"We now see what we are reluctant to see"

A quote in the Seattle Times from prosecutor Norm Maleng as he struggles with his reticular activator to "see" the reality of a woman murdering her husband for money:

"We now see what we are reluctant to see," Maleng said during a news conference Tuesday morning to announce the charges. "A man who was set up and murdered by his own family for financial reasons."

The "reluctant" comment by Maleng is gross understatement. It's as if he is trying to find an excuse for arresting and charging a female murderer. Government agencies, courts, police forces, and even the public have been indoctrinated not to see the abussive and violent behavoir of some women. Where are the DV divas and screem queens now? Why aren't there quotes in the newspaper from the Eastside Domestic Violence Shelter aristocracy about the danger all men live under? For that matter, where is the usual domestic violence hysteria column from Nicole Brodeur? She could write this one about the damage done in our state by women with hyphenated last names.

Even Maleng must have been pretty dang "reluctant," because it took him 15 months to press charges even though the 911 call that alerted police to the slaying came from Ogden-Whitehead's own cell phone while she was supposedly at home and in bed at the time of the brutal murder.

Velma got her son and one of his friends to do the dirty deed of murdering her husband. She did it for the money from life insurance and the sale of investments Jon had accumulated prior to his ill-fated marriage to Velma. She netted more than $1 million by selling Jon Ogden's assets and collecting on his life insurance; quite an increase from the lifestyle she had before getting maried.

So-called domestic violence experts concede that over 300 men are killed by the women in their lives each year, but they are also quick to point out that roughly 1,000 women per year are killed by husbands and boyfrieds. The Ogden-Whitehead murder case demonstrates why 300 is under-estimated. Women who kill their husbands and boyfrieds often get another man to do their dirty work. Those murders do not show up in the statistics of women killing men.

Notice that the column in the Seattle Times was quick to find anecdotal and hearsay evidence that, of course, Jon Ogden was abusing Ogden-Whitehead in some way, such as not allowing her to run up credit cards. These totally ubsubstantiated rumors (which never should have been reported by the Seattle Times, by the way) were based on Ogden-Whitehead's supposed statements to freinds. Yes, complaints by the same woman that was doing dramatic appearances with press coverage at the scene of HER crime, which the press was lapping up, asking the murderer (which was actually HER) to turn himself in. How much credibility does she have?

So, it's time to ask all of the politicians who have used domestic violence hysteria for political gain: What of Ogden-Whitehead?

Click here for more.

"People Helping People"?

A column in the Seattle Times about Karla Nelson’s struggle to get help from DSHS to deal with the severe psychiatric problems of her 13 year old son highlights yet again the confused and corrupted mission of DSHS.

Nelson got her son into inpatient treatment several years ago, after he spent about nine months on a waiting list. He spent about a year in the facility before being released. Last summer, his [Nelson’s son] illness grew so severe and his outbursts were escalating — in addition to the speaker wire [which he ate], he had eaten coins and erasers, and he had tried to strangle and hang himself — that she began trying to get him admitted again. In addition, he weighed more than his mother, so there was no way she could stop him.

In October, he went after Nelson, scratching and pinching her. Although the assault was minor, it was enough to get him arrested.

After the boy was released, and Nelson pleaded with a judge not to send him home, the judge ordered DSHS to take custody of him and provide treatment. But, DSHS fought the judge’s decision, saying that DSHS only provides care for "abused or neglected" children. An appeals court agreed with DSHS.

Isn't it funny that DSHS uses the slogan "People Helping People" on its web site?

If only DSHS and Washington State courts were as diligent about returning children to fathers who want them, especially after a mother has been proven unfit, as they were in Nelson’s case. Washington State family courts are notorious for removing fathers from the lives of children based on flimsy allegations used as a tactic in divorce proceedings.

DSHS and similar state agencies across the country are not even inclined to return children to their father even when the mother has been proven unfit to parent. Too often, these agencies prefer to keep children in the foster care system in order to continue collecting child support from the real father. In his most recent newsletter, Glenn Sacks highlighted a case in Massachusetts:

After the Boston Globe published Giving fathers a chance (6/8/06) I received an interesting letter from a father who said he is "living the nightmare described in the column."

I can't give out many details, but basically he got divorced, mom got custody of his daughter, the mother was abusive and the state (properly) took the girl away from the mother. After that, however, the state has refused to let this man's daughter come home to him. The girl adores her dad and there's been no finding of unfitness against the dad. However, the girl's caseworker keeps coming up with vague reasons why it's somehow not in the best interests of this child to be reunited with her father. These include gems like "she isn't ready for overnight visits yet." And dad has fought a long, hard battle to convince the state that's it's in his daughter's best interests to come live with him. Meanwhile his little girl's childhood is slipping away.

