Quote:
| Rape Hysteria, Redux August 17, 2005 by Carey Roberts Can you imagine the German Bundestag issuing a formal apology for the Nazi atrocities, but then leaving out the fact that Jews were the primary victims? Earlier this summer the U.S. Senate apologized for its earlier failures to approve anti-lynching legislation. The resolution was supported by liberal senators such as Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Biden of Delaware, and others. The apology notes, "at least 4,742 people, predominantly African-Americans, were reported lynched in the United States between 1882 and 1968." The resolution is well-intentioned, but it air-brushes out one essential fact: Virtually all of the victims were male, many of whom were accused of ravishing well-to-do white women. Men so charged were summarily dragged away by the mob and strung from a tree. Once the crowd had gathered, men were stripped of their clothes and their dignity. Many had their bodies riddled with bullets. In the most gruesome cases, the men were burned at the stake. The hysteria that surrounded these incidents was stoked by inflammatory headlines about "big black brutes" and "monsters in human form." Newspaper articles featured caricatures of Black men with insatiable sexual appetites for white virgins. As Philip Dray notes in his book At the Hands of Persons Unknown, "the cumulative impression was of a world made precarious by Negroes." The fear of marauding male predators reached a fever pitch during the early part of the last century. In 1910 Congress passed the White Slave Traffic Act, which forbade the interstate transport of white women "for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose." That law was used to prosecute championship boxer Jack Johnson for taking his white girlfriend, Lucille Cameron, to Chicago for "immoral purposes." Even though the two soon married, Johnson was convicted in 1913, but fled to Europe to avoid serving time for a crime that he knew he had not committed. Rape hysteria became a flashpoint in America's broader race relations problems. Those relations reached their nadir during the Red Summer of 1919, when race riots broke out in more than 20 cities. In Washington DC, news of the sexual assault of an officer's wife triggered the spectacle of hundreds of uniformed sailors and soldiers who chased and beat Blacks, all within view of the US Capitol building. The report later turned out to be a hoax. The slaying of innocent Black males continued for many years. One of those innocents was Emmett Till, who one day pulled up to the grocery store in Money, Mississippi. On a dare, he took the hand of the cashier, a local beauty by the name of Carolyn Bryant, and asked, "How about a date, baby?" Mrs. Bryant was offended by the overture and word soon reached her husband. A week later, the mutilated body of Emmett Till floated to the surface of the Tallahatchie River. He had been shot through the right temple and his skull had been struck with an ax. That was August 1955. Emmett Till was 14 years old. In 1991 Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court. He came to the post with a Yale Law School degree and broad legal experience. But then he was ambushed by Anita Hill, who claimed that Thomas had made sexually inappropriate remarks several years before. Smarting under the allegation, Thomas complained to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he was the victim of "a high-tech lynching." Mr. Thomas was saying that the fear of male sexuality that fueled the lynching of Black men decades before was the same hysteria that now drove people to obsess over Anita Hill's over-blown allegation. On June 9, 2005 Sen. Joe Biden introduced the Violence Against Women Act, a bill that aims to thwart sexual and physical assaults of women. A reading of the proposed law describes a world made precarious by men. Sadly, the Act appeals to the same chivalrous instincts as when the zealotry surrounding virtuous womanhood swept our nation a century ago. Only four days later, on June 13, the Senate expressed its "deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets" to the victims of lynching and their descendants. And why did the Senate resolution forget to mention men in its apology? Because the last thing that presidential hopeful Biden wants is for persons to draw historic parallels between the Violence Against Women Act which portends the widescale curtailment of men's civil liberties, and the injustices that befell wrongly-accused Black men generations ago. |
Quote:
| Last week, the U.S. Senate approved reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (led by Senator Joe Biden of Delaware), amidst a hail of public criticism of the program. A substantial collection of mainstream organizations and scientists oppose VAWA for one basic reason: it funds sexism, not prevention of domestic violence. VAWA is at best an extremely dubious program. Certainly, we all agree it does help women living in abuse. But we also know that it fails to help or protect men living in abuse. In fact, the program holds male victims of domestic violence responsible for women’s violence, even where the man is a saint. VAWA: The WMD of divorce The problems do not stop there. VAWA is the preferred “weapon of mass destruction” used by women’s attorneys in planning and execution of divorces. VAWA is written such that fax containing a mere statement of fear is all that is necessary to seize full control of family, home, assets, and bank accounts. Advocates of VAWA point out that courts are overwhelmed and need laws such as VAWA to protect women. This is true -- judges only have time to hear about 5% of divorce cases. But courts are overwhelmed particularly because spouse abuse allegations are filed in the majority of divorce cases – and judges simply do not have the docket time to hear them all. We can no longer allow feminists to steal by overwhelming the court system. Half the husbands in America have been thrown out of their families. No one can possibly believe that most of these guys are violent wife abusers. Here is the truth: In the late 1970’s, feminists used false child abuse allegations in large numbers to take over marriages and create father absence in record numbers. This worked fairly well for them until a number of highly publicized false child abuse cases were heard, including the McMartin ritual abuse case, Fells Acres Day School, the Wee Care, Wenatchee, and the Little Rascals case. These cases all rested on wild allegations about children being abused in hot air balloons, with tea-leaf readers providing professional testimony about child abuse existing under every rock. In these cases it was quite obvious (and even proven) that children had been programmed to give certain responses, or were “inadvertently” taught the language that made it appear that some sort of child abuse had taken place. All of a sudden, false child abuse cases in divorce began backfiring on feminists. All of a sudden, winning a child abuse case involved programming a child to be very convincing and clear about what happened. Judges were giving custody to men after realizing that women were abusing their children and the system. Intentional abuse of VAWA drives widespread organized robbery Since child abuse allegations were no longer a reliable method to achieve feminist social hegemony, they figured out that false domestic violence allegations are far easier to abuse because winning the case depends only on tears and fears to emote Victorian-era sexism in the hearts of judges. I know a former presiding circuit court judge who confessed to our men’s group of having tremendous difficulty not rolling over in front of teary-eyed women in these very short hearings. He pointed out one major reason that judges grant these orders without much consideration: they are terrified of ending up on the front page of the paper because some woman got hurt or killed. In the end, judges destroy 99 men to prevent one woman from getting a few bruises. Here is the reality of VAWA: I observed a woman in the elevator in the St. Louis County Courthouse a few years back who had just left her tearful hearing and was now laughing hysterically (with tears still running down her face) bragging about how she just screwed the daylights out of her husband for a lot of money and property (and of course primary custody of the children). This woman knew exactly how to work the system. Here is a very recent case. Meet Mr. Michael Brady. He used to work in as a technician in the chemical business, but now trades commodities. He has two dogs, loves karaoke, and hiking and fishing. He’s pretty much a nice normal guy. Mike took in an old girlfriend who was on the down-and-outs. She said her husband had died from drug use (it turns out she was using hard drugs too). He knew she had BPD (borderline personality disorder). Then, she became his fiancĂ©e. Of course, we all know a lot of guys willing to compassionately help out an imperfect damsel in distress. Then she filed false domestic abuse allegations, claiming attempted strangulation and bruises on the arms. There was no medical or DNA evidence that such event took place. She was drinking at the time. The judge kicked him out of his home for one month, during which time she cleaned the house out, ran up a lot of bills, and stole some items. But this is nothing compared to what happens to married men, who lose their homes, children, standing in legitimate society, life savings, and up to half their future earnings when a false allegation of abuse is made. We know that 86% of domestic violence involves a partner who has been drinking or drugging (U.S. Department of Justice). We know that women initiate slightly over half of all serious spousal altercations. There is no reason to pretend that family violence is purely a matter of sex. VAWA drives the majority of serious child abuse Children are the ones who are hurt the most by the system of organized itinerant gold-diggers. At least two-thirds of serous or fatal child abuse and neglect are caused by single mothers, whose children are often dragged around like couches. Unstable mothers move frequently, from boyfriend to boyfriend and from state to state. We have all seen many newspaper articles about children who died in a fire (or whatever) while the mother was out partying at a bar. What is sickening is this: radical women’s advocates recently used these so-called “abused homeless women” as their victim-poster-girls to get VAWA reauthorized. In Missouri, we do things more intelligently. Our