Socialism & Feminism Archive Carey Roberts probes and lampoons political correctness. His work has been published frequently in the Washington Times, Townhall.com, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Intellectual Conservative, and elsewhere. He is a staff reporter for the New Media Network. You can contact him at E-Mail. Shield Foundation Shelter Shakedown Bob Hartzog of Glendale, Ariz. was roused out of his slumber by a ringing phone. It was the cops. According to the policeman, Hartzog’s wife Valentina charged he had forced her to have sex and threatened to kill her. The officer, stationed outside of Hartzog’s home, ordered him outside. Opening his front door, Hartzog found himself looking down the barrels of five loaded guns. Uncomprehending, he thought it must be a joke. As Mr. Hartzog was hauled away to the police station, he spotted his Ukrainian-born wife in a parked car with another woman. He would later learn her accomplice was Olga Chaikheeva, a Russian immigrant who runs an abuse shelter called the Shield Foundation, located in nearby Phoenix. As the bewildered Hartzog waited to be booked on charges of aggravated assault, little did he suspect at that very moment his house was being stripped of everything that could be pawned off in the Black Market – his passport, wallet, jewelry, computer, printer, the title to his Mitsubishi, and more, all worth about $15,000. Within hours Valentina withdrew $2,500 from his bank account. The Mitsubishi was sold to a company called Quick Fleet Auto, a fly-by-night operation owned by Artt Smasch. By interesting coincidence, Mr. Smasch was the paramour of Olga Chaikheeva. During the ensuing months Hartzog “sweated bullets,” as he told me, worried he might end up doing time for a crime he never committed. But he passed the polygraph test with flying colors and Valentina’s story didn’t hold up. A year later the D.A. dropped the charges. But Hartzog never got his purloined property back. Five years ago CBS 60 Minutes ran a program called Russian Roulette. The segment chronicled Russian women who dupe unsuspecting Australian men into marrying them. The show featured one Ivan Duhs. Falsely accused and summarily evicted from his home, the wife cleaned out the house, right down to the light switches and toilet roll holders. Marriage scams are also widespread in the United States, but with a novel twist. One immigration official describes the ploy this way: “Beautiful young women…entice a poor, unsuspecting 40-50-year old into marrying them, and then methodically proceed to ruin his life: calling 911 to report a wife-beating…going to a domestic abuse shelter and systematically documenting every step.” That’s exactly what happened to Bob Hartzog. Now back to Olga Chaikheeva and her Shield Foundation. According to its website, the Shield Foundation offers one-stop shopping for Russian immigrants: assistance with low-income housing, food stamps, Green Card, and Social Security numbers. And for women who aren’t happy in their marriages, the group provides legal help to procure protection orders and divorce decrees: www.shieldfoundation.org/2_services.html . But some say Olga’s well-meaning efforts go too far. According to a complaint filed by the Arkansas Justice Center, the Shield Foundation is actually a “phony women’s abuse shelter.” Her Shield Foundation “intimidates the women to file an Order of Protection with the City and Municipal Courts against their husbands.” Then Ms. Chaikheeva “runs her well practiced drills on the husbands; tricking them into breaking the Orders, getting them arrested, making designs on their assets, etc.” And if the judge denies the petition, she will “take the wife to a different court and start over.” [www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/264/RipOff0264095.htm ] The Shield Foundation’s tax records raise more eyebrows. In 2006 a company called Advance Alliance Management – which is not listed in the phone book, by the way -- donated a two bedroom residence so the Shield Foundation could establish its own shelter. But according to my sources, the house had belonged to Olga’s previous husband. When things went sour, Olga fabricated charges of aggravated assault. That got her the house and landed her ex- in the slammer. Olga Chaikheeva has ruined enough lives and reputations that a number of persons have banded together to expose her scams. One such person is Yefim Toybin, who legally immigrated to the United States in 1992 and now is a teacher and wrestling coach at a local high school. Married for 29 years, he told me, “We came to the United States for liberty and justice.” Reveling in his new-found American dream, Toybin formed a cultural organization to help Russian immigrants assimilate into Western society. But Olga tried to take control of the fledgling group. When he demurred, the woman threatened, “You will regret not cooperating with us.” Toybin told me stories like Bob Hartzog’s are not uncommon. So why does he go to pains to expose the corruption of the Shield Foundation? “I don’t want this country to experience the same thing that happened in my former country,” Toybin explains. “I want to protect justice, potential victims, and the future of this nation.” Another Way Shelter, Where the Inmates are Running the Asylum If a friend of yours was in desperate straights and had to seek refuge in an abuse shelter, wouldn’t you want that person to be able to go to a place with staff who are qualified, compassionate, and have a clean record? Then you’ll be shocked to learn what’s going on at Another Way in Lake City, Fla. I have reported previously on this star-crossed shelter: www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/080728 . But it turns out, the situation is worse than I originally thought. Because three employees of Another Way have criminal records, and a fourth flunked her rehab. Here’s the line-up: Wendy Pittman, former shelter manager; Shanna Travis, current residential director; and front-line employees Brenda Collins and Gloria Taylor. First, Wendy Pittman. Her rap sheet includes four criminal charges of passing bad checks. And then assorted charges like welfare fraud, reckless driving, auto negligence, and more. (See: www2.myfloridacounty.com/ccm/do/personSearch?county=12 ) In January of 2007 Pittman’s husband filed a claim accusing her of domestic violence. Right around that time she was hired as manager of Another Way to help women break the cycle of abuse. On May 6, the police spotted a group of teenagers drinking alcohol behind a van at a nearby river. According to the policeman’s report, “As I approached the van I observed a white female passenger. I observed that the driver’s eyes were severely bloodshot and pupils were dilated. The driver identified herself as Wendy Renee Pittman.” Pittman resigned from Another Way shortly afterwards. She was replaced by Shanna Travis, a nurse who had worked at a local hospital. On February 20, 2002 Travis was admitted to the hospital for detoxification from OxyContin. Over the next two years her drug use escalated and she finally dropped out of treatment. In 2004 the state Department of Health determined that her “judgment is so impaired that she will cause harm to patients. This probability constitutes an immediate serious danger to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the State of Florida.” On April 26, 2005, Travis signed an agreement that suspended her nursing license for three years. (See: ww2.doh.state.fl.us/IRM00PRAES/PRASLIST.ASP ) Next in the line-up is Brenda Collins. Her rap sheet includes two counts of cocaine possession and one charge of aggravated assault with a weapon. All told she spent two years in prison, and remains on probation through 2009. (See: www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveOffenders, Department of Corrections number 543466) Collins left Another Way earlier this year. And then there’s Gloria Taylor. This is a sad one… In 1995 two persons obtained protection orders against Taylor for her “repeat violence.” Four years later her husband (or ex-husband, we’re not sure which) successfully petitioned the court for an order of protection against her. (See: www2.myfloridacounty.com/ccm/do/personSearch?county=12 ) Now, her convictions for non-violent offenses: resisting an officer, one each for petit and grand theft, and six convictions for passing bad checks. And finally the convictions for violent crimes: Improper exhibition of a dangerous weapon and two counts of written threats to kill or injure. These charges landed Taylor in the tank for 32 months. (See www.dc.state.fl.us/ActiveOffenders , Department of Corrections number: 285003) Her probation is set to expire in 2032. Oh, and did I mention the numerous traffic violations, and the fact that she was arrested this past Friday, October 3 for grand theft? Add them up, and Taylor has over 30 cases on file in Columbia County including 9 misdemeanor convictions and 3 felonies. Let’s just say Ms. Taylor has worn out her welcome mat at the county courthouse. So there you have it. Wendy Pittman, a hard-luck case that reminds me of a Country and Western song. Shanna Travis, who constitutes an “immediate serious danger to the health, safety, and welfare” of Floridians. Brenda Collins, thrice convicted and imprisoned two years. And Gloria Taylor, another ex-con who supervises vulnerable persons in an abuse shelter. I know it seems hard to believe, but it’s all in the public record. So what happens when the inmates take over the asylum? Horrific tales of drug use and drug dealing by shelter residents. Unreported incidents of child abuse and sexual assault. Misappropriation of shelter assets. Accounts of drug-dealing at staff parties. Discrimination against male victims. An astronomical employee turn-over rate. Does the word “mayhem” come to mind? Or merely “abject chaos”? For months, Another Way staff has been urging shelter director Donna Fagan to run background checks on all employees to weed out the undesirables. But the manager has refused those pleas. Maybe Ms. Fagan is worried she’ll lose too many of her trusted employees. Few Women in Abuse Shelters are True Victims of Violence Lachrymose tales of battered women abound when representatives of abuse shelters come calling, hat in hand, for taxpayer money. But what is the truth of the matter -- are abuse shelters really brimming with hapless victims trying to break free of the cycle of violence? The answer to that question is a surprising “No.” In the great majority of cases, women at abuse shelters have suffered no physical injury or harm. A former worker at the YWCA Emergency Shelter in Enid, Okla. reveals, “In all the time that I volunteered there, I saw one woman who showed signs of physical abuse.” Likewise, the former director of a mid-Atlantic shelter reports, “only about one in 10 women had experienced any kind of physical injury.” Recently, researchers at Florida State University interviewed persons residing at abuse shelters in the state. “Medical/health” needs were mentioned only 9% of the time, and these were mostly women who needed to catch up on overdue dental and medical checks. And the Hawaii Department of Human Services reports only 8% of persons at shelters require emergency medical attention – and emergency care can include non-abuse related problems like getting an abscessed tooth removed. Somehow these reports don’t mesh with the abuse industry’s well-cultivated image of legions of bruised, beaten, and bloodied souls tending to their wounds. And for those women who were physically harmed, many turn out to be just as abusive as the partners they are trying to escape from, according to Erin Pizzey, founder of the first abuse shelter in the world. Those findings are echoed by recent research. In New Mexico, Satya Krishnan interviewed women residing at La Casa shelter in Las Cruces. The ladies turned out to be a feisty bunch – 29% admitted to having trouble controlling their violent behavior and 17% had been in jail in the past year. And writing in the October 2006 issue of Violence and Victims, Dr. Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling reported that one-quarter of women at an Alabama shelter were currently stalking their partners. So if the women in these shelters are seldom there to salve their injuries, what are they doing there? One common reason is drug and alcohol abuse. A resident at the First Step shelter in Harrisonburg, Va. revealed, “I soon discovered that I was the only woman there for protection purposes. Most of the other women were using the shelter as a halfway house. The other women had been kicked out by their spouses for drug use, and had no where else to go.” Among women who come to Hawaii abuse shelters, one in four are known to have substance abuse problems. At the New Mexico shelter, many women admitted to overindulging in alcohol – 14% had injured themselves or others as a result of drinking, and 85% were using alcohol during the abuse incident. And 39% of the women had engaged in illegal activities to get drugs during the previous year. Homelessness is another reason why women patronize these facilities. In Florida, housing was the number one need cited by shelter residents. In Hawaii, the Honolulu and Leeward Oahu shelters experienced a 40% decline in the number of residents last year. Why? Because three homeless shelters had opened their doors, almost halving the need for abuse services. Of greater concern is that many shelter residents have a history of child abuse or neglect. In San Diego, the local Child Protective Services office had open files on 38% of women in shelters, according to a 2003 survey by Susan Pennell and Cynthia Burke. In Hawaii, one in six women has a case with the local CPS. And then there are those who check in to abuse shelters for assorted other reasons: they are buddy-buddy with the shelter director, they want free legal help for their divorce, or they want to pad their abuse resumé. Or maybe they just want to snag a little R and R – like the Shelter for Abused Women and Children in Naples, Fla., where women come to be “pampered in a safe and convenient location.” A visitor to one shelter revealed, I was “shocked to see YOUNG women using the shelters like a babysitter, leaving small kids in top bunks and going out dancing and partying for the weekend…The shelter was full of UNOPENED toys, bikes, and expensive furniture donations.” So drop by to your local shelter and who are you likely to see? Among every 10 ladies, at most one has any physical injuries. Two or three are violent in their own right, some fleeing from a criminal record. Three to four women have a problem with alcohol or drug abuse. A few have histories of child abuse. And the rest are old-fashioned freeloaders, gleefully whooping it up at taxpayer expense. Key to Presidential Win? White Males Every two years the Old Media engages in its now-familiar mating ritual with the liberal electorate. Acting on cue, reporters and columnists dust off their tired clichés and recycle their flawed arithmetic to show how this year women will -- at long last -- determine the outcome of the presidential election. Remember 1984? That was the year Hulk Hogan defeated Iron Sheik to become the WWF champ, and the “Milk and Honey” album by John and Yoko Lennon was released. It was also the year that N.O.W. president Eleanor Smeal guaranteed the Democrats would enjoy a 10% boost if they selected a female presidential running mate. But come November, only 44% of female voters voted for the Mondale-Ferraro ticket, handing Ronald Reagan a historic landslide victory. That embarrassment didn’t stop the rad-fems from playing up the female gender gap, telling party elders to endorse abortion rights for teenage girls if they were going to have any hope of winning the election. So did their hectoring turn the tide? In 1976, 50% of the ladies opted for Democratic candidate Jimmy Carter. In 2004, John Kerry garnered 51% of the soccer-mom vote. Yep, a gain of one measly percentage point in 28 years. Meanwhile, men were fleeing the Democratic party like a crew of well-drillers invited to a Nancy Pelosi fund-raiser. While 50% of men voted for Carter in 1976, only 44% of the guys selected Mr. Kerry in 2004. That translated into a 3.5 million vote gap favoring Mr. Bush. In the seven elections from 1980 to 2004, the Democratic party has prevailed in only two contests. Writing in The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma, David Kuhn concludes, “No factor has been more instrumental in causing the Democratic decline in presidential politics than the loss of white men.” Before the Democratic primaries, all the smart money was betting on an easy win for Hillary Clinton. But once again history proved itself unfazed by the dictates of political correctness. After the smoke had cleared, Barack Obama emerged triumphant. Out of the 17 primaries with exit polling, Mr. Obama took the white male vote in 10 states. Only in four states did he win thanks to a plurality of white female voters. As ABC analyst Gary Langer noted, “in states with significant but not vast numbers of black voters, and few Hispanics, white men are critical.” So let’s take a look Sen. John McCain’s selection of Alaska governor Sarah Palin. The reaction of pundits on both the Right and the Left was Palin would shore up female support for the Republican ticket. And sure enough, the McCain/Palin ticket is now tied with Obama and Biden. Is that due to a surge of support from the female electorate for the GOP candidates? Well, not exactly. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, men are more enthusiastic about the Palin candidacy than women – 62% of men have a favorable opinion of the Alaska governor, compared to only 53% of women. Fifty-seven percent of male respondents believe Palin is qualified to be vice president, compared to only 43% of females. These sentiments translate into you-can-take-it-to-the-bank votes. Following McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin, white men gave McCain a muscular 25-point advantage over Obama. In comparison, white women favored the GOP ticket by only 11 points. More amazing is how those progressive, tolerant women are falling all over themselves to trash the vice-presidential candidate. During her acceptance speech in Minneapolis, protesters stood up wearing dresses that declared, “Palin Not a Woman!” Uber-feminist Gloria Steinem castigated Palin as a pawn of the “right wing patriarchs.” Newsweek’s Sally Quinn deplored her “weak resumé and right-wing ideology.” Eve Ensler, playwright of the raunchy Vagina Monologues, described the choice as “insidious and cynical.” Eleanor Clift claimed the selection triggered laughter in “many, many newsrooms.” And Maureen Dowd called Palin the “Vice in Go-Go Boots.” As you can see, it’s not the patriarchy that’s holding women down. Rather, it’s the self-adoring, male-detesting leftist women who can’t stand the thought of a gun-toting, abortion-rejecting Hockey Mom coming to town. And as far as white men, the second largest electoral bloc in the nation, don’t count them out. When all is said and done, they may again tip the outcome of this Fall’s presidential race. SafeNet Shelter Director Ordered to Stay Away from Kids What happens when an abuse shelter engages in conduct that is so unethical and bizarre that the public almost can’t believe the magnitude of the travesty? Read on and decide for yourself. Crystal D. Hall of McIntosh County, Okla. was the wife of James Hall and the mother of five. She also had a severe mental illness that required her to take anti-psychotic medications. Sometime in mid-2023 Mrs. Hall became convinced that she and the children were being emotionally abused by James. In July of that year, Crystal’s family had her admitted to a local mental health facility. And the state Department of Human Services took custody of the children. What followed over the ensuing two and a half years was a series of legal maneuvers, investigations, jurisdictional disputes, hearings, appeals, and judicial reversals, all stemming from the unsubstantiated allegation that Mr. Hall was an abuser. Of course county officials investigated the allegation, discovering no evidence of child abuse. But the SafeNet shelter in Claremore, Okla. decided to get in on the act. The shelter’s tax return reveals annual revenues in the neighborhood of $640,000. Oddly, the tax forms do not disclose the executive director’s compensation package. Told to always believe the victim, the SafeNet staff would not accept the decision of the county investigators. So the shelter went judge-shopping and soon filed an abuse complaint in another county. It’s no secret that judges often issue temporary restraining orders with no hard evidence. So over the next year the shelter obtained five temporary orders against Mr. Hall -- not once presenting proof of abuse. Mr. Hall would eventually undergo four psychological evaluations, all of them declaring him to be a fit parent. One psychologist concluded, “There is no documented evidence that Mr. Hall has ever been physically or emotionally abusive to the children.” Predictably, the SafeNet staff disagreed with the findings, even attempting to have one examiner removed from her position. Crystal Hall was eventually discharged from the mental health facility and sent to live on her own. But her condition remained unstable, so SafeNet employees came to her house 3 times a day to make sure she took the medicines. Shelter staff also drove her to and from work and took her grocery shopping. After months of legal wrangling and baseless accusations, Judge Gary Dean finally handed down his decision, which can be viewed here: www.donhaslam.com/cases/documents/Hallfinalorder.PDF The judge first noted that “Mrs. Hall is a person with serious mental health problems…After approximately 2 ½ years of extensive counseling, through Safenet and other sources, the Court can see no progress on the mental health issues of the mother.” Pointing the judicial finger at shelter director Donna Grabow, the judge noted that “Safenet Services has been less than forthcoming in its reporting to DHS and the Court, and its credibility is questioned by the Court…One of the children has requested