Stepmother charged with unlawful conduct towards a child

(Columbia) August 19, 2005 - A 24-year-old South Carolina State student was arrested Thursday and charged with unlawful conduct towards a child.

An arrest warrant states Miama Rebecca Kromah cut the scrotum of her three-year-old stepson with a sharp object.

Lt. Chris Cowan with the Richland County Sheriff's Department says it's one of the most horrific cases of child abuse investigators say they've seen in a while.

Deputies say Kromah came to Palmetto Richland on Monday night with her three year old stepson who had a three inch laceration on his scrotum, and the testicle was protruding from the scrotum.

Kromah told the hospital the child was not in her care when he sustained the injuries. However, further investigation by the Richland County Deputies and a statement taken from the three-year-old victim identifies Kromah as the person who caused the injury.

Deputies say Kromah is a native of Liberia and here on a student visa. The three year old's father is also here from Liberia on a work student visa, he was not home at the time of the incident.

The boy was transported to Lexington Medical Center and then to Palmetto Richland Hospital for surgery. After receiving treatment for his injuries, the boy was taken into emergency protective custody and turned over to DSS.

Deputies are now trying to figure out what could have led her to this violent act.

Updated 6:40pm by Kaela Harmon

Click here for more.

For Men, America is Like A Black Man Under Jim Crow

Jack Johnson marries Lucille

In an excellent column, Carey Roberts compares the contemporary hysteria and misplaced chivalry driving the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) with the White Slave Traffic Act passed by Congress in 1910.

The latter was a response to racist beliefs prevalent at the time that black men represented a threat to the sexual chastity of white women. The fact that Jack Johnson, a black man and the greatest and toughest boxer that ever lived, dated white women provided the impetus for the white men of Congress to act. Similarly, and perhaps more extremely, VAWA is based on the idea that all men, through an ill defined conspiracy called the patriarchy, represent a domestic physical threat to all women. Members of Congress again rise with chivalry to protect women.

Neither Act is based on reality. But, hysteria, hatred, and chivalry are powerful forces. One has to admire the political genius of gender feminists in their war against the phantasmal patriarchy. In their effort to eliminate traditional families and remake society, they have harnessed the desire of old white men to appear to be tough and protective of women. As a result, they achieve aims that are quite different from that of the underlying legislation: to batter men and fathers into a state of insecurity and fear of marriage. There does not appear to be much evidence that such a thing as a “patriarchy” exists, but the opportunity to curtail the civil rights and destroy the individual lives of men and fathers is apparently satisfaction enough.

Gender feminist deconstructionist social policy provides punishment without cause. Our current Congress implements this policy with debate more befitting the former Soviet Union than the world’s oldest democracy. But, one has to hand it to the sisterhood for being students of history. They understand the power of hysteria and the desire of men to feel they protect women.

I guess they learned something in the taxpayer funded madrassas they maintain on college campuses around the country.

Click here for more.

Progress Down Under

The United States is far behind many other countries in so many respects. We like to call ourselves beacons of freedom, but with reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act just around the corner, we appear to be leaders in folksy fascism only.

Australia, on the other hand, is doing something about vindictive gender feminist legislation. They are making sweeping changes to their Family Law Act. Included are increased rights for non-custodial parents and penalties for false accusations of domestic violence.

Meanwhile, Seattle along with the rest of Washington State is moving in the opposite direction. Mayor Nickels – Protector of Nipples is working on his Soviet-styled five year strategic plan to “end domestic violence.” This plan pretty much puts to rest the debate about whether men and fathers still have rights within Seattle’s city limits: they don’t. And, the state is now taxing marriages in order to pay feminist madrassa educated advocates who work hard to end as many of them as they can.

All of this adds up to declining marriage rates, increasing divorces, and more than half of the region's children living in single parent homes (primarily single mother homes). This is particularly the case in King County. As with all markets (and there is a market for marriage), government involvement creates ugly and unnatural distortions.

