New Column: Fighting the Backlash Against Parental Alienation Syndrome

July 10, 2006

"Grant is correct that there are fathers who have alienated their own children through their abuse or personality defects, and who attempt to shift the blame to their children's mothers by falsely claiming PAS. Yet parental alienation is a common, well-documented phenomenon. For example, a longitudinal study published by the American Bar Association in 2003 followed 700 'high conflict' divorce cases over a 12 year period and found that elements of PAS were present in the vast majority of the cases studied.

"In family law cases, false accusations of any and all types of maltreatment, including PAS, are used to gain advantage. Since false accusations of domestic violence and child sexual abuse are common, should we then conclude that battering and molestation don't exist?"

To write a Letter to the Editor of the Providence Journal concerning Protect children from alienation (7/7/06), write to letters@projo.com. 
 

Men's activists often claim that it was "feminists" who defended Clara Harris. This is false--support for Harris was broad-based, and also included many conservatives and Christian conservatives. As I explained in In Defense of David Harris:

"A murder trial recently concluded in Texas wherein a woman who killed her husband was defended by the husband's own mother, brother and father, who explained that, aside from what might be described as some unpleasantness on a bad day, the woman is really a good, law-abiding person.

"The press on both the left and the right has poured derision upon the murder victim, referring to David Harris as a 'creep,' a 'rat,' a 'a lying, cheating scumbag' and Clara Harris' 'unfaithful dog of a husband.' Feminist Susan Estrich asked 'Who could blame [Clara] for getting into her Mercedes and running him over?' and seemed a little sad that the jury did. She fantasized a Cochranesque defense for her, noting:

"'Every day across America, women crowd into the offices of plastic surgeons and beauticians and aestheticians, spending money we don't have on painful procedures we don't really need, trying to hang on to men who don't deserve us...with their votes, the Harris jury could have sent a shot across the bow to all those cheating men. If you cheat on your wife, she can kill you and get away with it. If he deserved to get hit, you must acquit.'

"Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WorldNetDaily, penned a column entitled 'Free Clara Harris!' in which he wrote 'I'd give her a medal....she did the right thing. That creep deserved what he got' and urged readers to 'live like her.' John Kasich, guest host on The O'Reilly Factor, also expressed sympathy for Clara who, he claimed, had been 'mentally tortured' by her husband.

"On the radio and the Internet many observers expressed similar sentiments, such as: 'If at first you don't succeed, run over him again'; 'I feel much compassion for Clara but absolutely none for her husband the victim...[he's] not worth killing'; and, of course, 'You play, you pay.'

"Even the prosecutor, Mia Magness, apparently quibbles with the killer only over her choice of methods, expressing a preference that, instead of killing David by her own hand, she should have driven him to suicide by divorcing him and '[doing] like every other woman...get his house, car, kids -- make him wish he were dead.'

"In Shakespeare's tragedy King Lear, Lear is abandoned by his family with the exception of one loyal daughter, Cordelia. In the Texas tragedy David Harris has been abandoned by his family except for his loyal daughter Lindsey, who loved her father and begged her stepmother not to kill him. The murder of her father and the betrayals of her grandmother, grandfather and uncle have exacted a high toll on her, driving her to four suicide attempts in the past six months.

"What did David Harris do to deserve this cruel fate? He had an affair. As Shakespeare's Marc Antony said of the fallen Caesar's 'ambition,' David's infidelity was 'a grievous fault--and grievously hath he answered it.'"

California Feminist Leader Slams Glenn

Nancy K.D. Lemon, a board member of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, slammed me in the Sacramento News & Review last week, saying that I "dragged out ancient myths about spousal rape" in opposing SB 1402, a spousal rape bill. Lemon has drafted and testified on behalf of many California domestic violence statutes.

I had criticized SB 1402 in my co-authored column Kuehl's Spousal Rape Bill Will Harm Innocent Men (Sacramento News & Review, 6/15/06) because it would make it easier for spurious spousal rape allegations to be used against fathers during custody battles. Current California law already provides adequate protections for victims of spousal rape.

As I previously noted, SB 1402's supporters are garnering support for the bill in part by playing on the false idea that the American "patriarchy" condones spousal rape because a wife is considered to be her husband's property. Lemon's letter is a good example--there are no "ancient myths" or patriarchal baggage in our column, only legitimate concern over false rape allegations.

