing.com

http://www.innerchildhealing.com

No License Found.

Sandra M. Wolf, MFT

3855 E. La Palma

Anaheim, CA

714-747-6959

Sandy@SandyMWolf.com

http://www.sandymwolf.com/

#MFC43774

Cort Curtis, Ph.D.

28202 Cabot Road, Suite 253,

Laguna Niguel

877-372-8784

cortcurtis@achangeinthinking.com

http://www.achangeinthinking.com/

No license found.

Relationship Cafe

23161 Mill Creek Dr. #335,

Laguna Hills

(949)5536100

michelle@relationshipcafe.net

http://www.relationshipcafe.net

No License found.

Partnership For Growth

25283 Cabot Road Suite 107,

Laguna Hills

949-233-3362

beverly@lagunacounseling.com

http://www.lagunacounseling.com/

No License found.

Jondra Pennington, MS, MFT

78150 Calle Tampico Suite 207C,

La Quinta

760-777-9939

jondra@desertstreamscounseling.com

http://www.desertstreamscounseling.com/

License #: MFC36372

Cathy Roys Therapy MFT

8356 Allison Suite B2,

La Mesa

518-1323

Cathy@CathyRoysTherapy.com

http://www.cathyroyscounselor.com

Lic.#42762

Peter Lambrou, Ph.D.

9834 Genesee Ave. Suite 321,

La Jolla

858-457-3900

No E-mail found.  but: http://www.peterlambrou.com/contactus.php

http://www.peterlambrou.com

Clinical Psychologist, CA License #PSY14435

La Jolla Holistic Center

Address changed:

2870 Fourth Avenue. Suite #101

San Diego, California 92103

858-459-1273

Info@NancyDeAndrade.com

http://nancydeandrade.com

Nancy De Andrade, MA, Doctoral Candidate PSB #33475

Psychological Assistant to Deisy Boscán, Ph.D. PSY # 18873

Christian Soul Care

4000 Barranca Pkwy, Suite 250,

Irvine

949-262-3699

Same as Dr. Kristi Below

Dr. Kristi Gaultiere

4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250,

Irvine

949-262-3699

Kristi@ChristianSoulCare.com

http://www.christiansoulcare.com

#MFT29887

Amy Greenberg – MFT

1260 B Street Suite 240,

Hayward

925 989-9826

amy@enrichmentcounseling.com

http://www.enrichmentcounseling.com

(MFC 36752).

Cris Walker Roskelley, MFT

350 Bon Air Rd. Suite 140,

Greenbrae

415-289-2111

cris@MFTHandbook.com

http://www.mfthandbook.com

No License Found

Glendale Counseling Center

1521 W. Glenoaks Blvd. #2B,

Glendale

818-547-2865

mail@counselingfamily.net

http://counselingfamily.net

No License Found.

OCChristianCounseling.com

12792 Valley View Street, Suite 209,

Garden Grove

714-865-2164

No E-mail but: http://www.mcssl.com/app/contact.asp?id=151309&afid=&formid=&preview=

http://occhristiancounseling.com/

No License found – Multiple Staff

Dr. Heather M. Browne

9851 Bixby Ave.,

Garden Grove

714/334-4026

Dr.Heather@TheHealingHeart.net

http://www.thehealingheart.net/

LMFT #34523

Jodi Blackley, M.S., M.F.T.

711 E. Imperial Hwy.

Brea, CA 92821

(714) 212-1160

jodi@jodiblackley.com

http://www.jodiblackley.com/

Lic#: MFC41465

Lindsey Plumer, LMFT

13405 Folsom Blvd #220,

Folsom

916-952-7187

lsplumer@yahoo.com

http://www.lindseyplumer.com/

(MFC #43983)

Susanne M. Dillmann, Psy.D.

210 South Juniper St., Suite 213,

Escondido

760-743-7789

No E-mail but: http://www.drdillmann.com/contact_dr_dillmann

http://www.drdillmann.com/

PSY21969

Dr. Celina Marciano

5535 Balboa Blvd., Suite 217,

Encino

818-388-0102

info@healingcrossroads.com

http://www.healingcrossroads.com/

No License found.

Bill Martin, MFT

1337 Camino Del Mar,

Del Mar

858-755-2407

billm@counseling-connection.com

http://www.counseling-connection.com

No License Found

Dr. Gaye Wein Shepard

275 E. California Blvd.,

Pasadena

626-585-1618

gayewein@mac.com

http://www.shepardphd.com/

No License Found.

Jill Tan-Gatue, M.S., MFT

462 S. Marengo Ave.,

Pasadena

626-432-4022

ptan-gatue@juno.com

http://www.pasadenatherapytan-gatue.com/

Lic. #43059

Therapy Pasadena

1055 East Colorado Blvd.,

Pasadena

949 648 1109

klbechtol@sbcglobal.net

http://therapypasadena.com

License# 38689

Donald Wallach, Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist

7 Fourth Street #19,

Petaluma

707-583-2305

don@donwallach.com

http://www.donwallach.com/

No License Found.

Will Joel Friedman, Ph.D., Psychologist, A Prof. Corp.

275 Rose Avenue, Suite 212,

Pleasanton

(925) 600-9966

drwilljoel@comcast.net

http://www.willjoelfriedman.com/

PSY 10092

Bailey Counseling

8300 Utica Avenue, Third Floor,

Rancho Cucamonga 909/920-1814

cebaileyco@att.net

No WebSite Found

LCS 19539

Santa Margarita Solutions Center

22362 Gilberto, Suite 205,

Rancho Santa Margarita

949-589-5700

drjulieolson@cox.net

http://www.santamargaritasolutions.com/

#PSY14768

A Peaceful Way

Ave I,

Redondo Beach

310-540-6768

(310) 760-2244

kristin@apeacefulway.com

http://www.apeacefulway.com/

No License Found

Lynn Seely Counseling

115 N. Balsam suite E,

Ridgecrest

760-384-8037

lynn@lynnseelycounseling.com

http://www.lynnseelycounseling.com/

Business licence – City of Ridgecrest 07 00009219

Sylma Fine

555 Middlefield Road, Ste 102-C,

Palo Alto

650-838-9552

sylma@sylmafine.com

http://www.sylmafine.com/

License# MFC41633

Laurie J. Linscheid, MFT

555 Middlefield Rd,

Palo Alto

650-773-3131

laurie@family-therapist.com

http://www.family-therapist.com

No License Found.

Hoai-Thu Truong, Ph.D.

366 S. California Avenue  Suite 6

Palo Alto, CA 94306

650.361.0356

contact@drhttruong.com

http://www.paloaltocounseling.com/

No License Found

Ernest Schmidt Therapy

407 Sherman Ave,

Palo Alto

650-384-0342

No E-mail but http://www.paloaltotherapy.com/contact/

http://www.paloaltotherapy.com/

No License Found.

Pauline Wakeham, LCSW

6239 College Ave.,#303,

Oakland

510-377-1082

peacefulresolution@gmail.com

http://www.eastbaycounselor.com/

CA license: LCS #19528

Kristen Platt, PsyD, LMFT

1151 Dove Street, Ste. 200,

Newport Beach

949 422-5334

DrPlatt@OrangeCountyTherapy.org

http://www.orangecountytherapy.org/

License Number 30372

Allison Mupas, MFT

248 E Foothill Blvd,

Monrovia

626-802-7383

changeseekers@yahoo.com

http://www.changeseeker.org/

License Number MFT 46004

Windows of Opportunity Counseling Services

39899 Balentine Dr, Suite 310,

Newark

510-979-0200

eschmechtigco@sbcglobal.net

http://www.windowsofopportunitycounseling.org/

No License Found.

Miranda Palmer

1311 E Street,

Modesto, CA 95354

209 343-2771

209 602-1513

No E-mail Given – http://counselingmodesto.com/contact/

http://counselingmodesto.com/

MFC #42393

Monte Nido Eating Disorder Treatment Center

27162 Sea Vista Dr,

Malibu

310-457-9958

info@edcca.com

http://www.edcca.com/

Carolyn Costin  No License Found

Carol Boulware, Ph.D.

3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 550,

Los Angeles, California

310-395-3351

Carolphd@psychotherapist.net

http://www.psychotherapist.net/sex-therapy.html

Licensed Marriage, Family Therapist – #MFT11632

ABS Certified Sex Therapist #1466

Regina Petterson, Psy.D.

11980 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 701,

Los Angeles

3106694422

drpetterson@aol.com

http://psychotherapylosangeles.com/

PSY 18490

Catherine Auman, MFT

2566 Overland Ave., Suite 500 B,

Los Angeles

310-460-9399

info@catherineauman.com.

http://www.catherineauman.com/

Her license as a Marriage and Family Therapist in 1993 (30784),

Beth Tunis

6399 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 312,

Los Angeles

310-779-9698

beth@bethtunistherapy.com

http://www.bethtunistherapy.com/

No License Found

Aaron Buckwalter, MFT

205 1/2 N. Larchmont Blvd,

Los Angeles

323-799-4130

aaron@changethrutherapy.com

http://www.changethrutherapy.com/

License mfc43099

Jeannie Wolitzer MFT

1340 Concannon Blvd Sunset Office Plaza, Bldg J

Livermore, CA 94550

925 201 3414

jwolitzer@gmail.com

http://www.jeanniewolitzer.com/

MFC 45633

Mending My Marriage

1848 Holmes Street, Bldg. E,

Livermore, CA 94550

925-922-2775

Laura@MFTLaura.com

http://www.mendingmymarriage.com

Laura Melgosa, M.S., MFT MFC 34899

San Diego Therapy

2333 First Avenue,

San Diego

619 218 5363

lily@sandiegotherapy.org

http://www.sandiegotherapy.org/

MFT intern #51125

Kristin Zeising, Psy.D.

12625 High Bluff Dr. Suite 101,

San Diego

858-414-0097

info@sandiegotherapydoctor.com

http://www.sandiegotherapydoctor.com/

PSY19164

Kim Jones

9330 Carmel Mountain Rd. Ste C,

San Diego

858-204-2599

kim@kimjonescounseling.com

http://www.kimjonescounseling.com/

MFC 37708

JAMES WILLIAM PARKER

2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 211,

San Diego, CA 92108

858-952-8196

No E-mail found.

http://www.jameswilliamparker.com/

MFC 47548

Helping People Navigate Changes In Life

North County Inland off I-15 & I-56 (Please call for address),

San Diego

619-687-9013

ecaetano@san.rr.com

http://www.navigatechanges.com/

MFT License #37010

Healthy Within

Divya Kakaiya, Ph.D

5665 Oberlin Drive Suite 206

San Diego CA 92121

858-622-0221

kakaiya@cox.net

http://www.healthywithin.com/

No License Found.

Couples Counseling (SAME AS ESTES THERAPY BELOW – NOTE THE PHONE NUMBER)

2333 1st Avenue, Suite 204,

San Diego

619-471-7104

Estes Therapy

2835 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 120C,

San Diego

619-471-7104

jestes@estestherapy.com

http://www.estestherapy.com/

MFC #47653

Counseling Connection

2207 Garnet Ave Suite A,

San Diego

619-857-1355

858-586-1355

julie@juliemorrell.com

http://www.juliemorrell.com/

No License Found.

Bobbie J Paul, Ph.D., MFT

3505 Camino del Rio South, Suite 212,

San Diego

619 7231802

No E-Mail – but this Link http://www.bobbiejpaul.com/ContactMe.en.html

http://www.bobbiejpaul.com

MFC29201

Barbara Cunningham, Psy.D., LMFT

2835 Camino Del Rio South, Ste. 120-C,

San Diego

619-990-6203

barbara@cunninghamtherapy.com

http://www.cunninghamtherapy.com/

I am a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist in the state of California (#44053)

Sue Goetz, LCSW

1731 I Street,

Sacramento

9167648360

sue@hopeintherapy.com

http://www.hopeintherapy.com/

No License Found.

Self Awareness Institute

5777 Madison Avenue, Suite 307,

Sacramento

8662046384

alambert@12promises.com

http://www.12promises.com/

No License Found

Ray Brown, PhD, LMFT

418 Alhambra Blvd.,

Sacramento

916-492-8530

lmft@surewest.net

http://www.lmft.info/

No License Found.

Jacqueline Dotson, LCSW

4825 J Street Suite 223,

Sacramento

916-454-1021

jackie@jackiedotson.com

http://www.jackiedotson.com

No License Found.

Michele Dickey, LCSW

1002 River Rock Drive, Suite 221 ,

Roseville

916-206-0054

No E-Mail Found.

http://www.folsomfamilycounseling.com/FolsomCounseling/Welcome.html

LCS 21696

Steve McCready, Marriage & Family Therapist

1891 E. Roseville Pkwy, #120,

Roseville

916-781-0606

steve@counselingsacramento.com

http://www.counselingsacramento.com/

No License Found

Renée Spencer, MFT

3236 Sacramento Street,

San Francisco

415-771-5671

reneespencer@mac.com

http://www.reneespencer.com/

Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist (License MFC #40511)

Board Certified Psychiatric Pharmacist (License RPh #43623)

Private Practice Psychotherapy (Daniel McCracken)

870 Market Street, Suite 441,

San Francisco

415-846-6557

daniel9723@sbcglobal.net

http://www.therapyinsanfrancisco.com/Daniel_McCracken_contact.html

Marriage and Family Therapist (MFC42824)

Nick Parsons, LMFT

999 Sutter Street,

San Francisco

415 778-5500

No E-mail Found.

http://www.sf-therapist.com/

My license number is: MFC 35484

Marina Counseling Center

2137 Lombard Street,

San Francisco

415-563-2137

Jennifer@marinacounseling.com

http://www.marinacounseling.com/

No License Found

Ken Martin LMFT

564 Market Street, Suite 410,

San Francisco, California 94104

415/395-9367

kenmartinmft@earthlink.net

http://www.kenmartintherapy.com/

No License Found.

JENNIFER FEELEY, MFT

4831 GEARY BLVD.,

San Francisco

415 244-7850

feeleyj@pacbell.net

http://www.jenniferfeeley.com/

License #MFC35307

Jeffrey S. Kaye, Ph.D.