that the Court ‘get Safenet out of our lives.’” Then came Judge Dean’s damning finding:“the claims of Crystal Hall as to abuse appear to the Court to have been manufactured or fabricated which resulted in her being eligible to receive services from Safenet Services.” In other words, SafeNet chose to reward Crystal Hall’s lies by dishing out free services. Finally Dean announced his decision, awarding custody of the children to Mr. Hall. Noting that the mother said she didn’t want any contact with her five kids, the judge nonetheless granted her visitation rights. The judge then ruled, “no representative of Safenet Services shall be present or have any contact with the children during the visitation.” Driving home the point for emphasis, he wrote, “The mother or visitation supervisor shall not permit the present director of Safenet Services to have any contact with the children at any time, as requested by the attorney for the children.” A month later Judge Dean expunged all the restraining orders from Mr. Hall’s record. True, the shelter left Mrs. Hall in worse shape than when she first came for help. Yes, the shelter director was scolded for harming the parent-child relationship. And for sure, its machinations cost a man over $100,000 in legal fees. But that doesn’t mean the shelter staff aren’t entitled to a helping of good old-fashioned fun. So this past Saturday, SafeNet held a community fund-raiser. Themed “No More Bruises,” the event featured music from the Law Dawgs and the Coo-Y-Yah Players. A $15 ticket entitled attendees to four carefree hours of barbecue, music, and dancing. “It’s a good fund raiser for women,” explained SafeNet representative Susan Wolfenbarger. “It was a lot of fun last year.” Women Avoid Abuse Shelters Like the Plague Christina Wilson was caught in an abusive relationship, so last November she took refuge at the Cherokee Family Violence Center in Canton, Ga. She hoped the 12-bed shelter would help her mend the wounds and get her back on her feet. Pregnant with child, she was assigned to a room with another woman who seldom bathed. And the room itself smelled. When the shelter wouldn’t move her to another room, Wilson filed a complaint. In retaliation, Wilson found herself “exited” from the shelter, leaving her homeless. Then she had her baby. The little boy had acid reflux, which made swallowing milk difficult. The shelter notified the Florida child abuse unit to be on the look-out for a homeless mother with an infant. So when the child abuse inspectors discovered the child was underweight, they scooped up the child, not to be returned to his mother’s arms for five excruciating months. Wilson sums up her experience with the Cherokee abuse shelter in one word: a “hardship.” No doubt some women have been helped by their stays at a shelter. But far too often, women experience more mistreatment in the shelter than at the hands of their abusers. Reports of verbal abuse and assaults are not unusual. At the First Step shelter in Harrisonburg, Va., a resident was attacked by a drug-addled woman, demanding she hand over her phone card or else she would slit her throat. Do these incidents represent the unfortunate exception to the rule, or do they foreshadow a pervasive problem? In a surprising number of cases, shelters turn away the persons who need help the most. St. Jude House in Crown Point, Ind. refused to admit an 18-year-old woman who was being tortured by her parents with electrical cables. And Joy Taylor recounts the story of a rape victim who was refused admission to a Washington state shelter because she didn’t fall within its poverty guidelines. “Shelters have denied housing to African American women for not sounding fearful enough or sounding too strong,” reveals Tricia Bent-Goodley in her article, “Perceptions of Domestic Violence: A Dialogue with African American Women.” Once inside, these women discover the shelter services are either unhelpful or non-existent. Peggy Grauwiler of New York University interviewed 10 abused women, whose experiences are summarized in her article, “Voices of Women.” None of the ladies reported positive interactions with local shelters. One woman described the shelter this way: “It’s a mess, it’s a crowd…I was supposed to isolate everybody I knew, everything I knew.” Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling’s research found that one-quarter of women in an abuse shelter were engaged in stalking their partners. But shelters don’t provide counseling for women to overcome their penchant for abuse. That would run counter to the prevailing philosophy that the woman bears no responsibility for her actions. Once these women leave the shelter they often eschew further contact. Angela Kalani, supervisor at the West Hawaii Shelter program, admits, “Many women who exit the shelter choose not to follow up with shelter staff. This seems to be the norm for many years.” So what has gone wrong? First, shelter staff are poorly trained. The Florida Institute for Family Violence Studies reviewed reports from 13 states and found one of the most consistent problems is the need for “more well-trained and well-paid domestic violence center staff.” Second, many shelters have steeped themselves in a radical feminist ideology. Researcher Sara Epstein reported on her survey of 111 shelters in the American Journal of Community Psychology. When asked to identify their main goal, 45% stated they endorsed the feminist mission “To help change societal patterns of violence against women.” Only 25% said they were “devoted to the treatment and support of battered women.” For example, the Marin (Calif.) Abused Women’s Services (M.A.W.S.) advertises its mission is to “end the violence, abuse, oppression, and intimidation of women” – but doesn’t say a word about providing drug treatment, counseling, or anger management classes. This means you’re more likely to hear a neo-Marxist rant about the evils of patriarchy than get anything that resembles practical help for your problem. Once word gets out that abuse shelters are an ideological cesspool, the women and men who truly need help stop coming. But an empty shelter is a fund-raiser’s nightmare. After all, if we’re claiming to halt the epidemic of domestic violence, we need to show off a few warm bodies every now and then. So the shelters have become filled with women who are druggies, homeless waifs, or are trying to escape a criminal record. That’s why abused persons who really need help avoid shelters like the plague. The Sexual Exploitation of Women in Abuse Shelters Few persons know how women’s abuse shelters first got started. Four years ago lesbian activist Bonnie Tinker made this stunning admission in The Oregonian: “In fact, it was a small group of lesbians from Portland who were at the forefront of a national movement to provide safe havens for women…We knew that foundations were not going to fund a house for a bunch of homeless bar dykes. We realized the language that would be understood was the language of battered women.” Which raises a disturbing question: Exactly what goes on at abuse shelters? As my investigation has uncovered, at many shelters it’s happy hunting grounds for lesbians seeking to prey on vulnerable women. Maria, a 35-year-old grocery clerk, went to Bethany House in Falls Church, Va. for legal advice. The shelter referred her to attorney Robert Machen for pro bono assistance. According to the report, “One day he turned up at her doorstep and demanded sex or get paid for legal service.” They soon began to kiss and cuddle. (I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.) But it wasn’t just the lawyer who was taking advantage of the abused women. Two house managers, Ms. Veronica and Ms. Liang, had complaints leveled against them of inappropriate sexual advances to shelter residents. The two were forced to resign. At another shelter, a former employee told me about a lesbian resident who was escorting an under-age girl into her room on a regular basis. When the shelter manager was advised of the suspicious activity, she accused the employee of being “prejudiced.” On another occasion, an irked resident complained to the same manager about inappropriate sexual activities taking place in front her children. The manager told the woman to lighten up and find someone who would make her “feel better.” In Charleston, W.Va., Elizabeth Crawford was caught in a physically abusive relationship. Desperate for help, she started to attend a weekly support group run by the local YWCA Resolve Family Abuse Program. On several occasions Crawford found herself talking to the director of the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence. At first her advances consisted of effusive praise. Lingering hugs soon followed. Then one day Crawford noticed the Coalition director was caressing her back. Warned to “be careful” with the woman, Crawford explained she had no interest in her advances. In short order, she found herself shunned. Years later when Crawford established her own abuse counseling program, she continued to be blackballed. In Houston, the Bay Area Turning Point sponsors holiday parties for shelter residents to help them find a new boyfriend. Local doctors and attorneys are invited to attend. One woman got pregnant while staying at the shelter, reportedly following at one such party. Bobbi Bacha of Blue Moon Investigations questions whether such events are appropriate for women recovering from an abusive relationship, and worries the women are being “groomed” for prostitution. One woman who spent time at two shelters reveals baldly, “many workers in shelters are lesbians.” One pick-up tactic is for a shelter worker to gently rub a resident’s palm, as if to assuage her pain. “If you become her girlfriend, you will be treated very good. I was 100% sure,” the woman sheepishly explains: www.vimeo.com/790290 For the record, many women who work in abuse shelters believe same-sex marriages should be legalized, so who can fault these ladies for wanting to practice what they preach? Then there’s the digital rape of a four-year-old girl at Another Way in Lake City, Fla. by an older girl. According to a former shelter employee, upon discovering the two girls, the “five year old stated that the nine year old had put her finger(s) inside of her private (vagina) and ‘messed’ with her.” I first reported this incident in my July 22 column, noting that the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence had not given any word whether it was intending to investigate. Six weeks later, still nothing from the Florida Coalition. This is unconscionable. Maybe if more persons call the FCADV director, Tiffany Carr at 1-850-425-2749 and demand action, we’ll begin to see a stop in the sexual exploitation of women and girls at abuse shelters. How Abuse Shelters Teach Women to Game the System Mary Runge of Palm Bay, Fla. found herself without a job and her savings depleted. So last month the single mom went knocking on the doors of local charities for help. The 47-year-old mother of three was urged to tell the girl at the local abuse hotline: “tell them we have been abused, and we will receive all we need.” But Runge had never been a victim of abuse. It used to be that in order to get into an abuse shelter, you had to have visible signs of harm – even if the injuries were fake. Columnist Denise Noe recounts her experience with a couple who had been evicted from their apartment. The wife reasoned, “My husband could black my eye so me and the kid could go to a battered woman’s shelter.” But nowadays, abuse shelters dispense with the formalities – any good sob story will do. You see, intake workers are told to “always believe the victim.” Anthony Westbury, president of SafeSpace in Stuart, Fla., explains his shelter’s open-door policy this way: “you don’t put up any more barriers for victims wanting to enter the shelter.” In Enid, Okla. the YWCA Emergency Shelter actually advertises on its website, “we do NOT require proof of abuse.” “In all the time that I volunteered there, I saw one woman who showed signs of physical abuse,” a former shelter worker revealed. The residents “were just gaming the system….All they had to do was make up some tale about some man abusing them – no proof needed – and they could stay up to 2 months at the shelter.” So once inside, how do these women milk the system? The basic shelter package includes free room, board, and baby-sitting. And chauffeur-driven transport in the shelter van. Some shelters offer free pet care. In Naples, Fla. the Shelter for Abused Women and Children features a beauty salon where residents “can be pampered in a safe and convenient location.” Taxpayer-funded legal help is also available for just about any problem. If you need to get rid of a pesky husband, Bethany House in Falls Church, Va. can help. A former shelter volunteer describes the shelter as a “free hostel for women with emotional problems if they are willing to hate their husbands enough and are willing to take out protective orders against their husbands.” Daily shelter routines can be described as loosey-goosey. The women come and go as they please. Asked what the Buffalo Women Calf Society does to help women become self-sufficient, Melinda Zephier, a staffer at the South Dakota shelter, answered limply, “We don’t push them.” Romantic liaisons thrive. One former shelter director revealed, “After hours, some of these women would sneak men into their rooms – the same men who had supposedly abused them.” Other women take up with their female co-residents. At Another Way in Lake City, Fla., you can toke a little weed and not worry about the consequences. “I, on numerous occasions reported illegal drug use that I had witnessed take place on Shelter property and often my complaints were ignored,” a former employee revealed. Once the “abused” woman is released from the shelter, she moves to the front of the line for welfare benefits, HUD housing programs, and almost everything else. If she is an illegal immigrant, a work permit is almost a sure bet. There’s more to the shelter shake-and-bake routine. Because once word gets out that reaching the status of an “abused woman” is a free ticket to Easy Street, everyone wants to get a piece of the action. That means many must be turned away, including those women and men who are true victims of abuse. All this comes as good news to the domestic violence industry. That’s because telling potential donors and lawmakers about all the women and children who were refused help is one of the best cough-up-your-money arguments they have. For example, the National Network to End Domestic Violence claims in its recent Domestic Violence Counts report that nationwide there were “2,923 unmet requests for emergency shelter.” And the Colorado Domestic Abuse Assistance Program reports, “In 2006, 5,886 individuals were turned away from shelters in Colorado due to a lack of capacity.” Don’t ask me to explain how there were 5,886 persons turned away in Colorado and only 2,923 unmet requests nationwide. Fortunately, there are still a few good women left, ladies who refuse to sell their souls to a free-wheeling shelter system. Mary Runge is one such woman. “I do not want to live on this twisted, sick system. I don’t want them in my life…I don’t want to play the game and lie. I only need help,” Runge plaintively told me. “All women are not feminist,” she announces proudly. No Room for Men at the Abuse Shelter, but Fido can Tag Along Some persons find it incomprehensible that a woman would maim or murder her husband or boyfriend. That thought may have crossed the minds of the persons who watched in horror as Debi Olson repeatedly stabbed her ex-husband, Mauricio Droguett at a Des Moines, Iowa shopping mall. Olson was charged with first-degree murder for the July 3, 2008 attack. “It’s a classic case of rage, of hate for someone – it’s very personal,” explained Capt. David Struckman. “She definitely stalked this man.” Two weeks later, Cynthia McKay, 52, was sentenced to 30 years in prison for the gruesome murder and burning of her boyfriend Anthony Fertitta of Millersville, Maryland. One prosecutor described McKay as “the most devious defendant this court will come across.” And on August 1, Tomasz Matczak of Issaquah, Wash. died of a single stab wound to his chest. The assailant, his 19-year-old girlfriend, openly admitted to the deed. In all of these cases, early intervention might have averted the tragedy. But where were these men supposed to turn? All around the country abuse shelters have been established to help persons battered by partner violence. But with a handful of exceptions, these shelters maintain a strict “Men Not Welcome” policy. Some openly advertise their gender-exclusion policy. Guys, if you live in the Chicago area, here are your options: Women’s Counseling Center, Sarah’s Inn, Latin Women in Action, or the YWCA. And if Hillary ever lays cougar-tracks on your face again, Bill, you can turn to My Sister’s Place or the Westchester County Office for Women. I’m sure they’d be happy to help. Other shelters are more discriminating in their manner of discrimination. They wait until a man in dire straights actually arrives on the premises. A former employee of the Another Way shelter in Lake City, Fla., shared this account: “Around November or December 2007, a man came into the office. He was crying, and his arms were bruised, seeking assistance,” the woman revealed. The intake worker “took him into her office. Then to my amazement I heard her tell him that Another Way doesn’t provide services or assistance for men…My heart went out to this man because it was evident that he was truly a victim of domestic violence.” The appalled woman wrote, “This is discrimination and violating men’s rights. There are men with children that are being victimized. It takes courage for men to come forward and admit they are victims. Then when they do, we revictimize them all over again.” So how do abuse shelters get away with these shameful practices? Some shelters insist they provide equivalent services to men, like giving them a voucher at a local hotel. What have these people been smoking -- do they really believe a hotel stay would have protected Mauricio Droguett, Anthony Fertitta, and Tomasz Matczak from their vindictive assailants? But the most common reason is simple: battered men don’t make the cut. As the head of Rainbow Services in southern California once explained, “We have limited resources and it’s all we can do to try and keep up with the demand for services for women and children.” That’s a hoot! Here’s the dirty little secret of the multi-million dollar shelter industry: the great majority of women in so-called “abuse” shelters have never been battered or suffered physical harm at the hands of their abuser. A woman who volunteered at the YWCA Crisis Center in Enid, Okla. for three years revealed, “In all of that time, there was one woman admitted who I was sure had been severely physically abused. The rest of the women and kids who came and went were playing the system to the hilt!” That’s right, most shelter residents have perfected the art of bamboozling the system, knowing that being certified as a battered woman entitles you to oodles of government hand-outs. But wait, there’s more to the story! Some of these same shelters that turn away battered men are now telling their “abused” women, “And remember to bring Fido!” That’s right, the American Humane Society has recently launched its “PAWS” program – Pets and Women’s Shelters, get it? So gals, if you need a place to dry out and want to take along your pooch, go to the Center for Abuse and Rape Emergencies in the Tampa Bay area. The dedicated C.A.R.E. staff has established a “foster pet parenting program” just for you! Or head over to Quigley House in Orange Park -- they have a kennel right on shelter grounds. Its canine center features a dog bathing area, benches to accommodate family visits, and of course a waste containment station. So men, if Quigley House can’t help you with your rolling pin-wielding wife, rest assured that at least Rover will be well-fed and well-bathed. Who Killed Millie Almore at the SafeSpace Shelter? On October 21, 2007 Milaus Almore, eight weeks pregnant, sought refuge at the SafeSpace abuse shelter. Ten days later the 26-year-old woman lay dead, stabbed with a pocket knife that left a gaping wound in the side of her neck. The weapon was wielded not by her abuser, but by another woman staying at the Stuart, Fla. facility. The victim’s grieving mother blurted out the obvious irony of her death: “She went in there to be safe, and she got killed.” Employees at SafeSpace were, of course, surprised and shocked. But it turns out the alleged perpetrator, Marilyn Hooks, had a prior criminal record – but none of the staff had bothered to check. That’s because, according to Board president Anthony Westbury, “you don’t put up any more barriers for victims wanting to enter the shelter.” Violence at abuse shelters occurs far more often than most persons realize. Rita Smith, executive director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, admits fisticuffs among shelter residents are commonplace, according to a November 9, 2007 article in the TC Palm. At SafeSpace, about 10 incidents occur each year that require police intervention, many of them involving assaults by shelter residents. These problems were no secret to local residents who often overheard angry outbursts between mothers and their children. Following Almore’s stabbing death, the neighborhood was up in arms. “It’s not safe for anybody. Even the people who are using it deserve better,” according to Jim Brady, who resides on the quiet cul-de-sac where the shelter is located. Within hours the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence dispatched a team to investigate. Its findings dealt a second blow to local residents still grieving over the death of one-year-old Myliak Dale, run over by a car in the SafeSpace parking lot just days before. Upon her admission to the shelter on September 22, Marilyn Hooks did not “appear” to have any mental health issues -- whatever that means. But within days, Hooks became embroiled in a series of conflicts and verbal altercations with other shelter residents and