move-away law (Rsmo 452.377), perhaps the best in the America, greatly helps prevent serious child abuse by changing custody to the father when unstable mothers get out of line. We got this enacted in 1998, despite tremendous lobbying against it by the National Organization for Women (which demands that even the most unstable mothers should have a unilateral right to do whatever they want with children). We know that the vast majority of child abuse is caused by unstable mothers (the natural father being the lowest risk group for fatal child abuse and neglect). There is no reason to allow VAWA to drive child abuse. VAWA abused in immigrations VAWA permits any women dating or marrying a male U.S. citizen (whether overseas or not), to get a green card immediately simply by claiming spousal abuse and the nearest U.S. Embassy. Who needs to swim rivers or hike the desert with idiotic power tools like this? Feminist groups are screeching about how vicious American men are seeking nice foreign women so they can abuse them. In fact, some states have introduced legislation requiring men to turn in their divorce and criminal histories to dating sites, which then must provide it to the women they meet. This forms a tremendous arena for feminist con artists to predate in: they can prey on men they know are truly nice, gullible wimps who unable to defend or stand up for themselves. We do not know how many women are abusing the system to immigrate to the U.S. The scuttlebut among men is this: you are risking everything if you think that meeting a nice Russian woman on the internet is a good idea. This is what feminists want. They don’t want nice American men to avoid doing business with the “American Woman”. There is absolutely no reason on earth to grant an automatic green card and financing on the basis of any allegation of dating or spousal abuse. But we do this if the allegor happens to be a woman. An action not involving national security or treason by American citizens on foreign soil is under the jurisdiction of the country in which it took place. The United Nations and various feminist NGO’s are making great strides preventing abuse of women in third world countries. In time, this problem will be ended. We can no longer permit N.O.W. to organize foreign women in actively abusing American citizens for purposes of immigration. Congress authorizes organized larceny In approving VAWA by a 100% vote, every Senator in Congress has become part of a system of organized robbery that uses fear and hate of men to steal. Whether this was done wittingly or unwittingly is not an issue. Congressmen either know or should know what they are voting on. Given the fact that VAWA helps drive child abuse, father-absence, and the widespread looting of families; and where radical feminists misuse some of the billions in VAWA funding to push gay marriage and abortion, why on earth did 100% of Senators vote to give feminazis at least four billion dollars? Here is the likely reason why. Congress is already bought and paid for – with allegations. Every Congressman and male staffer knows that it only takes one allegation of a sexual impropriety to end a career. NOW collects sex dirt on all male members of Congress just for this purpose. How many Congressmen and male aides are so chaste as to feel secure opposing VAWA? And in an era where false allegations are so commonplace, could a chaste Senator even feel safe? The Senate record reflects that none of them do.. The courts must intervene Unfortunately, it may well be up to state and federal courts to declare VAWA unconstitutional in its entirety, where it fails to provide equal protection under the law without regard for sex, and has become a system of organized grand larceny. The deluge of false allegations that keeps trial courts so busy they won’t actually hear allegations is no reason for courts to roll over and participate in this system of organized crime, which may well be worthy of a RICO suit. Let us hope that our new Supreme Court appointees are ready to not only end abortion, but will also end the larger radical feminist conspiracy that has aborted about half the families in America and provably hurt far more women and children than it has helped. David R. Usher |
Quote:
| The Facts About Spousal Conflict: Personal Responsibility Must Be Expected in Public Policy. DadsNow condemns all forms of domestic violence, but VAWA fails to acknowledge that every responsible study shows that women commit about 65% of child abuse, and at least equal violence against men. VAWA perpetrates the adolescent myth portraying all women as innocent victims, and men as the perpetrators. It falsely encourages the divorce culture where about 75% of divorces are filed by women. It fosters the bias of courts against fatherhood, where mothers are awarded effective sole custody in at about 90% of divorces and 95% of paternity situations, and responsible fathers are effectively excluded from the lives of their children. DadsNow recognizes the fact that domestic conflict is an issue requiring positive intervention in the majority of minor-conflict situations -- to intervene in and treat the mental health problems that drive conflict. Our public policy approach should hold both men and women responsible for their part in