A fugitive people within a nation is tyranny.

Posts tagged ‘court system’

Child Support & Terrorists

drinking the kool-aid?

drinking the kool-aid?

Your nation is under attack by terrorists!

When a nation is attacked, people will go to war, risking the loss of life and limb. They are willing to suffer in their standard of living because of what they judge to be a noble or righteous cause. Families are under attack from an enemy within our borders, yet most victims refuse to be part of the war effort.

Instead most injured persons concentrate on their own personal loss by falling into the money trap. They support the enemy, the fascist divorce industrial complex that has swallowed the nation, part of the international unity promoted by the United Nations. Most support terrorists by hiring an attorney, and imagining that they can receive justice in a weighted court system. They may even fool themselves by equating the expense of court with love for their kids. Supporting a fascist terrorist system to achieve justice is insanity of the highest order. Some have fallen into this trap in the past, and now see the light. Most are still lost in the darkness of state propaganda.

justice and moneyBoth the military industrial complex and the divorce industrial complex thrive off creation and perpetuation of real or perceived “enemies.” Collusion between private corporations and government corporations, or fascism, is on the increase at the expense of civil rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Today, the founding documents of the United States are sometimes given lip service, but are commonly violated by modern government officials. Just as foreign wars are profitable for war industries, war within families is profitable for the divorce industrial complex. This industrial complex consists of judges, courts, lawyers, psychologists, social workers, “child support” workers, and all who assist in separating parents who have committed no crime from their children.

Neither industrial complex have use for peaceful resolutions. They thrive from trickery and slander.

Scott-police-fatal-shootingVictims of the divorce industrial complex that are still alive need to unite, to fight terrorism against families and against a renegade court system that ignores the foundation of law in the Constitution for a modern take on legal precedence. This tyrannical sickness is being spread across the globe to benefit special interests behind the scenes. No one is safe. A new world order of tyranny is already upon us.

baby moneyIn the United States, the founding fathers provided the means for people to address tyrannical government. This begins with the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees free speech, free press and the right of the people peacefully to assemble to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

mob-rule-child-support-governmentExposing the Fascist Divorce Industrial Complex: family court judges, family lawyers, psychologists, social workers, child protective services, child support agencies, and all who assist family courts in the process of diminishing relationships between fit parents and their children.

VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS:

1) Denial of First Amendment Freedoms of Religion and Speech – Parents cannot train up their children according to their beliefs when stripped of parental authority.

2) Denial of First Amendment Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances – Parents, mostly fathers, are denied justice in family courts – their petitions are denied or dismissed.

3) Kidnapping – State “family” court judges steal children from fit, law-abiding parents, perpetuating custody battles.

4) Denial of Fourth Amendment Right to Privacy – Unsubstantiated accusations result in invasion of homes and stealing of children by police or child protective services without probable cause; judges routinely order psych evaluations which invade and probe every detail of private family life of law-abiding parents. Parties who come to court to address legal issues are diverted into a wilderness of psychological evaluations because judges refuse to do their job: enforce the constitutional right to parent, further draining family assets.

5) Denial of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights to Due Process of Law – These include: denial of the right to free counsel for poor defendants, denial of the right to take depositions, lack of evidenciary hearings, lack of notice, and improper standard of proof – with defendants being presumed guilty and being sentenced, like criminals, to loss of the fundamental constitutional right to be a parent.

6) Denial of the Sixth Amendment Right to a Speedy and Public Trial – “Temporary” pendente lite orders in secretive unrecorded hearings usually become permanent orders. Justice delayed is justice denied. Fathers are treated as guilty in either or both criminal and “civil” court upon mere accusation, and are in effect sentenced to loss of the fundamental right to parenthood in civil court even if criminal cases are dismissed.

7) Denial of the Seventh Amendment Right to Trial by Jury – Heartless, treasonous judges make decisions to sever loving parent/child relationships which no jury would allow, which perpetuates continual litigation and profits for the divorce industry.

8) Denial of Thirteenth Amendment Prohibition Against Slavery and Involuntary Servitude – Usually fathers are enslaved as non-custodial parents and forced to pay extortion (so-called “child support”) or risk being thrown into debtors’ prison.

9) False Imprisonment – Fathers are typically arrested first in domestic disputes upon mere accusation. Usually fathers are thrown into debtors’ prisons when they do not or are unable to comply with the illegal extortion/”child support” orders.

10) Denial of Fourteenth Amendment Right to Equal Protection of the Laws – Mothers initiate most divorces and are “awarded” sole custody in the vast majority of contested cases even though both parents are equally fit and loving parents, resulting in state sanctioned gender discrimination and child abuse – stealing one half of the child’s world.