staff. Soon these disagreements escalated into outright threats. On October 17, Hooks threatened to kill shelter employee Paola Jimenez. Two weeks later Hooks told a co-resident she was going to eliminate her – not Ms. Almore, but a different woman. These incidents were reported to shelter manager Kathleen Comstock, along with urgent recommendations that Hooks be “exited” from the facility. But Comstock refused the appeals, and reportedly “rolled her eyes” and told one employee she was “tired of it all and didn’t want to hear about it.” In violation of shelter policy, Hooks’ case files contained no mention of the death threats – maybe because the staff believed it was of no use, or perhaps they were so instructed. Nor were these incidents reported to executive director Hylan Bryan, a woman who was paid nearly $69,000 a year to oversee shelter operations. At the conclusion of its two-day visit, the Coalition team issued a scathing indictment. The untimely death of Milaus Almore was caused by the “egregious failure of the entire agency to satisfactorily assure the health, safety, and welfare of both its clientele and staff.” The FCADV opted to not post the damning report on its website, but it can be read here: web.tcpalm.com/2007/11/10/safespace.pdf In response, SafeSpace developed a series of corrective measures. These included – get ready for this – drawing up an organizational chart, updating job descriptions, and reviewing managers’ competencies “to make sure they’re competent to be doing the job they’re doing.” Bear in mind, this is a $3 million taxpayer-funded agency that presumes to be expert at stopping partner abuse. Turns out, SafeSpace had a history of dubious practices. In 2002 the shelter was cited for not providing requested records to state auditors. The probe also found shelter staff were breaking the rules by admitting women who were not true victims of abuse. Ironically, the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence had conducted an inspection just two weeks before Almore’s death, concluding SafeSpace passed with flying colors. So ten months after the incident, key questions remain unanswered. Was Marilyn Hooks the sole perpetrator of the deed? Or were there accessories to this heinous crime? Was the autocratic shelter manager at fault for turning her back on staff entreaties to discharge Hooks? Did the executive director fall down by failing to assure the incidents were reported to her? Was the SafeSpace Board of Directors asleep at the switch for not assuring effective management controls were in place? Or is our entire shelter system so rooted in a dysfunctional gender ideology that it needs a top-to-bottom housecleaning? At Abuse Shelters, Girls Just Wanna Have Fun! Hey girls, want to get skanky? Well, sashay down to your local abuse shelter and get buzzed! No, you don’t have to be a real victim of domestic violence. All you need is a convincing story. Last year Hollie Cephas of Monticello, Ark. arrived on the doorstep of the Options shelter to recount her tale of woe: Her husband had beaten her to the point of having two miscarriages, he hid her insulin, and once he even called her a “fat pig.” The intake worker at Options had been taught to “always believe the victim,” so of course she was beside herself. One employee was so moved that she loaned Mrs. Cephas $25,000 and let her use her credit card. That covered liquor purchases, a few shopping sprees at the local WalMart, burial expenses for her child, and more. Then with a dramatic flourish, Cephas phoned the shelter to let them know she’d just had a kidney transplant and the life support was about to be turned off. She died a few days later. It was all a hoax. On February 11 police went to her home, where she was still very much alive, calmly residing with her allegedly battering husband. Cephas was hauled down to the Drew County Detention Center, where she was charged with theft by deception and a $250,000 bond placed on her head. Here’s the moral of the story: If you’re going to accuse your husband of trying to knock you off, don’t use a borrowed credit card after your own funeral. Girls, there so many ways your interlude at the shelter can be relaxing, profitable, and fun. First of all, realize you’re entitled to three nutritious meals a day, personal toiletries, and so forth. Transportation services may also be available, “but the only excursions offered were to the local mall where a wealth of unaffordable merchandise stared them in the face,” explains Nancy S., who spent two years shuttling among shelters in the San Francisco area. Don’t let your kids stop you from having the fun you deserve – all shelters offer free day care, sometimes courtesy of a local teenager who’s working off her parole time. She’ll have some interesting stories to regale the youngsters! And don’t worry if your kids are still black and blue from their latest visit to the wood shed – shelters won’t turn you in for child abuse, at least if you’re staying at Another Way in Lake City, Fla. As one former employee told me, “We always knew not to call the law unless you were prepared to be unemployed.” And if you want to toke a little weed, that’s fine, too. After all, you’ve been battered and belittled, you deserve a little break. If you’re in the Houston area, be sure to go by the Bay Area Turning Point. That facility hosts dating parties where local men drop by to schmooze and relax. That’s according to Bobbi Bacha, vice president of Blue Moon Investigations, who wonders whether such events are appropriate for abused women at such a vulnerable point in their lives. And don’t fret about that nine o’clock curfew. If you want to go behind the bushes with your new heart-throb or hang out with your old boyfriend -- the one you said is your lifelong abuser – no problem, they’ll reset the security alarm for you. If lavender is your color of choice, you don’t even need to venture outside. Everyone knows shelter staffs are replete with dykes cruising for a hook-up. Got a man-problem? Shelters can solve that, as well. At Bethany House in Falls Church, Va., “Women with almost no marital problems are declared abused and are coached by the staff to go to court and get a protective order against their husbands with the promise of long-term shelter, legal services, [and] counseling,” reveals a former shelter volunteer. And don’t worry that your naughty antics might land you in the clink. The good ladies from the abuse shelter will bail you out. After all, you’ve obviously been suffering from Battered Woman’s Syndrome. Believe it or not, the best is yet to come! Once you check out of the shelter, you now have the gold-plated Keys to the Kingdom. That’s because you can now lay claim to life-long status as a victim, a battered woman. You’re a certified survivor. Want to skirt the return-to-work requirements under TANF? No hassle. Need to re-up your Section 8 housing? You’re covered. Are you an illegal immigrant? Bienvenidos, amiga! There’s just one little hitch. Legions of other women have figured out how to work the system, so many shelters now have a long waiting list. The solution, of course, is to come up with a better story. The ABA Goes Over to the Dark Side The domestic violence industry is one of the most corrupt and unaccountable enterprises in modern-day America. Every year it sucks over $1 billion from the federal treasury and ships the money to a variety of radical feminist organizations dedicated to revamping the family unit. Thanks to the generosity of the Violence Against Women Act, domestic violence programs encourage women to file false allegations, strip fit fathers of their natural right to parent, and doom kids to live in a single-parent household -- with VAWA picking up the legal tab. Of course many men decide to fight the wrongful accusations to restore their good name and protect their children -- and end up paying their lawyers a princely sum in the process. A few years ago the American Bar Association decided it was time to cash in on this grand social experiment, so it set up the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence. Before long the CODV was setting out to revamp American family law to comport with its global feminist-socialist vision. For example this week the Commission’s website features this startling claim: “International human rights legal principles may be used persuasively in domestic violence cases in U.S. state courts.” [www.abanet.org/domviol/home.html abapresident@abanet.org ] That statement gives you an idea of how far the ABA has moved away from its well-cultivated image of black-cloaked probity and stern-faced reason. The Commission then decided to develop a series of publications to elucidate on its family-reform agenda. One of these reports, “Ten Myths about Custody and Domestic Violence,” purports to tell the truth about 10 common falsehoods. [www.abanet.org/domviol/custody_myths.pdf ] But then a group called RADAR – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting -- got wind of the ABA report and decided to do a little fact-checking. That’s when the ABA’s glass-house began to disintegrate into a million tiny pieces. First, RADAR found most of the so-called myths aren’t really myths. Turns out they are strawmen erected by the ABA Commission to provide the framework for a series of claims that are ostensibly backed up scientific research. And when RADAR examined the actual research, these “studies” were found to be little more than a series of opinion pieces put out by other groups with the same ideological axe to grind as the ABA. Or the studies were advocacy research disguised as objective science. All told, of the 19 claims found in the “Ten Myths” report, only 2 of them are truthful. All the rest are misleading, unsupported, or simply false. [www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-Myths-of-ABA-Commission-on-DV-Summary.pdf ] It’s bad enough for the ABA to traffic in a series of pusillanimous lies. But to then claim your lies are actually debunking someone else’s lies – that’s a propaganda technique of the highest order. This ruse would have put to shame Mr. Joseph Goebbels, the National Socialist minister of truth who famously proclaimed, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” Now the story gets interesting. In May RADAR sent a letter to the ABA president, William Neukom, politely pointing out the errors and asking the ABA to remove the offending report. RADAR requested the courtesy of a reply. But no answer was forthcoming. That means the problem is not some rogue outfit within the ABA that suddenly began to spout neo-Marxist slogans. The fact is, the president of the American Bar Association is a knowing accomplice to this massacre of the truth. Frankly, I’m disturbed by this willful violation of the public trust. Normally I don’t ask my readers to take action. But in the name of protecting the truth, I’m going to make an exception. After all, the American Bar Association is expected to be more than a well-heeled special interest group, and the truth is not a commodity to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. So please email Mr. Neukom at E-Mail . Or if you want to give the ABA an earful, call their Media Relations department at 1-312-988-6171. You can make the message short and sweet. Tell Mr. Neukom to stop the lies. Another Way Shelter Headed for a Meltdown? Last week my column revealed the all-too-common mistreatment of children in abuse shelters around the country. The article highlighted two incidents involving a Florida shelter, a former director who was cited for contributing to the delinquency of minors, and the sexual assault of a 4-year-old girl. [www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.360 ] Following publication of that essay, several former employees of Another Way came forward to tell me there was much, much more to the story. What follows is an account of three Queen Bees, a demoralized and depleted staff, and a shelter in disarray. The sordid tale calls to mind the old saying, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Another Way, located in the northern Florida town of Lake City, has a gleaming facility with 35 beds and is headed by a director paid the tidy sum of $95,000. The staff consists of 30 persons and up to 20 volunteers. Over the last 2 years, the shelter has been plagued by an epidemic of staff “resignations” -- 150 employees, more or less. The former staffers shared with me eye-witness accounts of prison camp-like working conditions, misappropriated shelter assets, falsified documents, sex discrimination, illicit drug activities, horrific child abuse, illegal cover-ups, complacent oversight agencies, and more. The shell-shocked women told me many of their former co-workers are unqualified, untrained, and even under-age. Some employees are required to work overtime without pay. Many are subjected to random tongue-lashings and at-will terminations. A few felt set up for failure. One staffer, ordered to pull together extensive tax records on short notice, recounted her ordeal: “Toward the end of my deadline, I felt like I was going to have a mental break down…There [are] no words that can express the mental anguish that I was made to feel throughout the day.” There were widespread reports of management using the shelter van and other resources for personal use. Staff training records were known to be falsified. When state auditors came to town, the managers would pull all-nighters to make sure the records were brought up to snuff. The Queen Bees went out of their way to avoid helping abused men. One employee revealed, “I was personally instructed to do everything possible to discourage males to report abuse.” Oddly, fewer than 15% of residents came to the facility with any physical injuries. Some of the residents had been charged with beating up their boyfriends and thrown in the clink. So shelter staff worked their feminine charms to procure their release and hide the law-breakers from their probation officers. Druggies openly plied their habit. “I, on numerous occasions reported illegal drug use that I had witnessed take place on Shelter property and often my complaints were ignored,” a former employee revealed. “We always knew not to call the law unless you were prepared to be unemployed.” One appalled woman described the shelter’s cover-up this way: “We’re here to empower women, not teach them how to lie, cheat, steal, and manipulate the system.” Most troubling were the recurring incidents of child neglect and abuse -- all swept under the rug. These are just three examples: Returning to the 4-year-old who was sexually assaulted by the 9-year-old girl, it turned out her perpetrator had been involved in inappropriate sex acts with another child at the shelter just two months before. That was never reported to the authorities. A one-month-old was left unattended in a baby swing. Despite the infant sobbing all day, a shelter manager upbraided the concerned employee with the rebuke, “We don’t tell these women how to parent their children.” An 8-year-old boy became angry and started to cry. Someone stuck him in a closed van in the middle of summer. Advised of this barbaric punishment, the manager ordered the boy left in the vehicle until he “decided to stop throwing a fit.” Some incidents were reported to the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence. But the group never saw reason to take action. Maybe that’s because the FCADV director, Tiffany Carr, is known to be buddy-buddy with the Another Way head. After they were expelled like a worn-out pack mule, many former workers experienced post-traumatic stress syndrome. Some required psychiatric treatment. One ex-worker revealed to me, “They took advantage of their knowledge of my history of being an abuse victim and my desperate circumstances to intimidate me into accepting the abuse that they heaped on me.” Comparing her employer to a perp, another woman reflected, “I later realized that like a battered woman my loyalties were still to my abuser.” No wonder so many victims of abuse would never dream of going to an abuse shelter. Moms, Don’t Take Your Kids to an Abuse Shelter Abuse shelters are the domestic violence industry’s Holy of Holies. Their ministrations are shrouded in mystery, the High Priestesses unnamed, their locations often kept secret. There abused women can become purified of the patriarchal demon and begin life anew. Of course if you’re an abused man, don’t bother to ask for help. They’re likely to claim you are harassing them and call the police. And abuse shelters don’t seem to be very interested in helping the younsters, either. Although abuse shelters claim to serve the children of abused women, what passes for child care may be a gum-chewing, tattoo-adorned teenager clocking her community service hours. Or a former drug-user working off her parole plea-bargain. Or there may be no care at all. Several years ago Renee Heikamp was arrested and charged with criminal negligence following the death of her son Jordan. The five-week-old baby wasted away to skin and bones as the two resided at the Catholic Children’s Aid Society in Toronto. At the Brewster (Ariz.) Center Domestic Violence Services, a 26-year-old resident had sex with a 12-year-old boy in the playground tunnel slide while his mother was away. The predator was hauled off to the Pima County jail and charged with sexual misconduct with a minor. Shelter residents often complain their children are exposed to far more abuse in the shelter than they had seen outside of it. There they witness taunting, profanity-laden threats, and even physical assaults. Sometimes children find themselves the target of such abuse. One former resident wrote, “Children, especially teens, become the emotional ‘whipping boys’ of other residents, and if they speak up, they risk getting the family thrown out.” At one shelter a resident was arrested for a bizarre birthday present for a 13-year-old boy at the facility. The women cornered the boy and proceeded to spank him 13 times – with her clenched fist. [www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-55.htm#pgfId-1005130 ] Most shameful of all – most abuse shelters refuse to help adolescent children who are…male. After all, we can’t let those proto-patriarchs find out what really goes on behind closed doors. Erin Pizzey, founder of the first shelter, believes her movement has been hijacked. She charges abuse shelters now “fund the feminist movements so they exclude young boys because they are the potential enemy.” In Florida, the situation has lurched out of control. Last October 16-month-old Myliak Dale was playing in the parking lot of the SafeSpace shelter in Stuart, Fla., when a woman started to back her car out. Apparently no one was watching. The toddler’s life was snuffed out in minutes. Then 10 days later, 26-year-old Milaus Almore was fatally stabbed by another SafeSpace resident, Marilyn Hooks. Almore was eight weeks pregnant. On May 6, 2007, a Suwannee County sheriff spotted a cluster of teenagers behind a minivan drinking alcohol. The van was registered in the name of the Another Way shelter in Lake City. One of the minors was a pregnant teenager residing at the facility. As we know, drinking during pregnancy is harmful to an unborn infant. [www.true-equality.org/16133/pittman-2.pdf ] The driver’s eyes were severely bloodshot. She was given a sobriety test and failed. The police cited 34-year-old Wendy Pittman for giving alcohol to minors. Turns out, Ms. Pittman was the director of the Another Way shelter. Pittman was given the boot and replaced by Shanna Travis. Ms. Travis is a nurse who repeatedly tested positive for opiates, failed her rehab, and whose license has been revoked by the Florida Board of Nursing: ww2.doh.state.fl.us/IRM00PRAES/PRASLIST.ASP Things were destined to get worse under Travis’ leadership. On June 5, 2008, a four-year-old girl was sexually assaulted by a nine-year-old female at the shelter while the two were left unattended. According to the police report, the nine-year-old “took down her underwear and pants down and inserted her finger into her vagina.” [www.True-Equality.org/13938/13938.pdf ] The incident took place around 9:30 on Saturday evening. But the assault wasn’t reported to the police until noon the following day. So why were the two girls left together unattended? Why the 15-hour delay in reporting the incident? And who had the nutty idea of hiring a former druggie to run an abuse shelter? To get answers to these questions, last week I telephoned Tiffany Carr, director of the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence, at 1-850-425-2749. Despite repeated attempts, Ms. Carr never returned my call. Apparently it’s best to give such incidents the hush-hush. No Place for Blind Woman at Womencare All Desiree Carpenter wanted was a chance to succeed. As a young woman Ms. Carpenter (not her real name) had been subjected to repeated physical and sexual assaults, losing her eyesight during one attack. Her assailant did hard time, but now he was back on the streets and vowing to track her down. Her only hope was to flee to another state, assume a new identity, and start over. Washington was the best place to begin anew, since the state had passed tough anti-stalking laws. So she packed her bags and hopped on the train with her two children in tow, bound for Bellingham, a couple hours north of Seattle. Being blind, she had come into a laptop computer with a screen reader that converts text to the spoken word. That’s how Desiree and I exchanged information for this article. Arriving at the Bellingham train station, she expectantly called the Womencare Shelter, a group that bills itself as a “feminist organization working to end violence against women:” www.womencareshelter.org . Desiree was told to go to the local MacDonald’s to be interviewed by an intake worker. There she was scrutinized to make sure “I was acceptable,” as Desiree later recounted. The staffer told Ms. Carpenter to detail her rape experiences while her children sat quietly and listened. Admitted to the shelter, the staff removed her daughter’s electronic homeschooling program, saying African-Americans spend too much time with rap videos. Desiree’s television was padlocked