Liberals rightly criticize America’s high rate of incarceration. Claiming to be the freest country on Earth, the United States incarcerates a larger percentage of its population than Iran or Syria. Over two million people, or nearly one in 50 adults, excluding the elderly, are incarcerated, the highest proportion in the world. Some seven million Americans, or 3.2 percent, are under penal supervision.

Many are likely to be innocent. In The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000), Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton document how due process protections are routinely ignored, grand juries are neutered, frivolous prosecutions abound, and jury trials are increasingly rare. More recently, in Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (2009), Harvey Silverglate shows how federal prosecutors are criminalizing more and more of the population. “Innocence projects” — projects of “a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing” — attest that people are railroaded into prison. As we will see, incarcerations without trial are now routine.

The U.S. prison population has risen dramatically in the last four decades. Ideologically, the rise is invariably attributed to “law-and-order” conservatives, who indeed seldom deny their own role (or indifference). In fact, few conservatives understand what they are defending.

Conservatives who rightly decry “judicial activism” in civil law are often blind to the connected perversion of criminal justice. While a politicized judiciary does free the guilty, it also criminalizes the -innocent.

But traditionalists upholding law and order were not an innovation of the 1970s. A newer and more militant force helped create the “carceral state.” In The Prison and the Gallows (2006), feminist scholar Marie Gottschalk points out that traditional conservatives were not the prime instigators, and blames “interest groups and social movements not usually associated with penal conservatism.” Yet she names only one: “the women’s movement.”

While America’s criminalization may have a number of contributing causes, it coincides precisely with the rise of organized feminism. “The women’s movement became a vanguard of conservative law-and-order politics,” Gottschalk writes. “Women’s organizations played a central role in the consolidation of this conservative victims’ rights movement that emerged in the 1970s.”

Gottschalk then twists her counterintuitive finding to condemn “conservatives” for the influx, portraying feminists as passive victims without responsibility. “Feminists prosecuting the war on rape and domestic violence” were somehow “captured and co-opted by the law-and-order agenda of politicians, state officials, and conservative groups.” Yet nothing indicates that feminists offered the slightest resistance to this political abduction.

Feminists, despite Gottschalk’s muted admission of guilt, did lead the charge toward wholesale incarceration. Feminist ideology has radicalized criminal justice and eroded centuries-old constitutional protections: New crimes have been created; old crimes have been redefined politically; the distinction between crime and private behavior has been erased; the presumption of innocence has been eliminated; false accusations go unpunished; patently innocent people are jailed without trial. “The new feminist jurisprudence hammers away at some of the most basic foundations of our criminal law system,” Michael Weiss and Cathy Young write in a Cato Institute paper. “Chief among them is the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.”

Feminists and other sexual radicals have even managed to influence the law to target conservative groups themselves. Racketeering statutes are marshaled to punish non-violent abortion demonstrators, and “hate crimes” laws attempt to silence critics of the homosexual agenda. Both are supported by “civil liberties” groups. And these are only the most notorious; there are others.

Feminists have been the most authoritarian pressure group throughout much of American history. “It is striking what an uncritical stance earlier women reformers took toward the state,” Gottschalk observes. “They have played central roles in … uncritically pushing for more enhanced policing powers.”

What Gottschalk is describing is feminism’s version of Stalinism: the process whereby radical movements commandeer the instruments of state repression as they trade ideological purity for power.

Path to Prison
The first politicized crime was rape. Suffragettes advocated castrating rapists. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who opposed it for everyone else, wanted rapists executed.

Aggressive feminist lobbying in the legislatures and courts since the 1970s redefined rape to make it indistinguishable from consensual sex. Over time, a woman no longer had to prove that she was forced to have non-consensual sex, but a man had to prove that sex was consensual (or prove that no sex had, in fact, happened). Non-consent was gradually eliminated as a definition, and consent became simply a mitigating factor for the defense. By 1989, the Washington State Supreme Court openly shifted the burden of proving consent to the defendant when it argued that the removal of legislative language requiring non-consent for rape “evidences legislative intent to shift the burden of proof on the issue to the defense” and approved this blatantly unconstitutional presumption of guilt. The result, write Weiss and Young, was not “to jail more violent rapists — lack of consent is easy enough for the state to prove in those cases — but to make it easier to send someone to jail for failing to get an explicit nod of consent from an apparently willing partner before engaging in sex.”

Men accused of rape today enjoy few safeguards. “People can be charged with virtually no evidence,” says Boston former sex-crimes prosecutor Rikki Klieman. “If a female comes in and says she was sexually assaulted, then on her word alone, with nothing else — and I mean nothing else, no investigation — the police will go out and arrest someone.”

Almost daily we see men released after decades in prison because DNA testing proves they were wrongly convicted. Yet the rape industry is so powerful that proof of innocence is no protection. “A defendant who can absolutely prove his innocence … can nonetheless still be convicted, based solely on the word of the accuser,” write Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson in Until Proven Innocent. In North Carolina, simply “naming the person accused” along with the time and place “will support a verdict of guilty.” Crime laboratories are notorious for falsifying results to obtain convictions.

The feminist dogma that “women never lie” goes largely unchallenged. “Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes,” says Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for zealous prosecutions. Purdue University sociologist Eugene Kanin found that “41% of the total disposed rape cases were officially declared false” during a nine-year period, “that is, by the complainant’s admission that no rape had occurred.” Kanin discovered three functions of false accusations: “providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention.” The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) adds that “false rape accusations also have been filed to extort money from celebrities, to gain sole custody of children in divorce cases, and even to escape military deployments to war zones.”

In the infamous Duke University lacrosse case, prosecutor Michael Nifong suppressed exculpating evidence and prosecuted men he knew to be innocent, according to Taylor and Johnson. Nifong himself was eventually disbarred, but he had willing accomplices among assistant prosecutors, police, crime lab technicians, judges, the bar, and the media. “Innocent men are arrested and even imprisoned as a result of bogus claims,” writes Linda Fairstein, former head of the sex-crimes unit for the Manhattan District Attorney, who estimates that half of all reports are unfounded.

Innocence projects are almost wholly occupied with rape cases (though they try to disguise this fact). Yet no systematic investigation has been undertaken by the media or civil libertarians into why so many innocent citizens are so easily incarcerated on fabricated allegations. The exoneration of the Duke students on obviously trumped-up charges triggered few investigations — and no official ones — to determine how widespread such rigged justice is against those unable to garner media attention.