844 California Street,

San Francisco

415-362-8262

sfpsych@gmail.com

http://www.drjeffkaye.com/

PSY #15476

Geri Weitzman, PhD

1100 Sanchez Street (corner of 24th),

San Francisco

415-517-7965

bap@bizone.org

http://www.bizone.org/bap/joining.html

CA License # PSY17963

Erica Mainshine Psychotherapy

3236 Sacramento Street,

San Francisco

415-820-3203

erica@therapysf.org

http://www.therapysf.org/

Registered Marriage and Family Therapist Intern, #IMF52423, practicing under the supervision of Jim Meyers, MFT, #MFC30215

Dennis Thatcher, MFT

1637 Irving Street

San Francisco

415-995-2916

denniscthatcher@yahoo.com

http://www.dennisthatchermft.com/

Lic.#MFC25186

Center for Family Issues

1801 Bush St., Suite 110,

San Francisco

(415) 215-4796

DrM@DrMelindaDouglass.com

http://www.drmelindadouglass.com/Welcome.html

PSB 34300

Cathy Hanville, LCSW

3884 24th Street,

San Francisco, CA 94114

(415) 643-3890

cathyhanville@att.net

http://www.cathyhanville.com/

No License Found

Carol Jaron, Classic and Creative Psychotherapy

801 Portola Drive,

San Francisco

415-541-5004

caroljtherapist@yahoo.com

http://www.caroljguidingstar.com

No License Found.

Ace, Tricia, MFT – Psychotherapy, San Francisco & Berkeley

115 Sansome (@Bush, Financial District),

San Francisco

415/536-9406

AceMFT@aol.com

http://www.triciaace.com/

License Number: MFC34714

Susannah Muller, M.A.

2333 1st Avenue, #204,

San Diego

619-787-2743

susannah@therapy-sandiego.com

http://www.therapy-sandiego.com/

Internship with Aimee Zakrewski Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist #43736, who has over 6 years of experience.

Internship with Daniel Carr Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist #31037, who has over 25 years of experience

Sian Marie Hassell, Inc.

Christine Hassell MA, LMFT

5905 Soquel Dr. Suite 550,

Soquel, CA

831-429-2253

No E-mail found.

http://www.turningpointpsychotherapy.com

LMFT #39288

David L. Christopher, A Psychotherapy Corporation

141 N. Acacia Ave. Ste. A,

Solana Beach, CA

858 792-0777

DChristopher@SanDiegoTherapist.com

http://www.sandiegotherapist.com/

MFC 30632

Kelly Tobey, MSW, LCSW

3695 Alamo St. Suite 200,

Simi Valley, CA

805-501-6630

kelly@kellytobeylcsw.com

http://www.kellytobeylcsw.com/

State License: LCS#17999

Harmony & Families Counseling Centers

1633 Erringer Rd. Ste’s 204 & 207,

Simi Valley, CA

805-428-6655

Kristy Schadt

kristyschadtmft@sbcglobal.net

Cary Steven Schwartz

carschwrtz@aol.com

Patricia VanBuskirk, MA

pvbFUTURE@adelphia.net

Maureen Kaye, MA, MFT

California License # MFC 44834

MKayeMFT@aol.com

Diane Turini Mize, MFT

California License, MFC# 38366

ginitsiselu@yahoo.com

http://www.harmonycounselingcenter.org

LifeHealingHeart

Ms. Keri Zwerner

5535 Balboa Blvd. Suite 217

Encino, CA 91316

818.206.4006

keri@lifehealingheart.com

http://www.lifehealingheart.com/

Donald Wallach, Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist

1023 College Avenue,

Santa Rosa, CA

707-583-2305

don@donwallach.com

http://www.donwallach.com/

Open Door Psychotherapy

Dana Blumrosen, MA, LMFT

303 Potrero Street, #45-202,

Santa Cruz, CA

831-454-8270

dana@opendoorpsychotherapy.com

dblumrosen@yahoo.com

http://www.opendoorpsychotherapy.com/

My license number is: 44056.

Reginald Veurink, Psy.D.

26889 Bouquet Canyon Road, Suite C,

Santa Clarita, CA

661-297-5728

No E-mail Given – but – webmaster@drveurink.com

http://www.drveurink.com/

Clinical Psychologist, California License #PSY 14007

Certificate of Professional Qualification in Psychology, ASPPB, #743

Marriage, Family, Child Counselor, California License #MFC 14374

East Bay Couples Counseling

Jay Slupesky, M.A., MFT

2 Crow Canyon Ct. Suite 110,

San Ramon, CA

925-351-8447

jay@eastbaycouples.com

http://eastbaycouples.com

Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist #45969

Mark Edwards, MFT

711 D Street, Suite 203,

San Rafael, CA

415-456-6523

MarkEdwardsMFT@Hotmail.com

http://www.markedwardsmft.com/

No License found.

San Pedro Counseling: Diana Dowds, MFT – The Help Shop

461 West Sixth Street, Suite 214,

San Pedro, CA

310.833.9300

diana@thehelpshop.org

http://www.thehelpshop.org

Diana – MFC45294

Josette Ciolino, licensed clinical psychologist (PSY18122)

Licensed Marriage Family Therapist

1210 South Bascom Avenue Ste 122,

San Jose, CA

408-535-0435

No E-mail found.

http://www.michellewambach.com/

MFC #41571

Claire Adalyn Wright, MFT

S. Bascom Avenue,

San Jose, CA

408-998-7098

cawmft@yahoo.com

http://www.scv-camft.org

License No. MFC 44491

Psychotherapy By Melyssa Nelson

1726 Fillmore Street,

San Francsico

415-255-3209

melyssa@melyssanelson.com

http://www.melyssanelson.com/

MFT Lic# 41632

Women’s Therapy Services

2918 Webster Street,

San Francisco

415 281 0828

staff@womenstherapyservices.com

http://www.womenstherapyservices.com/

Phyllis Klein, LCSW License number LCS11342

Marlena Kushner, MFT License number MFT14058

Karen Ryan, MFTI (Registered Intern) Registration Number: IMF #44599

Therapy With a Difference

Donna May, MA,MFT

625 Butte Street,

Yreka, CA

530-841-0911

donna@donnamaymft.com

http://www.donnamaymft.com/

MFC 40621

Rod Louden, M.A., MFT

21243 Ventura Blvd., #203,

Woodland Hills, CA

818-348-7081

rodlouden@aol.com

http://www.monsterrelationships.com/

MFC 39259. Issued 2001.

Heather Cozen, MS MFTI

8235 Santa Monica Blvd, Penthouse Suite ,

West Hollywood, CA

310-869-1003

heathercozen@gmail.com

http://www.heathercozen.com/

Currently I am being supervised by Mou Wilson, LMFT MFC # 44134.

Alla Litvin

8961 Sunset Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90069

310-652-9030

therapy@drlitvin.com

http://www.drlitvin.com/

No License Found.

Counseling Center for Spiritual Growth

7515 Sugar Pine Rd,

Weed/Mt. Shasta, CA

530-938-2930

RevEleanor@AwakePath.com

RevEleanor7@snowcrest.net

http://www.awakepath.com/

No License Found.

Dr. Summer Schleif

380 S Melrose Drive Suite 315,

Vista, CA

760-806-4315

drsummer@dr-summer.com

http://www.dr-summer.com/

License # PSY 21826

Alysha Sardella, LMFT

27951 Smyth Drive 3103,

ValenciA, CA

(818) 434-4034

http://www.alyshasardellatherapist.com/

alyshasardella@yahoo.com

434-4034alyshasardella@yahoo.com

License # MFC 38049

Leslie D. Gustafson, MFT

14751 Plaza Drive, Unit F,

Tustin, CA 92780

Doug Gustafson   Ph: (714) 515-3042

Leslie Gustafson Ph: (714) 855-4530

http://www.authenticandtrue.com/

Leslie@AuthenticandTrue.com

Doug@AuthenticandTrue.com

Lauren Wolff, MA, LMFT

468 Pennsfield Place Suite 204,

Thousand Oaks, CA

310-402-7775

No Email Found

http://www.fertilitytherapist.com/

MFT #46274

Healing Crossroads

509 Marin Street, Suite 236,

Thousand Oaks, CA

818-388-0102

info@healingcrossroads.com

http://www.healingcrossroads.com/

No License Found.

Emotional Reframing

Paul Rieker

27715 Jefferson Ave, Suite 113F

Temecula, CA 92590

951 970 5641

PAUL@blessyourthoughts.com

http://www.blessyourthoughts.com

Felita W. Fox, MFT

690 W. Fremont Ave. #9D,

Sunnyvale, CA

408-739-4377

felita@felitafox.com

http://www.felitafox.com/

No License Found.

Lighthouse of Hope Counseling Center

Gloria J Baxter

1515 Partridge Avenue,

Sunnyvale, CA

408-716-8101

No E-mail Found.

http://lighthouseofhope.info/

No License Found.

Agoura Hills

Laura M. Smith, MFT Intern

30423 Canwood St. ste.#129,

Agoura Hills, CA

(805) 217-76

Benicia

Anne Courtney, MA, LMFT

821 E. 2nd Street, Suite 203,

Benicia, CA

925-210-9226

Berkeley

Ace, Tricia, MFT – Psychotherapy, San Francisco & Berkeley

1760 Solano Avenue,

Berkeley, CA

415-536-9406

Center for Creative Growth

1221 Marin Avenue,

Berkeley, CA

510-527-2100

http://www.creativegrowth.com/

Telling Life Stories

2711 Alcatraz Ave,

Berkeley, CA

510 286-7615

Bolinas

A Therapy Line

P.O. Box 100,

Bolinas

888-844-8255

Brentwood

Leslie St. Louis, MA, MFT, CAMFT

11911 San Vicente Blvd, Ste 270,

Brentwood

310-990-9930

Corona

EMC

777 S. Temescal St.,#129,

Corona

909-808-9610

Corte Madera

Marriage and Family Therapist

21 Tamal Vista, Suite 160,

Corte Madera

415-272-4472

Costa Mesa

Addiction Institute

3151 Airway Avenue Suite C-1,

Costa Mesa

714-545-7114

Mark Pines MA MFTI

2900 Bristol Street Suite G-202,

Costa Mesa

714-855-2232

Cupertino

Susan Cohn, LCSW & LMFT

10060 Pasadena Ave.,

Cupertino

408-257-5772

Del Mar  (29)

1-800-THERAPIST

2923 Sandy Pointe Ste 6,

Del Mar

858-481-1515

Eating Disorder Referral and Information Center

2923 SAndy Pointe #6,

Del Mar

858-792-7463

Encinitas

Individual, Couple and Group Psychotherapy

336 Encinitas Blvd. #100,

Encinitas

760 944-7772

Counseling Associates of Encino

Sandra S. Kagan

12400 Ventura Blvd. #641

Studio City, CA 91604

818-789-7575

No E-mail but: http://www.therapistlocator.net/asp-bin/contacttherapist.asp?TCode=56150

License # MFC 6773

Laurel Canyon Recovery Center & Beau Monde Programs

3718 Hayvenhurst Ave.,

Encino

888-300-5080

Fair Oaks (37)

New Beginnings Counseling Center

11622 Fair Oaks Blvd, Ste 103,

Fair Oaks

916-863-7096

Strategies For Success

12900B Garden Grove Blvd,

Garden Grove

714-803-6907

Hansen Hills

Counseling That Works

12661 Gain St.,

Hansen Hills

818 277-1616

Irvine

California Graduate Insitute Counseling Center

4199 Campus Drive #E,

Irvine

949-737-5464

Center for Human Development

19742 MacArthur Blvd., #125,

Irvine

714-647-6670

CGI Counseling Center

4199 Campus Dr. #E,

Irvine

949-737-5460

http://counseling.tcscenters.org/

La Jola

Jeffrey Thomas LCSW

9850 Genesee Ave, Suite 910,

La Jola

619-221-5607

jefftthomaslcsw@hotmail.com

No Web-site found.

No License Found.

Kentfield

Donald Wallach, Licensed Marriage & Family Therapist

1010 Sir Francis Drake Bl,

Kentfield

415-339-7890

La Canada

Marriage and Family Therapist

4529 Angeles Crest Hwy, #319,

La Canada

626-243 3771

Lawndale

Donna El-Armale, LMFT

15342 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 407,

Lawndale

323.692.8290

info@youturnproject.org (not sure if this is hers – the address is the same)

http://www.youturnproject.org

La Jolla

Cognitive Therapy Institute, Inc.

3262 Holiday Court, #220,

La Jolla

(858) 450-1101

http://www.cognitivetherapysandiego.com

La Palma

New Beginnings

30 Centerpointe Dr. Suite 9A,

La Palma

714-523-3846

Lafayette

Andrea Watson, MFT Intern

3468 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Suite B301,

Lafayette

925-210-7475

Laguna Woods 40

Alfred E. Marlowe

751-A Avenida Majorca,

Laguna Woods

949-770-2851

Lake Forest

Live Now Association

24922 Muirlands,

Lake Forest

949-581-3486

Larkspur

Katie Glassman, M.F.T.

119 Ward Street,

Larkspur

415-480-1331

Long Beach

Carole Harris, LCSW

5848 Naples Plaza, Suite 204,

Long Beach

562-434-0617

Loomis

Alternatives Counseling

7860 King Road,

Loomis

916 247 6059

mmutozee@yahoo.com

Los Altos

Deb Burgard, Ph.D.

5050 El Camino Real, Suite 202

Los Altos

650-321-2606

http://www.bodypositive.com/

Andrew Jen, Ph.D.