The story is incredibly infuriating. As I listened to the father refute the various reasons the caseworker threw up to prevent his daughter from coming home, I kept thinking who cares what this social worker thinks? Unless there's been a finding of unfitness, this girl belongs with her father.

It's amazing the way these petty demi-gods in social services think they have the right to dictate terms to fit parents as to what's best for their kids. The fate of this girl and her father is in the hands of an inexperienced, 20-something crusader to whom the system gives way too much power. What an outrage.

CPS, a division of DSHS, often provides admirable help for children in horrible circumstances. But, a more important and profitable objective of DSHS is to earn federal matching funds for the collection of child support. In fact, this appears to be their primary mission. This mission is ideologically charged instead of inspired by the welfare of children.

To give you an idea of their mission, DSHS and the feminist ideologists that run it are also active in campaigning against new shared parenting legislation in Washington State. Shared parenting legislation, sponsored by Senator Jim Kastama, simply requires a presumption by family courts of joint custody of children. The wording of the bill is innocuous and in reading it, one has a hard time believing shared parenting is not already a presumption in family courts.

From the digest of SB 5350 on the Washington State legislature’s web site:

Declares that there shall be a presumption that shared parental responsibility is in the beset interests of minor children unless: (1) The parents have agreed to an award of residential placement or decision-making authority to only one parent; or (2) The court finds that shared parental responsibility would be detrimental to the child or children.

So, why would anyone, especially a state agency like DSHS and a state Senator like Kohler-Wells, who boldly assert that they are protectors of children, have a problem with Kastama’s bill? They prefer the current hidden standard, which for all intents and purposes assumes that a father is unfit to parent.

Here-in lays the confused mission of DSHS. The anti-father ideology, egged on by people like Kohler-Wells and the current Secretary of DSHS, Robin Arnold-Williams, is a large part of the problem. But, DSHS also advocates against shared parenting because it threatens the flow of federal money. They fear that shared parenting plans would result in a reduction in court mandated child support payments, which would in turn reduce the federal take by DSHS.

As we can see in the successful fight that DSHS put up against helping an obviously mentally ill child and his mother, DSHS is clear on the nature of its ideologically and financially inspired mission. It’s time everyone else in Washington State connected the dots and realized the true nature of that corrupted mission.

Click here for more.

No Justice for McKinney or Duke 'Rapist'?

Tuesday , June 13, 2006
By Wendy McElroy

There ain't no justice!

To me, that conclusion unites two otherwise distinct legal matters: Rep. Cynthia McKinney's alleged assault of a police officer, and the Duke lacrosse team 'rape' prosecution.

The cases are examples of the law treating people according to who they are and not upon the evidence.

A fundamental principle of civil society is that people are equal under the law without regard to race, gender or other status. The content of law is a mitigating factor; an unjust law that is evenly applied is still unjust and reasonable people applaud anyone who escapes its application. But that caveat doesn't apply to McKinney or the Duke case; prohibitions against assault and rape are just and should be applied equally.

As it is, McKinney and the Duke case shatter the expectation that the law judges people based on evidence rather than politics.

The McKinney matter is virtually uncontested. The Georgia congresswoman assaulted a police officer as he was enforcing security on Capitol Hill. The average person would have his or her face slammed against the floor as officers descended en masse to make a felony arrest.

With McKinney…no slamming, no floor.

The incident occurred on March 29; both the officer involved and the Fraternal Order of Police pursued charges; the case went to a Grand Jury for indictment on April 5. Nevertheless, a headline in last week's Atlanta Journal Constitution declared, "McKinney probe enters 3rd month." The article stated there is "no hint from the federal prosecutor about how much longer it will take to settle a case that legal experts said should have been wrapped up in a matter of days."

The office of U.S. Attorney has refused comment.

Chuck Canterbury, national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, offered an explanation, "Right from the start this U.S. attorney has handled this case differently from every other case, and it's because she is a sitting congresswoman."

Now there are rumors of a "sweetheart deal" that would allow McKinney to avoid indictment. The congresswoman appears to be exempt from the very laws she participates in passing.

The Duke 'rape' case also demonstrates the inequitable application of law. Because of who she is, McKinney may receive legal immunity for committing a public felony. On the other extreme, accused Duke 'rapist' Reade Seligmann seems to be stripped of the constitutional and procedural protections that hardened, repeat criminals take for granted.

