Draconian Feminist Sentencing Destroys a Woman

Michelle Taylor got drunk one night and allowed a 13-year old boy to fondle her breasts.

She was charged with the crime of committing lewdness with a minor (a charge which feminists in Nevada had recently been part of having the legislature change the sentence for, in an attempt to fight the bugaboo of "sexual predators" - i.e., as a means of having men who were slandered by their wives in custody battles locked up permanently), she was tried, and convicted.

Now she appears at her sentencing "hearing" with only one possible sentence: life in prison.

Everything that the defense attorney says in argument against the legislative statute is true. It is a draconian, unconstitutional violation of due process. The female lawyer is particularly compelling, I think, when she argues that if Ms. Taylor had killed the "victim" (?) after allowing him to fondle her breasts, the maximum sentence would be only 50 years. As I say, everything that the defense attorney says is true. What is the greatest truth, however, is what went unsaid - what went unsaid despite a direct question.

At one point, the female defense attorney says, "This law was never intended to apply to... people like Ms. Taylor," and the judge responds, "Why not?" The defense attorney, shaken, promises "I'm getting to that," yet she never explains why Ms. Taylor should have been excluded from the application of this law, or what type of person it was intended to apply to.

She doesn't say it because she can't say it. Nobody can say it, though everybody in the room knows the answer. It is literally the pink elephant in the room.

For, though organizations such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) deny it, it is plain that feminist involvement in "child abuse" and "child molestation" issues is far more about ensuring that men are pliant on custody and other issues during divorce, and about adding another tool to the feminist toolkit for destroying men. One organization, Stop the Silence, accessed through the NOW website, states that one of its primary objectives is working on issues of "protective custody" (i.e., not letting Junior and Janey be around Daddy, whom Mommy slandered when Daddy showed up in court with lawyers!) and "other prevention measures, i.e. a focus on appropriately dealing with offenders."

Of course, appropriately dealing with offenders means being sure to hyperventilate appropriately prior to locking innocent men slandered in divorces up for life.

So the defense attorney can't say what she is thinking: "Your honor, the dirty little secret of the legal system, that everybody in this courtroom knows, is that this law was enacted only to burden men with such harsh treatment - and many of them for doing less than Ms. Taylor did. Only men were supposed to be warehoused for life after their ex-wives invented false allegations of child abuse against them. 'Life in prison' for such a mediocre crime as allowing a 13-year old boy to fondle one's breasts is too much for a woman."

But it is a law that was sought and pushed by feminists as a means of destroying men.

And men face such kangaroo court proceedings as this every day: in fact, every single Domestic Violence hearing in the United States today is a "hearing" only in the same "star chamber" sense as the "hearing" endured by Ms. Taylor - the end result is already determined, no matter what the evidence is shown to be. For men, to be accused is to be guilty of domestic violence. At least Ms. Taylor had the chance at a trial - though her lawyer complains that she was not offered an opportunity to plead out.

Every day in America, innocent men are accused of rape, domestic violence, and child abuse by women who have no morals, who are encouraged to do so by "women's shelters," attorneys, police, and courts who not only knowingly countenance such false allegations, but refuse to charge them with perjury when their slander is evident. Every day these men's lives are destroyed, and many innocent men end up in jail under such draconian laws, designed by feminists in their war against men.

But now, it turns out the proverb is true: "Whoso diggeth a ditch shall fall therein" (Proverbs 26:27).

For feminists, I hope that each of you one day tastes the equality that you have designed for Ms. Taylor and for thousands of innocent men that your immoral and hateful program has destroyed, or attempted to destroy.

For Ms. Taylor, I sincerely hope that somehow you (and the thousands who did less than you - all men slandered by women) are released and find grace to rebuild a meaningful life.

Women Don't Lie About Rape or Molestation - Chapter 8652: The Oprah Winfrey "Show"

Women do not lie about rape, sexual molestation, domestic violence, or sexual harassment. I know and believe this in the inner reaches of my soul. I know this because feminists assure me that it is true.