So much for silly claims of “livability."

Click here for more.

Rape as a "romantic fling"--Our friends at the Everett Herald can't tell the difference

Once again, our misandrist friends at the Everett Herald don't get it.

I offered the below email to their "reader representative" and to their news editor as a "teachable moment" to help them understand that rape of a child, who cannot consent, is not a "romantic fling".

I will amend this with thier answer, if they should chose to dignify my rant with one.

UPDATE: They did, see end.

The Geezer

**************************

When is the friggin' press gonna get it?

This fully adult woman RAPES a 14 year old boy child, who cannot consent to such activity, and you call it a "romantic fling".

This kid is going to have major and severe problems as he grows up. I submit Vili Filau as exhibit "A". Two kids, 22 years old, no job, and no HS diploma.

If an adult MAN were to molest and rape a 14 year old GIRL, would the ubiquitous "Herald Staff" call it a romantic fling?

I think not.

How about using this as a teachable moment, and get your staff to understand that rape of a child is rape, no matter what the gender?

Of course, the (female) deputy prosecutor who works for a (female) elected prosecutor suggested 14 months in jail.

BFD.

Oh, yeah, I forgot, that is the same prosecutor who called DV perps MEN, and referred to deadbeat DADS in a public meeting, until I called her out on it.

Have a cheery day. I will, once the rage subsides over our press continuing to excuse FEMALE sexual predators by using terms like "romantic fling".

**********************

Robert Frank, editor of the Herald replies:

You're right. It's not romance; with a 14 year old, it's puppy love at best. But in this state it always is a crime, whether the victim is a boy or a girl, or whether the molester is a woman or a man. Such wording is wrong and unacceptable.

Geezer comments:

Men? Sheesh, Pogo is right, we have met the enemy, and sometimes it is us. Hope Robert takes a big can of "whoop ass" with him when he talks to the gents.

Click here for more.

Damn straight we should be angry, without apology, and you should be too.

Posted with permission of the author. Original post on MND in the link above.

The Geezer

Should I Apologize For Being Angry?
by George Rolph

I have heard it muted that men will never be able to pull together and fight as one, until they stop being angry at women. The reason given for this logic is, that many other men will not join the men's movement if they think it’s made up of men who are angry at women because, their sense of chivalry will create in them an inherent need to defend women. While this logic is faultless, I wonder if its underlying premise is faulty. Allow me to explain.

I agree completely that gratuitous rage at ALL women is bizarre and probably borders on the mentally deranged scale of social sanity, if it does not correct itself in time in the men affected. I also believe however, that Radical Feminism is infested with females who ARE mentally deranged because of their blind hatred for all things male. Having said that, I also believe that men have a right to be angry at those women who have, by various means, set out to destroy everything that those men hold dear. Now, if some guy (or woman)tells me that, because I am angry at the abuses I have suffered personally and witnessed against other men, he/she will not stand with me, my answer to him is a simple and direct one;

“Good! Go away, because you are not welcome. If the pain of your past fathers, present brothers and future sons, is less important than your old fashioned attitudes towards savage females, go be a Radical Feminist!”

I firmly believe that as men, we have to get real here and understand exactly what it is we are fighting; who the enemy are; what they have done and are doing to men; how they are doing it and what we have to do to defeat it all.

There is a huge and growing roll of fallen men who have given their very lives because they have suffered massive personal and/or shared damage to their families, their finances and their reputations by females and hate filled female political philosophies. Men who, like my own father, have placed shotguns in their mouths. Men who have burned themselves to death in protests. Men who have jumped off bridges. Men who have starved themselves in hunger strikes. Men who have lost their sanity. Men who have been raped in every way imaginable by a savage, feminised system and become homeless drifters. Men who have gassed themselves in cars. Men stripped of their families, children and reputations. Men falsely accused of horrendous crimes who have preferred death to trying to live with such a stain on their character. Men who have watched helplessly as crippling child support payments have destroyed their ability to earn or keep a business running. Men who have been sent to jail for “waving” at their children in a passing car and so found themselves in breach of a “no contact order.” Men trapped in horrifying and savagely abusive relationships they cannot escape from or find any help to manage, because the system set up by women, for women, will not allow them in. Men being forced to pay child support for children they did not father. Men losing jobs because of invented sexual discrimination allegations. Men who, every day, have to read and watch incredibly insulting things said about their gender in endless press reports, magazine articles (often written by bitter females) on TV shows and in movies. In India, over a million males were forcibly castrated on the orders of a female premier. Just how damn patient do they want us to be?