The world of rape accusations displays features similar to other feminist gender crimes: media invective against the accused, government-paid “victim advocates” to secure convictions, intimidation of anyone who defends the accused. “Nobody dependent on the mainstream media for information about rape would have any idea how frequent false claims are,” write Taylor and Johnson. “Most journalists simply ignore evidence contradicting the feminist line.” What they observe of rape characterizes feminist justice generally: “calling a rape complainant ‘the victim’ — with no ‘alleged’.” “Unnamed complainants are labeled ‘victims’ even before legal proceedings determine that a crime has been committed,” according to CMR.

Rape hysteria, false accusations, and distorted scholarship are rampant on university campuses, which ostensibly exist to pursue truth. “If a woman did falsely accuse a man of rape,” opines one “women’s studies” graduate, “she may have had reasons to. Maybe she wasn’t raped, but he clearly violated her in some way.” This mentality pervades feminist jurisprudence, precluding innocence by obliterating the distinction between crime and hurt feelings. A Vassar College assistant dean believes false accusations foster men’s education: “I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration.… ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’”

Conservative critics of the Duke fiasco avoided feminism’s role but instead emphasized race — a minor feature of the case but a safer one to criticize. Little evidence indicates that white people are being systematically incarcerated on fabricated accusations of non-existent crimes against blacks. This is precisely what is happening to men, both white and black, accused of rape and other “gender” crimes that feminists have turned into a political agenda.

The Kobe Bryant case demonstrates that a black man accused by a white woman is also vulnerable. Historically, this was the more common pattern. Our race-conscious society is conditioned to remember lynching as a racial atrocity, forgetting that the lynched were usually black men accused by white women. Feminist scholars spin this as “the dominant white male ideology behind lynching ... that white womanhood was in need of protection against black men,” suggesting fantastically that white “patriarchy” used rape accusations to break up a progressive political romance developing between black men and white women. With false rape accusations, the races have changed, but the sexes have remained constant.

Violent Lies
“Domestic violence” is an even more purely political crime. “The battered-women’s movement turned out to be even more vulnerable to being co-opted by the state and conservative penal forces,” writes Gottschalk, again with contortion. Domestic violence groups are uniformly feminist, not “conservative,” though here too conservatives have enabled feminists to exchange principles for power.

Like rape, domestic “violence” is defined so loosely that it need not be violent. The U.S. Justice Department definition includes “extreme jealousy and possessiveness” and “name calling and constant criticizing.” For such “crimes” men are jailed with no trial. In fact, the very category of “domestic” violence was developed largely to circumvent due process requirements of conventional assault statutes. A study published in Criminology and Public Policy found that no one accused of domestic violence could be found innocent, since every arrestee received punishment.

Here, too, false accusations are rewarded. “Women lie every day,” attests Ottawa Judge Dianne Nicholas. “Every day women in court say, ‘I made it up. I’m lying. It didn’t happen’ — and they’re not charged.” Amazingly, bar associations sponsor seminars instructing women how to fabricate accusations. Thomas Kiernan, writing in the New Jersey Law Journal, expressed his astonishment at “the number of women attending the seminars who smugly — indeed boastfully — announced that they had already sworn out false or grossly exaggerated domestic violence complaints against their hapless husbands, and that the device worked!” He added, “The lawyer-lecturers invariably congratulated the self-confessed miscreants.”

Domestic violence has become “a backwater of tautological pseudo-theory,” write Donald Dutton and Kenneth Corvo in Aggression and Violent Behavior. “No other area of established social welfare, criminal justice, public health, or behavioral intervention has such weak evidence in support of mandated practice.” Scholars and practitioners have repeatedly documented how “allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage” in custody cases and “become part of the gamesmanship of divorce.” Domestic abuse has become “an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice,” according to the Rutgers Law Review.

Restraining orders removing men from their homes and children are summarily issued without any evidence. Due process protections are so routinely ignored that, the New Jersey Law Journal reports, one judge told his colleagues, “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating.” Attorney David Heleniak calls New Jersey’s statute “a due process fiasco” in the Rutgers Law Review. New Jersey court literature openly acknowledges that due process is ignored because it “perpetuates the cycle of power and control whereby the [alleged?] perpetrator remains the one with the power and the [alleged?] victim remains powerless.” Omitting “alleged” is standard even in statutes, where, the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports, “the mere allegation of domestic abuse … may shift the burden of proof to the defendant.”

Special “integrated domestic violence courts” presume guilt and then, says New York’s openly feminist chief judge, “make batterers and abusers take responsibility for their actions.” They can seize property, including homes, without the accused being convicted or even formally charged or present to defend himself. Lawyer Walter Fox describes these courts as “pre-fascist”: “Domestic violence courts … are designed to get around the protections of the criminal code. The burden of proof is reduced or removed, and there’s no presumption of innocence.”

Forced confessions are widespread. Pennsylvania men are incarcerated unless they sign forms stating, “I have physically and emotionally battered my partner.” The man must then describe the violence, even if he insists he committed none. “I am responsible for the violence I used,” the forms declare. “My behavior was not provoked.”

Child-support Chokehold
Equally feminist is the child-support machinery, whereby millions have their family finances plundered and their lives placed under penal supervision without having committed any legal infraction. Once they have nothing left to loot, they too are incarcerated without trial.

Contrary to government propaganda (and Common Law tradition), child support today has little to do with fathers abandoning their children, deserting their marriages, or even agreeing to a divorce. It is automatically assessed on all non-custodial parents, even those involuntarily divorced without grounds (“no-fault”). It is an entitlement for all divorcing mothers, regardless of their actions, and coerced from fathers, regardless of their fidelity. The “deadbeat dad” is far less likely to be a man who abandoned the offspring he callously sired than to be a loving father who has been, as attorney Jed Abraham writes in From Courtship to Courtroom, “forced to finance the filching of his own children.”

Federalized enforcement was rationalized to reimburse taxpayers for welfare. Under feminist pressure, taxpayers instead subsidize middle-class divorce, through federal payments to states based on the amount of child support they collect. By profiting off child support at federal taxpayer expense, state governments have a financial incentive to encourage as many single-mother homes as possible. They, in turn, encourage divorce with a guaranteed, tax-free windfall to any divorcing mother.