marital disagreements and spousal violence. In situations of minor marital conflict, public policy should positively to treat the underlying mental health problem (such as chemical or co-dependency), encourage marital responsibility for the benefit of children, and assure shared-parenting in divorce when parental conflict is not associated with serious parental mental health problems. Truly Breaking the Cycle of Violence: Gender is not the Problem VAWA is a totally ineffective approach to domestic violence because of the generational cycle in which abused children are at high risk to become abusers as adults. By failing to realistically address women's roles in child abuse, VAWA guarantees that the next generation will face the same problems as this one. Boys who are abused by their mothers are at high risk to carry anger into adulthood, and become abusers of women. Thus this approach is not only ineffective, it is actually a cause of the violence against women that every decent person should oppose.  It is astonishing that we have funded our approaches to domestic violence in the genre of "First Wives Club" and "Thelma and Louise". The Bureau of Justice Statistics recently reported that 75% of spousal violence involved an offender who had been drinking. Another 11% involves drug use, leaving only 14% of serious spousal conflict unrelated to chemical abuse. In total, 86% of our domestic violence problem is a function of drug and alcohol abuse by both men and women. The death of comedian Phil Hartman [September 24, 1948 - May 29, 1998] reminds us that men, even rich and powerful men, have no place to turn to when dealing with a violent spouse. His only choices: divorce her and lose a fortune or "wait it out." We can never reduce domestic conflict or child abuse by listening to those who play the "gender card" to entitle sexist agenda. It is quite reasonable to suggest that we could cut our domestic violence statistics in half were we to simply empower the responsible spouse to put the other into treatment for drug use or alcohol, with a court record being generated if that spouse fails to respond to treatment.Proven treatment programs, such as Hazelden [the basis for the Betty Ford Center's treatment program], is how we should deal with the majority of our domestic violence problems. Let us intervene to improve mental health, not leave these problems to continue causing more expensive and dangerous future problems. We must address the upstream problems of chemical abuse and family, for it will prevent much downstream human misery and save federal and state agencies tremendous sums of money spent on the wide variety of downstream problems associated with non-intact family structures. If we truly wish to reduce domestic violence and all forms of child abuse, we must repeal VAWA and replace existing federal law with a gender-neutral Uniform Domestic Violence Act. VAWA Is about Expanding the Culture of Divorce and Illegitimacy Below you will see that that VAWA is not about violence. VAWA is predominantly about creating a tremendous welfare state, enacting socialized health care, entitling women's employment, guaranteeing unemployment benefits and free housing for women, raiding husbands' retirement savings, and getting immigrant status for illegal immigrants. Secondly, it is about entitling women's abuse centers to spend your federal dollars as they please, and to unfund any organization that might not agree with their approach. Last, it is about inculcating propaganda founded on misandry into our public schools and universities. VAWA is about encouraging, creating, and entitling single motherhood at the expense of families, businesses, state coffers, and the taxpayer. Abuse is the excuse, the 'imagery' powering a Trojan Horse, as will be proven below in our point-by-point hyperlinked legislative analysis. Recognizing the real agenda of VAWA is so simple. VAWA defines a "determination" of abuse as nothing more than the statement of the victim. All the funding provisions of VAWA come alive (and stay alive) simply on the basis of statements uttered by a purported victim. The sexual and physical 'fear' language used in VAWA is just the latest smokescreen for welfare state agenda. The language is nearly identical to the hysterical broadsides used by the Women's Ku Klux Klan 120 years ago that fueled the nationwide, fearful discrimination against blacks. A century later, the welfare state hopes to permanently entitle itself by blowing a nationwide smokescreen of fear about husbands, fathers and men. The same people who tried to sell us welfarism in the name of "National Health Care", who tried to wipe out immigration laws, who have told us that HUD housing would save America's poor, who tried to sell us "womb to tomb" and failed on all accounts, think Americans will not notice this same agenda if it is hidden in the sanctity of "domestic violence legislation." They are wrong. America's scholars are now speaking out, rejecting VAWA, and calling for its replacement with a truly gender-neutral Domestic Violence Act. Leaders, Scholars, and Women Oppose VAWA II and Call For Change In Approach A significant number of nationally-recognized professionals, scholars, and informed authors who call you and your organization to stand up for