11) Denial of Fourteenth Amendment Liberty Interest in the Family – Numerous U.S. Supreme Court rulings have well-established the fundamental liberty interest in the family and the constitutional right to be a parent. Yet, treasonous family court judges daily and routinely ignore and violate the U.S. Constitution and their own state constitutions, and violate their oath of office to uphold those constitutions.

12) Fraud upon family courts – Judges and lawyers of the multi-billion dollar divorce industry increase the amount of custody and family law litigation in contradiction of its alleged purpose – to strengthen and preserve families, by trampling on the rights of U.S. Citizens.

violation of due process and civil rightsMany professed professionals routinely commit or assist in fraud upon courts of family law as they violate the U.S. Constitution by pretending to act “in the best interest of the child”. Then, under the false pretense, a created need for “child support” caused an unequal custody order, the same renegade, tyrannical judges issue extortion (“child support”) orders against these parents. They even routinely jail parents who do not or are unable to obey their extortion demands in debtors’ prisons of involuntary servitude. This false imprisonment is nothing less than slavery.

burning the constitutionThis involves a perversion of language in which some acts are given names opposite of the true meanings, the foundation of lies in which families are being destroyed in kangaroo courts across the United States.

PRIMARY EXAMPLES:

A. STEALING A CHILD from a fit parent is called the “BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD”.

B. EXTORTION against a fit parent, necessary ONLY because of the illegal, unconstitutional, forced unequal custody order, is called “CHILD SUPPORT “.

C. INVASION OF PRIVACY when no crime has been alleged is called a “PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION”.

overthrow

Advertisements

The Child Support Catastrophe

 

mob-rule-child-support-government

by Dalrock

Child support is typically framed as state intervention on behalf of children. However, it is more accurately an alternative to marriage for women. Traditionally, women would find a man willing to formally commit to them before having children. By marrying (and staying married to) the man who would be the father of her children, women would ensure investment from the man and the provision of resources both to her and her children. Note that child support isn’t needed in the traditional model, and that it isn’t relevant in the case of the death of the father. Even in the case of divorce, child support isn’t needed if parents share equal custody. Where child support is needed if women want to expel the father from the household (or never bring him in). When the facade of “its for the children” is stripped away, child support is all about removing fathers from the lives of their children.

If anyone has any doubt as to the true purpose of child support, they need only look at how it is enforced in practice. In theory whichever parent can better raise the children should be given custody, and the remaining parent would then be compelled to pay child support. In practice it is almost exclusively a way for women who expelled their children’s father from the home to extract money from the man. While the law is written under the guise of being gender neutral, this is a sham; the system is strongly biased towards women at nearly every step of the process. I’ve created a separate post to share all of the data, but here is a quick summary:

Mothers are far more likely to receive custody (over 80% of custodial parents are mothers). Those few fathers who receive custody are less likely than custodial mothers to have support awarded to them. Those fathers who have support awarded to them have less awarded on average than mothers. Due to all of the biases in the system, roughly 90% of all child support dollars are paid from fathers to mothers.

But still there are those who will claim this isn’t about money, it is about the best interest of the child. They say this even though the money goes to the mother, not the child, and the mother is under no legal obligation to spend the money on the children. If it were about the best interest of the child, the system would concern itself with maintaining the child’s relationship with the non custodial parent. But while the system is draconian in its enforcement of money (which almost always goes to the mother), it is generally uninterested in enforcing visitation (which almost always would be for the father). If the system were about protecting the child, it would enforce support and visitation equally. A parent who denies visitation is denying their child access to their parent. A system acting on behalf of the child would work vigorously to ensure that the child isn’t denied something which money can’t buy; access to and guidance from their father.

Not only does the system not take vigorous action to ensure that visitation orders are enforced, the system is designed to estrange fathers from their children. It uses draconian measures on the father while acting in the name of their children. Support is said to be based on the income of the father, but often it isn’t the father’s actual income which is considered. The court will often make up a figure which it assumes the father should be able to earn, and assign (impute) that income to him when setting the amount of support to be paid. W.F. Price described his own experience with this in the comments section of a recent Spearhead post:

There is really no cap on % of income a man can be ordered to pay. Being unemployed when my ex divorced me (she demanded I indulge her and help her get the job she wanted by watching the kids, and I stupidly went along with it thinking this would be temporary and would save my marriage), I was imputed, and therefore the child support was infinity percent of my income. I was imputed at the standard earning for a man my age in Washington state, despite the fact that we were in a recession and nobody was hiring.