While child support (like divorce itself) is awarded ostensibly without reference to “fault,” nonpayment brings swift and severe punishments. “The advocates of ever-more-aggressive measures for collecting child support,” writes Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University, “have moved us a dangerous step closer to a police state.” Abraham calls the machinery “Orwellian”: “The government commands … a veritable gulag, complete with sophisticated surveillance and compliance capabilities such as computer-based tracing, license revocation, asset confiscation, and incarceration.”

Here, too, “the burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Like Kafka’s Joseph K., the “defendant” may not even know the charge against him, “if the court does not explicitly clarify the charge facing the [allegedly?] delinquent parent,” says NCSL. Further, “not all child support contempt proceedings classified as criminal are entitled to a jury trial,” and “even indigent obligors are not necessarily entitled to a lawyer.” Thus defendants must prove their innocence against unspecified accusations, without counsel, and without a jury.

Assembly-line hearings can last 30 seconds to two minutes, during which parents are sentenced to months or years in prison. Many receive no hearing but are accused in an “expedited judicial process” before a black-robed lawyer known as a “judge surrogate.” Because these officials require no legislative confirmation, they are not accountable to citizens or their representatives. Unlike true judges, they may lobby to create the same laws they adjudicate, violating the separation of powers. Often they are political activists in robes. One surrogate judge, reports the Telegraph of Hudson, New Hampshire, simultaneously worked “as a radical feminist lobbying on proposed legislation” dealing with child support.

Though governments sensationalize “roundups” of alleged “deadbeat dads,” who are jailed for months and even years without trial, no government information whatever is available on incarcerations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is utterly silent on child-support incarcerations. Rebecca May of the Center for Family Policy and Practice found “ample testimony by low-income non-custodial parents of spending time in jail for the nonpayment of child support.” Yet she could find no documentation of their incarceration. Government literature “yields so little information on it that one might be led to believe that arrests were used rarely if at all. While May personally witnessed fathers sentenced in St. Louis, “We could find no explicit documentation of arrests in St. Louis.” In Illinois, “We observed courtrooms in which fathers appeared before the judge who were serving jail sentences for nonpayment, but little information was available on arrests in Illinois.”

We know the arrests are extensive. To relieve jail overcrowding in Georgia, a sheriff and judge proposed creating detention camps specifically for “deadbeat dads.” The Pittsburgh City Planning Commission has considered a proposal “to convert a former chemical processing plant ... into a detention center” for “deadbeat dads.”

Rendered permanently in debt by incarceration, fathers are farmed out to trash companies and similar concerns, where they work 14-16 hour days with their earnings confiscated.

More Malicious Mayhem
Other incarcerations are also attributable to feminism. The vast preponderance of actual violent crime and substance abuse proceeds from single-parent homes and fatherless children more than any other factor, far surpassing race and poverty. The explosion of single parenthood is usually and resignedly blamed on paternal abandonment, with the only remedy being ever-more draconian but ineffective child-support “crackdowns.” Yet no evidence indicates that the proliferation of single-parent homes results from absconding fathers. If instead we accept that single motherhood is precisely what feminists say it is — the deliberate choice of their sexual revolution — it is then apparent that sexual liberation lies behind not only these newfangled sexual crimes, but also the larger trend of actual crime and incarceration. Feminism is driving both the criminalization of the innocent and the criminality of the guilty.

We will continue to fight a losing battle against crime, incarceration, and expansive government power until we confront the sexual ideology that is driving not only family breakdown and the ensuing social anomie, but the criminalization of the male population. Ever-more-repressive penal measures will only further erode freedom. Under a leftist regime, conservatives must rethink their approach to crime and punishment and their unwitting collusion with America’s homegrown Stalinists.

Stephen Baskerville is associate professor of government at Patrick Henry College and author of Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (56)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

Jhan said:

divorcing women - a plague of thieves and slanderers accusations of violence and/or sexual crime accusations are routine when a woman commences divorce proceedings against her husband, there has to be a reason for the restraining order which women seek to obtain in order to win their cause. there is no legal remedy for men to come out from under these accusations, the "law enforcement" authorities always take the woman's side in these matters.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 07, 2010
Votes: +38

Amadeus8888 said:

... Brilliant piece. It's so true. An added benefit of the war on the family is the expansion of the state - and the statists know it. A friend of mine had an argument with his girl friend. Somebody heard the raised voices and called the police. He was promptly taken to jail, even though his girl friend said it was just an argument, etc etc. and asked them NOT to arrest him. The ensuing fiasco ended up costing thousands, not to mention the emotional distress. Some feminist quotes to chew on (Don't forget, most of the funding for this lunacy comes from taxpayers!): "The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson "Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson "I propose that the phenomenon of love is the psychological pivot in the persecution of women." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson in 'Radical Feminism and Love' "The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas) "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, prominent member of NOW "If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." --Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 07, 2010
Votes: +29

Amadeus8888 said:

... "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin "The most merciful thing a family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger - founder of planned parenthood "All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.) "The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female. "I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor. "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." Margaret Sanger "I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan "All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catherine MacKinnon “Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” - Catharine A. MacKinnon "To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo." -- Valerie Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM Manifesto (SCUM stands for Society for Cutting Up Men) "Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex." -- Valerie Solanas

report abuse vote down vote up

January 07, 2010
Votes: +22

Paul said:

	... FROM WELFARE STATE TO POLICE STATE http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=668
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 07, 2010
Votes: +5

Misogyny, Lowly rated comment [Show]

kowalski said:

	Diary of a former communist AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A FORMER STALINIST Please share this link with those who might be interested. http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/mybook2.html P.S. The book is waiting for a reviewer
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 07, 2010
Votes: +2

..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

Florida Warren said:

	How's that, MeJane? You mean feminism DIDN'T cause toxic waste?
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 08, 2010
Votes: -4

Poppi Dee said:

	I posted it on a Voting site, go click!! The major problem with this country is the welfare police state and the lack of men willing to fight back TOGETHER!
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010 | url
Votes: +18

Paul Clements said:

	The Difference Dr. Baskerville is right on the money! He speaks the truth with eloquence and impeccable logic. The detractors, both male and female, offer no truth or logic with which to counter his statments. Instead, they shoot the messenger with villifying rhetoric. That's the difference.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010
Votes: +23

Peter Kay said:

Always the Mysogny 'Defence' I have been through much of what is described in this article (but avoided incarceration because I had overwhelming evidence). As a former law student and now Federal bureaucrat I am disturbed to see how the normal protections of the law have been so eroded under the guise of ‘women’s rights’. What disturbs me more is that anytime anyone attempts to raise the alarm the 'misogynist' label is thrown out as a last line of defence to defend the indefensible. Man or woman, liars are liars and the destruction they cause is immeasurable. Whether it is one woman lying for tactical family law and child support reasons or whether it is a feminised and collectivised academia and/or legal-political (and media) ‘misandry machinery’, the end result is the same. I worry less about global warming than I do about institutionalised deceptions and false attacks that rebut criticism and exposure by falsely crying ‘misogyny’.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010
Votes: +26

Mark said:

... What an excellent piece! I've never seen feminist totalitarianism deconstructed so effectively. No surprise that the manhating toolbags who are personally attacking you here have absolutely no rational response to it. There truly is such a thing as right vs wrong and good vs evil, and the feminist/Stalinist haters are on the wrong side of history. After we have returned this country to normalcy we will hang our heads in shame that we ever allowed our society of liberty to deteriorate to this point.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010
Votes: +22

MensDefense said:

Another excellent article by Steve Baskerville I highly recommend Steve’s book Taken Into Custody for a more in depth understanding of how all this plays into making work for attorneys and the divorce industry. The most outrageous thing I heard this week was a Missouri attorney and recent judicial candidate suggest the Missouri Legislature only thinks it makes the law, but in fact the Missouri Judicial Branch including the integrated MO Bar interprets those laws as it pleases and controls access to the courts as well. Apparently, statute law and the MO constitution be d**ned. If it makes money for trial lawyers, the MO courts support and uphold it. The MO courts follow statute law and their own rules only when it proves beneficial to trial attorneys. MO Law is by a judge playing “Humpty Dumpty.” "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I chose it to mean - neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all." (Lewis Carroll) Save the Males: www.mensdefense.org

report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010 | url
Votes: +11

C Maloney said:

... I have often thought that traditional societies in the Near East and South and East Asia in which gender roles were more separated, knew some things that we don't want to know today. I am not negating the extreme abuse of women that sometimes does occur there, but I refer to the overall texture of society in which the innate gender differences can play out. In those societies it has been implicitly acknowledged that men are more fair, lie less, and scheme less in personal relatinships than women do.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010
Votes: +12

Andrew_Ess said:

	When will we understand that Americans are owned for productivity not procreation. With the advent of a girls only school in Colorado, I consider the post by Mr C Molaney very relevant and appropriate, we now return back to the dark ages.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010 | url
Votes: +6

Jim Untershine said:

Baskerville sees the prison planet Baskerville has the ability to always see the forest despite the preponderance trees. The Prison Complex has many industries that allow their business to flourish. Radical Feminism has proven to be a means to the end of freedom in America. The Globalist agenda will best be served by generating arrest warrants for all males - with hopes of felony convictions that will result in the loss of their right to vote and their right to bear arms. With all males rendered unable to defend their families, the New World Order will be free to thin the American herd. Either fight the New World Order or choose between slavery or prison.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010 | url
Votes: +16

Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director, DADS said:

Family courts = Kangaroo courts where the decision is already made for you I became good at the Family Court game. I owed over $30,000 in child support arrearages, had 5 warrants out for my arrest and beat every one of them. I filed federal petitions for removal, federal bankruptcy petitions (stops the enforcement, returns the driver's license and eliminates the warrant; does not stop support from accruing though), and petitions for writs of habeas corpus (in NJ your sent to the probation dept. to pay child support; I claimed I was not on probation because there was no charge, arraignment, trial, conviction or sentence. Federal judges liked my idea and kept me out of jail with these arguments by delaying rulings on these issues for upwards of a year). I thumbed my nose at the court's warrants and taunted them with letters to the editors in the local papers. I even was published in the main local northern NJ paper for suing the sheriff's dept. for $50 Million for false arrest, false imprisonment and taking my children from me without a court order (cited an 11th Cir. US Ct. of Appeals case that was identical to mine--Hufford v. Rodgers, 912 F.2d 1338 (11th Cir. 1990)where sheriffs were sued (and they lost; had to pay over $125,000) for taking child from father on false allegations without any warrant or court order). It became a game with me. I drove the courts and child support enforcement people nuts with constant publicity attacks and constant correspondence to them. I sued anyone and everyone who threatened me in either state court or federal court. They finally left me alone when it became evident I would fight them to the death.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010 | url
Votes: +26

Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director, DADS said:

... If we cannot organize to get proper equal custody laws, or mitigating domestic violence laws to allow due process, or stopping child support imprisonment for debt, my solution to the problem would be based on the current economic debacle caused by our government: Because of the current economic debacle caused by government and creating child support nightmare scenarios for divorced dads who lose their jobs because of government-created problems, my thoughts are that we: (1) eliminate the Bradley Amendment completely, (2) allow for bankruptcy of child support, (3) allow for reporting on how child support is spent by invoking or copying Social Security forms SSA-6230 & 6233 (since child support enforcement emanates out of the Social Security laws), and (4) taxing child support at the federal and state level. We can argue that taxpayers are being deprived of this additional funding source, which would be in the billions and tens of billions.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010 | url
Votes: +14

Stephen Baker said:

You Must Fight! I was sued continuously for five years. It was my second attorney that told me what I needed to hear--(Fist beating on his desk) "If you do not get this attitude right here they are going to walk on you!" I went home, thought about it, and started raising as much hell as I could conceive. I was a constant irritator to everyone involved. I shoved every single paper down their throats that listed me as a non-custodial parent (I am not) I publicly accused them of libel (which they committed) I ridiculed their capacity for repeatedly doing the same stupid actions. I exposed the guilty-till-proven-innocent machinery. I wrote letters to the editor. I fought like a crazy man. I am amazed that I was never arrested for the many outlanding acts I commited in the Attorey General's office. I screamed AT them every single time I had the slightest justification. I filed seven complaints against them. In the end I was interrogated (had a brutal verbal confrontation lasting hours) in a sound and video studio. I secretly made recordings of every meeting. The result was now I have an attorney at the AG WHO IS ON MY SIDE AND FOUGHT FOR ME IN COURT. This support is not because I was any more innocent than any other man who comes throught their door. It was because I made it clear they were going to get nothing but eternal fighting from me. I was a constant problem until I got the basic civil rights guaranteed all Americans. Folks, YOU MUST FIGHT! Nothing but brutality of attitude will make a difference. These people are trying to destroy you--DESTROY THEM!