family values in calling for significant changes in federal (and international) approaches to domestic conflict: "Spouse Abuse: A Two-way street", by Dr. Warren Farrell, Ph.D,Reducing Child Maltreatment, Abuse, and Neglect VAWA leaves many children in the care of women abusing drugs and alcohol (as cited above). According to the the recent report Child Maltreatment 1995: Reports From the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, Table D5 issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, women were the perpetrators in 74,184 out of 119,767 total cases of child maltreatment (62%). Children are nearly twice as likely to suffer abuse by their mothers as by a man. We can best help these children by making it possible for responsible fathers to get help for the family when mothers get violent, rather than blaming it on the man, who is driven from his home under VAWA. Let us place government pressure on the side of children, rather than using it against them. Why VAWA is Antifamily  It is anti-family to use federal funds to negatively intervene in situations of minor spousal conflict. Monies should be applied towards helping troubled spouses heal from commonplace preventable and treatable disorders (such as chemical dependency and co-dependency). Instead of helping American women get what they really wanted all along, VAWA drives divorce, serious downstream family conflict, and usually places children in the custody of the unhealthy parent.Children require the benefits shared-parenting in marriage or divorce wherever possible, yet our divorce statistics tell us that we are doing just the opposite on a nationwide scale: three out of four children will lose their father in divorce primarily because programs such as VAWA are funded to achieve this result. Why Women Should Reject VAWA Women who care about women have a vested interest in stopping VAWA. VAWA's approach hurts many women. Instead of urging for programs that would help alcoholic women deal with their problems so that their families might survive intact, VAWA intentionally waits until the family situation is chronic, and then urges women to get a divorce. VAWA's approach results in an alcoholic woman living in poverty trying to raise kids all by herself with the customary assortment of work, daycare, and health care related problems we read about in the newspaper every day. The futures of women in trouble would significantly improve, were we to help them get well rather than sending them into dire social straits. Likewise, women confronted with the problem of an alcoholic spouse presently only have two choices: get a divorce and live in poverty, or 'live with it'. Most women would be far better off if they had a third choice: getting him into treatment! Let us fund the upstream solutions, not create more downstream problems for women!  It is time for stop playing gender politics at the expense of women, children, men, and their families, and start dealing with the problems that lead to domestic conflict! We have prepared an educational handout, "The Truths of Domestic Conflict" [PDF format] containing the factual, unemotional, unsexist truths about spousal conflict. Please copy it and share the truth with the public and your legislators. Friends of the Women's Freedom Network are not afraid to stand up to NOW. Here is the truth about spousal conflict, presented by women who do not play power politics at the expense of other women. The absurdity of VAWA I is so obvious that public ridicule of VAWA II is surely imminent. Those who enjoy a solid musical broadside will enjoy "VAWAII" [44.1 khz stereo, MP3 format, 3.6 MB] or [8 khz streaming realaudio], a parody of Olivia Newton John's hit-single "Physical", written and recorded by Dave Usher. Dave hereby gives his permission for this fabulous pork-popper to be broadcast on all radio stations and for public performances for informational purposes so long as the recording is not sold, and so long as the ACFC website is given verbal on-air credits. (hard sale rights are reserved). VAWA: A Deceptive Approach to Domestic Conflict Would any organization stand up and admit to condoning, permitting, or enabling domestic violence? Would any organization blind their eyes and ears to half of all serious acts of domestic abuse in America? Reading NOW's slick congressional testimony, one would never suspect that women were ever violent. You may see about NOW's direct involvement in the drafting and introduction of VAWA II and similar bills here. The vast majority of domestic violence resulting in injury to a spouse occurs after the date of separation [Chadwick & Heaton], yet VAWA's approach is to break up families and send them into the serious forms of violence that they supposedly wish to prevent! Family violence is unacceptable no matter who initiates it. Every major study on domestic violence reports that women are responsible for at least half of serious spousal altercations. Yet there is not one dime of funding, not one government program, or one educational campaign that impacts female-on-male violence. Abuse Centers and Crisis Hotlines Don't Help Men! A responsible husband trying to get help for himself and his family has no options. Abuse centers and crisis service hotlines do not help men, and are quick