and she was informed she could only watch TV on weekends. Like all residents, Desiree was assigned housekeeping chores. It’s not that the tasks were menial, but asking a blind woman to clean toilets and sort broken glass seems a little cold-hearted. When the new resident questioned her duties, the staff urged her to become more “empowered.” The staff forbade the woman from making safety accommodations on the shelter’s flat-top stove. So Desiree and her young children ate micro-waved meals and peanut butter sandwiches for the rest of their stay. When residents wanted to re-enter the facility, they typed in a security code. Desiree asked to have the keypad marked with Braille dots, leading her to be ridiculed as being disruptive and manipulative. At one point a resident confided to her, “The staff here acts worse than an abuser.” The shelter did help Desiree to secure the all-important name change. Of course that entailed losing all her educational credentials, job references, credit cards, and so forth. That was the sacrifice she knew she would have to make. Over the next two weeks things went from bad to worse, especially after Ms. Carpenter complained about the videotape that lectured residents why organized religion was “oppressive” to women. In desperation, Desiree contacted the Bellingham Adult Protective Services, pleading they dispatch a disability aide so she could cook her own meals. But the Womencare director ordered “Nyet,” claiming that would compromise the shelter’s secret location. Then the shelter staff began to suspect she was planning to file a complaint with the Washington Human Rights Council – of course that was forbidden by shelter rules. So that evening the director barged into Desiree’s room and issued an ultimatum: “Either you drop your civil rights complaint or you’re out of here!” When Desiree tearfully said she had only requested someone to assist with the necessities of life, the staff interpreted her claim of innocence to be further proof of guilt. That was reason enough to summon the police. Within minutes a female officer dashed into the shelter, gun drawn, pulled the startled children out of bed, and ordered them out. The officer explained that even though Desiree had not violated any rules, the shelter was “exiting” her because she was unhappy with their services. Then came the crushing blow – the shelter director blurted out Desiree Carpenter’s previous name. The officer hastily entered both names, linked by a single report, into the National Crime Information Center database. In that moment, all the labors of the past month were undone, all her hopes of a life free of fear were dashed! The staff then ransacked Desiree’s room, stuffing her possessions, food, and legal documents into a black trash bag. Mother, son, and daughter were sent packing into the rainy night. During her one-month nightmare at Womencare, Ms. Carpenter suffered too many indignities to recount in a single column – more details can be seen at www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-54.htm . In the end, Desiree’s daughter said she would rather die than ever again trust an abuse shelter. Abuse Shelter Head Turns to Violence and Abuse The domestic violence industry operates under the cloak of secrecy and anonymity, maintaining such policies are necessary to shield victims from their abusers. But every now and then a crack appears in the façade, revealing a sordid panorama of corruption, fraud, and abuse. On February 28, 2007 the Naples, Fla. citizenry opened their morning newspapers to the jolting headline, “CEO Out at Women’s Shelter: Investigation into Battery Complaint Prompts Departure.” Over the next several months, details would spill out of a woman’s rights activist who had evolved into a self-serving “tyrant,” as one of her colleagues later described her. The charges surrounded Kathy Herrmann Catino, a former victim of domestic violence and director of the Naples Shelter for Abused Women and Children. Fifteen years ago Ms. Catino took over the helm of the debt-ridden shelter. She worked tirelessly and proved to be a skilled rainmaker, growing the shelter into a 60-bed facility with a $3.5 million budget, 52 staff members, and 276 volunteers. But her crusade took on messianic overtones. Believing she was the savior of women, Catino set out to control the Board of Directors and even the personal lives of her employees. “Kathy Herrmann-Catino ruled as the queen of the fortress she built for too long,” revealed one woman, adding she “was obsessed with the need to control her subordinates and others in the community, and her obsession grew as the Shelter grew.” “As long as you did as you were told by her, it was all good. Don’t do as you’re told or have a mind of your own, and there were problems,” explained another associate, adding that the shelter director “hates men.” One saw her as a Captain Queeg in a pantsuit: “You could see the self-satisfaction in her big round eyes and the little smile on her lips whenever she broke a spirit and made an employee cry.” “I’ve witnessed and been a victim of her abusive style,” revealed a former board member. “She openly admits her son is an abuser …Now we know where he learned it.” Catino went so far as to monitor employees’ after-hours pursuits. Paul Vincent Zecchino revealed, “she would check on your home life and [find out] if you did not live your life outside of work as she thought you should.” And as if that wasn’t enough, “Your condition of employment then required you to go to counseling and report that you went,” the man wrote. “The counselor you went to was one that she would pick for you." Is this beginning to sound a little like Soviet psychiatry? Election Day, 2006 marked the beginning of the end. Believing that advancing social change was part of the shelter’s mission, she sent an email to her staff instructing them to inform her whether they had voted. But a few scofflaws did not respond. So the next day an infuriated Catino broadcast this warning: “OK – you are the folks who have not responded to my several requests for information regarding whether or not you voted on Tuesday. This is your CEO talking – the one who approves your pay check…Testing 1, 2, 3, anyone out there? Please respond.” The message was clear: If you don’t come clean with the Commissar of Truth, your paycheck might be delayed, or worse. Problem was, Florida law prohibits voter intimidation. For that misstep, Catino was arrested, booked, and released on bond. The worst was yet to come. Three months later Catino decided one of the shelter employees had crossed her one too many times. She wanted an underling to do the dirty work, but the employee refused to go along with the gig. When the tearful woman tried to walk out of the shelter, Catino grabbed her by the arm and yanked her around. Legally this counts as assault. The security cameras captured the entire incident. Two weeks later, Kathy Catino was history. The most insightful commentary came from a former associate who revealed, “In reality, Kathy’s very sad life was never healed – it was only a mask she wore – a role she played. She was angry and unhealed, which is why she loved wallowing in her abuse.” A year later, whatever came of the former shelter director? Pay a visit to the website of Equality Virginia, a group that advocates for the legalization of homosexual marriage in the state of Virginia. Cathy Catino is now the deputy director of the organization. The website proudly states Catino “served as CEO of a FL shelter program for nearly fourteen years…While in Naples, Kathy started an outreach program for LBGT people who were victims of partner violence and routinely sheltered gay, lesbian, and transgender people in her program.” Long live the Revolution. Abortionists’ Latest Ruse: Claim to be Against DV Protectors of the innocent unborn need to prepare for the impending assault on the right to life, this time waged under the banner of stopping “domestic violence.” Actually, the first volley has already been fired. Democratic senator Barack Obama recently announced his support of the proposed International Violence Against Women Act, a bill the Family Violence Prevention Fund admits is designed to solidify “women’s access to reproductive health service.” Mr. Obama is not the first to cloak the reproductive rights agenda in the domestic violence crusade. For years the rad-fems have been working behind the scenes, laying the groundwork for another frontal attack on the culture of life. At the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the Ladies of the Left penned a manifesto called “Reproductive Health Services and Intimate Partner Violence.” This document sheds crocodile tears over the fact that “violence and reproductive health often remain distinct, despite the framing of both issues as essential components of women’s human rights.” Abortionists often wave the bloody flag that abortion must be legalized or else women will die. Of course they never mention that effective medical treatments are available to save an imperiled woman’s life. But the public is beginning to see through the subterfuge. So the pro-abortionists have devised a new argument that goes something like this: We have an epidemic of men who abuse their wives and force themselves on their girlfriends. Ergo, the solution is to grant women the right to abort. Let’s say it politely: Shame on these people for telling such lies. Professor Murray Straus at the University of New Hampshire is the world’s leading researcher on family violence. Earlier this year Dr. Straus published the results of his 32-nation survey of dating couples. This is what he found: 1. Fewer than 11% of couples had engaged in any incident of serious partner aggression in the past year, proving that physical violence between partners is fairly uncommon. 2. Two-thirds of the time the violence was mutual – she slapped him, he shoved her. One of those tit-for-tat affairs. 3. And here’s the shocker: Women were twice as likely to initiate unilateral violence as men. That’s right, the stories about Amy Winehouse using her husband as a “punch-bag” and Hillary Clinton carving up Bill’s jaw turn out to represent a much broader problem. So why don’t we hear about female violence more often? Well, several reasons. Abused men are far less likely to call for help (Can you imagine Bill calling down to the state troopers to pull Hillary off his back?). Police may arrest the man, even if he’s the one with the scratches and bruises. Prosecutors scoff at the mention of men injured by their partners. And editors marinated in feminist ideology will do anything to keep the story off the front page. That bias allows lawmakers to get away with laws bearing one-sided names like the Violence Against Women Act. And it keeps people in a perpetual hysteria over the faux epidemic of wife-battering. This high-stakes struggle is taking place around the world. One of the main mischief-makers is the UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund. Their website calls for ending violence against women which they allege is “widespread.” (Remember, keeping people in a frenzy of fear is how they lock in their funding.) Their solution to partner abuse? You guessed it: “UNFPA advocates for legislative reform and enforcement of laws for the promotion and the protection of women’s rights to reproductive health choices.” Amnesty International is another purveyor of the counterfeit claims. In Europe, AI voted to “support the decriminalization of abortion…and to defend women’s access to abortion, within reasonable gestational limits, when their health or human rights are in danger.” In response, bishops instructed Catholic schools in England and Wales to boycott Amnesty. In Nicaragua, pro-abortion forces dropped their rhetoric about “reproductive rights” in favor of pushing an agenda of “stopping violence against women.” Sex-selective abortion, which has snuffed out the lives of 100 million baby girls in China and India, is another battlefront. This moral and demographic travesty exposes the hypocrisy of abortionists who claim they are only trying to help disadvantaged women. The most obvious cure, and probably the only solution to sex-selective abortions is an outright ban on all abortions -- but the baby-killing industry wouldn’t be happy with that. So they paper over the truth with Orwellian doublespeak about “pre-birth sex selection,” as if we’re flipping some kind of genetic switch. And of course Sen. Obama’s so-called International Violence Against Women Act doesn’t even hint at this modern-day holocaust. Is anyone pretending to be surprised? The White Male Vote Swung the Democratic Race The 16-month Hillary-palooza has finally gone bust. Her website bravely instructs us to “Support Senator Obama Today.” Mrs. Clinton’s staff has been pared down to a skeleton crew. And she’s finally getting around to paying off the health insurance bills. But Hillary’s campaign wasn’t a presidential nomination effort in the usual sense. It was a massive exercise in feminist consciousness-raising foisted on an unsuspecting American public. Take Clinton’s June 7 concession speech that was billed as an endorsement of rival Barack Obama. In reality it was a neo-Marxist rant lightly disguised as a feminist pep talk. Hillary regurgitated her demand that women receive “equal pay” -- slyly omitting the words “even though they choose to work fewer hours at jobs that are less likely to maim and kill.” Mrs. Clinton also saw fit to blame her defeat on “unconscious” sex biases that had created the “highest, hardest glass ceiling.” That hard-edged rhetoric is one of the reasons why Hillary lost the race. Let’s look at the votes. While Barack Obama had a lock on the African-American vote, Hillary Clinton rallied the support of white women. The Black and white female vote basically offset each other. So which group was the tie-breaker? In states with exit polls, Barack Obama enjoyed 17 primary victories. In only four states did a plurality of white female voters support him: Iowa, Illinois, Vermont, and Oregon. [www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660890 ] But in 10 states, Mr. Obama took the white male vote: Iowa, Illinois, Vermont, and Oregon, plus Virginia, Wisconsin, Maryland, Connecticut, Utah, and Georgia. The significance of that result is amplified by the fact that white men represent a smaller fraction of the electorate. For example in Illinois, white males compose 23% of the Democratic electorate, compared to 34% who are white females. So in nearly 60% of Obama’s victories, the smaller number of white men, weary of Hillary’s girl-power riffs, came together to overcome the larger but splintered female vote. After she conceded the race, the true-believers in the feminist Nirvana came out to genuflect at Mrs. Clinton’s altar, lauding how her campaign had shattered gender myths and barriers. But in truth, Mrs. Clinton only crystallized the worst stereotypes about the Sisterhood: 1. Feminists are devious. Long-time Clinton confidante Dick Morris once wrote, “Bill lies about sex, Hillary lies about everything.” From her fairytale that “women were routinely excluded from major clinical trials” to the bullets-in-Bosnia brouhaha, Hillary Clinton has a nearly congenital tendency to disregard the truth. 2. Feminists love to blame men. When her defeat became undeniable, Hillary cast about for explanations, eventually deriding the nation’s alleged epidemic of sexism as “deeply offensive to millions of women.” But what about Hillary’s sexist caricatures of men? 3. Feminists don’t accept responsibility for their failures. How many times do you remember Mrs. Clinton saying, “I’m sorry” over the past year and a half? If you scan Hillary’s June 8 endorsement speech, she never hints at the many miscalculations and missteps of her campaign. 4. Feminists are arrogant. Recall Hillary’s famous promise, “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good”? Remember the aura of inevitability that she exuded during the early months of her campaign? 5. Feminists are self-possessed narcissists. As a college student, Hillary once confided that she had “not yet reconciled myself to the fate of not being the star,” adding that as a child she used to “pretend there were heavenly movie cameras watching my every move.” Does anyone doubt that Hillary believes her rightful place in the world is at the center of the universe? 6. Feminists can become very abusive. I have previously documented Hillary’s foul ways: www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/070408 . On the day that Bill was inaugurated as President, Hillary was informed she wouldn’t be moving into the vice-president’s office, prompting this rebuke: “G*d d*mn it, Bill, you promised me that office!” Once again, Hillary didn’t get her way. Heaven help us from a candidate scorned. Sex, Lies, and Datatapes of the Partner Abuse Industry The domestic violence industry is reeling from a recent series of high-profile scandals, leaving abuse workers to wonder how things could have possibly gone so wrong. First the Sex. Recently a woman described her stay at an abuse shelter. In shocking detail, she recounts how threats and bullying had become commonplace among the shelter residents. Once a resident punched her forearm, screaming at her, “bitch!” One night another woman assaulted her, injuring her back and forcing her to seek medical attention. The woman also recounted lesbian advances by a shelter employee. “If you become her girlfriend, you will be treated very good, I was 100% sure,” the woman sheepishly explains. On another occasion she was referred to a local lesbian attorney whose fetching assistant was “dressed like she was in a nightclub.” This is a video that has to be seen to be believed: www.vimeo.com/790290 . Sexual harassment of women in abuse facilities is not uncommon. I have personally spoken with other women who were pressured by shelter workers to engage in lesbian sexual activity in return for better accommodations and special perks. Now for the Lies. Two weeks ago a Maryland-based think tank called RADAR put out a report detailing numerous half-truths and falsehoods from the American Bar Association. The distortions are found in a document called “10 Myths about Custody and Domestic Violence and How to Counter Them.” A few of the claims are eyebrow-raisers, like the ABA’s pronouncement that children who witness domestic violence are more likely to get lung disease! That’s right doc, if your patient can’t breathe, it’s probably because he once witnessed abuse. And some statements are preposterous, like the assertion that abusive parents win child custody 70% of the time. So if you want to get custody of your kids, just tell the judge you abused them! That’s just for starters – RADAR compared the ABA’s 19 claims to the actual research and found only two of the 19 are true: www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-Myths-of-ABA-Commission-on-DV-Summary.pdf . Score one for the tin-foil hat crowd! Ready for the Datatapes? Family researchers Murray Straus and Katreena Scott recently released a report that documents how the domestic violence industry routinely hoodwinks the American public. “Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence” exposes all the tricks: falsifying research findings, blocking funding, and harassing researchers who cross the feminist party line: pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V70%20version%20N3.pdf . In one case professor Suzanne Steinmetz released a study that proved males and females are equally likely to perpetrate abuse: “Anger over this resulted in a bomb threat at her daughter’s wedding.” Imagine a cabal of women threatening to blow up a white-dress bride on her wedding day – and in the name of stopping family violence! Like a cancer that ravishes healthy cells, the corruption of the domestic violence industry is spreading to government agencies, as well. In West Virginia, any domestic violence program that wants to receive government funding must have one-third of its staff certified by the state’s Coalition Against Domestic Violence, a group that rejects on ideological grounds the suggestion that men can ever be abuse victims. So earlier this month a group called Men and Women Against Discrimination filed a discrimination lawsuit, charging the state “has unlawfully delegated the appropriation of public funds into the hands of a private entity, i.e., the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence.” False allegations have become endemic, as well. Last month former Olympic ice skater Oksana Grishuk accused James R. Halstead, a wealthy California investor, of dropping a date rape drug into her drink. Grishuk had won two gold medals for Russia in the 1990s. The two had been involved in a lengthy romantic relationship. But when Halstead refused Grishuk’s request to tie the knot, she furtively slipped the pills in her drink. The Orange County judge dismissed the case last Monday after it was reported she had demanded of her ex-boyfriend, “Can’t you find me a man with money who could take care of me?” Lesbian advances, propaganda-like claims, fabrication of research, sex discrimination, and false allegations. All in a day’s work for the good ladies of the domestic violence industry. Father Knows Best Father Knows Best was one of the most widely-viewed and long-running TV shows of the 1950s. True, the program played to a romanticized image of middle-class Americana. But that beats the modern-day alternative of a raging epidemic of sexually-transmitted diseases, safe havens for abandoned infants, and 11-year-old girls wearing thong underwear. Father Knows Best was yanked from the air in 1960. Before long the popular discourse was filled with the now-familiar litany of feminist grievance. The women’s libbers were especially troubled with the notion of the traditional family. Arch-feminist Simone de Beauvoir argued, “No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children … precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” Robin Morgan, former editor of Ms. Magazine, chillingly predicted, “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.” And Andrea Dworkin compared marriage to legalized prostitution. Most laughed