179-B Barrington Place,

Los Angeles

310 453-2772

Lauren Howard Licensed Psychotherapist, MFT

1416 Westwood Boulevard #208,

Los Angeles

310 364 0440

Love-Sessions

www.love-sessions.com,

Los Angeles

OCD Center of Los Angeles

10921 Wilshire Blvd. #502,

Los Angeles

310-335-5443

Psychotherapy

914 S. Robertson Boulevard – #104,

Los Angeles

310-226-2988

Lotus

Rational Recovery

P.O.Box 800 ,

Lotus

530-621-2667

http://www.rational.org/

Los Angeles

Sabah Akmal, LCSW

10780 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 250,

Los Angeles

310-913-5034

Menlo Park

Sliding Scale therapy and counseling

125 Willow Rd. #125 ,

Menlo Park

650-303-0074

Mill Valley

Transpersonal Psychotherapy

3 Madrona Street, suite B,

Mill Valley

415-419-3570

SOULTENDERS

41 East Foothill Boulevard, Suite 102

Arcadia, California 91006

888-889-3639

wendy@soultenders.com

http://www.soultenders.com

Mission Hills

Dr. Reginald L. Veurink, Clinial Psychologist in Mission Hills, CA

Holy Cross Medical Plaza, 11550 Indian Hills Road, Suite #370,

Mission Hills

818-361-8616

http://www.drveurink.com/

Moraga

Moraga Psychotherapy

1001 Country Club Drive, Suite B,

Moraga

925-247-0805

Beau Monde: Programs of Distinction

3101 W. Pacific Coast Hwy, Ste 310,

Newport Beach

800-866-2948

Transformational Living

1000 Quail St., Ste. 175,

Newport Beach

949.922.8548

Affordable Therapy

5835 College Avenue Suite 2A,

Oakland

510-433-2959

Beth Bernstein, MFT

445 Bellevue Avenue,

Oakland

510-628-0877

Green Gate Therapy

445 Bellevue Ave Ste 202,

Oakland

510-452-2820

private practice

6239 College Ave. (Suite#302),

Oakland

510 548-6241

Counseling Solutions

2585 Park Blvd Z-100 ,

Palo Alto

650-327-8620

Jeffrey M. Kisling, LMFT

701 Welch Road, Suite 324,

Palo Alto

650-325-6632

Private Practice

555 Middlefield Rd.,

Palo Alto

650 473-9331

Placerville / Elk Grove

Carla L. Wills

5036 Sunrey Rd / 8920 Emerald Park Dr. Ste A,

Placerville / Elk Grove

530-644-8226

Pleasant Hill

Counseling & Psychotherapy

140 Mayhew Way, Suite 202,

Pleasant Hill

510 986-9836

Michael F. Thaden, M.S., M.F.T., A.T.R.

3550 Watt Avenue,

Sacramento

916-505-5092

private practice

4452 Park Blvd. #214,

San Diego

858-610-1460

San Diego Family Services

3750 Convoy Street Suite 185,

San Diego

858-277-7800

San Jose

Child and Family Therapist

2020 Forest Avenue,

San Jose, CA

408 287-7471

San Marcos

Hope Christian Counseling Inc.

PO Box 1718,

San Marcos

760-727-7240

Santa Cruz

Angst-Net of Therapists

127 Jewell Street,

Santa Cruz, CA

831-426-1778

Santa Monica

Psychology

3130 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 550,

Santa Monica, CA

310.208.1144

Vinca Health

Vinca von Muhlenberg

13951 Moorpark Street #310,

Sherman Oaks, CA

800-544-7793

http://www.vincahealth.com/

South Pasadena

HEART Alcohol & Drug Counseling Services

1815 Meridian Avenue 202,

South Pasadena, CA

626-862-8255

Studio City

Counseling-Online.com

3959 Laurel Canyon Blvd. – #C,

Studio City, CA

323-225-2228

Temecula

Transformations Counseling, Inc

Mr. Ronald James Ryan

31905 Corte Mendoza,

Temecula, CA

951-741-4229

Torrance

Center for Counseling and Recovery

2780 Skypark Drive, Suite 205,

Torrance, CA

310-530-7750

Gentle Support Counseling Services

2430 Torrance Boulevard,

Torrance, CA

310-787-1886

Visalia

AER Associates

720 West Center St., Suite A,

Visalia, CA

559-265-3998

Woodland Hills

New Beginnings

22122 Erwin Street, Apt. 201,

Woodland Hills, CA

(619) 840-9779

Paul Elam is Editor-in-Chief for Mens News Daily and publisher of A Voice for Men

I mean, just because men are “better” suited this does not mean that they ARE suited for a certain line of work. This all got me thinking further, and I believe there are three note-worthy societal platitudes that many PC feminists exploit to their advantage to maintain or increase womens place of privilege. These platitudes are “winner takes all”, “if you give an inch they will take a mile”, and “ladies first”.

Winner takes all:

Okay, so let us assume that dangerous work and war are for “big boys” only. To the untrained eye this might seem reasonable. However, there is a caveat when it comes to the issue of physical strength. Hypothetically speaking, let’s assume that an average female soldier has a 25% chance of dying in a war and an average male has a 15% chance of dying (these are arbitrary numbers to illustrate a point, and such numbers could also be generated for “risk of death” in a hazardous job setting). At first glance this disparity appears to be unfair to women, and it essentially is. But here is where society starts to exhibit a cognitive bias. Let’s assume that there is a scale or balance represented by “man’s likelihood of dying” on the left side and “woman’s likelihood of dying” on the right side. Notice how the “likelihood of dying” reflects a continuous variable whereas the human states of “life” and “death” are mutually exclusive (since a person can only be alive or dead, which is also sometimes called the Law of Excluded Middle).

Next, we notice how society tends to place the 15% chip on the left side of the balance (male’s likelihood of dying) and the 25% chip on the right side of the balance (female’s likelihood of dying). Naturally, the right and female side of the scale tips downward since there is a greater weight of 10% (25-15). This is where society tends to take a “winner take all” approach and does massive rounding of numbers. Just because there is a slightly greater chance of female death, society extrapolates this to justify keeping women out of war almost altogether (by using the societal forces of the male-only draft and covert socialization of males to “take it like a man” by being disposable heroes, protectors, and breadwinners). By keeping women out of war almost altogether, however, the male likelihood of death either stays the same (15%) or even increases while the female chance of death goes from 25% to 0% (since the women who would have fought are now exempt). So what was hypothetically unfair for women before (10% higher chance of death) is now extremely unfair for men (15% higher chance of death).

The variable and continuous concepts of “more” or “less” don’t mean the same thing as mutually exclusive concepts like “either” or “or”. They should not be confused with each other. To put things in more simple terms, how is it fair to men that their general increase in stamina and physical prowess translates into male disposability? The bottom line is that regardless of strength, males are dying in tragic numbers. Are women really too weak….or just too special? Are men really strong….or just disposable?

If you give an inch they will take a mile:

This maxim is generally a translation of Murphy’s Law to some extent, and it basically says to “be cautious”. However, PC feminists who follow the Duluth Model of female victim/male perpetrator (and others who believe in maintaining restrictive gender roles) seem to use reverse psychology. In other manner of speaking, if these folks can get chivalrous men to “give an inch” then maybe with a little arm-twisting they can also get the men to “give a mile”. So here again we see how a slight disparity in physique between men and women can be used to justify a whole myriad of unreasonable demands on male beasts of burden. As such, we notice that a SLIGHT disparity in size can lead to a MAJOR disparity in disposability.

When all is said and done, it is the so-called “big tough” men who comprise the vast majority of the homeless, suicides, the prison population, victims of prison rape, job fatalities, victims of the “glass cellar”, victims of the female dominated “spending gap”, victims of the scientifically proven “pay gap myth”, false allegations, military draft bias, restrictive “big boys don’t cry” brainwashing, domestic violence bias, sentencing disparity bias, sexist female-only government programs, chivalry bias, unfair custody/divorce laws, the longevity gap, and victims of violence in general. Are women really too weak….or just too special? Are men really strong….or just disposable?

Ladies first (chivalry as female privilege):

There is an old-fashioned saying “when mama is happy we are all happy”. It guess it is up to the worker bees to make life more comfortable for the queen and appease her. Unfortunately, just as every rose has a thorn every cute honey-making bee also has a stinger (bees are not necessarily as sweet as their honey). And that stinger is chivalry….a politically-correct term for anti-male sexism. When men are cornered into making stressful and life-threatening sacrifices for women and children we call it the “gentlemanly” thing to do. Talk about spin-control.

We teach men and boys that it is just as rewarding for them to “work” and “give” to women pleasantries that these very same women just as happily “take”. I see the ads depicting a “love-struck” man “happily” spending hard-earned money and buying his true love a “wedding ring”, chocolates, spa packages, or flowers where the woman is just as happy to “accept” them. I wonder how many women have EVER bought a man an expensive ring and treated him like the “prize”….or how many working women feel entitled to the male-dominated professions of the “glass ceiling” as opposed to joining the equally male-dominated blue-collar underclass of the “glass cellar”.

After all, the pay-gap is not only a myth, but the female dominated spending gap is very real. I recently went into a hard-ware store that was selling T-shirts saying “The Man’s Shopping Mall” on them. Naturally I compared the type of merchandise in the “man’s shopping mall” (hardware store) with the merchandise in the garden-variety shopping mall. And since the aforementioned T-shirt took the liberty to separate the stores by gender, I will assume for the sake of argument that the garden-variety clothing store is generally female terrain (although technically shopping malls have a myriad of clothing and items for males). The merchandise in the hardware store generally emphasizes boring and possibly dangerous work-related productivity that also benefits “women and children”.

For example, they had items like toilets, house paint, bug spray, glue, deck stain, power tools, tool boxes, work clothing, cement mix, WD-40, tires, grass seed, lawn mowers, and auto-motive parts. The regular shopping mall has items that allow women to feel special, pampered, healthy, safe, happy, beautiful, comfortable, relaxed, or to feel like a princess. Common things in these stores are fashionable clothing, nail salons, massage centers, makeup, jewelry counters, candy shops, food courts, chic bath and body solutions, fashionable purses, and hair salons. Obviously, when females do traditional and “domestic” household chores this is not fun and games either.

However, if housework is as menial as PC feminists would have us believe, why are so few women willing to marry down or marry a male househusband while she scurries off to the salt-mines?

I am reminded of a “battle of the sexes” board-game I saw once showing on the cover a “power drill” on the male side and a “diamond ring” on the female side. How can that box cover even be remotely symbolic of a “gender battle”? How is a power drill (a boring tool for work) even remotely comparable to getting a romantic and frivolous diamond (paid for by men)? It would have been more accurate to call the board game “Unsuccessful Battles of the Male Underclass”. It is funny how many self-professed “progressive” and avant garde intellectual “feminists” want to retain age-old conservative notions of chivalry and female materialism. Are women really too weak….or just too special? Are men really strong….or just disposable?

I am a masculist AND a feminist. I believe that gender roles can restrict us all. I think too many females are objectified as “sex objects” while too many males are objectified as disposable and heroic “success/status” objects. As a feminist, I believe that women are strong, talented, and intellectual. As a masculist, I believe that men are sensitive, vulnerable, capable of weakness, and emotional. As a masculist, I believe that men are too often taught to “play the hero” and take unnecessary risks to “prove” their masculinity. As a feminist, I believe that women are too often taught to “play the victim” and playing the part of a “damsel in distress” with “learned helplessness”. Males and females alike have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This means equal pain AND equal pampering. So this begs the question: if we as a society like to think of ourselves as “tolerant”, “compassionate,” and “non-sexist”, then how does it get away with treating males so badly? I believe the answer involves cognitive biases like cognitive dissonance (justifying hurtful thoughts, feelings, and behaviors with guilt-alleviating and ego-preserving intellectual justifications like the “just world hypothesis”), blind obedience (like the Milgram Shock Experiment), blind conformity (like the Asch studies on conformity), biased conceptualizations of “privilege”, and self-fulfilling prophecy/role-playing (like the Zimbardo Prison Study).

Few of us want to “admit” to being “sexist”, since this is a “negative label”. It is easier to “believe” you are non-sexist when you can at the same time justify resentment and envy with excuses like the “Duluth Model” or the male perp/female victim dichotomy. And it is not just PC feminists. I believe that in general male death, pain, and disposability has always been secondary to the protection of “women and children”. I will close with a statement that too many men throughout history have always wanted to say: Why do I always have to be the strong one?

Note: This essay was first published in Ifeminists.net

An exceptionally clear and insightful analysis of the precipitating and sustaining causes of the twelve-year-long Great Depression is to be found in Banking and the Business Cycle: A Study of the Great Depression in the United States. Published in 1937, this book provides a wealth of statistics and quotations from Federal Reserve officials, bankers, and economists of that era. It can be obtained from the Ludwig von Mises Institute via its website.

At the end of World War I, when the Federal Reserve System was only five years old, the Fed decided to prevent prices across the economy from falling back to the levels prevailing before the war. To do so, the Fed pumped so much money into the economy via the banks that total bank lendable deposits more than doubled in the six years from 1914 to 1920. To make the perspective clearer, the Fed pumped more lendable funds into the banking system in six years than had been created in the prior 131 years since the ratification of the Constitution.

With lendable funds far in excess of the needs of business to finance inventories, receivables, and other normal day-to-day business activities, banks began to do the same sorts of things that they were to do 80 years later in the housing and subprime mortgage bubble. They used low cost, easy money to invest in assets that were outside the normal range of traditional, prudent banking. While business financing needs remained fairly steady in the 1920s, banks began to employ the excess lendable funds created by the Fed to purchase corporate bonds, ramp up stock market call loans which facilitated issuance of new stock issues, and to finance real estate expansion. They also began to finance the new category of consumer installment loans, the 1920s version of credit cards.

These asset categories were relatively illiquid, compared to self-liquidating loans on inventories and receivables, which normally turned over in 90 to 180 days. Just as in the recent decade, when banks became increasingly illiquid with ballooning amounts of high-risk assets, banks, by 1929, were in poor shape to weather the wave of defaults on real estate, stock market call loans, and corporate bonds.

These increased investments in bonds, stock market call loans, and real estate had exactly the same effect on business activity as did the expansion of credit that led to our current financial meltdown. With massive amounts of money available at low interest rates via the bond and stock markets, businesses investment to increase output capacity surged throughout the 1920s, as did real estate development. In other words, just as the Fed’s creation of fiat money made possible the dot.com bubble and burst, as well as the current over-expansion of home-building and over-investment in subprime mortgages and collateralized debt obligations, so too did it create the conditions for the 1929 stock market crash.