Of course, on the rare occasion that a woman DOES lie about rape, sexual molestation, domestic violence, or sexual harassment (though I know that never happens - and I came to this knowledge because feminists assured me of it), that it is always a symptom of poverty or mental imbalance. Normal women don't lie about rape. And of course, very powerful women do not lie about such things either - for they have no need to lie. Of course, this is all a very theoretical discussion, since NO WOMAN LIES about these things, but, just for the sake of discussion, you understand, IF THEY DID, relatively sane women and women who are sufficiently empowered would NOT be among those who lied about such things.

Enter, Oprah Winfrey....

Surely, The Big O is the most powerful woman in the world. She has been powerful longer than Michelle Obama, and will likely be here long after the other Obama is gone. She is more powerful than Hillary, having endorsed Barack Obama against Hillary and thoroughly spanked her! She is likely more endeared by middle class women than even the very Queen of England, or, unbelievably, the recently departed Princess Diana! Oprah is so powerful that she has appeared on the covers of Time, Forbes, Newsweek, and even more important: Cosmo! She is a force to be reckoned with in the economic, political, literary, and cultural worlds. She has the power to tell middle class white women what to think - and they obey (making Oprah far more powerful than the husbands of those same women)!

How odd, then, that The Big O would find it necessary to embellish the events of her life....

We all know the story of Oprah Winfrey's life. From a dirt-poor existence in rural Mississippi - so poor that she, in fact, "adopted" a couple of cockroaches as pets! - she arose and clawed her way to the top, empowering women forthwith, and proving that black women particularly are strong, independent, powerful persons of infinite and moral character. And of course, her story was made even more astounding because, at an early age of minority, she was the victim of child sexual abuse. Poor Oprah was raped, for the first time, at the tender age of nine....

The story in and of itself is enough to inspire simultaneous joy and weeping. It is enough to confer hope upon the hopeless. It is enough to justify her rise to what may be the most powerful, trustworthy, and influential voice on the earth.

Fancy, with such a story, an investigative writer such as Kitty Kelly even attempting to write a book? What exactly was Ms. Kelly's intent - to IMPROVE such a story? Hardly possible.

Nevertheless, with such annoying constitutional rights as freedom of speech at risk, Ms. Kelly set off to do her "research" on the life of The Big O: Oprah Winfrey. As if such "research" were necessary - I mean, Oprah has already told us the story, has she not? - Ms. Kelly then set off to talk to literally dozens of people to get the information for her book! Did I say dozens? Surely, I meant at least 100 different people! Did I say 100 different people? Actually, Ms. Kelly claims to have interviewed more than 800 different people as well as having worked with primary and secondary sources over a time span of four years!

Many of those were family members who knew her during the time periods in which she was teaching tricks to cockroaches and surviving the emotional devastation of sexual molestation.

Oddly, many of those family members took a great deal of resentment at Oprah's representations about her poverty and sexual molestation.

“Where Oprah got that nonsense about growing up in filth and roaches I have no idea,” Katherine Carr Esters said.

"She may be admired by the world, but I know the truth," [Vernon Winfrey, Oprah's father, with whom she went to live at age 14] says. "So does God and so does Oprah. Two of us remain ashamed."

Apparently, Katherine Carr Esters, Vernon Winfrey, and God did not get the required memo from the National Organization for Women (NOW) and other feminists that women do not lie.

In fact, it turns out that Oprah lied about quite a bit. She wasn't so poor that she wore dresses made of potato sacks, as she has maintained. In what I consider to be a bombshell, but which I have yet to see repeated in the mainstream media, Oprah, at least for a time, is said to have willingly worked as a prostitute. There were never any pet cockroaches. In fact, according to Kitty Kelly, there was no child sexual molestation.

NOW is going to have to do a much better job of circulating this "women-don't-lie-about-rape" memo. Apparently Kitty Kelly didn't get it either.