Lemon says that under current law "there are unfair constraints on the victims of spousal rape. Unlike other rape victims, they must report the rape within a year or come up with other corroboration, a burden many victims cannot meet. Marital rape is often brutal. Spousal-rape victims are often victims of years of beatings and brainwashing."

Such cases are rare, but Lemon is certainly correct that there are women brutalized in this way, and they deserve protection. In the column family law attorney Jeff Leving and I wrote:

"Victims of spousal rape deserve protection, and current California law provides it. In order for the state to prosecute a spousal rape charge, the accuser need only to have mentioned the violation within a year of its occurrence to any of a wide variety of medical, law enforcement, clerical, legal or psychological personnel, or there must be corroborating, independent, court admissible evidence.

"SB 1402, sponsored by Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Los Angeles), eliminates the distinction between spousal rape and other rapes, thus allowing for spousal rape prosecutions six years later, even if there was no mention or independent evidence of the crime in previous years."

Read Lemon's full letter at SB 1402 is a good change.

Another critical letter to the Sacramento News & Review cast doubts on the case of William Hetherington, which we said provided "an example of how spousal rape accusations can be used strategically." Maya Beneli, a feminist true believer, wrote:

"It is difficult to believe that a 1980s family court would convict a man for rape under questionable evidence. They mention that, despite 'evidence that some believe casts doubt on the conviction,' the accused remains in jail...Further, it is inappropriate and irresponsible to allude to this convicted rapist as a 'good father.'"

Hetherington was convicted by a criminal court, not a family court. In the column we wrote:

"Hetherington was convicted and incarcerated in the middle of contentious divorce proceedings in which he was likely to win custody of his children because his wife had abandoned the family and moved out of state.

"As Hetherington fought the spousal rape charge the family law court froze his assets (as is common in divorce cases), leaving him unable to afford a lawyer. However, the criminal court refused to provide him legal representation as an indigent, since he was employed in the automobile industry.

"After being convicted Hetherington was unable to raise funds for an appeal, since his ex-wife won his home and all his assets (as well as custody of his three children). Substantial evidence, including photos taken at the crime scene and obtained through a public records act a decade later, cast grave doubts upon the spousal rape claim.

"The accused needn't be convicted to suffer egregious harm. The cost of criminal defense is often ruinous, and the emotional toll can be worse."

Beneli is correct that in general it is "inappropriate and irresponsible" to refer to a convicted rapist as a "good father." However, if there are significant doubts about the convicted man's guilt--as there is in this case--the rules change. Also, we never made any judgment on whether Hetherington was a good father or not.

Beneli asserts that "If his guilt were truly questionable, the man (in what is still a man's world) could secure a new trial." Lady, you must be kidding...

Read Beneli's full letter at It's a Man's World.

SB 1402 was recently signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger. The bill's supporters garnered support for the bill in part by playing on the false idea that the American "patriarchy" condones spousal rape because a wife is considered to be her husband's property. It's an excellent example of a common process used by feminists over the past three decades--pretend that a bill is designed to remedy a patriarchal injustice when the bill actually does something entirely different.

A related example might be the way a woman's sexual history is often banned as evidence as part of rape shield laws. Those laws have been pushed and passed in part because feminists (rightfully) sought to exterminate the idea that raping a woman is OK, or not as bad, if it's a woman who is very loose sexually.

The collateral damage is that in some cases, such as the Kobe Bryant case, the woman's other recent sexual activity is very relevant, not because it implies that she is to blame for being assaulted, but because it speaks to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. If a woman has vaginal injuries which she claims are the result of a rape, the fact that she had sex with other men shortly before and/or after the alleged rape undermines the rape claim. The injuries could have been caused by the sex with other men, and it's unlikely that a woman who has just been injured in a rape probably would have sex with other men shortly afterwards.

It also speaks to the credibility of the defendant's story. In the Kobe Bryant case the alleged rape victim had sex with Bryant soon after meeting him. Bryant says the sex was consensual, his accuser says it was rape. The accuser's propensity for sexual liaisons with strangers supports Bryant's contention that the sex was consensual, and is relevant to the case.