report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010
Votes: +19

ryan said:

	... stuff like this is why im apart of the mens movement. (if feminism never existed the mens movement wouldnt have to either)
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010
Votes: +12

Maurice Mok said:

	feminist gulag Here in Australia, we changed Family Law and CS laws, for the better. Many campaigners thought that was the end of it. Now we have the Feminist machine, judiciary and government in full swing to overturn the gains we made. This is a war of attrition, so get organized, and make sure you prepare your own children against the Feminist gulag, Thanks Stephen for the Truth.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010
Votes: +9

Tyrone said:

Do Unto Others, As ......... Although I have bitterly suffered this scenario all of my adult and child life; I would kindly like to say that this is not a sexist issue. This is a family issue. There are just as many women (the father's family of women) and children that have been hurt and alienated as men. We people of all backgrounds who believe and cherish the traditional family need to stand up and demand that this terror be disrupted, dismantled, and destroyed from the face of the earth, forever. A child to me is the most precious, and holiest of gifts bestowed to men, to and through women, from God. They are the representatives of the love that God, man, woman, and child should have for each other. Simply, they are sent here to be loved, cared for, protected, and directed. They are not sent here to become the instrument of finance for the irresponsible, the device of manipulators, Or, to be the pay checks for a bureaucracy and government that is out of check and balance. We all have a stake in this, we all share some responsibility in this, It should not be a winner take all affair. Because when one of us lose, we all lose. Love thy neighbor.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010
Votes: +1

Paul said:

	... It is said that The Truth Will Set You Free. I only wish this where so. All of what is written above is correct but knowing this does not mean it will change. I very much fear there is wort to come and only chaos can save us.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 10, 2010
Votes: +5

George Piskor said:

VP-Policy & Planning, CEPC Absolutely stunning and brilliant! An expose of the confluence of institutional self-interests with the militant feminism wing. However, it’s important to note the difference between majority equality feminists (of both genders) and the subversive militant feminists undermining society for their own benefit. At the end of the day, it will not be men alone who win back democracy; but rather, it will be both men and women united - as has ever been the case- against extreme statism (aka tyranny). While Stephen implies “radical feminism” in his use of the shortened form “feminism”, I often wonder if we are not inadvertently alienating many supporters by not making that distinction unmistakably clear. Ultimately, these are not gender wars but political wars of Individualism vs Statism with radical feminists being merely the most recent megalomaniac fringe to strut upon the stage of history, being no different in their objectives from any other anarchists or terrorists, differentiated only by technique- terrorists plant physical bombs, while modern anarchists plant political and legislative bombs. Both are designed to subordinate a society to “elitist” control by the warped du jour. The first step in winning a war is to identify your enemy. Perhaps it’s time to separate the wolves in sheep’s clothing from the real sheep. Perhaps it’s time to help the majority of women- themselves dispossessed by militant feminism- to return feminism to its equality feminist roots, and to collectively single out the radical feminists poseurs as the anarchists they truly are.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 10, 2010
Votes: +4

John Light said:

Mysogyny? I've seen the 'M'-word (mysogyny) more than once here, I think. Apparently it seems to be some kind of a crime these days to express mysogynistic ideas, or even to think them! Why? We have every right to detest women if we feel that they have made themselves detestable, and we have every right to say so. On what grounds do women and their vapid male supporters deem themselves above criticism and beyond rejection? Just who the hell do these sanctimonious, opinionated, deluded fascists think they are?

report abuse vote down vote up

January 10, 2010
Votes: +8

Nicholas Tomlin said:

The rise of Islam in America My thanks to Mr Baskerville, a truly splendid description of a nation in deep trouble, cutting off its nose to spite its face! One of the respondents here points to the culture of Asia with regard to 'females', as opposed to women. Also pointed out was the business of lying and scheming in a relationship, females are better at it and in those cultures are punished accordingly, seemingly more harshly than males, but here I speak of societies that are thousands of years old, ours are infantile, as are our laws, no matter how egalitarian we think them. I've proposed that Islam is on the rise for a good reason before - it is more kind to men than are Western laws, maybe Allah cares more for men than does God. Knowing this, more men will convert to Islam, or the christian race will eliminate itself with these obnoxious feminist laws, then where will the rights of females stand? Think about it 'girls', the men you villify now will eventually turn on you.. while you pay for them to be locked up with your taxation dollars.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 10, 2010
Votes: +3

Mike Murphy said:

Victim Feminism and my new Patriarch The first retort a feminist - male and female - will make when reading something decrying or criticizing the Marxist radfem ideology of victimization, who have created the chaos in families, is to call the writer names. They use shaming tactics that once actually worked like calling the person a misogynist without first understanding the premise of the article. They do it because they are narcissists who think radical feminism represents all women. it does not. It represents a small but vocal minority of very bitter females who are ideologically driven. They have this mysterious and evil patriarchy to deal who apparently victimizes them at every turn, making them it would appear, children in adult bodies, requiring the government to protect them (their new daddy) and along with that the entitlements they think they deserve. There are many male sycophants who have been co-opted into the movement who are blind to the damage being done to the ultimate victims - our children. Mr. Baskerville has incisively identified and pilloried those who are deserving of isolation and marginalization into the fringes of the netherworld they inhabit so they can ruminate on their victimhood amongst themselves without the nanny state being their new patriarch. Someday they may learn to stand on their own two feet without any ones help. That will be the day they graduate from being children to adults.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 10, 2010 | url
Votes: +8

Where's the statistics?, Lowly rated comment [Show]

MensDefense said:

Response to Nicholas Tomlin Steve wrote another excellent article entitled The Politics of Family Destruction which all should read that ties the effects of radical feminism to the destruction of Western civilization. I have often stated that the strongest civilizing force known is a man’s desire to protect his wife and children and when destroyed, men remain boys. It could be argued, that a patriarchy is a necessary element of civilization. No matriarchal society has ever survived or flourished. Men and women are equally necessary compliments, not competitors, in civilized society. Nothing in any of the world’s great religions suggest otherwise. “Unhappily, feminism is leading to the destruction of the human project--that is, the Herculean effort of humankind since the Neanderthals to reproduce its social structures and its children. It will take a few more generations, but civilization is probably doomed as a result of the feminist demonization of masculinity, of motherhood, and of the family. Europe will be finished in 50 years and America in a little more.” - David D. Gilmore, Cultural Anthropologist UNY, Stonybrook.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010 | url
Votes: +9