to inform the caller of this fact. Many members of ACFC and other organizations have experienced disquieting fact. Here is a transcription of one such call. Philip Cook, Author of "Abused Men, the Hidden Side of Domestic Violence", has written a special article for ACFC about this serious policy problem. The purpose in pointing this out is not to turn men into yet another victim-group. It is to show that because we fail to put men on an equal footing with women in family matters, we hurt women and children as well. By adhering to VAWA's attitudes, we can never deal with the problems that drive spousal conflict. The recent situation at Independence House in Hiannis, MA immediately brings to mind the clearly unconstitutional aspects about how federal funds are being spent in reserving the entire domestic violence issue solely for disposition by certain women. Women's centers routinely and openly make gender an immediate factor not only in their support services plans, but in their general hiring and appointment practices, a clearly unconstitutional violation of U.S. Code. Even setting the obvious federal constitutional considerations aside, our hotlines and crisis services must be funded and operated to help all callers who are confronted with the problem of a drunk, violent spouse, if we, as a nation, wish to address the problem of domestic violence appropropriately and constructively in each case. From Fiction, to Fact, to Booming Divorce Business Much of the money provided by VAWA is not used to prevent or intervene in cases of real domestic violence. According to Dr. Murray Straus, most marital disagreements are the kinds of minor and infrequent spousal disagreements that we are all familiar with. Much of VAWA funding is siphoned off to small business organizations (SBO's), and non-governmental organizations (NGO's) operating under 'politically correct' names who use VAWA funds for advertising and programs promoting the image of the 'evil' male, encouraging unnecessary divorce, denying children a loving father, and blaming women's problems on men. The exaggeration of domestic conflict data elevates these minor spousal disagreements to the status of serious 'clinical' abuse, with any conflict inuring to the funded benefit of the National Organization of Women. For example, Murray Straus, a leading researcher of domestic conflict, tells us that the injury-adjusted rate for the oft-advertised slogan "one woman is hurt every 15 seconds" (which is based on police report claims) is actually 90% less. These SBO's and NGO's create unipolar perspectives on domestic violence with a heavy emphasis on radical feminist politics intermixed, which is then fed into the court systems. For example, the primary domestic violence resource link on the website of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges is Safety Net, a radical feminist website (cybergrrl). Universities and "researchers" are involved too. Many of us are aware that college campuses are the seedbed of radical feminism. They take VAWA money, regurgitate monocular perspectives about women's problems, and feed it back into the political system and media. For example, the Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center (VAWPRC), a collaborative sponge operated by the Universities of Minnesota, Arizona, and Iowa; is is deeply involved too. VAWPRC's proposed plan is, by its own language, a funded "thunk" tank of radical activists and educators intended to generate feminist propaganda and get more money. So-called 'children's groups are deeply involved, and the media is blinded by the massive misinformation campaign. Supposedly "private" organizations, such as the Family Violence Prevention Fund, believe that we should only intervene "if the man hits the woman"; steering national and world policy while taking "donations" from sources that probably represent a recycling of our tax dollars for sexist purposes. The American Bar Association is a major perpetrator of prefiltered "statistics" about domestic violence, framed as a sexist entitlement of radical feminist attorneys, who make a killing at the expense of the American family, society, and businesses. What is worse is that lawyers in the federal government provides large amounts of funding to the ABA to "educate" lawyers and spread this myth in public, while the ABA seeds future profits by crafting perverse "model state code", all of which is parallel to VAWA II. Conflict of Interest: If we would not let tobacco companies tell us what to do about the problem of teen smoking, we cannot allow the Bar Association, lawyers, and radical feminists to tell us what to do about the problem of domestic conflict, particularly where their solutions demand that we give them billions in taxpayer money and give them sole license to loot families, businesses, taxpayers, and insurance companies. VAWA is nothing more than seed money for the 'divorce culture'. It is the marriage between the Bar Association and feminists that drives divorce, with VAWA using domestic violence as the latest trojan horse for its social agenda. The Fear Campaign: Abuse is hiding under every rock It is important to realize the scale and scope of the fear campaign being waged. Most folks remember the political riot over child abuse that resulted