When the Fed finally took steps in 1928 and 1929 to rein in the money supply, it was too late. The sharp increase in interest rates accruing from the Fed’s reduction in the money supply increased business operating costs and made too many cheap-money, long-term business investments no longer profitable. As stock market call loans terms and conditions tightened, stock prices began to decline, precipitating margin calls and dumping of stocks on the market. Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929, was the culmination. The Dow Jones Industrials index dropped more than 22%, and the Depression was underway.

Unfortunately, the lesson of the 1920s and of more recent periods has not been learned by the Fed or the Treasury. Read Charles Gasparino’s op-ed article in the Wall Street Journal for a useful overview of the Fed’s continuing to feed our addiction for easy money with ever more easy money, along with government guarantees, directives, and bailouts.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

Twelve members of America’s troops are dead, and at least another 31 have been wounded. These 42 soldiers and their comrades were preparing for deployment to the front. This is major calamity, not just because it occurred on American soil, but this crime was committed, it appears, by one some of their own, on an American base. The shock to hundreds of individuals comprising the related families will last a lifetime.

The priority for the Commander In Chief, IMHO, would be to bypass any planned speech and immediately fly to Austin, Texas, act like a Commander In Chief, go to the site of the shootings, meet with senior staff, assess the situation and events that led to the shootings, speak to the troops, particularly the injured, demonstrate concern and take action based on the findings of your assessment. Such actions should include addressing the families of the fallen and the injured. Assure the American people that their military bases and the security of the bases are not compromised and all possible measures will be taken to tighten what already has been established to safeguard the safety of soldiers.

Once satisfied that orders have been issued on all potential fronts of the follow-up, fly back to the White House, and get on with the addressing the challenges of the Nation.

Would you have remained in Washington, and while giving a speech, mentioned the killings in a “by the way,” addendum? Perhaps not.

James Raider writes The Pacific Gate Post

On May 25, 2006 Madison Tenn was illegally moved six states away from her Sacramento, California home by her mother, says dad Donald Tenn.  Since that time Shannon Phillips has committed fraud and perjury in two states, wasted thousands of tax-payer dollars and kept a little girl from her loving, stay-at-home, primary caretaker daddy, he adds.

Tenn is speaking out about his own case he says, because he’s facing 18 months in prison for a peaceful protest for parents rights.  He wants people to know the truth; that he and Shannon were happily married, “We never had domestic problems.  I’m not a violent person.  I believe in communication.  The police were never called to our home.”

My wife told me she was taking Madison to visit her relatives in Illinois . After she arrived she said she wasn’t coming back.  She wanted me to follow her.  I told her a decision like that should be made together.  I asked her to come home and  take six months to talk it over.  She refused.

Tenn says a friend who is an Illinois real estate agent called and told him Phillips and her mother had been looking at houses for sale.  Tenn explained to Phillips that she could stay in Illinois, but she needed to return Madison.  He says she refused.  What he did next, it seems, caused Phillips to set into motion the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) machinery that removes innocent parents, usually fathers, from the lives of their children.

I told her the law says she has to return Madison to California; that there are move-away laws that protect children from this sort of thing.

Tenn filed for an emergency ex-parte hearing.  It was a Friday. By the Monday morning hearing Phillips had declared to people at WEAVE in CA and DOVE in IL, and attorney Tony Nevarez that she feared Tenn.   Phillips was given a restraining order and returned to IL with Madison.

Wanting to keep their close bond, Tenn started sending Madison packages every few days with books, snacks, stickers and small toys.  At first he was allowed phone conversations with Madison by Phillips and her mother Kathy Waseen, but that didn’t last.

Fifteen months later, on October 19, 2007 Judge Peter J. McBrien had a hearing in Sacramento on Phillip’s request to extend the restraining order.  (case #06fl05871)

Judge McBrien stated that he did not believe Shannon.  He chastised her for illegally removing Madison from California.   He did not believe any of her testimony or renew the order.  He told Shannon to come to an agreement on parenting time or he would make a ruling that she wouldn’t like.

I wanted an equal parenting plan but agreed to every other weekend and 2 days a week. I remember Judge O’Brien said, ‘This father will be immediately reunited with his daughter.  I am ordering his first visitation for 2 days from today, Sunday the 21st of October.’  He asked if I could be in Illinois on that date and I stated I certainly would be.

Tenn flew to Illinois and was at Phillip’s mother Kathy Waseen’s house in Bethany for the prearranged exchange.  It didn’t go smoothly.

Shannon kept pulling Madison away from me in order to instill fear in her, as if Madison should be concerned. Her mother Kathy Waseen interfered by taking Madison away from the car for as many as 10 minutes.  Finally, I stated that this parenting time belonged to Madison and I and that we needed to go as our time was limited.

Then Phillips said something that no one expected from the woman who had claimed so much fear of Tenn that she couldn’t return to California.

Shannon suggested that she come along with Madison and I and we all visit together. I was shocked.  I told her that would not be possible.

What Phillips and Waseen didn’t realize was that with two cameras rolling, Tenn got the entire incident on tape.

Continued in parts two and three.

Dedicated to Madison website

In response, the National Coalition For Men (NCFM) has drafted a letter that has been addressed to Jennifer Kaplan, one of President Obama’s policy makers at the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) within the Department of Justice. This letter has been backed by many men and women’s advocate groups across the country, including the NCFM and Men’s News Daily.

Earlier this year, Ms. Kaplan had alluded to me that “this is not what she wishes the Domestic Violence programs to be known for”, after I had approached her about multiple problems occurring within many DV programs under her jurisdiction. Instead, she incorrectly informed me that many of these programs were not receiving VAWA funding. Subsequent tracing of those monies proved that assumption to be incorrect.

Grants for funding for federally supported programs prohibit preferential treatment to, or discrimination against anyone, on the basis of race or gender. West Virginia has shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have already crossed that line. Yet, they continue to operate. Despite that fact, we have not yet called for an end to this funding.

What we are essentially asking for is corrective action. It would be nice to expect that to happen automatically, as it should per federal funding laws. But, I’ve seen enough from this vicious industry to know better.  DV organizations are all about the money. Threaten them there and they dig in their heels. It will be status quo until a higher power steps in.

That would be Ms. Kaplan.

What truly IS needed is a serious assessment of the board of directors and their actions leading up to this decision. Sadly, funding may have to be pulled as removing this incentive may be the only way for true progress and corrective actions to occur.

Ms. Kaplan, the ball is now in your court.

You can read the entire letter here.

(editors addition) The board list is as follows:

Judy King Smith, FPSB Chair
Rape & Domestic Violence Information Center
Phone: 304-292-5100
Fax: 304-292-0204
Email: rdvic99@earthlink.net

Kathie King, FPSB Member
WV Department of Health & Human Resources
Phone: 304-558-8839
Email: Kathie.D.King@wv.gov

Judi Ball, FPSB Secretary/Treasurer
Family Crisis Intervention Center
Phone: 304-428-2333
Fax: 304-428-2398
Email: fcic@citynet.net

Lora Maynard, FPSB Member
WV Division of Criminal Justice Services
Phone: 304-558-8814 ext. 216
Fax: 304-558-0391
Email: Lora.J.Maynard@wv.gov

Barbara Hawkins, FPSB Member
Phone: 304-435-0385
Email: barblhawkins@gmail.com

Apparently, Moore thinks that capitalism is a system where the government bails out and controls the financial sector, or one whereby a few rich people dominate the entire structure and keep everyone else poor. Both are leftist caricatures that have nothing in common with capitalism properly construed, as best described by its first and best exponent, Adam Smith.

So Moore’s film needs a new title. Perhaps something like, “Corporatism: What the Left Thinks Capitalism Is.”

Watching Michael Moore rail against corporate bailouts in the early scenes of his latest movie, a free marketeer might wonder if perhaps the film maker has inadvertently blundered into the truth. Among other things, he rips apart the notion that government and big business partnering up is good for the little guy. About half-way through the movie, I actually caught myself thinking: Do Michael Moore and disciples of Adam Smith actually agree?

Eventually the film predictably drifts leftward, criticizing “excesses” such as high foreclosure rates, individuals hurt by (downward) stock-market swings, problems with a privatized jail and, of course, the fact that rich people are, well, rich (this from a guy worth millions himself). Moore also makes a faux-religious argument, asking some priests, “What would Jesus do?”

Many on the left similarly cite such “excesses of capitalism” as their reasons for opposing a free-market system. The reality, of course, is that most of these excesses have nothing to do with capitalism. Indeed, things like high foreclosure rates are the result of government policies that subsidized and virtually forced banks to give mortgage loans to people who couldn’t afford the home. The financial and stock-market crashes of one year ago were byproducts of the inevitable collapse of that house of cards.

But alas, excesses and villains are what sell movie tickets. Perhaps Moore will expand on the theme with films on the excesses of non-capitalist systems? How about these?: The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia (two million murdered), the Soviet Union (65 million dead), Communist China (70 million dead), and so on. Now, those are some excesses, and gripping ones at that.

Michael Moore incoherently argues that we need to replace “capitalism” with a true American system: “Democracy.”

Ironically, a true capitalist system is the best and most pure system of the democratic ideal: individual consumers and producers engaging in purely voluntary and mutually beneficial exchanges. This could not be more different from government and politics, the hallmarks of which are coercion and dishonesty.

Here’s how economist Walter Williams defines capitalism and the proper role of government in such a system:

“Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership and control over the means of production. The distribution of goods and services and their prices are mainly determined by competition in a free market. Under such a system the primary job of government is to protect private property, enforce contracts, and ensure rule of law.”

Capitalism is a system that has pulled millions upon millions of people out of poverty, but Michael Moore is profoundly ignorant of that. When pressed in an interview, he said he “doesn’t want to get caught up in titles.” He apparently doesn’t want to get caught up in truth either. Yet, condemning a system without understanding its basic principles sells movie tickets—i.e., it makes money—and earns the praise of others who share Moore’s ignorance.

Before this film was released, Moore wrote, “The time has arrived for, as Time magazine called it, my ‘magnum opus.’ I only had a year of Latin when I was in high school, so I’m not quite sure what that means, but I think it’s good.”

Michael Moore may have had one year of Latin, but he either skipped or flunked Econ 101.

— Jarrett Skorup is a 2009 graduate of Grove City College and former student fellow at The Center for Vision & Values. He is a research intern at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Mr. Skorup can be reached at Skorup@mackinac.org.

I confess that I did not catch the whole piece, but it became quite clear that an American police officer was arguing for the increased use of the death penalty when it comes to child rapists and murderers; and also to “cop killers”. Further along the line, the police officer argued that the range of murderers who should more often get the death penalty should extend to those who murdered medical staff, firefighters and, indeed, to anyone who murdered government workers who “put their lives on the line in the call of their duty.”

Well, in brief, here is my response to these proposals.

1. We are already well on the way to giving far too many special privileges, pay handouts and protections to government workers, and this idea that murdering government workers is, somehow, more heinous a crime than the murdering of anyone else pushes government workers even higher up the pedestal – the pedestal of life itself – something which is clearly very dangerous indeed judging by the history books.

2. Why should the life of a police officer – or any other government worker – be considered to be more valuable than the life of, say, your daughter, your mother, your father, and so on?

3. In addition, if the state accepts that the death penalty is legitimate for the murder of certain people – such as government workers – then it will not be too long before people are demanding the death penalty for the murders of members of other groups; such as ‘women’, ‘homosexuals’ etc. etc.. And it will surely end up being the case that it is only for the murder of white heterosexual men that the death penalty will NOT be forthcoming.

Furthermore, even where such demands were resisted successfully, it would still be the case that people would feel very aggrieved that the murders of some people (especially those of their own loved ones) did not attract the death penalty while others (such as ‘government workers’) did.

The upshot would be a permanent state of fury and anger being directed not only at the system – and those who seemed to benefit from it – but also at those who had, indeed, committed other forms of murder.

Indeed, even abortion is the murder of children – for some people.

Imagine how these people are going to feel towards women who have had abortions if they are indoctrinated into believing that the death penalty is a legitimate punishment for murder.

Even if these people do not actually feel that women who abort their offspring should receive the death penalty, the point here is that they will still likely feel far more malevolent towards them.

And this leads me directly to my next point …

4. The more that we justify the death penalty for others, the more violence among ourselves do we justify within ourselves.

In other words, our tendencies towards violence are ratcheted upwards.

Is this what we really want?

5. It was suggested that government workers who ‘put their lives on the line’ were in need of the ‘greater protection’ that the death penalty would bring them, because the death penalty would help further deter criminals from taking the lives of such government workers.

Well, the notion that the death penalty acts as a good deterrent, in practice, is not very well supported by the evidence, but, for the moment, let us just assume that the death penalty does, indeed, help to deter murderers.

Well, if this is the case, then this takes us all the way back to point 1 – and to all the points that follow it.

In other words, why should we deter more the murderers of some people, but not the murderers of other people?

Why should some people be seen as ’special’ when it comes to deterring murderers?

6. Some time ago, I took a look at the mugshots and the profiles of the inmates of Death Row inside an American prison.

I can summarise them thusly.

They were mostly black, decidedly unintelligent, mentally challenged and, I imagine, never had much of a chance in life.

Furthermore, these individuals mostly had criminal histories that ran to pages upon pages.

And so what we really see going on here is a complete failure of the government to deal with the circumstances, genetic and environmental, that led these murderers to do what they did.

And arguing for the death penalty is just one of the ways in which the politicians and their agencies can pass the buck.

“Nothing to do with us,” they can say. “These murderers are ENTIRELY responsible for what they did.”

Well, I suggest that you, yourself, do a Google search, and so see for yourself the type of individual who typically ends up on Death Row. I think that most of you will see that these individuals had a history that could have been dealt with quite effectively, in most cases, many years before they ended up murdering anybody.

Hence, if government workers such as police officers are so concerned about murder then, perhaps, rather than taking us all down the horrible pathways through which the death penalty leads us, they should seek to persuade the government to adopt policies that would reduce the likelihoods of people becoming murderers in the first place!

For example, reducing the number of single-mother households would reduce the number of murders – as well as the general crime rate – quite significantly.

Bringing more discipline into our schools and on to our streets would also help a great deal.

Reducing excessive immigration would also cut the homicide rate.

There are many, many things that the government could do to reduce the numbers of murders if it really wanted to reduce them.