For example, the burden of proof constitutionally rests on the prosecution to establish guilt rather than on the defense to establish innocence.

The 20-year-old Seligmann is one of three Duke University students arrested for raping a woman hired to strip at a party on March 13. Credible evidence is or should be required to arrest anyone on such a devastating charge.

What evidence exists to prosecution Seligmann?

--The accuser's account has changed dramatically over time;
--The 'line-up identification' of him came from choosing between photos of others at the party and is tainted;
--All of the party-goers deny a crime occurred;
-- A 'second stripper' on the scene initially called the report of rape "a crock"
--DNA tests show no link to Seligmann and -- given the allegations of struggle -- the absence is exculpatory;
--Stories of the accuser's sexual activity prior to the party throw all sexual evidence into question;
--a much-discussed medical exam that allegedly showed evidence of rape may, in fact, indicate no such physical trauma.

The proceeding facts alone should mandate dismissal of charges against Seligmann for lack of evidence. But Seligmann can provide an even more compelling defense: an alibi. Seligmann can account for almost every moment during which the alleged rape occurred.

Time-stamped party photos and a neighbor's testimony indicate that the alleged rape must have occurred between 12:10 and 12:30 a.m. The On Time Taxi company confirms receiving a call from Seligmann at 12:14 a.m. A cab driver picked him up a block and a half from the party at approximately 12:19.

At 12:24, time-stamped photos show Seligmann drawing money from an ATM. This means Seligmann had approximately nine minutes in which to commit a brutal rape that included several sex acts, clean up and compose himself, then take a walk. And, oh yes, he also interrupted the brutal rape to make a phone call.

Why is his life being ruined by the shadow of an impending trial?

Just as McKinney may be legally immune because of who she is, I believe Seligmann is being persecuted for what he is. From the beginning, the Duke 'rape' case has been portrayed as a racial issue; white boys raped a black woman. Stories lingered on the wealth of Seligmann's family thus casting the case as one of elitism; the rich can violate the law without consequence.

Feminist editorials declared that women do not lie about rape, thus convicting him in advance and despite evidence.

In short, I believe Seligmann is being prosecuted because he is a rich white male.

Added to the mix is the ambitious District Attorney Michael Nifong who used a blitz of media appearances to stir up public opinion in favor of the accuser. He rode the public opinion back into office through an election that was pending.

One casualty of both McKinney and Duke is the public expectation that the legal system expresses justice.

Restoring confidence is simple. Indict McKinney. Drop charges against Seligmann. Disbar Nifong. Or, rather, it would be simple if politics were not involved. When politics enters, suddenly some people are above the law while other people are beneath it.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

Click here for more.

DSHS Systematically Inclined to Make Bad Choices

Jim Miller of Sound Politics questions why CPS would place children in the home of a foster parent with a criminal history. It seems pretty obvious that CPS failed and it is hard to believe, given the history of the foster parent discussed. Look at the DSHS system that CPS exists within (DSHS is the disfunctional "parent" of CPS), and you start to see some answers.

DSHS is primarily focused on getting federal matching funds for collecting child support. DSHS actually has a financial incentive to see divorces, broken families, and children living in homes without biological fathers. Without divorce and subsequent child support, DSHS would not receive millions of dollars of federal matching funds, which is basically just profit and helps pay the paychecks of the bureaucracy.

It's very easy for them to justify this as being all about the kids. But, look at the ideology driving people such as the head of DSHS, who has a hyphonated last name, and you start to see the picture of an underlying ambigious attitude about the benefit of fathers in the lives of their children.

When an agency makes the removal of biological fathers from the lives of their children a policy and only sees those fathers as paychecks (for the mother and for the DSHS bureaucracy), it leads to a confused mission.

Check out this article by Glen Sacks, that just came out today. Around the entire country, these agencies are so ideologically confused and anti-father that only 8% of kids that are removed from the homes of mothers are placed with their biological fathers. Yes, some of these fathers are as screwed up as the mothers. But, a lot of them are not - a lot more than 8% are not. Amazingly, for DSHS and many other similar agencies in states across the country, placement with the father of a child removed from the mother's home is not even considered as a first option.

Now, who wants to argue with this statement: Since DSHS receives profit from federal matching funds for every dollar of child support they receive, they have an incentive to place children with foster parents (like the scum-bag Miller is talking about) instead of with their real fathers. After all, placement with the real father would result in child support payments ending, and a reduction in child support payments results in a reduction in federal matching funds. In other words, it's more profitable for DSHS to place kids with foster parents than with biological fathers.