In a debate with two leaders of the National Organization for Women in the San Francisco Chronicle two years ago I wrote:

"A Colorado judge issued a highly controversial decision late last month on a matter that should not be controversial. Judge Terry Ruckriegle ruled that Kobe Bryant, who is facing four years to life in prison for an alleged rape he claims was consensual sex, can introduce evidence that his accuser had other sexual encounters in the 72 hours before her medical examination for the alleged assault.

"Various reports in the press have labeled the decision a 'bombshell for prosecutors' that 'threatens all women'; Ruckriegle has been likened by the New York Daily News to a man who has 'tiptoed into a minefield.'

"This is not the old-fashioned 'tar the victim' defense, however. Bryant's defense team believes that the microscopic vaginal injuries the prosecution claims were suffered in the alleged assault were instead the product of various consensual sexual encounters.

"Ruckriegle's decision followed another controversial ruling granting a defense motion that Bryant's accuser not be referred to as 'the victim' in court. This motion was contested by both the prosecution and by victims' rights organizations, which filed amicus briefs and complained that Ruckriegle's decision created an anti-woman double-standard.

"That these decisions have drawn controversy demonstrates how rape-shield laws have stacked cases against accused men. They also reflect the success of victim advocates in minimizing and concealing a real and damaging problem: Many accusations of rape are false...

"The Bryant case represents a turning point in the history of rape trials, as the judiciary, the public and the media have finally begun to pay proper attention to the real danger of innocent men being convicted of rape."

My column Kobe Bryant Ruling a Step Towards Equity in Rape Trials
appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on August 1, 2004 as a point/counterpoint. The counterpoint, written by Terry O'Neill and Melanie Stafford of the National Organization for Women, is Survivors must not be twice victimized. After the column came out many people asked me my opinion as to whether Bryant was innocent or guilty. At the time I wrote:

"I have no position as to Bryant's innocence or guilt. As I mentioned in the article, the case against him appears marginal. Also, I'm suspicious of an accuser who is mentally unstable--she was hospitalized for a suicide attempt two months before the alleged rape.

"And, as I discuss in the article, false accusations of rape are common. Still, the feminists are correct that there are some powerful and/or famous men who don't know the meaning of the word 'no.' A talented and pampered athlete such as Bryant might fit the description.

"I do deeply oppose any harassment of the alleged victim. See Sacks Blasts Those Harassing Kobe's Accuser  (IFeminists, 7/29/03)."

Two years later, those sentiments still seem valid to me.

In this article Michigan state Rep. Leslie Mortimer discusses HB 5267, the Michigan Shared Parenting Bill:

"A bill sponsored by one of Lenawee County's state representatives to change the way child custody cases are handled is still in committee, but its author says it has the votes to pass.

"The bill, which is supported by fathers' rights advocates but opposed by the National Organization for Women and the state bar association, would mandate joint custody of children except in certain instances...

"Last fall, Rep. Leslie Mortimer, R-Horton, introduced House Bill 5267, which says, 'The court shall order joint custody unless, by clear and convincing evidence a parent is (proven to be) unfit, unwilling, or unable to care for the child.' The joint custody measure was sent Oct. 6 to the committee on Family and Children's Services. She said the issue is expected to be voted out of committee this fall.

"'We've got the votes. Right now, though they are waiting for a marriage package to go through, which contains a parenting plan,' Mortimer said...

"She said she has found support for the bill both in the committee and on the House floor. Mortimer said it is important, when couples split and children are involved, to start off on even ground.

"'Shared parenting is the way to go,' Mortimer said. 'Research shows children do better socially, academically and have better life outcomes. Divorce is devastating enough, but to lose one parent over another makes it even worse (for a child).'

"Mortimer said the proposed legislation was drawn from her own experience as a child of divorce.

"'My parents divorced when I was 5 and I only got to see my father every other weekend - Sundays, really,' she said...

"Mortimer noted that in custody cases in 2002, 64 percent resulted in mothers being awarded physical custody; 10 percent of the time, physical custody was awarded to the father; with some form of joint custody 23 percent of the time."

To learn more about the Michigan shared parenting bill, see my co-authored column HB 5267 Will Help Michigan's Children of Divorce (Lansing State Journal, 5/28/06). In the column Mike McCormick, the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, and I discuss the research showing how shared parenting benefits kids, and examine the opposition's arguments against shared parenting.