But governments benefit hugely from murders and from serious crimes, and so they will do very little to decrease their number.

What they will do, however, is forever try to put the blame elsewhere.

7. Of course, we often feel that cold, callous murderers do ‘deserve’ the death penalty. And, in my view, some of them actually deserve far, far worse than the death penalty.

But, in practice, and as indicated above, the death penalty simply poisons us all by increasing our desire for violence across all other circumstances. The evidence does not suggest that it reduces the murder rate. And the death penalty allows the government to keep on passing the buck and to avoid having to address those policies of theirs which lead to a higher murder rate.

Finally, I am not intending to suggest that all lives are equal in value to society. Indeed, this is clearly very much not the case, in my view.

Some human lives are definitely more worthy than others. And some people are just scum.

But my claim is this.

The death penalty poisons us all in very many serious ways; and we would all be much better off without it.

This might not have been true 100 years ago, and it still might not be true in certain countries today.

But, in western countries, at this point in time, I can see no benefits accruing to society from the use of the death penalty, but I can definitely see numerous very serious disadvantages arising from it.

As such, I believe that we should be sentencing those who ‘deserve’ the Death Penalty to life imprisonment – which, in many ways, for many convicts, is probably a stiffer punishment to deal with.

Emotional abuse grinds you down over time and leaves you feeling depressed, anxious, helpless and worthless. You don’t deserve to be treated badly. People who are emotionally abusive typically fall into specific personality types and by types, I mean disorders.

The emotionally abusive cluster B disorders, Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD), Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), and Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD), lie on a continuum. Depending on the day, hour, minute or second, your wife or girlfriend may exhibit different characteristics of these personality disorders. They’re all similar flavors of crazy.

So how can you tell if your emotionally abusive girlfriend or wife has Borderline or Narcissistic traits? The following are general rules of thumb I use when trying to tease out the difference.

How do they approach relationships?

The Narcissistic Woman: “Love me–or else.” If you don’t unconditionally accept the NPD and all of her horrible behaviors, you are, as one of my readers describes it, “unforgiving and mean.” She initially charms and then bullies you into loving her. If you reject her or she thinks that you’re criticizing her, you’re treated to a narcissistic rage episode or cold sullen withdrawal and the death stare.

Every now and again, a narcissist will be nice to you, even affectionate. This is because she is:

1. about to manipulate you into doing something for her;
2. making a public display in order to be seen by others as magnanimous or loving;
3. celebrating because she’s duped or tricked you about something; and/or
4. lulling you into a false sense of security because she’s about to clobber you again.

In other words, if she’s being nice to you, be afraid. Be very afraid.

The Borderline Woman: “Please love me. I didn’t mean it. Don’t leave me.” Initially, the BPD will mutate into the woman she thinks you want her to be. This ideal fantasy woman has nothing to do with who she is in reality. She’ll do everything in her power to please you in order to make you love her and then the mask starts to crumble.

Can you feel sympathy for her?

The Narcissistic Woman: The NPD woman is a very unsympathetic creature. It’s damned near impossible to feel sorry for her. If she manipulates you into feeling sympathy for her, it’s to get you to let down your guard so she can steamroll you again. They invented the term crocodile tears for NPDs. She cries when she’s terrified of losing control over her half dead mouse–that would be you–or of having her true self exposed.

The Borderline Woman: Even when she’s off the charts crazy, there’s still something sort of pitiful about her. It’s easier to feel sympathy for a BPD, but pity and guilt shouldn’t be the glue that holds a relationship together. Intention does not negate consequence. In other words, even if a BPD woman can articulate, “I didn’t mean to hurt you,” it doesn’t absolve her from the responsibility of having inflicted harm whether it was intentional or unintentional. A person with these issues has a very hard time understanding this.

Is she capable of accepting personal responsibility?

The Narcissistic Woman: She rarely, if ever, admits she’s wrong unless it’s to zing you with a thinly veiled insult. For example, “I thought you were a kind and generous man. I see now that I was wrong.” She never ever takes personal responsibility for her hurtful actions. If you call her on her bad behaviors, she claims it was your fault for pushing her into it (i.e., you deserved it) and you’re a bad man to make a good woman like her act that way. You should be ashamed of yourself!

Alternatively, she’ll use dime store psychology or dogmatic religion to justify her inexcusable behaviors. For example, “A true christian practices forgiveness” or “You have unresolved issues with your mother” or “My therapist said I should do what’s in my heart.” How do you not respond, “You’re kidding, right?” to these kinds of statements.

The Borderline Woman: The BPD will admit what she did was wrong, BUT she’ll follow it up by blaming you for triggering her. That’s not real personal responsibility. It’s what a 5-year old says when they get caught doing something wrong. “Yes, what I did was wrong, but it wasn’t my fault.” The NPD won’t acknowledge any wrong-doing–that’s the difference. The NPD believes she was right to hurt you.

Is she capable of empathy?

The Narcissistic Woman: The NPD is virtually incapable of feeling empathy for others. She is 100% ENTITLED, which means other people’s feelings don’t really matter.  There is one exception. If someone else is giving you a hard time, the NPD will say, “Well I never had a problem with ‘Joe.’ He’s always been nice to me. He must be really stressed. You’re probably bringing this on yourself.” The NPD woman shows empathy for others at your expense. She’s a real gem.

The Borderline Woman: BPDs can be guided to feel empathy by reminding them of specific instances when they felt bad, but it’s usually pretty fleeting. Bottom line: A BPD’s emotional distress takes precedence over everything and everyone else, no matter how empathic she may seem to be from time to time.

Is she capable of giving?

The Narcissistic Woman: That would be no, no and no. NPDs are all TAKERS. It’s definitely a one-way street when you’re involved with a narcissistic woman. She may make a show of being kind and generous in front of others, but that’s only because she wants to protect her highly controlled public image. Alternatively, if she does something “generous” it’s because she believes “those are the rules” of etiquette, society or her religion. NPDs are big rules and regulations types. She will then expect to be lavishly acknowledged and praised for her act of generosity (or something as minor as cleaning up after herself in the bathroom) and never lets you forget it.

The Borderline Woman: BPDs are givers, but it comes with a price. It’s part of what I mentioned earlier about doing anything to please you to get you to love them.

Most of the behaviors I’m describing are entirely unconscious. They’re learned at an early age and some of them may be hardwired. Whether she’s more NPD or BPD, both traits are extremely painful and damaging to the people who love them.

by Dr Tara J. Palmatier, PsyD

Private Consultation and Coaching

I provide confidential,  fee-for-service, consultation/coaching services via telephone and/or Skype chat. Please visit my Contact page for professional inquiries.

My Virtual Shrink

MyVirtualShrink is an alternative to traditional psychotherapy and coaching. It offers a wide range of interactive guided sessions for many of the issues Shrink4Men. For more information and a discount, please follow this link: Special Offer: My Virtual Shrink and/or email me directly at shrink4men@gmail.com.

Many Christians and religious Jews, along with secular liberal-progresssives, sincerely oppose the death penalty for convicted murderers or rapists. They are firmly persuaded that the God-given miracle of life is too precious to leave in the hands of fallible human jurors and judges.

Almost all people agree that murder, taking matters into one’s own hands without the sanction of civil justice, is forbidden. Indeed, that view is one of the oldest imbedded in society’s laws. Those same laws of society, from time immemorial, also dictated executing murderers and rapists, provided that they were brought before a lawfully constituted body and convicted by requisite evidence. Justice was fitting the penalty to the crime.

Justice was viewed from the standpoint of the whole of society, not solely from the viewpoint of the accused. Acts of rape, mutilation, or murder were crimes against the order of society, as well as against the specific victims.

Ancient law codes, from the Ten Commandments to Hammurabi’s law, were based upon an explicit reference to the gods recognized as the protectors of that society. Thus executing murderers and rapists, as well as acts of murder or rape, inevitably raise moral questions. Today those questions tend to be confined to the criminal who commits such acts. Little thought is given to the morality of protecting society from such people, as well as the rights of victims and their families. Little thought is given to the degrading effect upon society, the contempt for law and justice, engendered by limiting punishment of murderers and rapists to prison confinement, from which they all too often escape or are paroled. Little thought is given to the frequency with which escapees or parolees murder, mutilate, and rape new victims.

For more details regarding that aspect of the death penalty, see Lester Jackson’s essay on the TCS Daily website.

Many Christians and religious Jews who oppose the death penalty also oppose abortion. But many secular liberal-progressives oppose the death penalty while advocating an absolute and unilateral right of a woman to murder her baby via abortion. Why, it’s fair to ask , are the lives of ruthless criminals so much more important than the lives of innocent unborn or just-born babies?

Opposition of the ACLU and other liberal-progressives to the death penalty and their support for abortion pivot off their support for civil rights. Because a disproportionate number of murders, mutilations, and rapes are committed by blacks and other minorities, the ACLU says that the death penalty is itself discrimination against those minorities and an infringement of civil rights. Because the ACLU, and liberal-progressives generally, reject Judeo-Christian morality as a foundation of social order, they have no compunction about elevating feminist ideology over unborn babies’ right to life.

The underlying philosophical support for such doctrine is socialism’s concept of social justice. The first prominent statement of that doctrine was the work of French Revolutionary philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the middle 1700s. Rousseau asserted that, in the original state of nature, there was plenty of everything for everybody and that people were benevolent, resorting to neither aggression and crime, nor war.

In Rousseau’s imagination (he admitted that he had no historical or other evidence to support it), this idyllic perfection, the secular-liberal-progressive version of the Garden of Eden, was ended by the advent of private property rights and the structuring of societies to protect those property rights. Once someone declared a piece of ground to be his property and asserted a right to prevent its use by others, avarice, greed, aggression, crime, and war were unleashed upon a formerly peaceful and benevolent humanity.

Opposition to the death penalty rests in part upon Rousseau’s imagined benevolence of people in the original state of nature. If crime is the product of ownership of private property, then humanity can be returned to its natural benevolence by redistribution of property under a socialist regime. Murderers and rapists can be rehabilitated through the ministrations of secular social scientists, because humans are all good when not corrupted by a social and political structure that protects property rights.

This doctrine is unsupported by historical experience, indeed totally repudiated by socialist experiment, from Revolutionary France, to the Soviet Union, Hitler’s National Socialism, and Mao’s Red China. But it was the genesis of the ACLU, which was organized during the First World War to support socialists’ and anarchists’ efforts to sabotage America’s preparations for entry into the European conflict.

The ACLU, ever since, has adopted as its official purpose supporting any effort to degrade the Judeo-Christian moral ethos upon which the United States was founded.

For the ACLU and its liberal-progressive supporters, at least, opposition to the death penalty is, at bottom, just one more way to corrode the moral foundations of constitutional government in the United States, a constitutional government founded upon the essentiality of private property rights. It is precisely this same objective that governs ACLU advocacy of abortion.

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

Exercise & Prostate Cancer Risk

“A critical weekly review of important new research findings for health-conscious readers…”

---

The information in this column is intended for informational purposes only, and does not constitute medical advice or recommendations by the author.  Please consult with your physician before making any lifestyle or medication changes, or if you have any other concerns regarding your health.

---

EXERCISE & PROSTATE CANCER RISK

---

Disclaimer:  As always, my advice to readers is to seek the advice of your physician before making any significant changes in medications, diet, or level of physical activity

---

Dr. Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, a professor of surgery, a widely published author, and a Surgical Oncologist at the Kaiser Permanente healthcare system in Orange County, California

---

(Anticipated Publication Date:  March 2010)

---

---

rwascher@doctorwascher.net

---

Dr. Wascher’s Biography

---

Links to Other Health & Wellness Sites

---

http://doctorwascher.com

---

Copyright 2007 – 2009

Robert A. Wascher, MD, FACS

All rights reserved

---

Dr. Wascher’s Archives:

10-25-2009: HPV Virus & Risk of Breast Cancer

10-18-2009: Post-Cholecystectomy Syndrome (Symptoms after Gallbladder Surgery)

10-11-2009: Vitamin D & Falls in the Elderly

10-4-2009:   Surgery, NSQIP, Complications & Death

9-27-2009    Stress, Heart Disease, Exercise & Death

9-20-2009:   Vitamin D & Colorectal Cancer Survival

9-13-2009:   H1N1 Swine Flu Update

9-7-2009:     Green Tea, Aging & Lifespan

8-30-2009:   Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), Diet & Fiber

8-23-2009:  Update on Prostate Cancer and Cryotherapy

8-16-2009:   Exercise Improves Lymphedema Symptoms in Breast Cancer Survivors

8-9-2009:   Breast Cancer Recurrence, Death & Vitamin D

8-2-2009:   Honesty, Dishonesty & Brain Function

7-26-2009:   Coronary Artery CT Scans & Cancer Risk

7-19-2009:   Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) & Ovarian Cancer

7-12-2009:   Breast Cancer & Metformin (Glucophage)

7-5-2009:    Prostate Cancer & Green Tea

6-28-2009:   Air Pollution & the Risk of Deep Venous Thrombosis (DVT)

6-21-2009:   Red Yeast Rice, Statins & Cholesterol

6-14-2009:   Bone Marrow Stem Cell Transplant & Congestive Heart Failure (CHF)

6-7-2009:    Diet, Soy & Breast Cancer Risk

5-31-2009:   Diet and Prostate Cancer Risk

5-24-2009:   Diabetes, Glucose Control & Death

5-17-2009:   Drug Company Marketing & Physician Prescribing Bias

5-10-2009:   Hemorrhoids & Surgery

5-3-2009:     Statin Drugs & Blood Clots (Thromboembolism)

4-26-2009:   Are We Really Losing the War on Cancer?

4-19-2009:    Exercise in Middle Age & Risk of Death

4-12-2009:   Can Chronic Stress Harm Your Heart?

4-5-2009:     Does PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer Save Lives?