My guess is that most people working in CPS are dedicated and trying their best. Some are bad, of course. But, they operate within an anti-father organization and climate. They are systematically inclined to make bad choices as a result.

Click here for more.

The day the matriarchy came to power

Carey Roberts
May 30, 2006

It was a bloodless coup. It happened under the penumbra of the law. In fact chief justice William Rehnquist presided at the event. The date was January 20, 1993.

The recent November elections had announced the Year of the Woman, with Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Carol Moseley Braun, and Patty Murray all sweeping into the U.S. Senate.

Everyone knew the federal bureaucracy was a stronghold for those domineering patriarchs. Obviously that needed to change.

First, equal justice had to be turned into feminist justice. So the Rodham-Clinton co-presidency brought in Janet Reno to direct the Department of Justice. The NOW Legal Defense Fund hailed the dowdy Reno as "a stellar attorney with an extraordinary track record."

Not to be outdone, the Department of Education brought in radical chicana Norma Cantu to head up its civil rights office. Cantu made "proportionality" the only test for Title IX compliance. Ten years later, 80,000 slots for male athletes had been eliminated from more than 350 men's sports teams.

Next, the gender wage gap had to be fixed, so Karen Nussbaum was named director of the Women's Bureau at the Labor Department. With Hillary perched approvingly at her side, Nussbaum issued the "Working Women Count!" report. The study revealed that many working women believe "I do not get paid what I think my job is worth."

Welcome to the real world, ladies.

Over at the Department of Defense, SecDef Les Aspin was given marching orders to clean up the lingering fallout from the Navy aviators' Tailhook fiasco. So just three months after he took office, Aspin issued a historic order: "The services shall permit women to compete for assignments in aircraft, including aircraft engaged in combat missions."

Then the blue-ribbon Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services got into the act. The group opted to extend Aspin's order, pushing for female involvement in submarine crews, Multiple Launch Rocket Systems jobs, and Special Operations Forces. Before long the group — officially designated as DACOWITS — came to be known as "Lack-o-Wits."

With all the liberated single women clamoring for taxpayer-funded husband substitutes, the next order of business was to expand the Nanny State. So Hillary looked to her gal-pal Donna Shalala to head up the sprawling Department of Health and Human Services.

Shalala had earlier turned the Hunter College women's studies program into a radical feminist outpost. Within months of her appointment, Shalala would lend credence to the porker about medical research being conducted from the "white male point of view." [www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/sommers-camelot]

But Hillary's greatest obsession was the promotion of international feminism. So she leaned on Bill to nominate Madeleine Albright to the United Nations ambassador post.

During her stint at the U.N. and later as Secretary of State, Albright was a tireless advocate for abortion on demand. Hitting all the right notes, she once claimed, "our voluntary family planning programs serve our broader interests by elevating the status of women, reducing the flow of refugees, protecting the environment, and promoting economic growth."

The U.N. had slated its Conference on Women to be held in China in September 1995. Albright was named to chair the U.S. Delegation, and Hillary Clinton was tabbed to deliver the keynote speech.

Afterwards, president Clinton created the President's Interagency Council on Women. The Council's mission was to "follow up on U.S. commitments made at the UN Fourth World Conference on Women" — meaning that whatever promises Albright had made during her Beijing junket should now be imposed by fiat on the rest of us.

The high-flying Council was headed by the triumvirate of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Madeleine Albright, and Donna Shalala. Meeting monthly, reps from all the top-level federal agencies were instructed to implement the Beijing Platform for Action. [www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform]

One of the Council's Work Groups was tasked to "develop procedures that ensure the integration of a gender perspective into the policies and operations of government so that different impacts on men and women may be determined and inequities addressed." That's fem-speak for "pressure the male geezers to retire, so women can come in and run the show."

Sure enough, from 1994 to 2002 the number of male professional workers in the federal government fell by 17%, while the number of female employees actually rose. [www.opm.gov/feddata/demograp/demograp.asp] Laws such as the Violence Against Women Act and the Gender Equity in Education Act were enacted. The federal government was soon beholden to a far-reaching array of programs designed to promote the socialist agenda of the U.N. Conference on Women.

And that's how a feminist cabal overthrew the entrenched federal Patriarchy in eight short years.
__________

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 2006 by Carey Roberts
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/060530

Click here for more.