Fathers' Activists Disrupt Wimbledon

I love it. According to Fathers' rights campaigners try to play tennis with Federer:

"The men, both wearing T-Shirts with a version of the Wimbledon logo with Family Law It's a Racket emblazoned across it, came onto Centre Court during the defending champion's match against Mario Ancic of Croatia.

"One served a tennis ball towards the Royal Box while the other stood on the opposite side of the net before security men rushed onto court and ushered them off shortly after 3pm.

"The men - Simon Wright, 30, from Brighton, and Alan Jamieson, 41, from Manchester - said they were both members of Real Fathers 4 Justice, a breakaway group from Fathers 4 Justice.

"Before being led away, Wright said: 'There have been 20 family law court cases and still I don't get to see my child and this is what I have had to resort to.'

"Jamieson said: 'I don't get to see my children.'

A police spokesman confirmed the men had been arrested.

"Two persons tried to disrupt play and they were swiftly arrested," he said.

"This is the second incident in just two days.

"Yesterday, 29-year-old streaker Sander Lantinga from Berkhout, Noord-Holland, in the Netherlands, received a caution after stripping off on Centre Court and doing a cartwheel close to Russian star Maria Sharapova.

"A spokesman from the All England Club said more permanent security measures could be put into place if similar antics continued.

"'It will be a shame if the antics of a few selfish idiots were to ruin it for everyone else in the future and that it meant we may have to put more permanent measures in place to prevent people gaining access to the court,' she said. 'Clearly, we hope this will not be the case.'"

I wonder--if this lady had had her children taken away from her without cause, would  she still see the protesting fathers as "selfish idiots"?

Glenn Discusses Eve Ensler's 'Until the Violence Stops: NYC' on the Dennis Prager Show

I discussed feminist Eve Ensler's "Until the Violence Stops: NYC" and an anti-male California domestic violence bill on the Dennis Prager Show on the Salem Radio Network on June 26. The most interesting part of the show were the callers, many of whom had experienced the anti-male bias of the domestic violence system firsthand.

One gentleman recounted the case of a blind, wheelchair bound man in his neighborhood who was frequently the target of physical abuse from his wife, a police officer. In the end she shot him and killed him--and received a whopping 7 year sentence.

I discussed abuses within the system in my co-authored column Some Progress for California Fathers, but Still a Long Way to Go (Pasadena Star-News & Affiliated Papers, Daily Breeze [Los Angeles], 6/18/06). Family law attorney Jeff Leving and I wrote:

"The OJ Simpson case helped usher in draconian domestic violence policies which have victimized many innocent men. State-mandated mandatory/presumptory arrest policies exhort police to make arrests on domestic violence calls, and 'primary aggressor' policies pressure officers to view men as the instigators of domestic violence incidents. As a result, many men have been arrested on flimsy evidence, or when they were acting to defend themselves against attacks by their female partners.

"Nearly 250,000 domestic violence restraining orders are currently active in California. A recent article in the Family Law News, the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, explains that the bar is concerned that "protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody." The authors note that protective orders are "almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person....it is troubling that they appear to be sought more and more frequently for retaliation and litigation purposes."

"Such orders are generally done ex parte, without the accused's knowledge and with no opportunity afforded for him to defend himself. When an order is issued, the man is booted out of his own home and can even be jailed if he tries to contact his own children. His first chance to defend himself against the charges is usually two weeks later, at the hearing to make the order permanent. Yet these hearings generally last no more than 15 minutes. The due process they afford the men can be gauged by the State of California's advice for men contesting restraining orders:

"'Do not take more than three minutes to say what you disagree with. You can bring witnesses or documents that support your case, but the judge may not have enough time to talk to the witnesses.'

"Restraining orders turn ordinary men into criminals by forbidding many routine behaviors. Men are being arrested for violating their orders by such acts as: returning their children's phone calls; going to their children's school or athletic events; sending their kids birthday cards; or accidentally running into them at the park or the mall.

"Research shows that these orders often do not even involve an allegation of violence. Usually all that's needed is a claim that the person to be restrained "acted in a way that scared me" or was "verbally abusive"--what's known as "shout at your spouse, lose your house."  Yet under a 1999 California law these farcical orders can be used to deny these so-called "batterers" joint custody of their children."

To learn more about the new California domestic violence bill, see my co-authored column AB 2051 Moves California in Wrong Direction on Domestic Violence (Daily Breeze [Los Angeles], 6/1/06).