SgtMom said:

... George Piskor said ""The first step in winning a war is to identify your enemy. Perhaps it’s time to separate the wolves in sheep’s clothing from the real sheep. Perhaps it’s time to help the majority of women- themselves dispossessed by militant feminism- to return feminism to its equality feminist roots, and to collectively single out the radical feminists poseurs as the anarchists they truly are."" --------------------------------------- Thank you, George. As a mother of both genders, I thank you. As a woman who enlisted and served during the Viet Nam 'conflict', I thought I was doing my part to share the burden with my brothers, and hoped to make the world a better place for my daughter. Instead I have watched in horror as my innocent son went to prison on the say so of a woman *I* angered - the Constitutional rights I swore to uphold negated in the name of "saving the children". I've seen my nephews lives ripped apart by divorce, paying for children they can never see. My youngest son is struggling to obtain a college degree, with no gender or racial advantages to help, and the constant berating of his own race and gender a large part of his 'education'. My father supported women's rights so his daughters would have a better life - but it has come at a terrible price for his grandsons. I must protest what is currently happening to my sons - but must it mean a return to injustice for my daughter?

report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010
Votes: +6

Walter Fields said:

Our NOW more compassionate MAFIA Welcome to our NOW more enlightened MAFIA --> Modern Alienating Fematicals/Fascist In Association (and in America too!) Who've championed the Use, Use and misuse, Use and misuse to abuse, Of Women And the Men and Children who love them. With respect to fundamental tenants of our heritage and present guardianship, NOW nothing but False Store front before Ghost Towns of apathy. No wonder the Washington State Bar Association when under leadership of certain of our “entrusted” counseled to “ignore of sworn oaths and obligations.” I NOW wonder why, . . . NOT! Certainly, it's enough to make one sick. - just adad

report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010
Votes: +0

SgtMom said:

Stats and more state errant said: Where's the statistics? Before I buy the very long thesis you've written, where are your statistics? Exactly how many men are currently incarcerated for not paying child support, domestic violence, and rape? How many of those men are in prison because they are innocent? If they're not innocent, how many are in there because of feminist dogma instead of the other -isms ---------------------------------------------------------------- Errant - The exaulted numbers keepers simply don't keep numbers on those topics. They. Just. Don't. They don't keep stats of false rape accusations, either. When you are told "Only 2% of rape accusation are false", you are either a believer or a rapist apologist, because there arent' any studies or empiric evidence to prove those numbers, either. And for the same reason. I'm posting this from an attorney's website - if you have proof or evidence he is incorrect or lying, I invite you to make a pile of money suing him. The Elimination of Constitutional Rights Prosecutors and the child saving industry have convinced the legislature that merely creating hysteria is not enough to insure conviction for those accused. In addition, rights originally created in our constitution to protect the criminal defendants must be eliminated. To read the rest: www.paulstuckle.com

report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010
Votes: +5

SgtMom said:

... The Rules to Have Changed to Secure Convictions All across our nation, state legislatures have supported child advocacy special interest groups. The following illustrates how constitutional rights have been taken away in child sexual assault trials: No Right to Confront Your Accuser: Criminal law codes have been rewritten to where in many cases, the child accuser does not have to appear in court and face the accused. Instead, the state can offer the child’s testimony through a video tape made by agents of the prosecution. “Hearsay Evidence”: Hearsay is defined as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” (Tex. Rules. Evid. 803 (2)). In Layman’s terms, “Hearsay” evidence is when a witness testifies about something they do not personally know, but were told by someone else. Hearsay is considered unreliable and is normally inadmissible as evidence against an accused. In child abuse cases however, hearsay evidence is admitted as evidence of guilt. A so called “outcry” witness can testify as to what a child supposedly said to them regarding the alleged abuse.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010
Votes: +5

SgtMom said:

... Cont...“Syndrome Evidence” Is Admissible Against the Accused: In most states, the prosecution can have an expert witness testify that the child is suffering from “Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome”(CSAAS). This psychological “mumble jumble” is an unscientific theory of supposed traits of abused children. The psychologist who came up with this syndrome many years ago has since indicated that this theory is not reliable evidence in a court of law. Prosecutors do not care! This junk science makes its appearance in courtrooms across the country daily. With Syndrome Evidence, the State Replaces Its Lack of Real Proof with Speculation. CSAAS theorizes that because an alleged victim is supposedly demonstrating certain behavioral patterns that he/she must have actually been abused. Unfortunately, a big problem with this and other syndromes is that the character traits offered to show abuse are also common for non-abused children. If the child has been crying, he/she must have been abused. If the child has nightmares, he/she must have been abused. If the child is withdrawn, he/she must have been abused. If the child is outgoing, he/she must have been abused. If the child is happy around the accused, its because the child enjoyed the abuse. The list of factors goes on forever. But to a jury, when an expert witness is connecting typical childhood behavior with indicators of abuse, the testimony is extremely damaging to the falsely accused.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010
Votes: +5

SgtMom said:

... Cont... Convictions Without Physical Evidence: Our prisons are full of persons who have been convicted of child molestation without any physical evidence ever introduced against them at trial. In other words, the typical evidence in which the state offers to convict a defendant, such as body fluids, blood, semen, hair, DNA, are not introduced at trial to link the accused to a crime. Medical nurses and employees whose livelihoods depend upon their contracts with child advocacy centers will give opinions that a child was abused. Failure to give the right opinion will mean the contract is not renewed. These opinions from medical “experts” will say the findings are “consistent with” sexual abuse. Of course, “consistent with” is not a true medical diagnosis. This testimony, as demonstrated by a competent defense attorney will reveal the findings given as “consistent with abuse” are just as “inconsistent with abuse”. Prosecutors Secure Convictions by Manipulating the Juries’ Fear of Releasing a Child Molester Back Into the Community. Instead of physical and medical evidence, the falsely accused are convicted upon theories, inferences, and speculation. Prosecutors secure convictions by manipulating the juries fear of releasing a child molester back into the community. This fear will be combined with hearsay, expert witness “syndrome evidence”, misleading medical testimony, and the biased opinions of child advocacy investigators. To support this speculation, a biased child protective services caseworker will produce a video taped interview of the child. This biased interviewer will use leading, suggestive, and coached questions to easily obtain an “admission” from a child. Many times the child does not make a statement that abuse occurred, but merely agrees with the adult authority figure who informs the child of the abuse. After an outcry, it is easy to find witnesses who can place the accused in circumstances in which he was alone with the alleged victim.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010
Votes: +5

social services suck said:

... That article is right on! I grew up in a lesbian/feminazi household & now they have custody of my 3 children, thanks to a lesbian caseworker and judge. Oh yea, there was absolutely NO ABUSE. Just very flimsy neglect charges. The OBAMANATION is putting butchdykes in positions of power, such as Janet Napolitiano, who says AMERICANS are the terrorists, not the muslims and Jane Velez-Mitchell's supposed 'war on women'. YUP this is where we're headed...to hell.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 12, 2010
Votes: +6

SCHNORCHEL said:

Connection to Illuminism The feminist movement is an Illuminist part of the World Conspiracy. From the book, Freedom on the Altar, the UN's Crusade Against God and Family (ISBN 0-9645679-0-3), Chapter 4, titled Empowerment or Enslavement?, page 91, Illuminist Baron Bassus is quoted as stating in 1787: There is no way of influencing men so powerfully as by means of women. These should, therefore, be our chief study. We should insinuate ourselves into their good opinion, give them hints of emancipation for the tyranny of public opinion, and of standing up for themselves; it will be an immense relief to their enslaved minds to be feed from any one bond of restraint, and it will fire them the more, and cause them to work for us with zeal. And, what have we today? UNESCO Gender Mainstreaming, backed by the intentional breakup of families by governments. This should be considered as being above and behind the symptoms described by Mr. Baskerville.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 14, 2010
Votes: +4

social services suck said:

	... It's also a FACT that most child abuse is done by the mother's boyfriend or by the mother herself than the biological father. In my case it was both my parents girlfriends that messed me up 4 life!
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 15, 2010
Votes: +3

Anonimos said:

	falserapesociety.blogspot.com We discuss these issues every day at http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 15, 2010
Votes: +3

Mississauga Dad said:

Beware of George Piskor Beware of things written by George Piskor and his seeming support of men's and Fathers' rights. He is really a wolf in sheep's clothing. He, in reality, supports feminism and believes that all of the issues that are currently destroying men and fathers are just the work of a very few radicals that do not have the support of the feminist community as a whole and that they are not the result of a systemic effort by feminists and all of their left wing apologists. He believes that all we have to do is 'talk' to the feminists and that our logic and heartfelt pleas will convince them to change everything for the better. Piskor is the Neville Chamberlain of the Men's and Fathers' Rights movement. Beware.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 15, 2010
Votes: +2

SgtMom said:

... Nicholas Tomlin said: The rise of Islam in America I've proposed that Islam is on the rise for a good reason before - it is more kind to men than are Western laws, maybe Allah cares more for men than does God. Knowing this, more men will convert to Islam, or the christian race will eliminate itself with these obnoxious feminist laws, then where will the rights of females stand? Think about it 'girls', the men you villify now will eventually turn on you.. while you pay for them to be locked up with your taxation dollars. ---------------------------------------------------------- That could explain the rise in Mormonism, as well.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 16, 2010
Votes: +1

SingleDad said:

Most all women I know we're not supposed to say that nearly all women in the US are complicit in this. Well that is not true. Look at SGT Moms post. While she is certainly a self identified mens rights activist she can't bring herself to say that men need to be treated better without adding....as long as the girls don't suffer. Well, as they are now superior in every ascpect of life from elementary school, high school, college, marriage, divorce, income (yes women make and keep more money than men). I suppose that SGT Mom expects to keep those privalages for her dauters, screw her sons. This is not to put down SGT Mom but here is proof of my assertion. Like all good Germans, the women of the west are all complicit. In my 20 years as a MRA I have only ever seen one woman writer that IMO truley is interested in equality and justice. I don't like it that this is what I percieve to be the case but, should we ignore the obvious, we will continue down this road, and god save our sons.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 20, 2010
Votes: +4

Uno Hu said:

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE People go on and on about the inequity and injustice of it all, and it is indeed unjust. However . . . As of right now, no female has a constitutional or contract right to your semen; there are condoms available for those of indeterminate nature. Otherwise, get a vasectomy, then put it where you want to, when you want to, within limits of consent. And if child support is unfair/unreasonable just don't pay it. That will not be "free" but it will maintain your self-respect and sanity, and they can't lock ALL of us up.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 20, 2010
Votes: +0

Jack Owens said:

IMBRA law dispenses with contact/communication having to have even been committed You forgot to mention the IMBRA law which forces US males to be background checked before they can communicate with a foreign woman online - based on false theories, not backed by statistics and backed by statistically insignificant anecdotes, that men who date foreign women are controlling and violent. This is serious before the fact punishment for totally innocent men.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 21, 2010
Votes: +3

H. Kirk Rainer said:

Thanks to Stephen Baskerville and others... I've read both Stephen's Taken into Custody and The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Further, I have experienced much of both civil and criminal court conduct in my effort to remain a father. At this time, I am writing a book of my story.... What I've learned (and witnessed) is the abuse of authority whereby the courts can (and do) deny a parent of his posiition with no justification or legitimate cause...while imputing him with the obligation to support the children he has lost. Father Facts (published by National Fatherhood Initiative) offers current and detailed statistics on the consequences of fatherless and parentless children; but even with such data, the courts (and law) continue to contribute by rewarding those who dissolve marriage and dismember families. Yes, the encourage and enable divorce! Mr. Baskerville and others have sounded the alarm (with in depth analysis) of this national crisis -- though no political party will touch it as an issue. Marriage (as an institution) has suffered by No-fault or Unilateral divorce; and though the divorce rate may have taken a recent turn downward, so too has marriage per capita. The basic sense is the family has long under assault by a legal system that targets fathers and punishes children. Let us not forget that the family is the fabric of a free society.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 21, 2010 | url
Votes: +4

SgtMom said:

... SingleDad - I have to laugh out loud at your post. My daughter always whines "HE'S your Favorite!!!" I'm sure she'll be surprised to find out I'm now in favor of her brother being "screwed". I am not 'self-identified' as a men's rights activist any more than I am a woman's rights activist. I am a self-identified Constitutionalist. No more and no less. And no. I do not want my daughter relegated to the back of the classroom so her brother can take her place. I want BOTH my kids - all three of them, actually, to pursue this life to the best of their abilities irregardless of their gender. I would hope you'd want the same for YOUR daughters, as well as your sons, SingleDad. I know MY father did.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 22, 2010
Votes: +1