No matter how much those on the fringes of the men's movement (i.e. Internet radio commentators and journalists) think men's anger is somehow, uncivilised, many men have very good reason to be furious and it’s that fury that drives them on. What those detractors should be thankful for is the massive restraint those angry men are showing. Those men have every right to storm the courts and government buildings and start shooting. The fact that they do not is a testament to their incredible patience and wonderfully noble characters! Forty years of insults and assaults by women and feminised men is enough to make any man angry. For me, the problem is not so much the angry men, as the men who don’t get angry.

The assault against the male gender has long gone past the cafe chatting stage. Those who observe the men’s movement and “tut, tut” at the rage they see and hear, as they sip their coffee in the Internet cafe or office canteen, should understand just how close to a world wide and massive male rebellion we are all coming. If it does blow up, it will be very ugly indeed. While that prospect is frightening and one that must be headed off if possible, it will not be done by side line commentators telling men to cool it. These men are not going to cool it. What must be done is to find constructive ways to channel that anger. That has to start with education.

Know your enemy is the first rule of warfare and, make no mistake, this is a war! What is more, it is a war that MUST be won! Our enemy is not all women but some women and some men.

The modern missiles aimed at men are bigotry, lies, deception, disinformation, misinformation, hate dressed up as equality, political propaganda of the worst kind and wholesale political manipulation of the populations around the world. All of these things are falsehoods and all are missiles of the mind. Therefore, the fundamental weapons of our warfare are truth, justice and personal integrity. Shields of the mind.

The instrument of the weapons formed against men is Radical Feminism. Therefore, they are our enemy.

The history of what they have said and done are our ammunition.

Calling them to account socially, legally, morally and financially is our goal. That includes anyone: Journalists, judges, lawyers, publishers, politicians, TV executives, teachers, policemen and on and on, who have pressed these injustices onto innocent and helpless men and families for personal, political, or corporate advantage and gain. We have to make the supporters of this foul Radical Feminist political movement into social pariahs. We must do this as a warning that will sound loud and clear throughout history, that the likes of these vermin will not be tolerated again. Just as we did with that other bigotry called, Nazism.

A friend of mine was in the army. I asked him, “What would you do if you are on a battlefield and you see a women charging towards you with a gun and the intent to kill you?”

“I would shoot her.”

“No hesitation?” I asked.

“Nope. None.” He said, emphatically.

“OK.” I replied. “What would you do if you were in a corner at home and your wife was standing over you with an axe with the intention of burying it in your head?”

He thought hard before replying. Finally he asked, “I can’t get away?”

“No. You are slumped in a corner and she has the axe raised.”

There was a long silence, then he said, “I would pray.”

Chivalry aimed at the wrong people will utterly destroy men who won’t fight back. If they want to stand by and watch as vicious, politically motivated attacks destroy all they are and all they love, then they have no place in the men's movement at all. On the other hand, if they understand this is a real war, then they can shoot back with legal weapons and need not fear. The enemy has to be stopped and curling up in a trench and hoping, that if he is polite, she will not bayonet him with a false allegation or a new law designed to rip his life apart is, frankly, stupid! It was that attitude that got us into this mess in the first place.

Violence is not the answer, but neither is Chivalry. This gender war is costing too many lives to be fought as if it was an 18th century battle between gentlemen. It isn’t! Men did not start the war but men have to win it. The time has come to fight back with the best weapon we have... The truth! Sometimes the truth is a cruel weapon.