3-22-2009:   CABG Surgery vs. PCI in Diabetics with Coronary Artery Disease; Sweetened Beverages and Coronary Artery Disease

3-15-2009:   Depression, Stress, Anger & Heart Disease

3-8-2009:    Coronary Artery Disease: CABG vs. Stents?; Swimming Lessons & Drowning Risk in Children

3-1-2009:    Aspirin & Colorectal Cancer Prevention; Fish Oil & Respiratory Infections in Children

2-22-2009: Health Differences Between Americans & Europeans; Lycopene & Prostate Cancer

2-15-2009: Statin Drugs & Death Rates; Physical Activity, Breast Cancer & Sex Hormones

2-8-2009:   Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) & Breast Cancer; Stool DNA Testing & Cancer of the Colon & Rectum

2-1-2009:   Obesity and the Complications of Diverticulosis (Diverticulitis & Bleeding); Obesity, Weight Loss & Urinary Incontinence

1-25-2009: Prostate Cancer, Fatigue & Exercise; Does your Surgeon “Warm-up” Before Surgery?

1-18-2009: Cancer and Vitamins; Teenagers, MySpace and Risky Behaviors

1-11-2009: Exercise Reverses Some Effects of Fatty Meals; Vitamin C and Blood Pressure

1-4-2009:   Secondhand Smoke & Heart Attack Risk; Poor Physical Fitness During Childhood & Heart Disease Risk During Adulthood

12-28-2008: Stress & Your Risk of Heart Attack; Vitamin D & the Prevention of Colon & Rectal Polyps

12-21-2008: Breast Cancer Incidence & Hormone Replacement Therapy; Circumcision & the Risk of HPV & HIV Infection

12-14-2008: Vitamin E, Vitamin C and Selenium Do Not Prevent Cancer; Postscript: A Possible Cure for Down’s Syndrome

12-7-2008:   Generic vs. Brand-Name Drugs, Stress & Breast Cancer Survival

11-30-2008: A Possible Cure for Down’s Syndrome?; Smoking & Cognitive Decline; Calcium & Vitamin D & Breast Cancer Risk

11-23-2008:  Breast Cancer & Fish Oil; Lymphedema after Breast Cancer Treatment; Vasectomy & Prostate Cancer Risk

11-16-2008:  Vitamin E & Vitamin C: No Impact on Cardiovascular Disease Risk; Does Lack of Sleep Increase Stroke & Heart Attack Risk in Hypertensive Patients?

11-9-2008:    Statins Cut Heart Attack Risk Even with Normal Cholesterol Levels; Statins & PSA Level

11-2-2008:    Radiation Treatment of Prostate Cancer & Second Cancers; Sexual Content on TV & Teen Pregnancy Risk

10-26-2008:  Smoking & Quality of Life

10-19-2008:  Agent Orange & Prostate Cancer

10-12-2008:  Pomegranate Juice & Prostate Cancer

10-5-2008:   Central Obesity & Dementia; Diet, Vitamin D, Calcium, & Colon Cancer

9-28-2008:   Publication & Citation Bias in Favor of Industry-Funded Research?

9-21-2008:   Does Tylenol® (Acetaminophen) Cause Asthma?

9-14-208:    Arthroscopic Knee Surgery- No Better than Placebo?; A Healthy Lifestyle Prevents Stroke

8-23-2008:  Alcohol Abuse Before & After Military Deployment; Running & Age; Running & Your Testicles

8-12-2008:  Green Tea & Diabetes; Breastfeeding & Adult Cholesterol Levels; Fish Oil & Senile Macular Degeneration

8-3-2008:   Exercise & Weight Loss; Green Tea, Folic Acid & Breast Cancer Risk; Foreign Language Interpreters & ICU Patients

7-26-2008:  Viagra & Sexual Function in Women; Patient-Reported Adverse Hospital Events; Curcumin & Pancreatic Cancer

7-13-2008:  Erectile Dysfunction & Frequency of Sex; Muscle Strength & Mortality in Men; Cryoablation for Prostate Cancer

7-6-2008:  Sleep, Melatonin & Breast Cancer Risk; Mediterranean Diet & Cancer Risk; New Treatment for Varicose Veins

6-29-2008:  Bone Marrow Stem Cells & Liver Failure; Vitamin D & Colorectal Cancer Survival; Green Tea & Colorectal Cancer

6-22-2008:  Obesity, Lifestyle & Heart Disease; Effects of Lifestyle & Nutrition on Prostate Cancer; Ginkgo Biloba, Ulcerative Colitis & Colorectal Cancer

6-15-2008:  Preventable Deaths after Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Surgery; Green Tea & Colorectal Cancer; Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) & St. John’s Wort

6-8-2008:  Vitamin D & Prostate Cancer Risk; Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) of Kidney (Renal) Cancer; Antisense Telomerase & Cancer

6-2-2008:  Acute Coronary Syndrome- Do You Know the Symptoms?; Green Tea & Lung Cancer; Episiotomy & Subsequent Deliveries- An Unkind Cut

5-25-2008:  Early Childhood Screening Predicts Later Behavioral Problems; Psychiatric Disorders Among Parents of Autistic Children; Social & Psychiatric Profiles of Young Adults Born Prematurely

5-18-2008:  Can Statins Reverse Coronary Artery Disease?; Does Breast Ultrasound Improve Breast Cancer Detection?; Preventive Care Services at Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Centers

5-11-2008:  Smoking Cessation & Risk of Death; Childhood Traumas & Adult Suicide Risk; “White Coat Hypertension” & Risk of Cardiovascular Disease

5-4-2008:  Super-Size Me: Fast Food’s Effects on Your Liver; Exercise, Weight & Coronary Artery Disease; Contamination of Surgical Instruments in the Operating Room

4-27-2008:  Stents vs. Bypass Surgery for Coronary Artery Disease; The “DASH” Hypertension Diet & Cardiovascular Disease Prevention; Testosterone Therapy for Women with Decreased Sexual Desire & Function

4-20-2008:  BRCA Breast Cancer Mutations & MRI Scans; Bladder Cancer Prevention with Broccoli?; Diabetes: Risk of Death Due to Heart Attack & Stroke

4-13-2008:  Breast Cancer Recurrence & Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT); Carotid Artery Disease: Surgery vs. Stents?; Statin Drugs & Cancer Prevention

4-6-2008:  Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), Pap Smear Results & Cervical Cancer; Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) Infection & Oral Cancer; Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) & the Risk of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disorder (GERD)

3-30-2008:  Abdominal Obesity & the Risk of Death in Women; Folic Acid Pretreatment & Heart Attacks; Pancreatic Cancer Regression after Injections of Bacteria

3-23-2008:  Age of Transfused Blood & Risk of Complications after Surgery; Obesity, Blood Pressure & Heart Size in Children

3-16-2008:  Benefits of a Full Drug Coverage Plan for Medicare Patients?; Parent-Teen Conversations about Sex; Soy (Genistein) & Prostate Cancer

3-9-2008:  Flat Colorectal Adenomas & Cancer; Health Risks after Stopping Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT); Television, Children & Obesity

3-2-2008:  Medication & Risk of Death After Heart Attack; Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) & Mammogram Results; Selenium: Cancer, Heart Disease & Death

2-23-2008:  Universal Healthcare Insurance Study; Glucosamine & Arthritis

2-17-2008:  Exceptional Longevity in Men; Testosterone & Risk of Prostate Cancer; Smoking & Pre-malignant Colorectal Polyps

2-10-2008:  Thrombus Aspiration from Coronary Arteries; Intensive Management of Diabetes & Death; Possible Cure for  Down’s Syndrome?

2-3-2008:  Vitamin D & Cardiovascular Health; Vitamin D & Breast Cancer; Green Tea & Colorectal Cancer

1-27-2008:  Colorectal Cancer, Esophageal Cancer & Pancreatic Cancer: Update from the 2008 American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium

1-20-2008:  Testosterone Levels & Risk of Fractures in Elderly Men; Air Pollution & DNA Damage in Sperm; Statins & Trauma Survival in the Elderly

1-12-2008:  Statins, Diabetes & Stroke and Obesity; GERD & Esophageal Cancer

1-7-2008:  Testosterone Supplements in Elderly Men; Colorectal Cancer– Reasons for Poor Compliance with Screening Recommendations

12-31-2007:  Minority Women, Hormone Replacement Therapy & Breast Cancer; Does Health Insurance Improve Health?

12-23-2007:  Is Coffee Safe After a Heart Attack?; Impact of Divorce on the Environment; Hypertension & the Risk of Dementia; Emotional Vitality & the Risk of Heart Disease

12-16-2007:   Honey vs. Dextromethorphan vs. No Treatment for Kids with Night-Time Cough, Acupuncture & Hot Flashes in Women with Breast Cancer, Physical Activity & the Risk of Death, Mediterranean Diet & Mortality

12-11-2007:  Bias in Medical Research; Carbon Nanotubes & Radiofrequency: A New Weapon Against Cancer?; Childhood Obesity & Risk of Adult Heart Disease

12-2-2007:  Obesity & Risk of Cancer; Testosterone Level & Risk of Death; Drug Company Funding of Research & Results; Smoking & the Risk of Colon & Rectal Cancer

---

Dr. Wascher’s Home Page

---

Send your feedback to Dr. Wascher at:

(Click above image for TV36 interview of Dr. Wascher)

While this rather small clinical study raises the possibility that high levels of aerobic exercise throughout the week may significantly decrease the risk of prostate cancer (and may decrease the likelihood of high-grade tumors in men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer), a larger prospective, randomized clinical research trial, with long-term follow-up, will be necessary to confirm the results of this small study. Small studies, such as this one, may come to erroneous conclusions due to their small sample size, and their limited follow-up of patients. Moreover, all survey-based research studies, such as this one, are susceptible to potential biases. Finally, this study’s finding that exercise reduces prostate cancer risk may only be indirectly true, as other dietary or lifestyle factors that are more common among men who exercise regularly may actually be responsible for the decreased prostate cancer risk observed in this clinical study.  Having listed all of these disclaimers, we know, without a doubt, that regular aerobic exercise improves overall health and decreases the risk of premature death. Thus, there are many good reasons to engage in regular exercise, including the possibility that doing so might reduce your risk of developing prostate cancer.

The authors of this study found that the men who exercised regularly (at least 9 METS, or metabolic-equivalent task hours, per week), when compared to the men who did not regularly exercise, had a markedly lower risk of prostate cancer. In fact, the men who vigorously and regularly exercised had a whopping 65 percent lower risk of prostate cancer when compared to the men who lived sedentary lives. Additionally, even moderate levels of exercise (3 to 8.9 METS per week) were associated with a lower risk of aggressive high-grade prostate tumors among the men who were diagnosed with prostate cancer (86 percent risk reduction for high-grade tumors).

An intriguing new clinical research study, just published in the Journal of Urology, raises the possibility that regular aerobic exercise may, indeed, be associated with a decreased risk of developing prostate cancer. In this study, 190 men who were undergoing prostate gland needle biopsy completed a validated lifestyle and exercise history questionnaire. Statistical adjustments were then made for known prostate cancer risk factors, including age, ethnic race, body weight, prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, family history, and digital rectal examination (DRE) findings.

While several different risk factors have been implicated in the development of prostate cancer, male gender, increasing age, and being an African-American male are the three most important known risk factors for this disease. As none of these major risk factors can be eliminated, it is unlikely that prostate cancer can be completely eliminated, either. However, there is some clinical evidence to suggest that specific lifestyle and dietary modifications may reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. One lifestyle factor that has previously been proposed to potentially reduce prostate cancer risk is exercise. However, the results of previous clinical research studies have provided contradictory evidence regarding the role of exercise in prostate cancer prevention.

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men, and the second most common cause of cancer-associated death in men. In 2009, an estimated 192,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, and more than 28,000 will die from this disease. Based upon current trends, 1 in 6 males will go on to be diagnosed with prostate cancer during their lifetimes.

Updated:  11/01/2009

There are currently 192 countries making up the United Nations members list. The vast majority of the member nations are dictatorships by any other name. You can dress their leaders in fancy robes and toss an occasional crown on a head, but from Saudi Arabia to Libya and Gambia, their leaders oppress their populations. They loot as much as they can from their economies, while enjoying a comforting credibility rubbing shoulders with other narcissistic misanthropes under the opulent umbrella of the UN General Assembly.

The UN has never been an effective vehicle for achieving real peace and security, although it was intended to achieve exactly that when it replaced the impotent League of Nations. The overwhelming power of the United States has been the major underlying force that has prevented major international wars since WWII. The UN has been an inept bystander to international affairs. America’s power and influence has generated kick-back that has been fomented within the UN where jealousy found broad fertile ground amongst a majority of member nations, including Europeans such as Norway, Denmark. No need here to extend the list of envious pretenders that easily includes the likes of Russia.

The reaction against the U.S. found new energy when the world found itself in an economic recession, and fingers could be pointed at America for having been too self serving. In slide the opportunists. Beating the newfound drums of climate change fear and catastrophe, they will mutate the upcoming Copenhagen meeting on climate change into a perfect vehicle through which begrudging usurpers will once again attempt elevating the UN to status of world power, “over” the U.S.

We can rest confident that the contemplated Copenhagen Treaty emanating from this meeting will find elements to mirror in the cap-and-trade bill now being promoted by Obama and Congress. This, along with the December 10 Nobel Peace Prize presentation, will lock-in support from Washington for the agreement. Obama and Congress will have unwittingly signed on for the formation of Two disasters. The first will be a UN managed onerous extraction of cash from the United States and Canada for what can only be described as payment of a “climate debt.” The second will be the unprecedented endowment of the UN with sweeping powers over the economies of all nations. The text currently contemplated for signing by the membership will provide this body with incisive absolutism over the economic engines that have fuelled both America’s hegemony, as well as its population’s independence of thought and freedoms.

Keep in mind that many, if not most, of the enlightened leaders of UN member countries are the same ones responsible for crimes against humanity, … their own humanities within their own home borders. This is also a membership heavily populated by misogynistic individuals who believe in the subjugation of women and criminalization of homosexuality, all the while pretending to promote the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

The time has long passed for the UN’s charter to be changed. The UN has no ability or capacity to act as a world peace maker. It could remain as an organization directed toward humanitarian efforts, and provide a meeting place for resolving broad international challenges pertaining to education, population, or agriculture. It cannot, however, be allowed to morph into a world power. The United States, which funds almost one quarter of the UN’s budget, should not allow it. Obama and Congress should refuse signing America on to the Copenhagen agreement, or any version of it. Copenhagen has nothing to do with cleaning up our refuse or CO2.