Philadelphia Phillies pitcher Brett Myers is being skewered--correctly--for his despicable assault on his wife in Boston last week. One of the witnesses described the incident as follows:

Myers apologized (sort of) afterwards, but given the enormity of what he did, his apology was rather underwhelming. Associated Press columnist Tim Dahlberg got it right when he wrote:

"Brett Myers is sorry. Really sorry. Really, really sorry. We know this because he had his agent send a statement saying he was.

"He's sorry that he embarrassed himself and his family. Sorry that the Philadelphia Phillies might get distracted from a season going nowhere.

"So sorry that he's taking some time off to think about it all.

"Interesting, because before that the only thing Myers was sorry about was that people were making such a big deal over his arrest for allegedly punching his wife.

"'I'm sorry it had to go public,' Myers said the other day.

"Yeah, it's better to keep those domestic violence things private. It can be so inconvenient otherwise."

The Scott Erickson Saga: Baseball Player Unfairly Attacked

Because false domestic violence accusations are so common, I was skeptical when I first heard of Myers' case. But this is not a "he said/she said" case, nor is it a case where DV accusations (and the concomitant restraining order) are just custody maneuvers. There were several witnesses, and the story they told was consistent.

Myers is getting pounded by the press and the fans, and he deserves it. But as some of you may recall, there was another baseball pitcher who was given the same treatment by the press a few years ago, and he clearly did not deserve it. As I noted in my column Baseball Player's Domestic Violence Arrest Demonstrates How Men are Presumed Guilty in Domestic Disputes (Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal, 8/8/02):

"Baltimore Orioles pitcher Scott Erickson was arrested after an altercation with his girlfriend last week--the latest example of how police often arrest men who have been attacked by their female partners.

"According to the Associated Press, the Baltimore police concluded that Erickson's girlfriend Lisa Ortiz: initiated the fight by hurling objects; decided to come back twice after Erickson carried her out of the apartment; repeatedly kicked the apartment door; caused Erickson two minor injuries, one of them to his pitching arm; and herself suffered no injuries.

"Nonetheless the police, who were operating under Maryland's mandatory arrest law, interpreted Erickson's actions as excessive and are charging him with second-degree assault. Ortiz states that Erickson, who did not pursue her either time after carrying her out, 'has never been physically abusive toward me, and in no way do I feel threatened or felt fear from Scott.' Ortiz was not arrested."

In the postscript I noted:

"The second-degree assault charge against Erickson was eventually dropped. According to a police spokeswoman, 'The victim was interviewed by the prosecutor, and her testimony bordered on a recantation. With no other independent evidence, the case just could not proceed.' The 'victim' the police spokeswoman refers to is Ortiz, not Erickson. Ortiz, who initiated the violence which left Erickson with a bruised and swollen right arm (his pitching arm), was not prosecuted."

Nevertheless, Erickson also took a beating in the press from moralizing sportswriters and feminist domestic violence advocates.

Feminists often claim that through most of America's history domestic violence was tolerated or even condoned. This view was discredited by Christina Hoff Sommers in Chapter 9 of her book Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women.

Sommers noted that laws against wife-beating predate the American Revolution, one going back to 1655. Sommers explains that many of the dominant religious groups of the colonial era "punished, shunned and excommunicated wife-beaters." She notes:

"Husbands, brothers and neighbors often took vengeance against the batterer. Vigilante parties sometimes abducted wife-beaters and whipped them."

Feminist historian Elizabeth Peck points out that punishments for wife-beaters were often quite severe--19th century laws in Maryland and Delaware prescribed 40 and 30 lashes at the whipping post respectively for batterers. In New Mexico, wife-beaters were sentenced to between one and five years in prison.

Baseball and Domestic Violence

Since we're on the subject of baseball, there's an interesting incident from 1902 which speaks to the question of society's pre-feminist attitude about domestic violence. In 1901 Mike Donlin, an outfielder with the Baltimore Orioles, hit .340 and scored 107 runs--both exceptional figures. In 1902 Donlin, a heavy and violent drinker, assaulted a woman with whom he had been involved in a love triangle. Donlin plea bargained, said he was drunk and didn't know what he was doing, and received six months in jail.