There is no limit, therefore. Inability to pay is no excuse. You might as well be asking for mercy from the mob. I watched “”The Departed” recently, and when one of the bookies said he didn’t have the money the enforcer said “this is America – make it” after beating the crap out of him. This is exactly how fathers are treated.

captiveKeep in mind that men can be thrown in jail for failing to make these payments. Fathers all around the country are put in jeopardy of going to prison for money they don’t have, based on actions which are taken in the name of their own children. Undoubtedly the vast majority of fathers make every effort to not allow this injustice to poison their relationship with their children, since they know that their children are merely pawns being used by the child’s mother and the system. However, this kind of heavy handed tactic combined frequently with denial of time with and influence over their children has to impact the relationship negatively. Not surprisingly fathers who are less cut off from their children are more likely to pay support. In 2007 the Census found that 78% of non custodial parents who had joint custody and/or visitation privileges with their children made their payments, compared to 67% for those who didn’t have either (source, P9).

But the ultimate proof of what child support is all about is the end result for children. While there is a grain of truth to the old canard that divorce is caused by philandering or abusive men who either abandon or mistreat their children, the vast majority of divorces are actually requested by women. Professors Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas W. Allen set out to understand why this was in their paper These Boots Are Made for Walking: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women:

Because of the financial and social hardship faced after divorce, most people assume that generally husbands have instigated divorce since the introduction of no-fault divorce. Yet women file for divorce and are often the instigators of separation, despite a deep attachment to their children and the evidence that many divorces harm children.

Here is what they found (emphasis mine):

Our results are consistent with our hypothesis that filing behavior is driven by self-interest at the time of divorce. Individuals file for divorce when there are marital assets that may be appropriated through divorce, as in the case of leaving when they have received the benefit of educational investments such as advanced degrees. However, individuals may also file when they are being exploited within the marriage, as when the other party commits a major violation of the marriage contract, such as cruelty. Interestingly, though, cruelty amounts to only 6% of all divorce filings in Virginia. We have found that who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce, particularly when there is little quarrel about property, as when the separation is long.

Keep in mind that getting custody not only determines which parent has their children ripped away from them, but that because of the child support system the children also often come with a hefty payment stream the ‘winning’ parent can spend however they want. The ‘loser’ on the other hand is compelled at risk of imprisonment to pay amounts which can exceed their actual ability to earn. While this money is extracted from them in theory on behalf of their children, it robs them of their ability to be seen as wanting to take care of their children. Fathers can’t spend money on their children which the mother has already taken by force. Making this winner take all game even more lopsided, in the US the receipt of the payments is considered tax free, since the support payer must pay the income tax on it.

This system which is supposedly about the children encourages mothers to expel their children’s fathers from their lives. One divorce explains how many women think about this:

The problem with my life, as I saw it then, was my husband, and I imagined divorce as a process that would remove him but change little else  a sort of neutron bomb that eliminated men but left the rest of the world intact.

But divorce is only one way that child support encourages women to become single parents. The direct route to unwed motherhood is to simply get knocked up without getting married. This wouldn’t have guaranteed unwed mothers child support in the past. However, the rules were changed in the latter part of the 21st century, as Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers explain in their paper Marriage and Divorce: Changes and their Driving Forces:

Supreme Court rulings in the 1960s and 1970s also changed the nature of family relationships by eliminating many of the legal distinctions stemming from the marital status of a child’s parents. In 1968, the Supreme Court ruling in Levy v. Louisiana (391 U.S. 68) granted equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to “illegitimate” children. Five years later, the 1973 ruling in Gomez v. Perez (409 U.S. 535) overturned state laws exempting men from financial responsibility for “illegitimate” children. These rulings reduced both the social and economic cost to women of bearing a child out-of-wedlock…

Not surprisingly, this along with welfare payments has lead to an explosion of children being born out of wedlock. You can see the impact in the chart below from NCHS Data Brief No. 18 May 2009, Changing Patterns of Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States:

children-unmarried-women

The 2011 Statistical Abstract of the United States provides the breakdown of out of wedlock births by race (Table 86 pdf or image) for 2007, the latest year data is available. 40% of all babies born in the US in 2007 were out of wedlock. This figure was 51% for Hispanics, 28% for whites, and 72% for blacks. The US isn’t exceptional for its out of wedlock birth rates either:

out-of-wedlock-children-by-nation

But the direct approach to unwed motherhood isn’t preferred by all would be baby mommas. Some have a strong sense of tradition, and prefer the classic approach of marrying the father and then divorcing him after the children are born. Fortunately for them child support along with biased family courts makes this nearly as easy as the direct approach. As an added bonus, they get to attend a big party held in their honor, where they (get this!) promise in front of everyone they know to stay married to the father for life. This more classic approach to baby mamma-hood is also on the rise, as you can see in Figure 1 in Marriage and Divorce: Changes and their Driving Forces.