But, Vernon Winfrey did say a rather interesting thing: he said that even Oprah knows the truth (though he implicitly denied that she has enough moral fiber to feel ashamed - as he is, and as he reckons God Almighty to be - about her lies). Katherine Carr Esters took it one step further, in recounting one of her confrontations with The Big O about the lies that she is prone to tell....

“I’ve confronted her and asked, ‘why do you tell such lies?’ Oprah told me ‘that’s what people want to hear. The truth is boring.’”

At least Oprah is consistent in her behavior. Though she presents herself as being something of a "feminist-lite," she apparently regards the truth with the same skepticism and disdain as do her more radical femtard sisters when she admits that "The Truth is Boring."

Now, Ms. Kelly has found other parallels between Oprah and the feminist mainstream:

* A preference for lesbianism.

* A sham marriage/not-quite-marriage.

* An attitude of entitlement.

* A boiling cauldron of anger, just waiting to be released upon some unsuspecting innocent.

And staffers were, *ahem*, encouraged to help keep these, and other factoids, "out of the tabloids."

But perhaps it is the lying about rape that is most disconcerting. Nay, certainly it is her lying about rape that is most disconcerting.

Notice the sheer ease with which such a lie is presented and maintained. Katherine Carr Esters says to Oprah, "Why do you tell such lies?" Oprah simply replies, "It's what the people want. Truth is boring." They want an entertaining and inspiring story. I just give them what they want. Reality be damned.

Or, as summarized by wire sources:

Oprah Winfrey embellished her poor upbringing and made up stories about sexual abuse to boost her ratings, her relatives say in Kitty Kelley’s new biography, the New York Post reported Monday.

The women who lie about rape, child abuse, molestation, and sexual harassment are the very pinnacle of beings so morally corrupt that they scarcely qualify to be called "human." Their worth is so little as to demand that the earth itself swallow them alive and keep them from being any further burden upon the earth. They are pigs. Children. Worthless. Satanic. Vile. Beyond redemption. Deserving only of utter and eternal destruction in Hell, and certain to find exactly that.

But, on the other hand, at least the common woman who lies (and there are millions of them!) is lying for something. At least with most of them, there is custody at issue. Money at issue. A job promotion at issue. Vengeance at issue.

For Oprah? No custody or promotion or any other issue... she is willing to lie because that is what people want and expect. She lies because, rather than being a millionaire, she'd prefer to be a billionaire. She lies because not to lie would simply produce a life that is insufferably boring....

In Oprah's mind, as in the minds of all unthinking women (i.e., "feminists"), reality doesn't matter nearly so much as "what I or the people want." Life is not about honor or truth or morality - it is about a series of exciting templates - mental crutches that those who are incapable of thought rely upon in order to properly (they feel) understand life. Or be "empowered." Or increase their "self-esteem." Or whatever the folks at Lifetime are warbling on about these days....

And of course, to this unthinking herd of cattle, the most exciting template of all is the template of the victimized woman who nonetheless rises to the top.

From "The Burning Bed" to Harlequin Romances, women who are incapable of building real character or engaging in real thought are pumped full of templates all of their lives. Acceptance of these templates inevitably turns these emotionally-overwrought and irrational women to feminism. Feminism, of course, demands that one believe templates rather than comprehend truth, because if one who respected truth became a feminist, they would immediately begin asking uncomfortable questions like, "If men and women are equally capable, why do standards to law school, medical school, business school, the military, the police, and the fire department have to be lowered so that more women can do what men are already doing?"

Feminists, of course, do not appreciate such uncomfortable questions. When women are trained to mindlessly repeat the tenets of a feminist-designed template, such insights are happily avoided.

And because feminists are incapable of thought and are quite averse to reality, they have bequeathed to non-feminists (as well) certain templates that it is necessary to accept. Like the myth of the violent man. Or the myth which notes that women make the best parents. Or the myth that women don't lie about rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence, or molestation and abuse.