I understand there are women in the men's movement who find men's anger difficult to deal with. Perhaps they have had too many compliant men around them for too long, I don’t know. But those women who do join us had better not start to lecture us about how it’s so very important to be nice. Nice, will cost you your family, property, reputation and all you have earned, if you are male. If history has shown anything to men, that is it. Save your lectures for kindergarten kids. Don’t make the mistake of talking down to us because, if you do, we will turn against you also. Roll up your sleeves and fight beside us or get out of the way. If you do that you are welcome, if not, then go away! There are not many social workers found on battlefields and we don’t want to be ‘mummied’ out of our anger thank you very much!

Should I apologise for being angry? Hell no! I have every right to be angry.


George Rolph

Click here for more.

How Fathers Can Win Child Custody

A work in progress from IntellectualConservative.com.
First draft - August 14, 2005


NOTE: This is a condensed version of a book that is being written on this subject. As the book is written, more will be added to this guide, until the book is ready for publication. Please stop back occasionally as we will be adding new material periodically, and will indicate when we do so. Since this guide is still in the process of being written, if you would like to share it with others, please give them the url instead of sending this article out in an email. Although this guide is geared to fathers, who are usually the most disadvantaged here, it can also be used to some extent by mothers who have been disadvantaged by the system. This guide is based on mostly anecdotal evidence from attorneys and others who have gone through the family court system, and should not be construed as legal advice.

Introduction
So you have a child with a soon-to-be ex-girlfriend or ex-wife, and you are wondering what is going to happen to your children. The first thing you need to be aware of is this: The laws and family court system are not set up fairly towards fathers. The laws are set up to award custody to the parent who has had the most involvement so far raising the child, which means the parent who has worked the least - this is virtually always the mother. This usually guarantees that the mother will receive custody of the child, and since child support is mandatory, that you will be paying several hundred dollars in child support to her each month. Now does this make sense? It only makes sense in the past, when you were still together – in a typical relationship, the mother worked less because she stayed at home more with the children, therefore it made sense at that time that she was with the children the majority of the time. But after you have both split up, and she no longer has the option of working less hours, and in fact must get a job that will most likely pay less than yours, why should she still be seen as more fit to take care of the children? If she is working full-time (or should be, since she is now single), and making less money than you, how does that qualify her as a better parent than you? If she is working full-time, she won't be able to spend any more time with the child than you if you are working full-time.

If you believe that you are the better parent, you need to read this guide and find out everything you need to know in order to have the best chance at obtaining full custody. If you choose not to get full custody of your child, not only are you in for a lifetime of emotional headaches but a lot of child support – which you will find does not all get spent on your child. It is almost impossible to get an accounting required of the money - only in extreme circumstances like blatant drug abuse by the mother will the court require a custodial parent to track what they spend their child support income on. The amount of child support you will end up paying as your child grows up is enough to buy a nice house. Let’s say you split u p with your ex, and you have two children together, ages 1 and 4. The court orders you to pay $500/mth per child, based on your $45,000/year income, until the children turn 21 (some states end child support when the child turns 18, and others require it through age 21 and beyond). By the time your children are grown, you will have paid $444,000 in child support. The main cost of raising a child is childcare; outside of childcare (which ends around age 12), do you really believe that $1,000 is being spent on your two children each month? If you think you are subsidizing your ex, you are right. The main reason why the system is set up this way? The government would rather have you subsidize her than pay for her going on welfare. And the feminists have convinced the lawmakers and judges in society that women shouldn't have to work to support their children if they don't feel like it.


See the original article in its entirety here.

Click here for more.

Restraining Orders for Abusive Grandmas?

I got this in an email from the Krights mail group. I thought it could bear repeating again here.

Carey Roberts
August 10, 2005


The women's shelter activists have devised a nuclear first-strike weapon in their jihad to stop domestic violence. Insiders call it the TRO — the "temporary restraining order."