Divorce has gone from almost unheard of to extremely common. According to the US Census 2009 SIPP data, 39% of all white women aged 50-59 had divorced at least once. This works out to 42% of all white women that age who ever married. For Hispanic women the figures are 27%&30%, and for Black women the figures are 38%&48%.

All of this action supposedly in the interest of children has resulted in millions of kids growing up with little or no access to their fathers. A small percentage of these kids are better off because of the system. They had fathers who either abandoned them or were abusive. Far more have lost something irreplaceable; the chance to grow up with both their mother and father (chart source):

historic-living-arangements-of-children

There is a huge body of research showing how detrimental this is to children. In the interest of space I’ll only share one small quote from Dan Quayle Was Right (emphasis mine):

Even for fathers who maintain regular contact, the pattern of father-child relationships changes. The sociologists Andrew Cherlin and Frank Furstenberg, who have studied broken families, write that the fathers behave more like other relatives than like parents. Rather than helping with homework or carrying out a project with their children, nonresidential fathers are likely to take the kids shopping, to the movies, or out to dinner. Instead of providing steady advice and guidance, divorced fathers become “treat” dads.

Apparently–and paradoxically–it is the visiting relationship itself, rather than the frequency of visits, that is the real source of the problem. According to Wallerstein, the few children in the California study who reported visiting with their fathers once or twice a week over a ten-year period still felt rejected. The need to schedule a special time to be with the child, the repeated leave-takings, and the lack of connection to the child’s regular, daily schedule leaves many fathers adrift, frustrated, and confused. Wallerstein calls the visiting father a parent without portfolio.

This is built into any child support scenario, and simply cannot be changed or wished away. The profoundly negative result of fatherless children is widely acknowledged, even by those who enthusiastically support the new family structure child support encourages. However, instead of blaming the process which created the problem, most now blame the very fathers who had their children ripped away from them. This is the final insult by a system which sees fathers as no more than a walking wallet. Instead of blaming the concerted social push to allow women to raise children outside of marriage, the fathers themselves are blamed for being absent! Following the London riots many have pointed out that a major cause of the out of control youths is a lack of fathers. The headline of The Telegraph reads:

London Riots: Absent Fathers Have a Lot to Answer For

Where is the Family Rights Agenda in Politics?

by E. Manning, senior writer, family rights advocate and retired economist

If you are an independent thinker that wants change, you might just want to love Barack Obama. Unfortunately, the Democratic party platform that he stands on is not a platform that is good for the family or its continued cohesion in any way. His experience with his own father blends with that of the Democratic platform. The platform deals with the profound legend of “mommyhood”: where any mom can and should do it all. Further, if mommy can’t manage for any reason, Uncle Sammy is right there with cash and assistance. After all, it takes a village to raise a child, does it not? If you don’t have a village to support you, Uncle Sammy certainly will. No effort is made at the promotion of the tired subject of “Republican” family values or the rights of the American family as a whole. The platform is all about the promotion of children’s rights and the rights of single parents, which usually happens to be the mother.

where are family rights?

where are family rights?

The reality is that this circumstance is more by design than by circumstance. When unhappy women, feminists and complicit Democratic politicians brought the initial round of federal welfare reform into play in the 1980’s, men were generally promoted as the bane and single cause of conflict and pain in the American family. Anyone that has a lick of sense in their head certainly knows that a women has a significant responsibility for the plight of her family along with the success of that family. This wasn’t on the minds of most women thirty years ago and most of America was conned into believing the clever lie along with the solution that never had a hope to work beyond empowering politicians and big government.

Now the Democratic National Convention is ready with a fine program for economic and social renewal. Unfortunately, men have been left out of the mix or at least in a positive sense. The platform’s agenda puts all blame for father absence squarely on men, while promising to “crack down” on fathers who are behind on their child support. It also promises to ratchet up draconian domestic violence laws which often victimize innocent men and separate them from their children. Nothing has changed from thirty years ago, much less since the Clinton Administration, which forced much of the Bradley Amendment upon the nation.

Not a mention about family values on the religious front.

not a mention about family values on the religious front.

Research proves that the vast majority of divorces, as well as many break-ups of unmarried couples, are initiated by women, not by men, and that most of these do not involve serious male conduct of any kind. When a married or cohabiting couple splits up, the father is generally relegated to guest visitor status, participating in his children’s lives only if mommy allows it. Courts tilt heavily towards mothers in awarding custody, while enforcing fathers’ visitation rights indifferently.