Robert said:

True Justice SgtMom said: ... George Piskor said ""The first step in winning a war is to identify your enemy. Perhaps it’s time to separate the wolves in sheep’s clothing from the real sheep. Perhaps it’s time to help the majority of women- themselves dispossessed by militant feminism- to return feminism to its equality feminist roots, and to collectively single out the radical feminists poseurs as the anarchists they truly are."" --------------------------------------- Thank you, George. As a mother of both genders, I thank you. As a woman who enlisted and served during the Viet Nam 'conflict', I thought I was doing my part to share the burden with my brothers, and hoped to make the world a better place for my daughter. Instead I have watched in horror as my innocent son went to prison on the say so of a woman *I* angered - the Constitutional rights I swore to uphold negated in the name of "saving the children". I've seen my nephews lives ripped apart by divorce, paying for children they can never see. My youngest son is struggling to obtain a college degree, with no gender or racial advantages to help, and the constant berating of his own race and gender a large part of his 'education'. My father supported women's rights so his daughters would have a better life - but it has come at a terrible price for his grandsons. I must protest what is currently happening to my sons - but must it mean a return to injustice for my daughter? No Sgt Mom. You remember what I posted at the FRS; True Justice is never satified by the blood, suffering or, death of the truely innocent. True Justice never discriminates or shows favor for one over another.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 24, 2010 | url
Votes: +2

SgtMom said:

... Robeert: "No Sgt Mom. You remember what I posted at the FRS; True Justice is never satified by the blood, suffering or, death of the truely innocent. True Justice never discriminates or shows favor for one over another." That would mean "True Justice" is not "men's rights", or 'Women's right", but instead "Constitutional Rights" would it not? I only remember being told to "go bake a turkey" when I said this at FRS.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 24, 2010
Votes: +1

Jayson said:

... It's not that the US incarcerates more people. It's that the US does not eliminate them from the system like other countries. Iran does not put people in prison they kill them if they get the chance. Freedom does not mean you can do whatever you want, it's an ideology. It's system in which you can express yourself without fearing harm will come to you. The inmates in prison DID something against the law. They are not political prisoners.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 27, 2010
Votes: -2

SgtMom said:

	... Jayson - if that's true, how do you explain that the US incarcerates a much higher percentage of people than it did just 20 years ago? Comparing US to ourselves historically - we have gone nuts imprisoning people. We no longer abide by the US Constitution, which does indeed mean we have innocent people in our prisons - who are indeed, political prisoners.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 29, 2010
Votes: +1

ForumReader said:

One of the Most Interesting posts I've seen with details and quotes to back it up A lot of you have not on hit the nail on the head but have figured a nail gun at it, in which the cause is the trigger! Many people dismiss false rape accusations as rare , but with botched convictions, low standard of proof, and the upper hand of the prosecution who has more resources and money than the defense it is so. At the same time, women who admit lying are not punished out of fear they may not tell the truth about what really happened and that future people may not come about, a double whammy against men. American is very hypocritical and arrogant, of course not everybody is but a lot of Americans don't stop and think and analyze like the folks on this page, (didn't have time to read all of it, certain comments may miss the goal) The interesting comments about islam , comments from a mother, and commentary about asian society and the harsher treatments of men there.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 29, 2010
Votes: +0

SgtMom said:

... The United States comes in first with 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 in population. The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate. Criminologists and legal experts here and abroad point to a tangle of factors to explain America's extraordinary incarceration rate: higher levels of violent crime, harsher sentencing laws, a legacy of racial turmoil, a special fervor in combating illegal drugs, the American temperament, and the lack of a social safety net. Even democracy plays a role, as judges — many of whom are elected, another American anomaly — yield to populist demands for tough justice. Whatever the reason, the gap between American justice and that of the rest of the world is enormous and growing. It used to be that Europeans came to the United States to study its prison systems. They came away impressed. "In no country is criminal justice administered with more mildness than in the United States," Alexis de Tocqueville, who toured American penitentiaries in 1831, wrote in "Democracy in America." No more. "Far from serving as a model for the world, contemporary America is viewed with horror," James Whitman, a specialist in comparative law at Yale, wrote last year in Social Research. "Certainly there are no European governments sending delegations to learn from us about how to manage prisons." Prison sentences here have become "vastly harsher than in any other country to which the United States would ordinarily be compared. Indeed, said Vivien Stern, a research fellow at the prison studies center in London, the American incarceration rate has made the United States "a rogue state, a country that has made a decision not to follow what is a normal Western approach." The spike in American incarceration rates is quite recent. From 1925 to 1975, the rate remained stable, around 110 people in prison per 100,000 people. It shot up with the movement to get tough on crime in the late 1970s.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 29, 2010
Votes: +1

cajajo said:

	Woman's inhumanity to man I can't believe so many prosecutors have no qualms about putting innocent men in prison. Besides the feminist dogs (who wish they were men - look how they act and dress), there are the private prisons who also have DA's under their thumb.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 30, 2010 | url
Votes: +1

SgtMom said:

... It's a game. "Winning is everything". There are few reprucussions for doing it - how many prosecutors engage in misconduct? A: Countless. Q: How many end up like Mike Knifong? A: One. It's not just prosecutors. It's allowing 'expert witness' whores of the court to introduce 'spectral evidence'. It's lack of judicial oversight; the Judges in Pennslyvania accepting bribes for sending juveniles to prison are the ONLY ones? Rogue cops like Bob Perez, of Wenatchee witch hunt fame claiming PTSD and avoiding disiplinary action. Even when severe examples like the FBI evidence labs exposed for falsifying evidence - are not punished, but free to go on to other labs (Fred Zane comes to mind). Kind of like pedophile priests going to a different parish... ...and that's just the stuff *I* know about. God knows what's REALLY going on.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 30, 2010
Votes: +1

peter shaw said:

	decline and fall of the USA the US has degenerated into a feminit Fascist state the hallmark of which is the gradation of folk into Aryans and the subhumans clearly the US subhumanes are the most productive and enterprising aka men and the Aryans are the freeloaders and liars wimyn - just how long this schism can continue is moot but certainly a house fighting with itself cannot not stand
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 01, 2010
Votes: +0