Here's how the ploy works. A woman who feels in the slightest way abused goes to a judge to request a restraining order (called an Order of Protection in some states). This is usually done at an "ex- parte" hearing, meaning the hearing is done in secret and the judge does not bother to invite testimony from the alleged abuser. The judge seldom demands any hard evidence to back up the woman's testimony.

Because abuse is defined broadly in most states, the woman's request is given a rubber-stamp approval.

Ten days later the woman goes back and requests that the temporary restraining order be made permanent. That decision has a devastating impact on the family: the father is permanently vacated from his house, the mother is awarded full custody of the children, and he is ordered to begin child support payments.

Obviously this Kafkaesque system is ripe for abuse. And that's exactly what Arlene Soucie of Illinois, proud grandmother of two, recently found out.

In November 2002 Mrs. Soucie's daughter-in-law decided to leave the family home, and opted to take along her nine-month-old grandson for good measure. "With the slow process of the court system, my grandson was concealed for 3 months. We missed his first Thanksgiving, first Christmas, first New Years, and his first birthday," Mrs. Soucie sadly writes.

Finally the father, who works in law enforcement, was granted formal visitation rights. That's when the nightmare began.

Somehow the mother got irate because dad and grandma wanted to see junior from time to time. And someone told her that under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act, causing a woman to feel even "emotional distress" is considered a form of abuse.

"In October 2003, my son and myself were placed under an Order of Protection. We did nothing to break the law, we did not harass, stalk, intimidate, or try to annoy. Our only purpose was to pick up the child and deliver him back at the appointed time."

Apparently the mother told the judge she found dad and grandma picking up the child to be "distressing."

"The mother has learned the system and uses it to her advantage," laments the disillusioned grandmother.

The abuse of restraining orders has now become widespread.

In Massachusetts, 30,000 restraining orders are issued each year. Half of those do not involve even an allegation of physical violence.

Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women's Bar Association, notes that "allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage" in divorce hearings. "Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply," she admits.

The June 2005 issue of the Journal of Family Violence features an analysis of all of the requests for restraining orders that came to the Massachusetts Gardner District Court in 1997. Author Steve Basile found that only 10% of requests from women were deferred or turned down. In contrast, 34% of requests from abused men were deferred or denied — a three-fold sex bias.

In Washington state, attorney Lisa Scott writes, "Originated to immediately protect victims of severe abuse, protection orders have become 'weapons of mass destruction' in family courts. Whenever a woman claims to be a victim, she is automatically believed. No proof of abuse is required."

In Colorado, Dr. Charles Corry explains how one judicial district employs a so-called Fast Track system in which "men are not allowed to consult a defense attorney before being pressured and cajoled to enter a guilty plea."

Some judges seem to delight in turning family breadwinners into homeless vagrants: "Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, 'See ya around,'" boasts judge Richard Russell of New Jersey.

Early next month lawmakers return to Washington from their August recess. One of their first orders of business will be to take up the Violence Against Women Act. VAWA is the controversial bill that fuels the ever-expanding use of restraining orders around the country.

And as they ponder their votes, let's hope our elected officials don't forget about all the grandmas and grandpas out there who are looking forward to birthday cake and ice cream with their grandkids this coming year.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness.
His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Mr. Roberts' work has been cited on the Rush Limbaugh show. Besides serving as a regular contributor to RenewAmerica.us, he has published in The Washington Times, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Men's News Daily, eco.freedom.org, The Federal Observer, Opinion Editorials, and The Right Report.

Previously, he served on active duty in the Army, was a professor of psychology, and was a citizen-lobbyist in the US Congress. In his spare time he admires Norman Rockwell paintings, collects antiques, and is an avid soccer fan. He now works as an independent researcher and consultant.

© Copyright 2005 by Carey Roberts
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/050810

Click here for more.