On the sacred pages of Objectify Chicks!, it has been noted time and again that women will lie about rape for just about any reason under the sun: for money, out of a preference for neurotic existence, for a pack of cigarettes, to make a political point, to be vindictive, to cover their own questionable behavior, as a means of exciting sympathy to avoid getting into trouble, in order to get a day off from work, or even for no reason at all.

It is odd, is it not, that in engaging in her program of propaganda and lies, by adopting the most convenient template for her crusade of marketing and manipulation, Oprah Winfrey has destroyed that template?

It is now known that upwards of 60% of all allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and child abuse are manufactured - and all of the manufactured allegations are made by women or by children at the behest of women. The next time you are on a jury and someone repeats this howler: "Women don't lie about rape," you know right away that you are being lied to. You know it, because you know that even Oprah Winfrey lies about rape.

And if a lawyer or judge will lie to you about something as basic as that - when it is their responsibility to rather remind you that all accused are presumed innocent (with the corresponding necessity that all accusers are presumed to be lying till evidence establishes otherwise) - perhaps you should ask yourself: "If this judge/lawyer/"victim"/witness will lie to me about something so basic, I wonder if they are lying about everything that they have said?"

For if a woman as powerful, wealthy, respected, and (allegedly) sane as Oprah would lie about rape for absolutely no reason at all - what woman wouldn't lie?

Women (and Children) Don't Lie About Rape - Chapter 5942

A recent issue of the Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer demonstrated the utterly contrariness of modern feminist dogma, and the conundrum in which it places our culture. An article in the January 15, 2020 issue by Hilary Kraus titled "Facility's sex stats scrutinized" recounts a recent sex scandal at a detention center. This story profoundly illustrates that what we all know by
sheer common sense about feminism is true....

We all know that women don't lie about rape. They do not do this, feminists say, for several reasons, not the least of which is the sheer moral superiority of the woman. So beyond sin is
the character of the woman that it could never happen that she would lie about rape (or domestic violence, or abuse, or sexual harassment - even if to do so would give her a great amount
of leverage during custody battles, divorce proceedings, or consequent to not being hired or promoted, etc.). We know that women do not lie about rape also because they are so horribly
victimized by "the system" that for a woman to merely complain of rape to the authorities (who are likely to be unenlightened white males who read Plato or the Bible at some point in their lives!) is to submit to being victimized twice: once by the rapist and again by police and the courts.

We have seen much evidence that women do not lie about rape in recent years. We have seen that strippers performing for Lacrosse teams do not lie about rape. Oh, wait a minute....

Well, anyway, we have seen that women never try to seduce college basketball coaches and then extort money from them using false allegations of rape. Oh, *ahem*, well, anyway....

So at least we have seen that well-known performers are never targeted with false allegations of rape....

OK, so journalists are never targeted....

But of course, feminist activists never manufacture false allegations of rape, because they know what is at stake!!! Oh, wait....

Well, anyway, thank God for feminists who tell us that women never lie about rape! Otherwise, the sheer weight of the evidence to the contrary likely would have convinced us that they might deign to do so!

But even if women sometimes do lie about rape (even though we know they don't!), at least children never lie about rape or molestation. Children are, of course, morally unsullied and can be relied upon to not have been brainwashed by tactics endorsed by women's shelters - which encourage women to manufacture false allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault as a means of furthering their own personal interests and as a means of snagging federal funding for the shelters. Of course, since children have never been in women's shelters, and because they are, by nature, quite innocent, we can be assured that children merely need to be listened to when they make allegations. Children, of course, would never lie about such things.

Unless, of course, such tactics were now so prevalent that one could learn them merely from existing in a culture which encourages the creative use of false allegations for all kinds of purposes. But inasmuch as feminists assure us that there is no culture of false allegations (because, of course, feminists tell us that the rate of false reporting for sex crimes is identical to that of, say, property crimes!), we can be sure that children have not picked up any such strategies or motivations from our culture.