at the hyperbole. But the hairy-legged hags were dead serious. Exactly how do you go about destroying the family which is, after all, the primordial unit of society? The best tactic, they decided, would be to go after the provider and protector image of Dear Old Dad. Homer Simpson became emblematic of the well-intentioned but inept father. “Patriarchal” was inverted into an epithet synonymous with the mistreatment of women. “Paternalistic” was nearly as bad. Media accounts began to tar men as wife-beaters, deadbeats, child abusers, clods, and all-around dufuses. Every one of those stereotypes was false or highly exaggerated, but no matter. As author Warren Farrell quipped, “father knows best” turned into “fathers molest.” Since men weren’t up to the task, the government would need to step in, the Lefties argued. A series of legal opinions, laws, and government programs came along, all claiming to “empower” women: Roe v. Wade, Violence Against Women Act, welfare programs, maternal custody preference, draconian child support programs, and more. If removing flocks of children from their fathers is your yardstick, these programs were successful beyond belief. From 1960 to 1990, says the Census Bureau, the number of American children living with their biological fathers plunged from 82% to 62%. As columnist Dennis Prager recently wrote, “The contemporary absence of men in boys’ lives is not only unprecedented in American history; it is probably unprecedented in recorded history.” These fatherless children are far more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience a range of educational and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior. But at least they’re liberated from the baleful influence of their fathers! Fortunately, family advocates saw where this was all headed and began to question the fem-think. Several groups are now coming to the rescue of daddy-hood (I’m including the web address if you want more information): This week the National Partnership for Community Leadership is holding a major conference in Washington DC to honor African-American dads: www.npclstrongfamilies.com Next week the National Fatherhood Initiative will release a landmark report, “The One Hundred Billion Dollar Man: The Public Costs of Father Absence:” www.fatherhood.org Fathers and Families has been working with the media to promote positive images of dads: www.fathersandfamilies.org And several groups are working to increase father involvement after divorce: Marriage Savers has just come out in support of shared parenting, revealing that “of the six states that passed the strongest Joint Custody laws, five experienced the largest drops in the divorce rate.” www.marriagesavers.org The American Coalition for Fathers and Children is urging citizens to sign a petition that reminds us, “Children thrive with the active involvement of both parents”: www.acfc.org And the Children’s Rights Council has succeeded in introducing a Congressional resolution in favor of joint custody: www.crckids.org True, frazzled fathers don’t always measure up to the iconic images of Father Knows Best. But on one point, these groups have hit the nail right on the head: a government program is a lousy substitute for a dad. Embittered Hillary Screams Sexism I’m getting a little tired of the Women’s Libbers who play the sexism card as a cover for ineptitude and arrogance. “It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists,” Hillary Clinton angrily charged last week. While I have high regard for Mrs. Clinton’s ambition, if she hadn’t been a feminist, she likely would have prevailed in the contest. She had the media coverage, fund-raising machinery, and connections with the Democratic Party establishment all going for her. So how did her feminist credentials doom her candidacy? The answer can be summed up in three words: staff, strategy, and authenticity. Clinton’s first gender-bender was the selection of her staff. The members of her inner circle were chosen because of their commitment to the feminist cause and loyalty to Mrs. Clinton. Their tableau graced the front page of the June 21, 2007 issue of the Washington Post: Patti Solis Doyle, Ann Lewis, Capricia Marshall, Mandy Grunwald, and the rest – all of them female. Mrs. Clinton moved heaven and earth to portray her staff as more dedicated and competent than the competition. When Gentleman’s Quarterly planned to run an exposé on the infighting at Hillaryland, she went ballistic, threatening to deny the magazine access to husband Bill for an upcoming cover story. But six months later the New York Times finally blew the lid off the story, running a front-page account detailing how the Clinton campaign was bereft of leadership and had “set itself apart for its level of disorder and dysfunction.” Clinton’s second feminist-driven blunder was her demographic strategy. “Pander to the female electorate and to hell with the white males” seemed to be the campaign’s guiding principle. Not only that, but regale your audience with stories that ridicule men. “Whenever you have trouble coping, just think of Snow White. She had to live with seven men.” was one of Hillary’s favorites. That strategy translated into the overarching theme that women still get the short end of the stick – that in a country where women now dominate in colleges and universities, outlive men by four years, and control most of the discretionary spending. Dissing the white male vote proved disastrous. Of the 16 primary races that Obama won by May 6, white males played a decisive role in 9 of those contests, compared to only 3 races in which a plurality of white females made a difference. Hillary Clinton’s biggest problem, though, was her campaign lacked authenticity. Here’s a person whose entire career rode the coattails of husband Bill. Her political accomplishments were as scarce as an uncommitted super-delegate. Worse, author Carl Bernstein had rendered this damning verdict about her days as first lady: “For the first time in American history, a president’s wife sent her husband’s presidency off the rails.” Despite that dismal record, Hillary’s campaign ironically harped on the theme of empowerment: “I am woman, hear me roar.” Remember the time she compared herself to JFK? Yes, really. The message of female empowerment often morphed into the narcissistic, “I am woman, I deserve to be president.” The heady mixture of gender empowerment and self-entitlement eventually came across as plain arrogance. And whenever her girl-power campaign hit rough sledding, Hillary became the pitiable damsel-in-distress. Whether it was her “politics of pile-on” lament, the proud recounting of her psychological wounds, or her misting-up moment at a New Hampshire café, Mrs. Clinton never hesitated to play the victim card. As her nomination prospects dimmed, Hillary’s image fell increasingly out of character. In the end she tried to channel Rocky Balboa -- swigging a shot of Crown Royal, recalling fond childhood memories of learning to shoot a gun, and threatening to “totally obliterate” Iran. Hillary Clinton once said she was running in order to “break the highest and hardest glass ceiling” in American life. But her numerous miscalculations prove there is no glass ceiling -- only a divisive gender ideology that fosters a victim mindset and serves to keep women dependent on government largesse. Bigotry and Contempt at Taxpayer Expense Once upon a time, feminism stood for fairness, equality, and possibility. But feminism traces its roots back to Karl Marx, George Engels, and Vladimir Lenin. That fact alone should make us think twice before acquiescing to the insistent demands of the women’s libbers. Rep. Howard Berman, California Democrat, recently introduced the International Violence Against Women Act (H.R. 5927). Known to its supporters as I-VAWA, the bill is based on the Violence Against Women Act, first signed into law in 1994 at the behest of First Lady Hillary Clinton. The crusade to stop intimate partner violence began in 1972 when activist Erin Pizzey established the first woman’s abuse shelter in London. Pizzey quickly discovered that many of the women in her shelter were just as violent as their partners. That led her to conclude that partner abuse is a human, not gender-specific problem. That revelation didn’t sit well with the rad-fems, who were determined to usurp the domestic violence issue to leap-frog their own political agenda. So they stormed the meetings and Pizzey was soon voted out. These experiences compelled Pizzey to pen an exposé called “How the Women’s Movement Taught Women to Hate Men.” Her essay highlights spiteful women like the zealot who openly declared, “We don’t like men …If there is ever to be any equality, marriage and the family must be abolished.” Thanks to the domestic violence movement, the contempt of men began to spread across the globe. In Canada, abuse shelters became known as “one-stop divorce shops” that forbade women to reconcile with their partners. It got so bad that former shelter resident Nezha Saad revealed to a local judge, “I was put under tremendous pressure…to say even more negative things about my husband to get him in more trouble with the law.” Disdain for men permeates the domestic violence industry in the United States, as well. Three years ago conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly excoriated the Violence Against Women Act as the “hate-men law.” That damning appraisal is confirmed by numerous industry insiders. (Caution: vulgar language ahead!) In Minnesota a shelter director left her job in disgust because the residents were subjected to a constant barrage of lesbian propaganda that said in so many words, “All men are sh*ts, all men are abusers.” Joy Taylor, who had volunteered at her local shelter, was shocked by the staff’s militant feminist ideology. “Men were always presented at potential abusers; any goodness one might see in them was only temporary,” she revealed. In Washington state, the head of one shelter admitted, “Whenever I speak of male abuse, I am met with disbelief and, even worse, laughter.” Many of these shelters not only turn away male victims of violence, they even refuse to accept adolescent males who are children of female abuse victims. One Seattle-area judge wrote, “I am a member of the advisory committee for the local shelter. I was shocked at the anti-male bias of the ladies who ran the center. My committee expressed concern about the underlying anti-male bias which even showed up in the name of the shelter.” The Violence Against Women Act also bankrolls educational programs for law enforcement personnel. In California, retired police officer George Sperry described domestic violence training classes as “so dripping with male hatred that everyone in the class felt uncomfortable, male and female officers alike.” In 2006 the presenter at a West Virginia seminar openly referred to a man accused of domestic violence as a “scum bag,” at the same time making light of a Florida incident where a young man was sexually assaulted by his female teacher. So it’s probably no surprise that the International Violence Against Women Act is filled with numerous one-sided and alarmist claims that amount to a spiteful indictment of the male species. The bill is filled with neo-Marxist cant about “power inequities.” But no where does the bill mention the recent 32-nation survey that found women were more likely to strike the first blow. And of course the proposed law never mentions that men are twice as likely as women to die of violence-related causes. The domestic violence industry needs a top-to-bottom house-cleaning. Scratch below the veneer of self-serving clichés like “helping battered women escape the cycle of abuse,” and you’ll find a self-perpetuating industry that cares only about breaking up families and vilifying men. All this thanks to the largesse of the U.S. taxpayer, to the tune of $1 billion a year. And this is what Rep. Berman wants to export to the rest of the world. McCain Lampoons the Gender Wage Gap Myth Ready for a morning chuckle to jump-start your day? Pay a visit to Hillary Clinton’s website that claims with a straight face, “Women still earn significantly less money than men for doing the same jobs.” [www.hillaryclinton.com/video/13.aspx ] The first part of Hillary’s sentence is true – women indeed earn less than men. But the last four words – “for doing the same jobs” – is as laughable as Hillary’s dodging-sniper-bullets-in-Bosnia tale. Let’s say you have a job opening and two persons apply who have identical skills and qualifications. Joe wants to be paid the prevailing wage, while Jackie says she is willing to work for only 77 cents on the dollar. Who would you hire? Jackie, of course. So if women are doing exactly the same work as men and getting paid 23% less, every profit-maximizing entrepreneur would hire only women. But last I heard, men are still getting jobs. Obviously there’s something wrong with the gender wage gap theory. Last month Senator McCain was campaigning in the hard-scrabble coal fields of Kentucky. He commented that if women want to overcome the gender wage gap, they would need more “education and training.” And knowing that Women’s Studies grads might not realize that coal mining is the economic mainstay of the region, McCain then deadpanned, “traditionally, women have not gone into that line of work.” But the Funny-Fems reflexively insist the culprit is sex discrimination, not women exercising the right to choose their preferred work. So when they heard Senator McCain’s comments, they flew into a purple-passion rage. Within days MoveOn rolled out its propaganda machine, making the claim that “Study after study has shown that women are paid less than men for the same work.” That’s good for another belly laugh, of course, because in eastern Kentucky, the best paying jobs go to the sooty-faced men who are willing to descend 900 feet into the ground and hope a boulder doesn’t break loose from the mine roof. That’s what happened to Cornelius Yates, who was crushed to death in a Kentucky coal mine in January 2006. Yates’ death came just a week after 12 miners were killed in a West Virginia mine explosion. And that followed a year in which nine miners died throughout Kentucky. Not surprisingly, women are not very interested in doing hazardous jobs that may send them to the grave. Indeed study after study has shown that when differences in the type of work, hours on the job, and education are accounted for, women are treated fairly. Actually, women may be doing better than men. According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers, in many fields female college grads are being offered higher starting salaries than their male counterparts. Female physicists are getting $6,500 more. Co-eds who majored in petroleum engineering are being offered $4,400 more. And women computer programmers are being enticed with $7,200 extra pay. In fact for dozens of majors and occupations, women coming out of college are getting better offers than men, reveals Warren Farrell in his book, Why Men Earn More. Why these disparities? Because in traditionally male-dominated professions, employers are willing to ante up more greenbacks to attract females in order to forestall a costly discrimination lawsuit. So once again the radical left is caught red-handed, trying to push a socialist scheme that centralizes bureaucratic control and weakens free markets. That’s the approach that brought the Soviet economy to its knees 20 years ago. The Sisters of Silliness are out of touch with the needs of women. By scorning the notion of education and disempowering women, they prove they are trying to force women into a dependency relationship at the porcine foot-stool of the government trough. Obama Hitches his Wagon to the Radical Feminist Agenda Barack Obama has a habit of hanging out with flamethrowers who espouse radical causes. There’s Obama’s long-time associate, former Weatherman William Ayers, who once boasted, “I don’t regret setting bombs...I feel we didn’t do enough.” And Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s spiritual mentor, who has defended the notion that Zionism is racism, compared white kids to “rocks,” and propounded the theory that the government invented AIDS to kill off Black folks. Last week Obama finally decided he had heard enough and rebuked the Raging Reverend, calling his latest rant “divisive and destructive” and “giving comfort to those who prey on hate.” Then there’s Mr. Obama’s embrace of radical feminism. Like Rev. Wright’s black liberation ideology, the core of feminism is a dogmatic belief in a malevolent, all-pervasive conspiracy that renders its victims helpless. Call it capitalism or the patriarchy, the effect is the same. And just as Jeremiah Wright spews his hatred for American society, feminists blame every unpleasantness on the alleged shortcomings of men. This past Thursday New York Times columnist Gail Collins indulged in her latest anti-male diatribe: “Men with egos are, of course, the central topic this week.” Every roadbump in the campaigns of the two Democratic challengers, Collins insists, can be blamed on those nincompoopish, self-centered men. It comes as an enormous relief, I’m sure, to learn that Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi don’t suffer from inflated egos. Let’s take a look at the issues the National Organization for Women is pushing -- www.now.org/issues/ -- and then compare them with the Women for Obama website: my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues . (Both bear a remarkable resemblance to the women’s platform of the Community Party of the USA – but that’s another story.) As you can see, Sen. Obama is marching lock-step with the radical feminist agenda, pretty much from A to Z: Abortion: Obama endorses the entire abortion package, including partial birth abortion. The National Abortion Rights Action League gave Obama a perfect 100% score over the last three years. Child Support: Obama wants to spend $4.9 billion over 10 years to throw more low-income dads in jail. That will force more single moms onto the welfare rolls. Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? Contraception: Obama wants to expand teenager’s access to contraception. Remember last month’s comment that he didn’t want his daughters to be “punished” with a baby? Domestic Violence: The democratic candidate believes that women are never violent towards their husbands. (I guess Hillary laying tracks on Bill’s face and singer Amy Winehouse beating up her hubbie don’t count.) Gender Wage Gap: Barack insists discrimination is the reason why women chose to work fewer hours than men, and that needs to be fixed with stronger enforcement of the Equal Pay Act. Math and Science: Women hold only 12% of science and engineering jobs in business and industry. More proof of the patriarchy keeping women down. Title IX: Obama wants to continue Clinton-era policies that impose government-enforced quotas on men’s participation in college athletics. Women-Owned Businesses: Female-owned businesses are more likely to have their loan applications denied. Didn’t I tell you discrimination lurks everywhere? Women’s Health: Obama wants to fund the separate-and-unequal “Centers of Excellence in Women’s Health” that turn away uninsured men with serious medical problems. And then there’s the matter of Michelle Obama. An intelligent and charming woman, I’m certain. But is she First Lady material? I have my doubts. At a New York fundraiser, she tweaked the Illinois senator for not “putting his socks actually in the dirty clothes” – a necessary qualification, we know, for every man who one day hopes to become president. And at a Hollywood event, Mrs. Obama uttered this derisive remark: “I am always a little amazed at the response that people get when they hear from Barack. A great man, a wonderful man. But still a man.” But still a man? Somehow this reminds me of the patronizing attitude that once galvanized the civil rights movement. Michelle continued, “And then there’s the Barack Obama that lives with me in my house, and that guy’s a little less than impressive.” Lives with me in my house? That’s right, Barack was a waif who showed up one day on Michelle’s doorstep. He should be appreciative. “For some reason this guy still can’t manage to put the butter up when he makes the toast, secure the bread so that it doesn’t get stale, and his 5-year-old daughter is still better at making the bed than he is.” Barack Obama, the latest hen-pecked Democratic candidate who has pretensions of becoming the next Leader of the Free World. Hillary Unleashes Her Inner Macho Belatedly, the Clinton campaign has come to realize that white men represent the critical swing vote of the 2008 primaries. When Hillary captured the white male vote, she has won 9 out of 14 contests. But when the good-ol’-boys gave the nod to Barack, he triumphed in 9 of the 15 races. [www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/080313 ] Problem is, Hillary has been rubbing a lot of persons the wrong way with her girl-power jokes and “Iron my Shirt” pranks. Earlier this month the Democratic elders began to call for Clinton’s withdrawal from the race. Predictably, Hillary’s surrogates screamed “misogyny” and pushed back with the claim that “Ginger Rogers did everything Fred Astaire did, but backwards and in high heels.” Obviously these women never danced the lead for the tango So how is Hillary going to pull off her kiss-and-make-up with the male electorate? Well, simple – if she can’t beat the boys, why not join ‘em! So on April 1 – April Fool’s Day, for those who noticed – Mrs. Clinton showed up on the steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art and invoked the memory of Rocky Balboa, legendary boxer of film fame. Putting on her best he-man imitation, she exclaimed, “Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up.” A few days later she shared one of her fondest childhood memories. “You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” she related. Waxing sentimental, she added, “People enjoyed hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are.” (Note to Second Amendment advocates: Before getting excited over this political pabulum, be sure to check out Hillary’s record on gun control. On at least 17 different occasions, she has issued statements on the need to restrict access to guns, including her 2000 proposal to license and register handgun sales: www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Gun_Control.htm .) But by mid-April the non-stop campaigning began to take its toll and Mrs. Clinton hankered for some quality time with the boys. So she sauntered over to Bronko’s Restaurant and Lounge in Crown Point, Ind. Sidling up to the bar, she ordered the bartender’s finest. In full view of the cameras she took a sip of the Crown Royal whiskey, then threw her head back and finished off the rest of the shot. Then wiping off the dried tobacco spittle around her mouth with the back of her sleeve, Mrs. Clinton let loose a guttural “Ahhhh” and ordered up a round of Jack Daniels for all the blurry-eyed gents huddled around the bar. (I made up that part.) Hillary still wasn’t done with her Rambo wannabe routine. As Pennsylvania voters streamed to the polls this past Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton appeared on ABC. Asked about the looming threat from Iran, Clinton indulged in some high-profile saber-rattling. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran,” she warned. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.” Totally obliterate them? Goodness gracious, if Senator McCain ever uttered those words, he’d be tarred, feathered, and sent packing to Arizona. Even after she won the Pennsylvania primary, Clinton continued her belligerent rhetoric. On Tuesday evening she cut loose with a victory stem-winder, reiterating the words “fight,” “fighter,” and “fighting.” History shows very time a Democrat’s campaign is on the ropes, the beleaguered candidate tries, somewhat pathetically, to play the macho. Remember the time when Michael Dukakis donned his helmet, military coveralls, and red tie, and crawled into the gun turret of a 63-ton M-1 battle tank? Don’t forget that Al Gore paid feminist Naomi Wolf $15,000 to turn him into a beta male. And do you recall John Kerry’s quail-hunting romp? By the time the cameras caught up with the hunting party, he was no longer holding the bagged birds. Teresa would not have approved. So as Hillary Clinton tries to restart her quixotic bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, it’s inevitable that she would try to portray herself as a gun-toting, military-loving fighter on behalf of the common man. And above all, a woman who can really hold her liquor. Now We Know, Marriage is Cost-Effect It’s long been known that family break-up inflicts massive social costs on communities and children. But what about the burden it imposes on the American taxpayer? It’s a proven fact that family dissolution places children at greater risk of poverty, mental and physical illness, juvenile delinquency, abuse, substance abuse, and educational failure. A few years ago Wade Horn, former director of the federal Administration for Children and Families, revealed, “My agency spends $46 billion per year operating 65 different social programs. If one goes down the list of these programs... the need for each is either created or exacerbated by the breakup of families and marriages.” But what about the impact of heavier demands on the criminal justice system? Medical care services? And losses in tax revenues? At last we have a good idea of the answer. Last week -- Tax Day to be exact -- the Institute for American Values released its ground-breaking report, “Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing.” [www.americanvalues.org/html/coff_mediaadvisory.htm ] Researched by economist Benjamin Scafidi, the document lays out an elegant four-step logic: 1. Anti-poverty programs like TANF, housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, WIC, etc. – family break-up is responsible for 32% of these programs’ costs. 2. Government programs for children such as Head Start, SCHIP, school breakfast programs, etc. – family dissolution causes 36% of these costs. 3. Justice system -- 24% of crime is the result of childhood poverty. 4. Lost taxes – Newly employed workers would presumably pay taxes to the IRS (10% of wages), state and local government (11%), and FICA (15%). Tally up the numbers and – voila! – the total taxpayer cost of fragile families comes out to $112 billion dollars a year. That’s billion with a B. But what’s clear is these numbers vastly underestimate the financial impact of family break-down, in at least three ways. When men marry, their wages go up 8-15%, thus increasing tax revenues. Second, children who grow up in a single-parent household are at greater risk of health problems and sexual promiscuity. Even if they don’t fall into the clutches of poverty, they will likely call upon federally-subsidized programs to render medical help and care for their children. And single elderly women are four times more likely to be warehoused in a nursing home, compared to their married counterparts. That places an enormous burden on Medicaid. In one respect, though, the Institute for American Values report is flawed. To encourage persons to marry, IAV proposes “marriage-strengthening programs.” But touting the marriage education Band-aid is like saying we can fix a broken welfare system by teaching teenage moms to refrain from sex. The reason for plummeting marriage rates, of course, is not a dearth of marriage education. The problem is tangle of laws and programs that weaken the role of marriage, marginalize fathers, and dangle incentives in front of women to leave their families. Like the school curricula that teach gay marriage is morally equivalent to heterosexual union. Like the no-fuss, no-fault divorce laws that allow partners to casually discard their sacred vows. Like the gender studies programs that brainwash co-eds into believing marriage exploits women. (According to rad-fem Catherine MacKinnon: “Feminism stresses the indistinguishability of prostitution, marriage, and sexual harassment.”) It’s the domestic violence programs, underwritten to the tune of $1 billion in federal money each year, that escalate partner conflict and prohibit couples counseling, all the while fostering contempt for men. It’s ham-fisted child support programs that take away persons’ drivers’ licenses and toss low-income dads in jail. It’s the deplorable Supreme Court Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling that precludes a father from being informed about his partner’s plan to abort. And it’s female empowerment programs like the federally-endorsed “Girl Power!” that undercut the role of families For years social and fiscal conservatives have co-existed in a sometimes uneasy alliance – call it a marriage of convenience if you will. “We’ll tolerate your musings on abortion and gay marriage, just so long as you don’t fool with our tax cuts and de-regulation plans,” the green-visored conservatives would say. But now, both wings of conservatism have found common ground – restore the traditional family, rally around the needs of children, staunch the growth of social welfare programs, and save billions in taxpayer money. Call it a match made in heaven. The Sad Spectacle of Dee Dee Myers Dee Dee Myers has just come out with her amusing tale, Why Women Should Rule the World. You may recall Mrs. Myers was the first female White House press secretary, appointed during the first two tumultuous years of the Clinton administration. Simply put, Myers is a female supremacist. “Women tend to be better communicators, better listeners, better at forming consensus,” she argues. That entitles women to run the world because they do everything better than those power-hungry men, Myers believes. As the unsmiling Myers goes about promoting her book, one wonders what led her to pen a tome filled with crude gender stereotypes and doubtful claims. After Myers left the hurly-burly of the White House in 1994, Myers married a handsome (and well-paid) magazine executive. They moved into a tony Washington DC home and had two children together. But 14 years after leaving her heady White House post, Myers’ career has stalled out. She has only managed to land a few part-time consulting jobs, like advising the now-defunct NBC series, The West Wing. Hardly an inspiring role model for the female global domination wannabes. If you go out and get Myers’ book, don’t expect to find a watertight argument. According to Myers, women create a nurturing, idyllic work environment – well, with a few exceptions. In a 2000 Frontline interview, Myers made these remarks about her White House encounters with a devious Hillary Clinton: “Hillary tended to kind of campaign against people behind their back, and that was certainly my experience.” Women are the peaceful gender, as well. To prove the point, Myers highlights on page 125 how Queen Elizabeth I arranged to have Mary Queen of Scots beheaded, Indira Gandhi pushed for a sharp increase in nuclear arms, and Margaret Thatcher went to war in the Falklands. Women never abuse their power, either. That’s true for every woman in the world except Indira Gandhi who “used emergency provisions to grant herself extraordinary powers and quash dissent,” Myers admits. Women are gentle consensus-builders, as well. Myers recounts the story of Alexis Herman, former Secretary of Labor, who tried her hand at resolving a labor strike. Frustrated by the lack of progress, Herman grabbed one of the negotiators by the lapels and issued this threat: “Don’t f_ck with me.” Perhaps we should be grateful that Mrs. Meyers does not make the claim that women are the logical sex. And some of her factual statements raise eyebrows, as well. Myers says back in 1998 the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition brokered the historic Good Friday Agreement, a claim that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton also stands by. Unfortunately, no one else saw it that way. As Irish historian Tim Pat Coogan noted, “It was a nice thing to see [Hillary Clinton] there, with the women’s groups. It helped, I suppose, but it was ancillary to the main thing.” The Women’s Coalition disbanded in 2006 after its candidates lost in two straight elections, an inconvenient truth that escapes Meyer’s notice. There’s this chestnut on page 56: “until recently, all the research into [heart] disease was conducted on men.” But somehow that doesn’t square with the FDA analysis that found, “women have been included in drug development studies at least since the early 1980s in approximate proportion to the prevalence of disease in them.” [www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0412roberts.html ] And as we all know, women are victims of the gender wage gap. Want proof? When the 31-year-old Myers worked at the White House, she was paid a measly $100,000. But there was another deputy assistant, he was paid $10,000 more. True, he was far more experienced and qualified. He took a big pay cut to come work for President Clinton. But that didn’t matter – Dee Dee was entitled to that extra 800 bucks in her paycheck. Go call the lawyers! Lest you suspect that Myers is totally unsympathetic to men, she proffers this reassurance on page 128: “That’s not to say women should replace men altogether.” And yes, she does thank her husband in the Acknowledgements. See, not all men are that bad. Dee Dee Myers comes across as a woman who hasn’t figured out whether she wants to be a stay-at-home mom or go back to being a 60-hour-a-week workaholic. So every road bump in life is blamed on the heartless patriarchy. She publishes a book filled with odious stereotypes and half-truths, and then wonders why her colleagues don’t take her seriously. In the end, Myers’ book becomes a feminist fairy tale that provokes sadness, not outrage. In its over-wrought quest to promote female empowerment, her work becomes a parody of the very movement she has chosen to embrace. Do Female Politicians Represent an ‘Ethical and Pure’ Force? Hillary Clinton has famously claimed that “Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behavior and lowers corruption.” Ironically it’s Mrs. Clinton who has now come under withering criticism as her ethical lapses and make-believe claims become legion. Hillary still hasn’t come clean on where her $5 million campaign loan came from. She refused to release her Senate earmark requests, even after Barack Obama made known his list. Most comical of all, she claimed that she and daughter Chelsea had to duck sniper fire during a 1996 trip to Bosnia. “We were basically told to run to our cars,” Clinton told her audience. Oh well, it made for a good sound-bite. Betsey Wright, confidante to Hillary Clinton, once bragged that women represent an “ethical and pure force” in politics. And Hillary recently stated a female president would represent a “sea change in our country.” It’s not just the Lefties who are saying it’s time for a housecleaning of politics as usual. And Jo-Ann Davidson, co-chair of the Republican National Committee, has argued that “We have better public policy when more women are at the table.” There’s no doubt that women bring a valuable perspective to the political arena. But do female politicians really exemplify an ethical uber-species? One cannot do justice in a single column to the repeated misrepresentations that have marked Mrs. Clinton’s career. A “trouble with truth-telling, I would think, is the constant aspect of her time in public life that is most troubling,” reveals biographer Carl Bernstein. Just consider the unending string of ethical lapses: her conflict of interest dealings at the Rose Law Firm, the cattle futures scam, White House travel-gate, her concealment of $120,000 in free ghost-writing services for It Takes a Village, Hillary’s venomous attacks on Bill Clinton’s sexual paramours – the list goes on. And when Obama aide Samantha Power called Hillary Clinton a “monster,” I couldn’t help but think of Hillary’s physical and verbal abuse of husband Bill and others: www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/04/09/does-hillary-clinton-pass-the-kitchen-test OK, maybe Hillary isn’t the most squeaky-clean politician in Washington, but what about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? Fourteen months after anointing herself “the most powerful woman in America,” where’s the sea-change in the House of Representatives? You will recall Pelosi promised to institute “the most ethical Congress in history.” Then she turned around and named Rep. William Jefferson, caught with $90,000 funny-money in the fridge, to the Homeland Security Committee. What about her pledge to end wasteful earmarks? No, not by a long shot. And creating a culture of inclusive consensus-building? Not according to Senator Harry Reid, who revealed Pelosi “runs that place with an iron hand.” The verdict on the first female Speaker of the House? “Pelosi has emerged as a fairly conventional leader,” the nonpartisan Politico newspaper recently concluded. Look beyond the gender posturing and muscle-flexing and you’ll detect the unmistakable scent of sexism. Hillary often displays a wicked sense of humor delivered at the expense of members of the opposite sex. Once Mrs. Clinton recounted a sympathy note she received during one of the White House scandals that read, “Whenever you have trouble coping, just think of Snow White. She had to live with seven men.” Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee has openly called for male politicians to “step aside” while women move in to call the shots. Last Fall Texas Republican Kay Granger asserted, “It’s important for men and women to understand that we [women] will decide this election” – a remark that sounds more like a threat than a prediction. A February 5 editorial in the Christian Science Monitor announced grandly that “a woman leader governs differently than a man, bringing new perspectives and helping other women.” That’s a rather bizarre claim in light of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, multi-billion dollar programs that were enacted by men and designed to benefit mostly women. But for a glimpse into the dark world of feminist gyno-politics, read Gloria Steinem’s New York Times pity-party piece, “Women are Never Front-Runners.” [www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html ] Being the expert of Freudian psychology that she is, Steinem derides men because they “tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman.” Playing the victim for all its worth, Steinem concludes that “Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life.” So as Hillary Clinton tells voters to forgive and forget her Bosnia folktale and as Nancy Pelosi’s autocratic regimen reigns, we should recall that despite whatever other virtues they may possess, female politicos are cut from the same frayed ethical cloth as the rest of us mere mortals. The Intellectual Perversion of the VAWA Mafia When professor Suzanne Steinmetz published the results of her survey on domestic violence, no one had prepared her for the firestorm that would ensue. You see, feminists take it as an article of faith that only husbands abuse their wives. So when Steinmetz revealed that women are often as violent as their husbands, the fem-fascists started a whispering campaign designed to block her promotion at the University of Delaware. When that didn’t work, they phoned in a bomb threat at her daughter’s wedding. Cowed by the threats, Steinmetz soon suspended her pioneering research. Erin Pizzey of England had impeccable credentials – she was the founder of the first abuse shelter for women. So a few years later she published Prone to Violence, a book that revealed these women are often as physically aggressive as their mates. That provoked threats of violence by the women who said women can never be violent. Pizzey was forced to seek police protection as she traveled around to promote her book. She was met by jeering protesters with placards that read, “All men are bastards.” Dr. Lynette Feder planned to do a study to find out whether batterer intervention programs work. But then the Broward County, Florida district attorney tried to block the study since, he claimed, everyone “already knew” such programs work. Interestingly, other researchers later found such programs are often ineffective. Claudia Ann Dias is an attorney who has been featured on 20/20 and Oprah for her work on family violence. She was awarded a 10-year contract by the Sacramento County Jail to counsel men arrested for partner violence. Since partner abuse is often mutual, Dias found herself discussing the problem of female aggressors. Six months later, her contract was abruptly cancelled. Men also have been besieged by the VAWA Mafia, a loosely-organized cabal that takes its name from the federal Violence Against Women Act. Dr. Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire is the pre-eminent American researcher in the area of family violence. His work points to the politically incorrect conclusion that wives are equally likely to abuse. The VAWA Mafia has accused Dr. Straus of being a wife-beater and sexually exploiting his students. The unfounded claim was so outrageous that his accuser later apologized. And one of his students was recently warned she would never be able to find a job if she did her graduate work with him. Dr. Donald Dutton of the University of British Columbia has been branded as “dangerous” for his research debunking the feminist propaganda on partner abuse. Despite prolific publications and an impressive resumé, government officials refuse to confer with him. When intimidation tactics have failed, the VAWA Mafia has tried to hijack the research itself. Writing in the American Psychological Association book Prevention of Partner Violence, professor Straus outlines the information-control tactics used by feminist researchers. These include suppressing statistics on female-initiated abuse, reaching conclusions not supported by the data, or simply not asking questions on female perpetration. For example, Dr. Jennifer Rohling of the University of South Alabama wanted to do a survey of women in abuse shelters. That would be fine, the shelter director said, just so long as Rohling didn’t ask whether any of the women themselves had been violent. “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” as they like to say. Straus has documented how even government agencies have hobbled the open pursuit of the truth. In one case the U.S. Department of Justice forbade research funds from being used to investigate the victimization of men. And in February the U.S. Centers for Disease Control released the results of a survey of partner abuse. But the CDC had rigged the questions to inflate the occurrence of abuse against women. [www.mediaradar.org/alert20080211.php ] Last year Dr. Richard Gelles, dean of the School of Social Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote an article in Family Court Review detailing the myths conjured up by the VAWA Mafia. Remember the claim that men turn beastly on Super Bowl Sunday? Amusing perhaps, but entirely false. Or the March of Dimes study that battering of pregnant women is the leading cause of birth defects? In truth, the March of Dimes has never heard of the research. Gelles terms these myths “woozles” – in honor of the famous Winnie the Pooh story. And exactly who is the VAWA Mafia? It’s a group of Gender Guerillas who bear the name like a perverse badge of honor. And once we break their stranglehold on the truth and question their odious ideology, we’ll finally be able to curb the abuse. Harsh Domestic Violence Laws Recall Jim Crow Abuses Misty Ospina was dropping off her eight-month-old child at Richard Gibson’s apartment when the two fell into an argument. Suddenly Ospina, jealous over Gibson’s new girlfriend, grabbed a kitchen knife and stabbed her ex. An hour later the 22-year-old father was pronounced dead at Rhode Island Memorial Hospital. Police have charged Ospina with first-degree murder. It’s no secret that our nation’s crusade to stop domestic violence has been a magnificent flop. Researchers have been saying that for years. Three years ago professor William Wells of Southern Illinois University did a comprehensive analysis of domestic violence programs in California. “There