in the McMartin, Wenatchee, and Little Rascals Day Care witchhunt cases. The same political forces that instigated the "child abuse" riot now drive the present domestic violence witch-hunt, which even extends to recent claims that domestic violence is now a major problem in the workplace, when in fact it does not even register in studies and analysis of workplace safety problems. The politics of paranoia run deep -- so deep that a resolution is being debated in Congress suggesting that animal abusers and wife abusers are one and the same. It is crucial for Americans to understand the historical importance of the recent shift from selling 'fear of child abusers' to 'fear of wife abusers'. Radical feminists, the Bar Associations, and certain politicians entitled themselves selling you the child abuse riot, which ultimately fell apart because it is difficult to program a child to allege abuse that never happened. Many families, insurance companies, and businesses were looted by these individuals. But now, they hope to sell you "woman abuse" to keep their perches of political power and line their pockets in the courtrooms across America, at the continued expense of families, businesses, and insurance companies. What Is In VAWA? Here is what VAWA does: Define a legal "Determination" that domestic assault took place solely on the statement of the alleged victim, unless the "agency" has an independent, reasonable basis to find the individual not credible. {Sec. 404 (2)(B)(i) and (vi). With this home-made "Determination" of abuse, all the other provisions of VAWA II become effective. [Note the true meaning of this provision once combined with the next item]So, What Is The Answer?  Let us reform domestic violence laws to impact the problems that truly drive the majority of domestic conflict. For example, we need legal mechanisms in place to allow a responsible spouse [regardless of gender] to get a chemical-abusing spouse into treatment under court order. Co-dependecy and sexual addictions should be approached in similar fashion. In general, policies dealing with non-clinical, minor cases of spousal disagreement should generally expect that spouses work through the normal processes of marriage and aging, and that mental health problems be treated rather than exascerbated. Let us demand marital responsibility of spouses! |
Quote:
| Men just don't count in the Federal District Court of New York. In a December 3, 2008 decision, Federal Judge William Pauley III approved the U.S. Government's use of secret proceedings to find U.S. citizen husbands of alien wives guilty of battery. The proceedings are kept secret from only the husband, not the alien wives, various government officials or various Feminist groups. In a slip-shod opinion that reflects Judge Pauley III's effort to give men's rights the bums rush out of his court, he ignored the law and invented facts because of the ever present bureaucratic zeal to curry favor with the Feminists. The case challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA") that allow alien females to fraudulently gain U.S. citizenship by falsely accusing their U.S. husbands of battery. Under VAWA, the husband has no notice nor opportunity to refute the charges against him, the so-called evidence used for finding him guilty comes from his ex-wife, her immigration lawyer and feminist counselors. If by chance, the American man somehow gets evidence to the Government that shows his alien wife is lying, the evidence ends up in the garbage. Judge Pauley III disdainfully brushed aside any concern for the rights of the husbands, which is common in the misandrist court of the Southern District of New York, to rule that such Nazi-like proceedings don't injure the husband. Think a minute—would you want the U.S. Government, listening only to your ex-wife, her lawyer and various feminists, to decide whether you committed felonies and misdemeanors against her. You know they are going to find you guilty because you're not there. The Government then promises that no harm will come to you because all its findings will be kept secret, except from your ex-wife, her lawyer, various feminists, and local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Oh, and by the way, if any of the Government's decisions about you committing crimes leaks to the general public, there is not a damn thing you can do—legally. There are no lawsuits or administrative proceedings you can bring to correct the false record or keep it from being published. To judges like William Pauley III, such are not injuries because they are injuries to males not females. But there's something more important than Judge Pauley III's spinning of the law to favor feminists—ask yourself, does this Government process seem fair to you. "The heart of the matter is that democracy implies respect for the elementary rights of men, however suspect or unworthy those men may be; a democratic government must therefore practice fairness; and fairness can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights." Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 170 (Frankfurter J., concurring)(1951). Where's Felix Frankfurter when justice needs him? -- Roy Den Hollander Attorney at Law New York, N.Y. rdhhh@yahoo.com     (91... |
No comments:
Post a Comment