Enter the Samarkand Youth Development Center in Eagle Springs, North Carolina. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sponsored a survey which queried youngsters anonymously at various youth centers about conditions inside. Apparently, one area of concern for the DOJ was how many children were being sexually exploited in these youth centers.

It must be that most youth centers are run, managed, and manned by white men, as we know that white men by their very nature are quite violent and spend most of their off-hours raping and pillaging (except, of course, when they can fit such activities into their actual work hours!).

The statistics returned from the Samarkand Center were so alarmingly high - termed in the article "among the worst" for centers taking the survey - that the North Carolina Department of Social Services was called in to investigate the scandal. Nearly 21% of respondents claimed that they had engaged in sexual misconduct under the duress of force. Nearly one-third stated that they had engaged in some kind of sexual acts with adult staff members.

Lo! and behold! Could it be??? These unstained children??? Whoda thunk it?

Nevertheless, I quote the article: "One of the reasons the facility's statistics were among the worst is because some of the residents didn't tell the truth." Do tell....

According to an investigation by the North Carolina Department of Social Services, many of the girls "admitted to law enforcement officials that they falsified information."

Translation: they lied. How improbable! That they were both women and children, and yet these most unsullied of creatures lied about the one thing that such unsullied creatures never lie about?

I admit, the story is confusing.

Oddly, Linda Hayes (whom we assume to be a woman), the secretary of the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in North Carolina, stated that "gathering data anonymously from youth with histories of behavior problems can be unreliable."

Linda Hayes, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, maintains that rape allegations must be filtered
according to the accuser's background, should not be anonymous, and should be
compared with existing evidence. Secretary Hayes must not be a feminist!

Ms. Hayes obviously did not receive the "Women Don't Lie About Rape" memo.

Now wait a minute here....

Let's take that statement about at-risk youth and examine it.

Feminists tell us that when allegations of rape or sexual misconduct are made, the sexual history of the complainant makes no difference.

Yet, Linda Hayes - whom we believe to be a woman - states that people with "histories of behavior problems" can't necessarily be trusted.

Feminists also tell us that making the identities of rape victims known re-victimizes them and is unnecessary to a complete investigation.

Yet, Linda Hayes - whom we believe to be a woman - states that when data is harvested anonymously, it can be unreliable.

Feminists assure us that women simply don't have any motivation for lying about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse, and therefore the negative effects of false reporting are an assurance that false allegations are kept to a minimum.

Yet, Linda Hayes - whom we believe to be a woman - states that anonymously requesting data on sexual misconduct can be "unreliable," even when NOTHING is at stake; these girls were, after all, just filling out a survey.

One might reasonably ask the question: if little girls hiding behind the cloak of anonymity and recognizing that they exist in a legal and cultural mileu in which false allegations are not only tolerated, but often rewarded, will lie about rape, violence, abuse, and harassment when they have absolutely nothing to gain, how likely is it that others, who stand to gain or lose custody, property, promotions, or other perks, would lie under a similar cloak of anonymity and gross tolerance of falsehoods?

I'm just wondering. But since I am a guy, perhaps we could ask Linda Hayes...?

Domestic Violence Awareness Month: Be Aware!

October, as per usual, is Domestic Violence Awareness month. Given that this month is devoted to raising awareness about Domestic Violence (DV), I thought it would be a good time to devote my blog to doing exactly that. What you will be hearing in the media this month is mythology. If you want a genuinely awareness-raising experience, keep reading....

Did you know...?

* The standard of evidence for determining whether Domestic Violence has occurred in most states is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," or even "a preponderance of the evidence," but is, rather, "the subjective fear of the woman?" In other words, if a woman can convince a judge that she is genuinely afraid of... something... then she has met the standard of evidence that will often result in her husband/boyfriend/whatever being carted off to jail, charged with felonies, being thrown out of his house, losing custody of his children, having child support levied against him, having fault principles applied to increase his alimony, and having fault principles applied to the property division in his soon-to-be divorce, regardless of whether the evidence actually shows that he has done anything wrong or not?