If ever there were a situation where violence against women would be tolerated, this would have been it. Baseball in the 1890s was an exceptionally violent game, and on and off field fights were common. In this era Hall of Fame outfielder Ty Cobb reputedly sharpened his spikes before games and slid into every base spikes high. Donlin's manager had been John McGraw, a successful manager who encouraged dirty play. Donlin was young, in only his third year of major league ball, and very valuable. He had served his time in jail, gone to alcohol treatment, and apologized for his actions.

The reaction? American League president Ban Johnson booted Donlin out of the league, and newspaper articles in several major league cities called for Donlin to be banned from baseball. Violence against women wasn't "culturally acceptable."

It is true that today there are players who have been charged with domestic violence and who still play. This is because:

a) many of the incidents are murky, "he said/she said affairs" without criminal convictions.

b) whatever the player has done, it is difficult legally to deny someone their right to make a living.

c) the players have a strong union and good lawyers who will work to make sure that off-the-field-transgressions don't prevent players from making a living.

When I was a kid I read a book which discussed the famous Marichal/Roseboro fight in 1965. After a series of brawls between the Dodgers and the Giants, Giants pitcher Juan Marichal (then batting) thought that Dodger catcher John Roseboro had intentionally nicked his ear while throwing a ball back to the pitcher, and hit Roseboro with the bat. I still remember that after the bloody fight Roseboro told the newspapers the worst thing he could think of to say--"a guy like that would hit a woman."

In discussing the case of Darren Mack, the Nevada man who (allegedly) stabbed his ex-wife and shot and wounded a family court judge last month, I wrote:

"I'm not sure that this even needs to be said but I will say it anyway--I condemn without  qualification the crimes allegedly committed by Darren Mack in Nevada last week.

"Mack was angered by his divorce and custody case. Some on the not insubstantial lunatic fringe of the fathers' rights movement see Mack as some sort of freedom fighter. Most of the commentary by other fathers' rights advocates seem to be of the 'he couldn't take it any more and snapped' variety.

"I don't buy it. Though everyone is focusing on Mack's attempted murder of a judge, everyone seems to forget that he first stabbed and killed his ex-wife. After murdering her, he shot the judge through the judge's third-floor office window with a sniper rifle from over 100 yards away. That's not 'snapping'--that's premeditated murder.

"Mack is not a good man trapped in a bad system. He is a bad guy. Because of men like him the system had to create protections for women, and unscrupulous women have misused those protections to victimize countless innocent men. Men like Mack aren't the byproducts of the system's problems--they are the problem."

I contrasted Mack with the heroic English father David Chick, who was denied access to his little girl, and who launched a world famous, traffic snarling, peaceful, six day, one-man protest atop a 150 foot high crane near the Tower Bridge in London in November 2003. I noted:

"David Chick acted with humanity and courage. Darren Mack possesses neither."

Recent reports indicate that Mack is even sicker than I had imagined. According to this article "[during] a search of Mack's townhouse, police turned up a shoe, towels and a t-shirt all with red stains after his ex-wife, was found dead there. Also, police say they discovered more than 50 boxes of ammunition and four empty rifle cases."

According to Mack's room held bomb parts (Reno Gazette-Journal, 6/20/06), Mack "had bombmaking materials in his bedroom."

"The materials, when mixed together and attached to a blasting cap or shot at, will explode, said Washoe County sheriff's Sgt. Lou Gazes, head of the Consolidated Bomb Squad for Washoe County, Reno and Sparks and who was at Mack's apartment.

"'There were materials that could have made a bomb,' Gazes said Monday...

"The police search of Mack's apartment also found 'several boxes of firearm ammunition, including .223-caliber and .243-caliber rifle ammunition which was strewn about a floor in one of the bedrooms'...and police found 'an empty rifle case which contained a receipt from the purchase of a Bushmaster .223 caliber rifle by Darren Roy Mack'...the rifle was 'equipped with a laser sighting device.'"

Mack and some of his supporters at the extreme end of the fathers' rights movement are comparing his actions to those of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the other revolutionaries who took up arms against British tyranny. I used to be a History teacher but I guess my memory is failing me a bit--tell me, Darren, when did Thomas Jefferson stab women?

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com
HisSide.com

Subscribe to this E-Newsletter

Email this E-Newsletter to a Friend

Missed an E-Newsletter? Find all of Glenn's E-Newsletters here

GlennSacks.com / HisSide.com

To be removed from our list, send an email to remove@glennsacks.com with the subject line Remove.