I should add a Third ensuing disaster if Copenhagen materializes: A weaker America would not be positive for long term prospects of world peace.

James Raider writes The Pacific Gate Post

President Obama notoriously promised to bring change to our foreign policy relations. His presumption, shared by most liberal-progressives, was that every nation in the world truly desires to eschew war as a policy instrument.

Liberal-progressives take their cue from Auguste Comte’s writings in the 1820s. Comte was supremely confident that international socialism, under the rubric of his Religion of Humanity, would bring people from all over the world to learn from French intellectuals the means for restructuring political society. Restructured societies, with socialistic redistribution of wealth, would no longer experience crime, aggression, or war. Acting as moral judges, intellectuals would dictate appropriate rules for personal and international relations.

The way to realize those presumed universal peace desires, in the liberal-progressive scenario, is to be sensitive, even obsequious, and never to take military or diplomatic action unilaterally. To show its faith in the promise of world peace and benevolence under international socialism, the United States is to set an example for the world by disarming itself and reducing its economic and military power to rough equality with such powers in the rest of the world.

This diplomatic paradigm, faithfully followed by President Obama in his dealings with our self-declared enemies, has so far produced nothing more than promises.

On the domestic front, the president also is pursuing the ideology of international socialism by ballooning Federal debt to devalue the dollar, bringing large portions of industry and the financial community under direct Federal supervision, and by imposing cap-and-trade green regulation and National Socialistic healthcare, both of which will greatly increase business costs and diminish international competitiveness of American industry.

The question now confronting the president is whether he will persist in negotiating with our enemies without useful results, or whether he will implement his vaguely implied sanctions to compel good-faith negotiations by our foreign adversaries. Time to curb Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions is running short.

Are we reverting to liberal-progressives’ 1960s “better Red than dead” rationalization for doing nothing for fear of offending the Soviet Union?

Thomas E. Brewton is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

His weblog is THE VIEW FROM 1776
http://www.thomasbrewton.com/

Email comments to viewfrom1776@thomasbrewton.com

Did you ever imagine that men — who created, fought and died for, and built America — would one day comprise a special-interest group (SIG)? Stop imagining. That day is today.

Judging by how they view themselves, and, consequently, how women view them, men are neither special nor of much interest to America. Accordingly, this so-called “group” is, in reality, hollow and nonexistent and, therefore, trivial.

Typically, SIGs organize, raise money, and fight to coerce spineless politicians to subvert the US Constitution to create unilateral rights and privileges. Result? Unconstitutional laws such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and the newly enacted Hate Crimes Prevention Act — which, some argue, could have allowed the feds to nullify North Carolina’s decision to forgive three innocent men in the Duke Lacrosse Case.

Obama’s Macho Window Dressing

Women keep playing oppressed victims when, clearly, they aren’t: Maria Shriver declared America a Woman’s Nation. Yet, they endlessly seek unilateral legal dominance when the Constitution, as written and amended, gives them everything they need. Why? Simple: because they can. They know that, whenever women cry foul, men buckle.

In the past week, feminists accused Barack Obama of running a boys’ club within the White House — because he frequently shoots hoops and plays golf only with male colleagues and friends. Big freaking deal. His “boys’ club,” a mere retreat from self-imposed subordination to women, is macho window dressing.

Nothing demonstrates Obama’s real agenda like his female-centric rhetoric and behavior. For example, Obama told NBC News that “men are obtuse about women … and need to be knocked across the head.” As I indicated in “Obama’s Misandry Cineplex,” the president is operating anything but a boys’ club:

• In 2008 and 2009, Obama castigated men on Fathers’ Day for leaving their pregnant unmarried girlfriends. Did he make a similar speech on Mothers’ Day to vilify unmarried pregnant women? He did not. Roe v. Wade, which Obama supports, says: it’s her body, her baby, her choice. Yet, Obama blames men for women’s choices.
• Unconstitutional women-only section at Whitehouse.gov.
• White House advisor on violence against women, corresponding to the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act.
• Fatherhood.gov to teach men parenting, while Motherhood.gov is nonexistent (by giving birth, women are fully equipped to be great mothers, right?).

Republicans Have No Brand

If men want to end government-sponsored misandry, where do they turn? The Democrats? Forget it. Democrats believe in central government, entitlements, and redistribution of wealth. They view the Constitution as a document of suggestions, recommendations, and hidden rights and entitlements for special groups.

How about the Republican Party?  Republicans portray themselves as upholders of the law, believers in states’ rights and small government, the people’s party, and advocates of equal protection under the law. Really?

If that’s the case, why are men exempt from equal protection? Are they hollow, nonexistent, and trivial? Why doesn’t Michael Steele, chairman of the RNC, stand up for men and fathers? Why indeed.

Instead, every time a new misandrist law comes along, like the Hate-Crimes Act mentioned above, Republicans vote for it. Never an argument, filibuster, or fight. Never an appearance on Fox News to rail against it. Equal protection, my ass.

Since 1874, the elephant has symbolized the Republican Party. Its origins were, coincidentally, based in fear and weakness. I see no difference today. A better symbol would be the hippopotamus, because Republicans are hypocrites.

Republicans have no brand, no discernible purpose — other than to oppose Democrats — and, therefore, no unique drawing power. A brand is perception, not proclamation.

Here’s how the GOP can brand itself as unique and appealing: man-up. Attract men. Fight political correctness to restore equal rights to men. Give men a reason to join, a place to turn.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

There are too many men who obsequiously believe that women deserve “special” rights and privileges — violating the Constitution — because they didn’t have suffrage until 1920 (89 years ago). That’s as absurd as calling anorexia a cure for obesity. One can’t fix an injustice by creating another injustice.

In “Rebranding Manhood,” I wrote that masculinity is not deference to women — it’s standing up to them. Either we as a nation believe in equality or we don’t. If we do, let’s enforce it. If we don’t, let’s rip up the Constitution and devolve into gynocratic fascism.

It’s time for the GOP to man-up. Does this connote patriarchy? Not at all. It means not tolerating matriarchy. It means equality, as the Fourteenth Amendment dictates. A country of male doormats is no country.

The GOP, like any group, reflects the wishes and demands of its members. If it continues to ignore equality for men, we will know why: the members want it that way. Alas, neither the GOP nor America will have much future.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov, The NoNonsense Man®, is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, speaker, and author of 115+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727) and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). The 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence in Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” Mr. Rudov is a frequent guest on Fox News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor and Your World with Neil Cavuto.

Rudov’s books, articles, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

I discovered, as have many parents, that if my relationship with my child is challenged by a former spouse or even a social worker — my child and I have no right to family. A trial may occur, but there will be no jury of my peers. A lone judge will decide what’s in the “best interest” of my child.

I’ve come to believe we have a Civil Right to be presumed FIT & EQUAL parents to our children, unless you are convicted in a criminal court of being a demonstrated threat to your kids. Good, average, and poor parents are all FIT & EQUAL parents.

I welcome your thoughts on the rationale I present below to defend this statement.

Why this strong presumption? Because one foundation of morality is the supremacy of individual conscience – what many know as “let your conscience be your guide.” What more important natural obligation does any parent have than to care for their own kids? To be present in their lives in the many roles that only a parent can fill.

Reference From the Vatican web site:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm
1778. Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right….

1782. Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience….”

A second precept says any law which stops us from acting according to a “well formed” conscience is immoral. Is it any wonder parents and children unjustly separated find it one of the most painful and disruptive experiences of their lives?

Fit parents should decide what’s in the best interest of their child. Some think a distinction should be made between good, average, and poor parents. But how can we make a single determination in a multifaceted and dynamic relationship? Like most of us I have mixed feelings about what my parents chose for me. Times I knew they made mistakes, times when I would have preferred one over the other. I saw our relationship change as I matured, but we all grew together as family through good times and bad.

Only the bad parent should be excluded, one who threatens the safety of their child with malintent. Society justly intervenes for those who seek to destroy the relationship. There would be no potential for growth. This would be a serious crime prosecuted in a criminal court.

In the vast majority of cases parents would be free to establish parenting time as they desire. While negotiating a custom schedule, a default standard would alternate physical custody on a weekly basis. Both parents would share legal custody and would alternate “tie breaker” authority on an annual basis. What would all this mean?

A single judge acting alone could not issue an order that destroys a family. The animosity and terrible waste of resources that goes into Family Court battles about which parent is “better” would be eliminated. Mediation services would be more effective when dealing with equal parents. Children would benefit from regular contact with both parents. Community resources could be better focused on identifying and prosecuting the few bad parents that exist and protecting children.

If we look through our history, the recognition of basic Civil Rights has resulted in some disruption and change — but overall they have strengthened our society. Our nation has seen an explosion of well- intentioned Family Law in the last 40 years. It is now time for a Federal Family Rights Act that will recognize and protect our ability to raise and nurture our own children.

1. Iceland
2. Finland
3. Norway
4. Sweden
5. New Zealand

Feminists in Sweden will likely be outraged that we are not at the top of the list, and feminists in other Western countries will likely be complaining that their country is not like Scandinavia. However, instead of occupying our minds with these quibbles, why not have a closer look at the report to see what they actually have measured, and how these measurements have been performed? Early on in the report its author explains how the Gender Gap Index used in the report works:

Our aim is to focus on whether the gap between women and men in the chosen variables has declined, rather than whether women are “winning”the “battle of the sexes”. Hence,the Index rewards countries that reach the point where outcomes for women equal those for men, but it neither rewards nor penalizes cases in which women are outperforming men in particular variables.

In other words, every area where women are outperforming men is ignored, made invisible and left out of the report. What’s even worse is that the author of the report isn’t even ashamed of plainly stating this for everyone to see, as if it was some kind of achievement. What has the world come to when the author of a high-profile report is proud of “only” ignoring men, instead of actively labeling male discrimination a good thing which can give countries a higher score in the report?

It’s also interesting to note the four different categories that are used to determine the Gender Gap Index:

1. Economic participation and opportunity
2. Educational attainment
3. Political empowerment
4. Health and survival

If men’s situation hadn’t been actively ignored, then the author likely would have been forced to report that men do worse than women when it comes to health and survival, and in many countries around the world female students are dominating the colleges and universities. Furthermore, categories that are of great interest of men are actively excluded, for example quality of life indices, substance abuse, access to your children, number of close friends, etc. The chosen categories primarily measure the areas where men do better, and ignore the areas where men are struggling.

Unfortunately, this report is yet another sign that feminism has become a worldwide phenomenon that distorts our perception of how the genders are doing–both at a national and an international level.

Pelle Billing is an M.D. who writes and lectures about men’s issues and gender liberation beyond feminism.

As described in Jailed parent Amir Sanjari has refused food for two weeks Sanjari, an Iranian-born British citizen has faced injustice and corruption throughout his ordeal. His website CorruptUSJudicialSystem has background information.

In a recent call from the Elkhart County jail Sanjari says his civil rights are still being violated.  “Before this call, I wasn’t allowed to use the phone for 12 days,” he said.

At one time Sanjari and his ex-wife shared equal custody and had similar incomes, yet he was ordered to pay $1,000 a month in child support.  When he lost his job and applied for a reduction, it was denied.  His ex-wife won sole custody of the children, he says, by lying about him while he was out of the country on vacation.

From the same jail where a man doing community service work was trapped inside a cell for over 12 hours, Sanjari says the child support system is a conspiracy.  “It’s fraud,” he explained, “They’re lying in order to criminalize [non-custodial parents] to force them to pay the money.  They get away with it,” he says, “because people don’t ask questions.”

Sanjari says there is no due process.  “I asked Judge Bonfiglio to recuse himself because I’ve sued him in Federal court in the past, but he refused.”  He says he’s powerless while people at the jail make problems for him.  “They delayed my paperwork,” he said, “so it couldn’t be filed.”  He says the prosecutor is playing dirty too.  “They refused to recognize that I was representing myself,” he explained, “so they wouldn’t have to share information and evidence with me.  The court had to order them to do it.”

In an attempt to draw attention to the human rights violations that separate parents from their children and turn them into criminals, Sanjari hasn’t had any solid food since March 26, the day he was arrested.  Once a thin but healthy 150 lbs, Sanjari now weighs about 115.  He says he drinks nutritional supplements for the potassium and sodium, to keep his brain functioning normally.

A pre-trial hearing was held on the 22nd, with another scheduled for Oct. 29.  Sanjari’s trial for nonsupport of a dependent child and contempt will be November 9 at Superior Court 6, 315 S. 2nd St, Elkhart, IN.  (case # 46516)  Sanjari, who spent his time helping other parents with their cases while he was on the run, hopes parents dealing with the family court system and child support collections will come to his trial to show their support.  (MAP)

Amir can receive mail:

• Dr. Amir Sanjari
• ID # 106395
• Medical Unit – MI – A11
• 26861 County Road 26
• Elkhart, IN 46517

Subscribe to my family rights articles by email or RSS or:

Recent articles:

• Activist Murtari resumes You’re a Parent Notification Act campaign in Lyons
• Texas denies male victims of domestic violence
• Child support torture victim claims hidden bloody evidence
• Tortured for child support
• Feminist DV service providers fight for cash and control, not equality
• Fathers 4 Justice announce support of CT father on hunger strike
• MA getting closer to equal parenting via HB 1400

Recent SF Family articles:

• Make these pet costumes for little or no money
• Serve the family healthy hearty stew for ten bucks
• Thursday’s Shake Out drill, family earthquake education
• Energy conservation requested after fallen transmission tower, storm
• Cheap costumes and Antioch’s free costume exchange Wed
• Visit these Bay Area haunted houses
• Halloween freebies for kids and pumpkin stencils
• Thrill the World announces six Bay Area locations for breaking world record
• Halloween decorations: shrunken head apples to electronic displays
• Mom asks Bay Area community to help find missing son

PROSTATE HEALTH:

MEET YOUR PROSTATE GLAND:

The prostate gland is a walnut-sized glad that is attached to the bottom of the bladder. The prostate gland wraps around the male urethra as it arises from the bladder, and multiple ducts that connect the prostate gland to the urethra allow the prostatic secretions to be expelled into the urethra at the time of ejaculation. These prostatic secretions, which constitute about 20 percent of the volume of semen, help to create the optimal chemical environment for sperm to thrive and migrate within the female genital tract, thereby enhancing sperm function.

BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERTROPHY (BPH):

BPH is a very common condition that affects essentially all men as they age. The prostate gland continues to slowly enlarge throughout a man’s life. In many men, as they reach their fourth or fifth decades of life, the enlarging prostate begins to interfere with the flow of urine through the portion of the urethra that is surrounded by the prostate gland. The onset of these obstructive voiding symptoms may be gradual, or they may arise relatively suddenly.

The typical symptoms associated with BPH include a delay in the start of the urinary stream, decreased force of the urinary stream or dribbling (especially at the end of urination), a feeling of inadequate bladder emptying after urination, and increased frequency of having the urge to urinate (especially at night). In severe cases of BPH, urinary tract infections, kidney damage, and a complete inability to urinate may occur (these complications of BPH are urgent medical problems that require prompt intervention by a physician).

There is no known effective method of preventing BPH, although some large public health studies have suggested that moderate alcohol intake (which, ironically, increases the risk of certain types of cancer), a diet low in meat products (and, especially, red meat), and a diet high in fresh vegetables and non-meat protein, may be associated with a reduced risk of BPH during middle age.

There are a variety of treatments available for men with BPH, including medication (alpha-blockers, and hormonal agents such as Proscar and Avodart, are the most commonly prescribed medications for BPH). There are also an increasing number of surgical options available to men with severe symptomatic BPH, including newer procedures that are less invasive, and that are associated with fewer long-term complications, than the “gold standard” TURP procedure (transurethral resection of the prostate gland).

As a cautionary note, middle-aged or elderly men who develop the new onset of obstructive voiding symptoms must also be carefully evaluated to rule-out prostate cancer, in addition to BPH.

PROSTATE CANCER:

In many respects, prostate cancer is the male counterpart of breast cancer in women. As is also true with regards to breast cancer in women, prostate cancer is the most common cancer that occurs in men (excluding minor skin cancers), and the second most common cause of cancer death in men. In 2009, an estimated 192,000 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed, and approximately 27,000 men will die of this disease. Prostate cancer accounts for 25 percent of all cancer diagnoses in men (similar to the percentage of breast cancer cases among all cancer cases diagnosed in women). As with the great majority of breast cancer cases, most prostate cancers appear to be stimulated to grow and spread by sex hormones produced by the gonads (and, specifically, by testosterone and other androgens, produced by the testes and other tissues in the body).

Not surprisingly, prostate cancer occurs only in men. As with most types of cancer, prostate cancer becomes more common with advancing age. The average age at diagnosis with prostate cancer is 70 years, and two-thirds of all prostate cancer cases occur in men over the age of 65 years. Autopsy studies have demonstrated that approximately 80 percent of men over the age of 70 have identifiable prostate cancer in their prostate glands at the time of their death.

There is a great deal of ongoing debate regarding the optimal method of screening men for prostate cancers. That being said, most experts, including the American Cancer Society, still recommend that otherwise healthy men begin to undergo annual prostate cancer screening when they reach the age of 50, to include a digital rectal examination (DRE) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood testing. Some experts also recommend that annual DRE and PSA testing begin at age 45 for men with a significant family history of prostate cancer, and in African-American men (prostate cancer is more common in African-American men than in Caucasian and Asian men).

The currently accepted methods of treating prostate cancer include surgery (prostatectomy), various forms of radiation therapy, and medical therapy with hormone blocking drugs and other types of drug therapy. Each of these approaches to prostate cancer treatment has its own unique risk-to-benefit profile, and so men with prostate cancer need to have a thorough and frank discussion with their urologist and medical oncologist regarding the optimal treatment of their disease. (A more recent method of prostate cancer treatment, referred to as cryosurgery or cryotherapy, is still being studied, and has not yet been embraced by most mainstream prostate cancer experts.) The optimal treatment for elderly men with early stage prostate cancer is also the topic of considerable debate, with some prostate cancer experts advising that men who are 75 years old and older consider “watchful waiting” instead of undergoing active prostate cancer treatment (other cancer experts recommend that any man, irrespective of age, consider treatment if it is likely that he will live at least another 10 years). There is also some experimental evidence, as I have reported on www.doctorwascher.com, that exercise, dieting, and the loss of excessive weight may improved one’s chances of surviving prostate cancer.

Recent clinical studies looking at various dietary supplements and vitamins as possible prostate cancer prevention aids have been mostly disappointing, particularly with respect to selenium, Vitamin E, and Vitamin D. However, other dietary compounds may still play a potentially useful role in prostate cancer prevention, including broccoli sprout extract (sulforaphane) and pomegranate juice extract (ellagitannins). There is also some clinical research data suggesting that frequent ejaculation may be associated with a mild decrease in the risk of developing prostate cancer. (Look for additional details regarding current approaches to prostate cancer prevention in my columns on www.doctorwascher.com, and in my forthcoming book, “A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race,” which will be published in early 2010.)

Dr. Wascher is an oncologic surgeon, a professor of surgery, a widely published author, and the Physician-in-Chief for Surgical Oncology at the Kaiser Permanente healthcare system in Orange County, California. Doctor Wascher writes a weekly global health update column, which can be viewed at www.doctorwascher.com. Doctor Wascher is also the author of the much awaited forthcoming book on cancer prevention, “A Cancer Prevention Guide for the Human Race.”

The 2010 mid-term congressional races could easily become a rout of the left, with heartland America energized and active as it has not been in nearly two decades. According to current trends and polling data, next year’s races are nearly guaranteed to go decidedly to the right. Unfortunately, the Republican Party has opted to soften its stances and pursue a strategy of “inclusiveness,” which in reality represents a shift to the left, and out of the good graces of heartland America. Nowhere is this travesty more flagrantly on display than in the upcoming New York District 23 special election.

Overwhelmingly rural, House District 23 barely went for Obama in last year’s election. And as was the case throughout the nation, the Democrat ticket was helped immeasurably by the insipidness of the McCain campaign. Clearly, this district is not a “lock” for the Democrats. Yet, when selecting a Republican nominee in the upcoming election its Republican Party apparatus sought to “lead” by following, and chose the extremely liberal Republican Assembly Woman Dierdre Scozzafava. On most issues, she is at least as far left as Bill Owens, the Democrat.

Worse yet, notable figures within Republican circles, such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and current House Minority Leader John Boehner are endorsing the Scozzafava candidacy purely on the basis that she calls herself “Republican.” From their perspective, giving the seat to someone who holds that title is somehow superior to allowing it to go to a Democrat. Yet recent history paints a starkly different picture.

In Pennsylvania in 2004, then “Republican” Senator Arlen Specter faced a stiff primary challenge from Congressman Pat Toomey. Believing that Specter would somehow help garner Pennsylvania for George W. Bush in his re-election bid that same year, the President made over two dozen campaign appearances on behalf of Specter. Clearly, this boosted Specter’s political fortunes and helped him win a razor thin victory over Toomey, whereupon he immediately turned on Bush and the GOP, siding with Democrats in several key votes. Ultimately, in the wake of the 2008 Obama victory, Specter came out of the closet and declared what honest observers knew all along, that he was indeed a Democrat.

Is this the great Republican strategy to turn the country back from its current downfall? Do Republican “leaders” really believe that the outrage from middle America over the thuggish nationalization of industry, banking, and possibly the healthcare field by Obama and his minions can be channeled into a boost for the candidacy of a “me too” liberal Republican like Scozzafava?

At least when the Trojans of yore brought that confounded wooden horse into their midst, they did so in total ignorance of the danger it represented. It would have been beyond credible, even in a fable, to contend that they might have still accepted it, knowing its sinister contents, under the absurd auspices that doing so would ensure a greater number of warriors to fight the impending battle against the Greeks. Yet that is precisely the mentality of those who claim an allegiance to conservatism while supporting the likes of Scozzafava.

Fortunately, conservative America has finally had its fill of the empty “RINO” promises. All of the stirring rhetoric of a well-crafted party platform is absolutely meaningless if the party proceeds to accept and even embrace a liberal agenda. While some true conservatives are still working within the GOP in an effort to regain control of it from its liberal captors, others are working outside the party to jolt it with a dose of reality, and hopefully gain the attention of its myopic upper echelon.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, making good on her promise to continue the political fight from outside of public office, has endorsed the candidacy of Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate. In this she is joined by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey and former Senator Rick Santorum, along with an enormous and extremely energized contingent from grassroots America.

Few on the political “inside” appear to have any comprehension of just how much is at stake in the District 23 race. If Scozzafava somehow manages to win, she will be heralded as the embodiment of what the Republican Party needs to become in order to regain majority status in the Congress and Senate. Consequently, any Republicans running to the right of Scozzafava in subsequent races would invariably be marginalized on the nightly news and among the party liberals as being “out of the mainstream,” thus giving all Republicans an enormous obstacle to overcome in their electoral pursuits.

Yet nothing could be farther from the truth. The political ground occupied by Scozzafava is exactly what destroyed GOP momentum in the last decade, and what ultimately cost it in 2006 and 2008. Conservatives know this, and so do the liberals. Only the Republican “insiders” remain oblivious.

From as far back as the Nixon Administration, Republican political fortunes have risen and fallen in direct correlation to the party’s embrace or abandonment of conservative principle. Things are no different this year, despite the stunning successes of the Obama machine in 2008. Disillusionment with the current Administration, by itself, is not sufficient to bolster Republican popularity with voters. Only a real conservative opposition will properly address the outrage and energy of traditional America and, with the promise of a real reversal of the present destructive and unconstitutional liberal agenda, rally the conservative grassroots to victory in 2010.

Christopher G. Adamo has been active in Wyoming politics for many years and is a managing partner in Best American Buy (www.bestamericanbuy.com), an e-commerce business that markets American made products including the incomparable Abigail Adams Bedspread Set from Bates Mills. Contact information for Chris Adamo, and his archives, can be found at www.chrisadamo.com

1.  Know your parental rights.

You don’t have any.

Nor does any other parent. Parental rights belong to the child, not to the parent.

You have parental responsibilities, and the powers and authorities essential for discharging those responsibilities. These are not “rights,” in the conventional sense, in that you are not “allowed” to use these powers and authorities, if and when you so choose. You are required to use them, on behalf of our child, at all times.

2.  Know your child’s parental rights.

Your child’s parental rights include your best efforts to enforce those rights. That includes, among other things, putting your child’s needs and interests first. Not yours.

Your child’s parental rights also include liberal access to, and quality parenting from, both parents. Unless you or your co-parent is unfit, your parental responsibilities include your best efforts to enforce these parental rights, as zealously as you would any other.

3.  Know how to discuss parental rights.

Similarly, your purpose for discussing your child, with your co-parent, with the Court, or with your lawyer, is to protect and to promote your child’s rights and interests. Not yours.

Discussing your own needs and interests, rather than those of your child, suggests that you assign little or no importance to your child’s welfare whenever it is inconvenient for you to do so.

Check your needs and interests at the door.  Do not discuss them. Do not refer to them. Do not even mention them.

4.  Know who “owns” your child.

You do not own your child.

Lincoln freed the slaves. Since then, human beings may not “own” other human beings. Even if they are parent and child.

Indeed, if anyone owns anyone, your responsibilities to your child suggest that your child owns you, not vice versa.

5.  Know the relationship between your child’s welfare and yours.

Your welfare is crucial to your child’s welfare.

That means you have a duty to your child to be as strong, happy and healthy as is possible. To do otherwise will decrease your ability to show up as a parent, and will set the wrong example for your child to follow later.

Hence, protecting your child’s parental rights absolutely requires protecting your health and welfare, to the wall. You cannot put your child’s interests first, unless your health and welfare allow you to do so.

6.  Know your options for acquiring and enforcing parental rights.

You have two options: Negotiation and litigation.

Here is the answer to many of your most complicated questions: There are two ways, and only two ways, to get anything done for your child. They are:

(a) You attempt to convince your co-parent agree to it; or,

(b) You attempt to convince the court to order it.

There are no other options. Ever.

7.  Know the Eight Magic Words essential for acquiring and enforcing parental rights.

If you remember nothing else from this article, remember to use these eight magic words, religiously:

“This is in our child’s best interests, because . . .”

Every argument, suggestion, position or perspective that you and your lawyer advance, either to the court or to your co-parent, must begin with these magic words.

Arguments that do not begin with these words will have zero merit or relevance. They will also kill your credibility as a concerned parent. Throw them out now, save everyone else the trouble, and save yourself the embarrassment.

8.  Know how to label your child.

You should refer to your child in only the following ways: (a) “Our child;” (b) “Our son” (c) “Our daughter;” and, (d) By your child’s first name.

Let’s make very sure that we clearly understand the following, key concepts: (a) “Children” are “persons,” not “property;” (b) “Persons” have rights and interests. “Property” does not; and, (c) “Children” need constant access to, and parenting from, both parents. “Property” does not.

If you refer to your child as “my” anything, it will suggest the following:

(1) You believe that your child is an item of mere property, that you somehow own, rather than a sovereign human being for whom you are responsible; or,

(2) You are unable or unwilling to recognize how essential it is to the child to have constant access to, and parenting from, the other parent; or,

(3) Both of the above.

When referring to your child, always use the options suggested above to avoid this problem.

9.  Know how to choose the right attorney.

You owe it to your child to choose an attorney that thoroughly understands and adheres to these concepts.

Your job is to protect and to promote your child’s rights and interests. Your attorney’s job is to help you to do that. If your attorney is not helping you to put your child first, find another attorney who does.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Attorney Dean M. Schreyer is licensed to practice in California, and serves as a staff attorney at Men’s Legal Center in San Diego. To find out more about either Mr. Schreyer or Men’s Legal Center, please go to: www.menslegal.com.

The material on this document is intended for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal or other professional advice for any purpose. No attorney/client relationship, and no confidential relationship of any kind, is formed by reviewing or using this material in any way, or from any direct or indirect contact with any attorney arising from that review or use. If you need legal or other professional services, consult with the appropriate, competent attorney or other professional.