Will Folks (Expanded Posting)

It is hard to have sympathy for Will Folks of South Carolina.

Here is a guy that helped to violate the most basic civil rights of the men and fathers of his state by working with the Governer of South Carolina to "toughen" DV laws. But, he found himself ensnared in the Napoleonic legal trap of the very anti-male DV laws he helped to write.

He got into an argument in the morning with his co-habitating fiancé, who then locked him out of the house. Once he got back in, he says she blocked him as he tried to retrieve things he needed for work and she got bruised while he was trying to get by her. She called the cops.

And, now, he has learned something about being guilty until proven innocent. This sort of thing happens thousands of times per day in our country. A couple, both arguing, bump up against each other, and finally the woman in the equation calls the cops. Often, she knows that with extreme DV laws designed to combat her "patriarchal oppressor," she can do no wrong in the eyes of the law. The guy finds himself guilty until proven innocent and soon is attending a Soviet-styles reeducation camp to have the patriarchal influence reprogrammed out of him.

Seattle and King County are famous for this. The City of Seattle alone employes 11 domestic violence "advocates," which are essentially Women's Studies trained man-haters who see this as their role in the War on Patriarchy. City Attorney Tom Carr says his office spends 11% of it's budget on domestic violence and a whopping 34% of the city's criminal budget is devoted to domestic violence.

Carr was quoted by the Seattle PI saying, "We do 1,500 cases a year and spend a lot of effort to get it right." Wow. Following the gender feminist mythical rant that 95% of victims are women, most of these cases are against men. Don't be fooled by the gender neutral language in Mayor Nickels' five year plan to combat domestic violence. The 11 "advocates" employed in Seattle make sure that it does not apply to women. In the rare case that it does, the female perp is called a "victim-defendant" and prosecutors find a way out of the case.

You'd be excused for thinking that all that money, use of city attorneys, and court time, is major overkill. Worse, though, are the lives and marriages that are ruined by their "no drop" policy that turns domestic squabbles into major legal battlefronts in the War on Patriarchy. And, without such an hysteria driven approach to a over-stated problem combined with misguided solutions, perhaps King County and Seattle could be depended upon to catch the likes of Joseph Edward Duncan instead of letting him go.

Will Folks helped to create this monster in his own neck of the woods. I don't feel sorry for him, do you? Send Folks an e-mail and let him know that it serves him right.

This sort of out-of-control silliness is a disservice to the rare, but genuine cases of severe domestic abuse. (Of which, at least 40% of the victims are male). Sensible Ireland seems to recognize this, perhaps it's time we did too.

I'm looking forward to seeing more male politicians swallowed by the beast they helped to create.

Click here for more.

Thought for the day, from my liberal friend in Fremont

There are no victims.

Only volunteers.

How true.

The Geezer

Click here for more.

Will Folks: What Goes Around Comes Around

It hard to have sympathy for Will Folks of South Carolina.

Here is a guy that helped to violate the most basic civil rights of the men and fathers of his state by working with the Governer of South Carolina to "toughen" DV laws. And, now, he has learned something about being guilty until proven innocent.

Send Folks an e-mail and let him know that it serves him right.

I'm looking forward to seeing more male politicians be swallowed by the beast they helped to create.

Click here for more.

Patty Murray Having Secret "Community Meeting"

Have you ever heard of a “Community Meeting” that was held in secret? Well, this is what Patty Murray and her cohorts from the domestic violence industry of King County are doing. They are even doing this in a public facility, Bellevue City Hall.

Following is an exclusive notice that was only sent out to those feeding at the domestic violence pork barrel. You will not find a notice of this meeting on the King County Coalition Against Domestic Violence (KCCADV) web site, on Patty Murray’s web site, or anywhere else. The invitation list to this “Community Meeting” was carefully managed for obsequiousness.

You see, just like with the July 19th Senate “hearings” on the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) arranged by patriarchy fighting superhero Senator Joseph Biden, the gender feminist owned and controlled domestic violence industry of King County does not want opposing views, science, or actual facts to pollute their cult ceremony.