* Women often file false charges of Domestic Violence against the men in their lives for leverage in court, because they are neurotic, or to simply enlist the power of the state when they are having conflict with a man.

* It is well-known in the professional community that women routinely lie about Domestic Violence. Policemen know that women lie, but often choose to arrest anyway and, in some states, are required to arrest even if they know the woman is lying under "must arrest" policies. Attorneys admit that women are known to lie at a rate anywhere from 10 times to 30 times higher than the "normal" rate of false reports for all crimes when it comes to rape, domestic violence, abuse, and sexual harassment. Even media outlets have been forced to admit that false DV allegations are out of control. The Domestic Violence Industry (that group of organizations and individuals given to the "manufacture" of Domestic Violence claims) depends upon perjury for an ever-increasing hysteria about Domestic Violence to ensure a constant and increasing flow of federal funds.

* The feminist fixation on Domestic Violence in light of the facts is considered by some to be a hysteria.

* Even Domestic Violence proponents admit that DV is a political crime.

* The founder of the world's first Domestic Violence shelter asserts that DV is a scam that feminism uses to facilitate fundraising.

* Contrary to popular belief, Domestic Violence does NOT equal "assault," "battery," "kidnapping," "rape," "murder," or any other recognizable crimes. Why would a new category (domestic violence) need to be invented for existing crimes (assault, battery, etc.)?

* Domestic Violence equates with "ignoring or minimizing a woman's feelings."

* Domestic Violence occurs when a woman "feels hurt or scared" regardless of whether anyone has done anything to make her legitimately "feel" that way.

* Domestic Violence occurs when someone calls a woman a name, feels jealous about her, or "denies her feelings."

* Domestic Violence occurs when a man "blames a woman for how he feels or acts," but women are encouraged to blame men for how they feel or act in gaining Domestic Violence Protective Orders (i.e., if a woman feels "hurt," "controlled," "neglected," or "afraid" it is because of the man in her life).

* Domestic Violence occurs when a couple conducts their marriage or relationship according to strict gender roles, as do many Protestants, Catholics, and Muslims.

* Domestic Violence occurs BOTH when a man "threatens to leave" a woman AND when he is "clinging" to a woman, obviously placing him in an impossible catch-22.

* Domestic Violence occurs when a man exhibits "unpredictable behavior," but not when a woman is in the throes of PMS.

* Domestic Violence occurs when a man tells his wife she is no longer pretty.

* Domestic Violence occurs both when men "insist on having their way" and when the fail to give in to women who insist on having them their way! Obviously, any situation other than a woman running the show is Domestic Violence.

* Attorney admits, Domestic Violence is "whatever a man does that a woman doesn't like."

* Men have been found to have engaged in Domestic Violence when they had never even met their accuser.

* The Violence Against Women Act (the federal statute that produced the Domestic Violence Industry) encourages states to revise their laws to allow for the filing of criminal charges based on the unsubstantiated allegations in a Domestic Violence complaint alone.

* False Domestic Violence allegations drain $20 billion a year out of the economy.

* David Letterman, Shawne Merriman, and Vanilla Ice have all been the victims of false allegations of Domestic Violence.

* The Domestic Violence Industry is built upon the perjury of plaintiffs and on spreading lies in the media - both the statistics that DV proponents use and the anecdotal evidence (like the famous "Super Bowl Sunday is the most dangerous day for women" myth) have been proven to have been false.

* Women admit that Women's Shelters encourage them to lie about Domestic Violence as a means of getting custody, property, alimony, or "leveling the playing field" in court when a woman is guilty of some wrongdoing in a marriage or relationship.

* Women admit that Women's Shelters coach them in how to fabricate evidence of Domestic Violence for use in court.

* The Domestic Violence Industry and False Allegations of Domestic Violence are tools used by radical feminists who are hostile to the family because the destruction of the nuclear family is seen as being necessary for the accomplishing of feminism's goals.

Most people don't know it, and you will not hear it from any of the major media outlets who will be pimping the Domestic Violence Hysteria during October, but to the extent that violence within the family is a problem, women are primarily guilty for its spread.