was no statistically significant relationship between any criminal justice system response and victimization for either gender or for any racial or ethnic group,” he concluded. Even government bureaucrats see no point in whitewashing the truth. “We have no evidence to date that VAWA [Violence Against Women Act] has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women,” writes Angela Parmley, PhD, acting chief at the National Institute of Research in the Department of Justice. But while abuse prevention programs are simply ineffective in middle-class families, these nanny-state efforts have been a colossal failure in African-American communities. Domestic violence is caused when a couple can’t resolve its differences in an amicable manner, so they resort to physical aggression. And recent research by Daniel Whitaker from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reveals it’s often the lady who strikes the first blow. The problem is domestic abuse programs invest heavily in get-tough law enforcement measures, while ignoring the offender’s mental health and drug addiction needs. Take Misty Ospina who had a well-known proclivity to violence. Richard Gibson’s mother had warned him months before to leave Ospina or else “You could end up hurt or dead.” So why didn’t someone dispatch her to a domestic violence counseling program? The reason is these programs are little more than thought reform classes informed by radical feminist ideology. Browbeating Ospina to give up her patriarchal need for power likely would not have helped her overcome that jealous rage. And no surprise, studies show counseling programs based on the Duluth approach don’t work. “Recent evaluations using more rigorous designs have found little or no reduction in battering,” reveals Peggy Grauwiler, a social worker at New York University But while counseling programs based on gender ideology have been merely ineffective, intrusive law enforcement programs are downright destructive. Last year Harvard University economist Radha Iyengar released a milestone study on mandatory arrest laws for partner violence. She found that after these laws were enacted, partner homicide rates shot up by more than a half. Why? Because in most cases victims want the police to simply defuse the conflict, not incarcerate the aggressor. So victims stop calling for help, Iyengar believes. The conflict escalates, and someone yanks a knife from the drawer. According to FBI statistics, some 300,000 African-Americans, mostly men, are arrested each year for partner aggression. In low-income communities, that’s not just a statistic, it’s a prescription for financial ruin as families suddenly find themselves without a breadwinner. “Throw the guy in jail, let the prosecutor sort things out,” seems to be the prevailing attitude, even when the woman is the primary aggressor. The problem has gotten so out-of-hand that Aya Gruber, writing in the Iowa Law Review, revealed a modern-day incarnation of harsh Jim Crow policies: “Day after day, prosecutors proceeded with cases against the wishes of victims, resulting in the mass incarceration of young black men.” The long-term effects of arrest policies that set aside constitutional considerations of probable cause are devastating. Last year the Institute for American Values reported that young Blacks may be “losing hope that a good marriage is attainable.” As a result, fatherless African-American children are vulnerable to delinquency, teen pregnancy, and economic dependency. At a February 8 vigil, Pawtucket mayor James Doyle joined family members and community activists who gathered to mourn the death of Richard Gibson, a man who had once dreamed of getting his G.E.D. and becoming a rapper. Sister Eulanda LaFrance lamented, “Now I’m a victim of domestic violence. Now I have two little girls without a mommy or a daddy.” Women like Misty Ospina can be helped. And tragedies like Richard Gibson are avoidable. But first we’ll have to get the ideology-bound domestic violence industry to mend its ways. Hillary’s Scheme to Revamp the Traditional Family Hillary Clinton’s personal life has long made a mockery of traditional family values – her betrothal to a serial womanizer, the refusal to have a traditional wedding, and her smears of the females who later accused her husband of sexual impropriety. Let’s recall her acrid put-down of stay-at-home moms: “I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do is fulfill my profession.” And when Jennifer Flowers claimed she had had a 12-year affair with Bill, Hillary ludicrously remarked, “I’m not sitting here, some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.” If that’s not contempt for women in traditional roles, I don’t know what is. And no surprise, Hillary Clinton’s vision for families is, might we say, unconventional. And it’s not just her opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment that would define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Back when she was a student at Yale Law School, Hillary wrote in the Harvard Educational Review that “marriage, slavery, and the Indian reservation system” constitute dependency arrangements that must be abolished. Ridiculing the notion that families are “private, nonpolitical units,” she demanded that we “remodel” the time-honored institution. Two decades later she wrote It Takes a Village, the socialist manifesto that justifies governmental intrusion into the most intimate aspects of family life. And Clinton’s 2003 book Living History reads like the autobiography of a woman obsessed with feminist activism, a power-mad princess in a pantsuit. She boasts immodestly, “I represented a fundamental change in the way women functioned in our society.” Remember that Hillary Rodham Clinton, former protégé of Rules for Radicals author Saul Alinsky, is at heart a cultural Marxist. Inducing a fundamental change in motherhood would be insufficient to assure the social transformation that she seeks. Time to put dear ol’ dad on the chopping block. European social philosopher Wyndham Lewis once noted: “The male, the Father, is in all these revolutions, the enemy. It is he that has been cast to represent authority. Therefore in modern revolutionary Europe it was he, the male head-of-the-family, who has been aimed at in every insurrection. The break-up of the Family...must begin and end with the eclipse of the Father principle.” So no surprise, Hillary Clinton has trained her sights on fatherhood. A few weeks ago researcher Anna Sarkadi published a review in the Acta Pediatrica journal on the impact of fathers on children’s developmental outcomes. The studies showed paternal engagement helped to reduce behavioral problems in boys and psychological problems in girls. Sarkadi concludes a father’s “active and regular engagement with the child predicts a range of positive outcomes.” But Hillary’s Living History leans over backwards to ignore any meaningful role of dads. On page 132 she writes about “issues affecting women, children, and families.” On page 380 she repeats the identical phrase: “issues affecting women, children, and families.” And on page 269 she notes “Women handle a large share of the responsibility for the welfare of their families,” again ignoring the essential role of fathers. Then there’s the abortion issue, where Hillary has staked out the most radical of positions, even supporting partial-birth abortion and a teenage girl’s right to get an abortion absent parental permission. Abortion-on-demand strikes a chilling blow to a father’s natural rights. As Justice White wrote in his stirring dissent to Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, “It is truly surprising that the majority finds in the United States Constitution, as it must in order to justify the result it reaches, a rule that the State must assign a greater value to a mother’s decision to cut off a potential human life by abortion than to a father’s decision to let it mature into a live child.” Dr. Alan Carlson of Howard University adds cogently, “on the question of abortion, the father is irrelevant, with no more interest in the fate of the baby than a stranger from Mars.” In her famous 1993 “politics of meaning” speech, Clinton called for a redefinition of personhood itself. She told the startled audience, “Let us be willing to remold society by refining what it means to be a human being in the 20th century.” As presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has billed herself as the proponent of “real” change. One has to wonder where her “real” change will lead us -- to the hollow shell of a family structure that all but shuns traditional notions of fatherhood and motherhood? HRC: ‘Shame on You, Barack Obama’ Every time her campaign hit a rough spot, Hillary Clinton has artfully played the role of defender of the downtrodden or misty-eyed damsel-in-distress. But the sympathy vote began to tire of that routine. So now Mrs. Clinton has taken on a new role: Mother Superior. First the Clinton campaign accused opponent Barack Obama of “plagiarism” for borrowing a couple lines written by Massachusetts governor Patrick Duvall. A close friend of Obama, Duvall was flattered by the move, but Hillary was ready to haul out the rope noose. Then Obama tagged Clinton an ardent supporter of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a label that could doom Hillary’s chances with the blue-collar vote in Ohio. “Shame on you, Barack Obama,” Clinton charged, denouncing her opponent by name this past Saturday. “Time and time again you hear one thing in speeches and then you see a campaign that has the worst kind of tactics.” Recalling Hillary’s make-nice remarks in their debate just two days before, Obama seemed surprised by the attack: “I’m puzzled by her change in tone. Now that Mrs. Clinton has injected morality into the campaign, maybe it’s time we turn the tables. Let’s probe Hillary’s stand on the issue that defines one of the greatest moral debates of our era: abortion. Husband Bill Clinton was not an abortion hard-liner. In his memoirs he wrote, “Everyone knows life begins biologically at conception.” Yet on January 23, 1993, newly-elected President Clinton issued a stunning rebuke to his centrist coalition. Marking the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he signed five executive orders that dramatically increased federal funding for elective abortions. So why did Bill Clinton plunge his fledgling presidency into the seething abyss of the abortion controversy? Because Hillary told him to. Based on memos obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, it is now known that Mrs. Clinton was a central player in the Clinton administration’s abortion working group. According to Judicial Watch, she was the “driving force behind the White House’s abortion policy.” And tapped for the Task Force on National Health Care Reform, Hillary vowed that under her plan, abortion services “would be widely available.” Needless to say, Hillary’s self-appointed role as abortion flag-waver troubled many. On February 3, 1994 Mother Teresa was invited to speak at the National Prayer Breakfast. With Hillary seated just a few feet away, the Lady from Calcutta was unerringly direct: “I feel that the greater destroyer of peace today is abortion.” Mother Teresa then drove home her point: “By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems.” As the ballroom was swept up in rousing cheers and thunderous applause, Hillary sat silent and expressionless. In 1999, exactly six years after her husband signed the five pro-abortion orders, first lady Hillary Clinton delivered the keynote address to the National Abortion Rights Action League. There she uttered her famous aspiration of “keeping abortion safe, legal, and rare into the next century.” She then dutifully laid out the difference between being pro-abortion and pro-choice: “I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-abortion is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.” In his book God and Hillary Clinton, Paul Kengor points out the sexist double-standard of Hillary’s statement. “The father cannot be the moral arbiter in this decision because he is not endowed with the right of ‘choice,’” he explains. As the 2000 Democratic candidate to the Senate, Hillary embarked on a listening tour of New York. Visiting every county in the state she professed a willingness to consider all perspectives on all issues -- except for one: abortion. Once elected to the Senate, Clinton would vote “nay” against every bill that might infringe on a woman’s right to abort. She opposed the Child Custody Protection Act that would have required parental notification. And she wouldn’t stand for the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. Then there was the Informed Choice Act, a bill that would have provided money for the purchase of ultrasound machines. That would have allowed pregnant women to view the unborn child in their womb. What better way of “trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself”? But Hillary couldn’t stomach that idea, either. Every year one-quarter of all pregnancies in the United States end in abortion. That represents a colossal breach of human rights and a moral travesty that Hillary Clinton zealously seeks to preserve. Yet Mrs. Clinton, incorrigible defender of a woman’s dubious right to abort, wants to cast shameful aspersions on the candidacy of Mr. Barack Obama. My Wife Became Legal and I Became Illegal Each year the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and similar federal laws funnel $1 billion to help abused and battered women – or so we are led to believe. A good part of that money goes to immigrants who claim to be victims of domestic violence. Last Fall I wrote a three-part exposé that revealed how an immigrant woman’s restraining order becomes a “gold-plated meal ticket that entitles her to preferential treatment by immigration authorities, free legal services, and a generous helping of welfare services.” One woman whose father had been falsely accused of abuse and forced from his home wrote me, “I believe the Violence Against Women Act should be called the ‘Women Get What They Want Act.’” [www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/070912 ] Following those columns I received an unending stream of horror stories from persons falsely accused of domestic violence. One came from Sean Moffett of St. Paul, Minn. whose wife is from Guatemala. Soon after the wedding he discovered to his dismay that her real aim was different from what she had pledged in her wedding vows. This is his story: My wife’s family came to visit for a few months and they repeatedly attempted to provoke confrontations between my wife and me. Ultimately, my wife assaulted me by punching me in the neck. I did not hit my wife back or abuse her in any way. I was arrested for 5th Degree Domestic Assault and spent three days in jail for a crime I did not commit and for not leaving my home under duress. While I was behind bars, my wife cleaned out the joint bank account. I later learned that a legal aide group called Civil Society Helps had assisted with my wife’s abuse claims to expedite her immigration application. This outfit helps many immigrant women to file false abuse claims under the Violence Against Women Act. Shortly after my release from jail, my wife asked me to write a letter to immigration stating I was an abusive husband. She promised if I wrote the letter she would help me get my home back. Instead of allowing myself to be blackmailed, I wrote the Citizenship and Immigration Service to withdraw the petition for my wife’s U.S. residency. I used my last credit card to retain a lawyer to petition for divorce. At that point I was broke, homeless, and sleeping in my car and under my desk at the office. The courts later granted my wife all of the marital property and ordered that I surrender to her a car that was titled in my name. To add insult to injury, the judge granted her a one year Order for Protection. She then telephoned me several times, calling me an “ABUSER” real slow and sarcastically. Knowing how groups like the Civil Society work, I can only imagine how they coached my wife. Several times my wife has been confronted by the Eagan, Minn. police for driving without a license. She was repeatedly given a warning, yet continued to drive the vehicle. Later, I spoke with one of the officers and reminded him it is against the law for anyone to drive a motor vehicle without a license or insurance. His partner threatened to arrest me for allegedly creating a public disturbance. But I had done nothing wrong and they backed off when I informed them I had a witness looking on. Last year I earned a very high salary, lived in a house by a lake, and enjoyed life as much as I could with a wife who didn’t love me. At age 36 I had no previous criminal history and had honorably completed four years of U.S. military service. In three days, I was reduced to living in poverty and was homeless for weeks. I am no longer employable in my field due to my “criminal” history -- 5th degree domestic assault with no conviction. My house was recently foreclosed and I have lost everything. Thanks to our VAWA laws and a series of outright lies by an immigrant residency-seeker, a law-abiding American citizen can be left penniless. All of your assets can be seized and given to the immigrant even if you are innocent of the charges. The courts have violated my rights as an American citizen and I am alienated in my own country. White Men Give Hillary a Lesson in Realpolitick Oh, what a difference a year makes. When Hillary Clinton made her “I’m in to win” announcement on January 20, 2007, her path to the Democratic nomination looked like a rose-petal strewn cakewalk. Since three-fifths of the Democratic electorate are female, it was reasoned that most of these women would line up obedien New York Timestly behind Hillary’s campaign. Clinton would reassure her media adorers that “this campaign isn’t about gender,” and then huddle with her all-female staff to plan the next Women for Hillary rally. If anyone criticized her record, Hillary’s advisors would mount a “Politics of Pile-On” counter-offensive. And the could always be counted on to run a sympathetic “wounds I gladly bear” front-page story. Lacking any real competition, Mrs. Clinton would sweep the February 5 Super Tuesday primaries, and begin practicing her acceptance speech while the Republican contenders battled it out through the Spring. But one day reality intruded. A charismatic politician from Illinois threw his hat into the ring, assembled a cracker-jack team, and began to rake in a craterful of cash. As chance would have it, last December 13 their private jets were parked side by side at Washington’s Reagan airport. So Hillary summoned the political upstart to her plane for a little talking-to. Soon she was “flapping her arms” over Barack’s charge that she was log-rolling the release of her first lady papers. A few weeks later the Iowa caucus-goers cast their votes and Hillary Clinton placed a disastrous third place. In a single day Hillary the Inevitable had become Hillary the Question Mark. Then came Super Tuesday. Mr. Obama didn’t corner the male vote in every state, but he racked up enough male and African-American ballots to prove Barack the Movement had arrived. Following his convincing win in South Carolina, Obama delivered a masterful victory speech in which he declared himself the candidate of unity. Last week it was revealed that Clinton had been forced to shore up her campaign with an emergency $5 million loan. Then came the string of weekend losses, followed by more set-backs in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia on Tuesday It’s a little too early to write the obituary on Hillary Clinton’s historic quest, but indulge me while I hammer out the first draft. David Paul Kuhn’s recent book The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma surveys the politics of last half century and concludes, “No factor has been more instrumental in causing the Democratic decline in presidential politics than the loss of white men.” Likewise pollsters like Celinda Lake have been warning the Democratic Party to reach out to the white male voter. Time after time the Dems ginned up a presidential candidate who failed to exemplify the qualities of constancy, resilience, and strength. No surprise, the white male electorate turned its back on these effete apologists for the Nanny State. Hillary not only ignored the white male voter, she repeatedly tweaked men’s collective noses. She staged a preposterous “Iron My Shirt” protest at a New Hampshire rally. Her campaign’s nearly palpable message is, “Step aside mister, the pantsuits are here to run the show.” And women turned out to be far more independent-minded than Hillary’s advisors were counting on. Writing in the New York Times Magazine, Linda Hirshman recently revealed that compared to men, women are less interested in public affairs, less likely to follow “hard” news, and are less knowledgeable about political issues. This is Hirshman’s most revealing quote: “With the possible exception of 1996, women have never voted a candidate into the White House when men thought the other guy should win.” Every two years the leftist media undergoes a political mating ritual that goes something like this: First remind the candidates that women represent 54% of the electorate. Then browbeat the Republican candidate because he is lagging with the ladies, while ignoring his greater lead among men. And after your candidate loses, come up with some loopy explanation like, “The Democrat lost because he didn’t endorse reproductive rights for teenage girls.” The nation’s 97 million white males represent the second largest block in the American electorate, after white females. What white men lack in raw numbers, they more than compensate with electoral cohesion and political acumen. If Barack Obama goes on to sew up the Democratic nomination, which seems more likely every day, his triumph will be a testament to the hubris and folly of Hillary Clinton, who once believed she could ignore the white male voter. Gutless Heart Association Tells Lies that Harm Women Each year 1.1 million American women are admitted