Now that this event is no longer a secret, I urge all of you to attend and watch how our area’s domestic violence industry propagates its myths and grinds its gender political ax.

*************

You are invited to a Community Meeting with U.S. Senator Murray to discuss the Reauthorization of VAWA 2005.

Wednesday, August 3rd
1:15pm-2:15pm
Bellevue City Hall
11511 Main St (corner of Main Street & 116th Ave.)

Panelists:
Amy Bonomi, PhD, MHP, Research Associate, Group Health Cooperative
Merril Cousin, Executive Director, King County Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Mary Guiberson - Domestic Violence Survivor
Lindsay Palmer, Director of Education, King County Sexual Assault Resource Center
Andrea Parra, Staff Attorney, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), first passed by Congress in 1994, was introduced in the Senate for reauthorization last month. A landmark piece of legislation for women's rights, VAWA provides federal funding and protections for the prevention of domestic violence and sexual assault and assistance to survivors. VAWA (here they link to The Feminist Majority) also includes critical provisions for improvements in law enforcement and judicial response to violence against women.

This crucial piece of legislation will expire if Congress does not reauthorize it by September of 2005.

The VAWA bill introduced last month would not only reauthorize critical programs and services already in place but would also expand these provisions. For example, VAWA 2005 includes the Sexual Assault Services Act which would provide funding for direct services for sexual assault victims, including 24-hour emergency and support services.

Please attend this meeting to learn more about this important legislation and how you can support it.

King County Coalition Against Domestic Violence
1419 S. Jackson #103
Seattle, WA 98144
(206) 568-5454
fax (206) 568-5462
www.kccadv.org

**********

Interestingly, through the link in the invitation used to describe VAWA, KCCADV makes no secret of their association with the Feminist Majority Foundation. You won’t find any voices from organizations that oppose VAWA, such as Lisa Scott from TABS or Joe McGill from The Other Parent. Even the timing of this event - in the middle of the afternoon - is designed to keep working fathers away. Debate is not allowed when ideology is at the center of an event.

VAWA is based on distortions, exaggerations, myths, and above all, misandry. The recent brutal murder of Kao Vang Saeteurn by his girlfriend and mother of his children, Nai Wang Saeteurn, and many similar murders and attempted murders of men by women in Washington State, counter the women-as-victim mantra of the gender feminist controlled domestic violence industry.

Meanwhile, VAWA has inspired the obliteration of the most basic rights of the male half of the population. Fathers are forcibly removed from their homes and children using unfounded allegations as a divorce tactic. Often, these fathers are never able to see their children again. Police officers are fired as they loose their right to carry a firearm based solely on an allegation. Women abusers are labeled victim-defendents by “advocates” living within the Prosecutors office and released from prosecution, often to return to a home to abuse children who no longer have a father to help stem the tide.

All the while, the sycophantic Seattle media plays along, giving voice only to those calling for even more extreme abuse of Constitutional rights. And, while the media occasionally laments the lack of fathers in households, and blames the fathers solely, a connection is never made between the hostile environment created for fathers and families in King County and the fact that close to half of the region’s children grow up without fathers in the household.

And, somehow, women are never to blame. Despite the fact that women are more than 30 times more likely to abuse children than biological fathers. Fathers are treated as anethma to families even though statistically the safest and most successful children in the country are those that live with their biological father. In fact, Mayor Nickels calls the removal of fathers from the household "creating strong families."

Stephan Baskerville sums of the sad state of federal gender politics in a recent column. It is no surprise that you would find Patty Murray at the center of this exclusive cult event, as she makes no secret of her disdain for the men and fathers of Washington State.

But, Representative David Reichert – who counts on the vote of men but then stabs them in the back from inside the beltway – is a hard person to forgive. Reichert may well be the first politician to suffer politically for his pandering to the Seattle gender feminist establishment.

Click here for more.