* Both ABC News and a social scientists have noted that women commit spousal abuse more than men.

* Women are more likely to initiate spousal abuse than are men.

* Women are the sole perpetrator of spousal abuse 70% of the time.

* Women commit 58% of all child abuse.

* Mothers are 25 times more likely to kill children than are fathers.

* Women commit 78% of all fatal child abuse.

Your awareness has now officially been raised. You now know more truth about Domestic Violence than any of the folks who will be warbling on about it on television, at community events, and in newspapers for the next 30 days.

So remember, when a women's shelter or other representative of the Domestic Violence Industry hits you up for money, blankets, or cell phones this month, think long and hard about the real victims of Domestic Violence - the men who have been slandered and the children who have been placed in the most dangerous place on earth for a child to live (the home of a single mother in the West) - and tell them that, because you are aware of the truth about DV, you won't ever be donating again.

And remember these facts the next time you are called to serve on a jury....

Women Don't Lie About Abuse - Chapter 3126

A blogger named planstoprosper, a neurotic lying woman who has just enough knowledge of the legal system to cry "child abuse" and then make herself judgment-proof, a messy divorce and custody battle, and a legal and cultural climate that encourages women to make false allegations in order to get their way... and what do you get?

1) Yet more evidence that feminists are in cartoon country when they allege that "women don't lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse."
2) Enough objective evidence to keep in mind and take into the jury box any time you may be summoned for one of these kinds of cases.
3) An assurance that Objectify Chicks! isn't the only blog that cares about these types of cases.
4) A $1.2 million dollar verdict for defamation, uncollectable because the woman is judgment-proof.
5) A vicious, lying woman who maintains custody of the child.
6) No criminal charges.

Lesson to women: If you have to perjure yourself to get your way, it's worth the risk - as long as you have enough foresight to judgment-proof yourself. Because even when your perjury is discovered, district attorneys generally (though not always) will look askance lest they risk deterring other "victims" (!) from coming forward.

And the last paragraph is worth the price of reading the blog...

A false accusation of abuse is abuse. Victoria Douglas should be spending years in jail for what she has done to Rodd Sutton and his daughter.

The Real Child Abusers

"HHS studies report that 'children in mother-only households were three times more likely to be fatally abused [murdered] than children in father-only households. Females were 78% of the perpetrators of fatal child abuse [murder] and 81% of natural parents who seriously abuse their children.'”

F. Roger Devlin, "Rotating Polyandry - and its Enforcers," in The Occidental Quarterly.

The Most Widespread Form of Child Abuse

"Child Abuse," like "domestic violence" and "sexual harassment," is one of those concepts that is becoming about as concrete as the concept of the "widget" in economics - it generally means whatever somebody wants it to mean (and if you don't believe that, then check out Alex Baldwin's book, below, but that is a side issue that I don't want to get distracted about...).

The partial definition of "child abuse" in Black's Law Dictionary includes:

"...a parent's... failure to act that results in a child's exploitation [or] serious physical or emotional injury...."

If one accepts this definition (and I am not sure that I do - how does one define "emotional injury?" how is "emotional injury" measured for seriousness?), then it is hard to imagine a context in which children are more systematically or widely exploited and emotionally (and intellectually!) injured than in the government schools of the United States. Neal Boortz writes in Somebody's Gotta Say It!...

Child abuse is neither always obvious nor intentional.

The most rampant form of child abuse in this country is not only legal, but committed routinely. It is the act of taking what arguably is, or should be, the most precious things in your life - your children - and placing the responsibility for their education i the hands of the government.

There's no escaping the fact that our country has problems... huge problems. I believe, however, that these problems have a common cause - that being the ignorance and stupidity of people whose "education" (if you want to call it that) was inflicted at the hands of government schools.

Year after year, our wonderful government education system cranks out hordes of young men and women who are completely unable to cope with, let alone understand, our culture, our history, our institutions, and what it takes not just to survive but to thrive in America.