to a nursing home where they will be medicated, monitored, and left with a $56,000 tab. Half of these women have no husband or other living relative. And here’s the heart-breaker: 60% of all nursing home residents have no visitors. Last week my column highlighted the American Heart Association’s “Go Red for Women” campaign. I explained how men are at 50% higher risk of death from heart disease than women. And I described research that shows widows are at four times greater risk of being sent to a nursing home. [www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.292 ] So the Heart Association’s short-sighted neglect of men’s health ends up as a cruel hoax for women. Go Red for Women also turns the do-or-die fight against heart disease into a frivolous shopping spree: “Every woman loves to shop! And now you’ve got a great reason!” the AHA breathlessly exclaims. In response to my editorial, many readers shared their heart-rending stories. One wrote, “I sorta went through this with my mother. My father died first. A couple of years later, my mother had to have bypass surgery and had a stroke. She went to a nursing home for recovery and they said she would never come out.” This came from a quick-witted woman in Michigan who titled her message, “Heart Throb or Heart Rob?”: “Having worked with scores of widows in senior communities who have missed their dear husbands lost to heart attacks sometimes for as long as 20 years, I must disagree vehemently with the AHA’s spotlighting females only as the target to bring attention to the human heart!” Of course the Heart Association was not pleased that real women were speaking out. So the group put out a rejoinder called, “Why Go Red is targeting women; how AHA supports men.” A bigger collection of half-truths, misleading claims, and lies you will never see! First, one of the AHA half-truths: -- “Only 55% of women realize heart disease is their No. 1 killer” Yes, and why doesn’t the AHA tell us the percentage of men who know heart disease their No. 1 killer? Now the misleading claim: -- “Every year since 1984 more women than men have died of heart disease” This is a deceptive statistic, since so many men die in their twenties and thirties from other causes. If we were to accept the AHA’s blinkered logic, then we would have to scrap programs for needy Blacks and Hispanics, since their numbers are obviously so much smaller than Whites. And get ready for the AHA Big Lie: -- “Historically, men have been the subjects of the research.” If the American Heart Association was interested in telling the truth, this is what they would have said: “As early as 1979, 96% of all clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health included women. The NIH spends twice as much researching diseases that are specific to women (such as breast cancer) compared to diseases for men. “As far as heart disease research, women were included in the earliest studies. In the landmark Framingham Heart Study, women represented 55% of all participants. And an article by David Harris and Pamela Douglas in the New England Journal of Medicine found that from 1965 to 1998, a total of 215,796 women and 183,005 men had enrolled in studies on cardiovascular research trials. “A review of studies submitted to the Food and Drug Administration found that women composed one-third of subjects for cardiac drugs because ‘angina and heart failure are more prevalent in men than in women.’ That led the FDA to recently conclude, ‘women have been included in drug development studies at least since the early 1980s in approximate proportion to the prevalence of disease in them.’” So while the AHA flatly says men were the subjects of heart research, the truth is substantial numbers of women have always participated. The American Heart Association has gone beyond the pale. Are we going to let them get away with a bald distortion of the truth that lets women needlessly spend their Golden Years in a beige-tinted cinderblock nursing home? Send a heart-felt message to the Heart Association’s PR department: E-Mail or Call Mr. Cass Wheeler, head of the AHA, at 800.242.8721. Or contact your local heart association office. Ladies, tell the AHA we’ve had enough of their shenanigans. Tell them its “Go Red” campaign is making you red with disgust. American Heart Association Plays a Cruel Trick on Women Ladies, when was the last time you visited a nursing home? Did you wonder why nearly all the residents were women? The reason is simple – men meet their maker 5 years sooner than the fairer sex. It wasn’t always that way. Back in 1920, men and women had almost identical life spans. But the looming threat of heart disease widened that gap. American men now have heart disease death rates that are 50% higher than women’s. (The federal report Health, United States, 2007, Table 29 reveals the death rates are 268 in men, compared to only 177 in women). Most persons have never heard of Lois Verbrugge, a researcher at the University of Michigan. A few years ago Dr. Verbrugge did a study on elderly women. She found that compared to their married counterparts, single elderly women are four times more likely to end up in a nursing home. Which means after your husband dies of heart disease, you are four times more likely to be removed from your home and taken to an institutional setting to spend your last days in medicated bliss. That’s what happened to several ladies I’ve known. And what about men who keel over from heart disease in their 40s and 50s? What happens to their wives and children? Last year my friend Bill died from a debilitating heart problem. His wife never wanted to be the family breadwinner. That’s what she’s doing now. And Randy died suddenly while jogging one morning. His two sons, now in their 20s, will never again experience a father’s love. So men are at far greater risk of heart disease, and their premature deaths portend institutionalization and financial hardship for their wives. You’d think the American Heart Association would have programs designed especially to help men. They don’t. But not to worry, the AHA does have a gender-specific program – “Go Red for Women.” That’s right, the Heart Association has designated this Friday, February 1 as National Wear Red Day. Here’s the latest fashion tip from the AHA: “National Wear Red Day has its own dress code. Wear your favorite red clothes or accessory – a red blouse, a red dress pin, a fabulous red handbag.” That’s not all: “Put on red lipstick, or sport a red tie and red socks. Go red in your own fashion show to show your support for women and the fight against heart disease.” [www.goredforwomen.com/national_wear_red_day.aspx ] Really folks, I’m not making this up! So when you pay a visit to grandma at the nursing home this weekend, she’s gonna feel a whole lot better if you’re sporting red socks and red shoes. And that widow who lives down the street – be sure to remind her to pull out that fabulous red handbag she stowed away after the funeral. To complete the irony of Go Red for Women, show her a tribute card, courtesy of the AHA: “Go Red for Women – American Heart Association – A donation has been made in honor of [fill in name of former husband, father, brother, or son].” Seriously, when it comes to the real needs of real women, it’s obvious the pointy-headed execs at the AHA don’t have a clue. So it’s up to women bring the Heart Association to its senses. Call Mr. Cass Wheeler, head of the American Heart Association. His number is 1-800-242-8721. Send a message to the PR department: E-Mail. Or just call your local heart association office. We all want to know how the American Heart Association answers these two questions: 1. Why does the Heart Association want to deprive aging women of the main source of their financial support? 2. Why does the AHA want to send more elderly women to nursing homes? And while we’re at it, why don’t we ask if they believe men’s hearts count for less? Hillary Clinton’s Messiah Complex It’s no secret that Hillary Clinton views herself as a member of the God Squad, divinely anointed to shepherd the masses to greater gender consciousness. “Hillary acts as though she has been chosen by God,” recounts Edward Klein, author of The Truth about Hillary. “I find her to be among the most self-righteous people I’ve ever known,” explains former New York Times reporter Bob Boorstin. And during her senate campaign Hillary glowed approvingly whenever Black preachers declared her “a woman of God.” But how many persons know how Mrs. Clinton’s messianic streak may lead to her political undoing? During her childhood Hugh Rodham treated Hillary as Daddy’s favorite, sparing her from many of the chastisements and chores he imposed on her hapless brothers. As brother Tony remarked enviously, “Little Hillary could do no wrong.” Hillary’s teenage involvement with the local Methodist church only reinforced her emerging priggishness. By the age of 17, Hillary’s “messianism and sense of entitlement” were already evident, reveals Carl Bernstein in A Woman in Charge. During her college years, Hillary Rodham’s self-righteous streak fueled her many political pursuits. Those culminated in her 1975 marriage to Bill Clinton, a man she fully expected to one day become president. But after Bill lost his 1980 re-election bid for the Arkansas governorship, a distraught Hillary began to speak at church meetings around the state. One day she traveled to a church in North Little Rock to deliver a homily on “Women Armed with the Christian Sword – To Build an Army for the Lord.” Hillary’s unconventional blend of Christian faith and feminist ideology was taking shape. Five days after his 1992 inauguration, Bill named Hillary to head up his Task Force on Health Care Reform. But her political miscalculations soon turned into an electoral fiasco. On November 8, 1994 the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress, and Hillary was banished from the West Wing of the White House. Smarting from her self-inflicted wounds, Hillary invited a group of New Age savants to Camp David. As recounted by Bob Woodward in The Choice, one of her guests was Jean Houston, a psychic who had conducted LSD experiments and claimed to communicate regularly with Athena, Greek goddess of wisdom. What transpired that weekend – equal parts group psychotherapy and feminist consciousness-raising – may rank as the most bizarre episode ever involving a First Lady. Hillary’s healthcare debacle was emblematic of the female crucifixion, Ms. Houston believed. Speaking as if a witness to the Second Coming, Houston told Clinton she was carrying the burden of 5,000 years of female subservience. Driving her point home, Houston compared Hillary to Joan of Arc, the French woman who was burned at the stake in 1431 for heresy. The best was yet to come. In April 1995 Houston came to the White House, this time to conduct a séance. Seated around a circular table in the White House solarium, Houston instructed Hillary to close her eyes and engage in a conversation with Eleanor Roosevelt. Hillary readily complied and was soon comparing Eleanor’s epic struggles with her own. Houston intoned that the First Lady’s woes were caused by self-important men who refused to accept women as equals -- ignoring how HRC’s clumsy attempt to overhaul the healthcare system had exposed her political naiveté. Now sounding like Daddy’s little girl, Hillary asked why people kept saying things that hurt her feelings. The pity party was just getting started. Over the next year Jean Houston continued as Hillary’s spiritual and political mentor, constantly urging her to continue the fevered crusade on behalf of women’s rights. But some would ask, What’s wrong with a candidate who casts her candidacy in the aura of historical inevitability and views every issue through the moralistic lens of right and wrong? For starters, Hillary comes across as arrogant. Friend Sara Ehrman once warned about Hillary that “God is on my side can be arrogance.” Former Moynihan aide Lawrence O’Donnell believed Clinton’s haughtiness was her most prominent difficulty. And remember Hillary’s recent encounter with CBS News anchor Katie Couric? Asked how she would feel if she didn’t become the Democratic nominee, Hillary acidly shot back, “Well, it will be me.” [www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/071129 ] Lloyd Bentsen, who served as Treasury Secretary during the Clinton administration, observed how Hillary’s “holier-than-thou” attitude often lead her to demonize her opponents – remember Hillary’s paranoid remark about the “vast right wing conspiracy”? Let’s not forget all those who ended up on Hillary’s fabled enemy list: Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kenneth Starr, Senators who doubted her, and even the Washington Post. Biographer Carl Bernstein notes how “Hillary’s willingness to demonize her enemies had left [Daniel Patrick Moynihan] with lasting caution about her.” Enemy lists, paranoid fantasies, a supercilious attitude, and self-righteous crusades – shades of Richard Milhous Nixon. Hillary’s Pity-Pot Politics When Mallard Fillmore quacks, I listen. Recently Mr. Fillmore saw fit to expound on a certain female presidential candidate. This is what he had to say: Abby: “I think girls should be treated exactly the same as boys. … Except when they wanna be treated better, because they’re girls!” Boy: “Wow, Abby, you’d be a great presidential candidate!” [jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/mallard112607.asp ] When someone hints that Hillary Clinton is an intsy-wintsy bit inconsistent in her statements, she lapses into full pout mode, accusing her opponents of “piling-on.” Or she coils up like a snake ready to attack -- “Well, now the fun part starts,” Hillary recently warned Barack Obama of her impending offensive that never seemed to materialize. Many view Hillary as calculating and cold-hearted. When my own wife glimpsed a picture of the Democratic candidate, she pounded her fist on the well-coifed image and exclaimed, “I despise that woman!” In response to polls saying half the American electorate would never vote for her, Hillary Clinton recently launched a “likeability” campaign. As communication director Howard Wolfson explained, “Now they [the voters] want to know what motivates her.” Hillary’s warm-and-fuzzy politics was the focus of a December 9 article in the New York Times: “Clinton Proudly Talks of Scars While Keeping Her Guard Up.” Doesn’t it make you proud to know we have fearless leaders who are still in touch with their inner victim? The article depicts Clinton as both a warrior-princess and political punching bag, along with the inevitable male-bashing. Hillary recounted a note she had received from her recently-deceased friend Diane Blair. “Whenever you have trouble coping, just think of Snow White. She had to live with seven men.” Hillary imagined that was funny. Have you seen the latest campaign video featuring Hillary’s own mom? The best the rotund Mrs. Rodham could say about her daughter was – get ready for this -- she’s “helpful,” “never envious,” “she has empathy,” and most of all, “what a good person she is.” [www.hillaryclinton.com/video/80.aspx ] If you are one of those persons who falls in the “undecided” category, that ringing endorsement no doubt will carry the day. And earlier this week Bill showed up in Iowa, telling voters what a swell person Hillary is. Must be nice to tout your credentials as strong and independent, then lay claim to victim status at the hand of a serial philanderer, and finally summon hubby to revive a faltering campaign. HRC’s likeability campaign is turning out to be nothing more than the latest rendition of “I am woman, hear me whine.” Every day Mrs. Clinton talks up her candidacy as the Great Turning Point in History, the moment in time for women to shrug off 500 (or is it 5,000?) years of patriarchal domination and show they are the equals to men. The solution, of course, is more government programs, set-asides, and gender quotas. I suspect the voters are beginning to tire how Mrs. Clinton parades her hurts as a badge of honor. In a recent interview she shamelessly worked the female victim angle: “But you know, our scars are part of us, and they are a reminder of the experience we’ve gone through and our history.” This is shaping up as the first presidential election in history in which the candidates’ qualifications are defined not by their personal character or legislative accomplishments, but rather by who is the greater victim. John Edwards can lay claim to being ripped off by his hair stylists – I’m sure Hillary never had to shell out 500 bucks for a supratentorial trim. Barack Obama can bitterly complain the Census Bureau doesn’t recognize Kenyan-Americans in any of its racial categories. On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani can talk about how, as a survivor of prostate cancer, everyone who really “cares” should rally to his side. Mitt Romney’s cross to bear is how all those Massachusetts liberals mercilessly piled-on when he was governor. Poor John McCain can’t find a single soul willing to stand up and clap for his stump speech. In the feel-my-pain sweepstakes, Hillary Clinton is currently the undisputed leader. But watch out, this race is getting tighter by the week. Come November 4, only one person will lay claim to the long sought-after title, Victim-in-Chief. © 2008, Carey Roberts Winners of the Coveted 2007 Award for Political Incorrectness The Duke lacrosse case represents an enduring failure of the American mainstream media. Not only did the New York Times, CNN, USA Today, and other outlets neglect their duty to provide balanced and factual coverage of the case. Worse, they became the public relations arm of a sleazy prosecutor named Michael Nifong. As so often happens in rape cases, the media featured lurid accusations made by an anonymous victim, all the while omitting the word “alleged” and failing to offer the defendant the opportunity to present his side of the event. In the Duke case, it was the Raleigh News and Observer that led the headlong rush to judge. Its March 25, 2006 issue featured a front-page five-column article with the headline: “Dancer Gives Details of Ordeal: A Night of Racial Slurs, Growing Fear, and, Finally, Sexual Violence.” Media sensationalism doesn’t get much worse than that. The Durham Herald-Sun followed suit, eventually printing more than 300 articles and 20 editorials that savaged the innocent players. Soon a lynch mob atmosphere prevailed on the patrician Duke University campus. [www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.133 ] So by the time the members of the Duke lacrosse team were formally charged with the gang rape of Crystal Gail Mangum, they found themselves arrayed against a powerful coalition of interest groups and leftist rabble-rousers: the office of the county prosecutor, the Durham Police Department, the media establishment, and the Duke faculty Group of 88. Extraordinary pressure was placed on the young men to admit to the misdeed. At an early interview a policeman warned Dave Evans, “Tell us the truth or you’re going to jail for the rest of your life.” Local feminists organized a rally with signs saying, “Time to Confess.” On March 29 a “Please Come Forward” poster with mug shots of the players was posted on campus. During mass Father Joe Vetter broadly condemned the players. When one of the player’s fathers confronted the priest over his unsaintly remarks, the Man of the Cloth shot back, “Tell them to confess first.” At one point Michael Nifong issued this threat to the players’ defense attorney: “You tell all of your clients I will remember their lack of cooperation at sentencing. I hope you know if they didn’t do it, they are all aiders and abettors, and that carries the same punishment as rape.” The problem was, no rape had occurred, no one had touched the woman. Even Nifong knew the charges were probably fictitious. At a secret March 27 meeting the prosecutor and his detectives reviewed the numerous evidentiary flaws with Nifong concluding, “You know we’re f*cked.” But the May 2 primary election was still a month away and Crystal Mangum was Nifong’s ticket to electoral success. Justice would have to wait for another day. The Duke lacrosse case was also marked by steely courage and heroism. Ed Bradley, who aired his 60 Minutes expose on October 15 -- the last before his death from leukemia – deserves high commendation for bucking the media stampede. The North Carolina State Bar must be credited for launching its investigation. And the relentless fact-finding by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, which culminated in their book Until Proven Innocent, is laudable. But most of the kudos must go to the Duke lacrosse team and to the three players falsely accused of rape -- men who, with dignity and grace, endured a self-possessed media spectacle for over a year. True, hiring a deranged stripper for a team party wasn’t the shrewdest idea. And within days the team publicly apologized for its behavior. The same cannot be said, however, for the Gang of 88 members, CNN’s Nancy Grace, or for the many editors around the country who ran libelous articles about those “scummy white males.” Throughout the episode the Duke lacrosse team hung together, cooperated with the police investigation, answered their questions honestly, volunteered to undergo DNA tests, and above all, refused to stoop to the antics of the Nifong prosecution team and his media enablers. On May 15, 2006 team captain Dave Evans stood in front of the Durham County magistrate’s office and declared, “These allegations are lies, fabricated – fabricated, and they will be proven wrong … You have all been told some fantastic lies.” This past April attorney general Roy Cooper vindicated Evans’ claim when he famously announced, “we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.” So the 2007 Award for Political Incorrectness goes to Dave Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty, three young men who refused to go quietly into the night. © 2008 Carey Roberts See Books, Issues Contact Us | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement Menstuff® Directory Menstuff® is a registered trademark of Gordon Clay ©1996-2023, Gordon Clay