We've reviewed the alarming facts already. Average high school graduates cannot tell you the responsibilities, or even the names, of the three branches of government. They can't tell you the name of the vice president, and probably do't kow that there is a designated third in line in the presidential succession.

They can't make change or do basic mathematical computations without a computer or calculator. They can't read apartment leases, balance their checkbooks, or read maps. They certainly have no understanding of capitalism, or free enterprise, and couldn't write a one-paragraph description of what constitutes profit.

{snip}

Would you think I'd finally gone off the deep end if I suggested to you that these government schools really don't exist for the purpose of truly educating your child in the first place? What if the people who developed our system of government-run, compulsory education had other goals in mind?

Allow me to suggest to you that our government schools were designed not to foster excellence through knowledge, but rather to insure that the American masses are relegated to an insipid, dull existence where they have barely enough knowledge and drive to sustain themselves in an anti-individualist society, but not enough of an education to understand how thoroughly our system of government is destructive of individual initiative and th quest for excellence.

Ominous thoughts....

I once taught at a private school in South Carolina. Our tuition was $95 a month per student (on the ten-payment plan). The local public school spent an average of $8,000 per student per annum.

Whenever a government-school student transferred to our school, there was a mandatory one-month period in which they were required to attend after-school care.

Why?

So that their reading skills could be brought up to the same grade level as the students in our school.

Is sending kids to government schools abuse? Probably not. But it is hard to argue with Boortz's points. And it is also hard to deny that keeping kids in government schools ultimately does more harm to their intellect and psyche than does living at home with the strictest of parents.

Since telling kids, "No, you can't have a car," or "You're grounded" is often characterized as "abuse."

Poster Mom

Below are two stories that recently appeared on page 9 of the June 2 edition of the Kinston Free Press, from AP wire stories. Given the increasing frequency of stories like these, it is long past time to start rethinking the presumption of the family court that women by default make the best caretakers of kids.

Mom Charged with Burning Disabled Child: Injuries Allegedly Inflicted with an Iron

FAYETTEVILLE, NC - A North Carolina mother, with a degree in social work, repeatedly burned her handicapped child with an iron after the young girl with physical and mental disabilities struggled to iron her dress on Easter Sunday, authorities said Monday.

Nia Michelle Brooks, 33, of Fayetteville, has been charged with aggravated assault on a handicapped person, felony child abuse and assault inflicting serious injury....




The Cumberland County Sheriff's Office said Brooks burned her daughter with an iron on both her arms, her left thigh, and her right leg, leaving scars that investigators said clearly came from an iron.

The 11-year old child told investigators that she was burned because she wasn't ironing her Easter dress the way her mother wanted....

Authorities... said [the child is nearly blind and] is mildly mentally retarded.

Runaway Sitter Now in N.C. Jail

RAEFORD, N.C. - A 17-year old babysitter accused of kidnapping a 9-month old child and heading to Alabama is due in a North Carolina court....

[Renesha Shante] Griner is charged with first-degree kidnapping and has a hearing scheduled Monday.

The sheriff says that the rising high school senior convinced a former boyfriend in Opp, Alabama, that the baby was his. Investigators say that the baby's real mother had left the child with the sitter last weekend.

Two observations on these stories:

1) One wonders how many times Nia Michelle Brooks, as a social worker, has presided over the confiscation of the children of others for offenses far less serious than that she inflicted upon her own child.

2) Ranesha Shante Griner demonstrates a couple of truths about the whole "women don't lie about sex" stupidity that is the foundation of the Feminist False Allegation Industry. First, women do lie about pretty much everything, even before they are aware that perjury is encouraged by feminist legal theory. Secondly, it appears that women are perfectly adept at lying, stealing, cheating, and even kidnapping for one central reason - it helps them get what they want. Today, they want a boyfriend, so they lie about being pregnant. Tomorrow, they are tired of the boyfriend, so they lie about "domestic violence."