Democrats claim that we will gain billions of dollars in revenue by taxing the “windfall profits” of oil companies just like Ronald Reagan did back in the 1980s. That debacle didn’t work causing the loss of revenue rather than revenue gains. Similarly, the DNC promotes the illusion that cracking down on child support will create a windfall for single mothers and the ever-needy children of America. That myth hasn’t worked since this inception of Democratic legislation that Senator Bradley and his cohorts initiated so long ago, supposedly without any hope of success.

66 percent of parents behind on child support nationwide earn poverty-level wages. Less than four percent of the national child support debt is owed by parents earning $40,000 or more a year. Starry-eyed politicians eye big income earners with the idea of promoting their cause as payback for rich, snotty and abusive fathers that could care less about their poor children. The promotion is all about inciting prejudice against fathers and men in general to promote a political cause and a monetary system.

domestic violence emphasis

domestic violence emphasis

The Democratic National Convention platform pledges to “strengthen domestic violence laws,” support the Violence Against Women Act, and increase funding for domestic violence programs. This writer says that this is a pander to the increasing number of single women with children, an act that is wholly unnecessary.

Society justly despises a wife-beater and child-abuser. This family policy scenario has been used to justify many destructive policies regarding the family as well as civil liberties violations like the Bradley Amendment. The system has provided easy ways for disgruntled women to kick decent, loving fathers out of their homes, exclude them from their children’s lives and work them over financially in the name of just law and individual rights for children and single parents.

The American family is in real danger from the very politics that claim to protect the rights of the individual. Unfortunately, men are not protected by federal law and are seen only as surrogate money bags for the system. Moms often design to milk the system for everything it is worth because they are entitled to it. The world owes the disgruntled for their displeasure. The rights of the family to exist or the promotion of the simple act to simply get along in harmony isn’t discussed or encouraged. Morality isn’t the job of the State and yet politicians claim higher moral ground. The Democratic Party line has obligated itself to family policies that don’t work and never did in the name of “feel-good individual rights” that violate Constitutional rights for millions of hard-working and now disadvantaged Americans. This is troubling. Republicans have simply stood by or endorsed the same politics. In the land of family law, politicians have generally proved themselves to be the of the same stripe. This is no less troubling.

right with a wrong

right with a wrong

You can’t make a right with a wrong and certainly few politicians have taken anti-family policies to task. The crisis in the family is the perfect opportunity for an election issue, but perhaps an issue that politicians feel is too hot to handle on the front lines. Republicans continue to address the same old family values politics without addressing the damage done by unconstitutional and abusive political policy and law. Politicians would do well to figure out that righting a wrong with a wrong is worse than bad politics before summarily promoting the same old policies that dismantle the American family in favor of political empowerment. Somewhere, somehow, a day of reckoning is in the mix.

~ E. Manning

Rethinking Family Rights

a commentary by E. Manning, senior writer, family rights advocate and retired economist.

Times are tough for families in America. Stereotypes abound, especially toward men, popularly considered by many to be unfit to care for children. Men and a few women have become profound victims of the Welfare State frame-of-mind: victims of the State that claims justice for all.

The intense debate about “father’s rights” continues. Custody proceedings are often adversarial at best, accenting the worst in childish behavior on all fronts, even from judges. Cutting the rubbish, hurt feelings, immaturity and greed brings former mates for life into bare-knuckle fights over who is hurting the children. The fact of the matter is that the debate should be about “family rights.”

The systemic common attitude is that men are abusive, out of control and have little to offer. While men are demoted in rank and status even among their own children, they are expected to relinquish a third of their pay for the privilege of siring a child on the same money they made during the marriage in a dwindling economy. While the proliferation of rules abound, the reality is that there are no rules, only strife and abuse of the “law.” Husbands are often rooted out of the home by the wife with the expectation that life will somehow be better. That is rarely the case for either party. Vengeance is mine and high expectations rule the roost in the hope of controlling the system for personal advantage. This is the sole goal of many custodial parents.

Four years ago, a rash of violent killings erupted in Texas, committed by an unconnected group of hysterical men that had their lives and children mercilessly removed from them. One man killed his children. Another killed his wife, her new husband and a judge at the courthouse before turning the gun on himself. This is something that everyone, including the law, wants to forget. The law portends that men are fodder with little to say or do about their situation because the “law” is always right. Men don’t have rights except to support broken families.

Americans continue to be children of their own mistakes. It up to men and women to struggle and strain separately as they seek someone else to make the same mistakes with. They didn’t learn a thing from their first marriage. The finger of blame points odiously in all directions. No one and everyone is responsible at the same time in a bipolar rush for power that is encouraged by authority in the name of empowerment. Frustrated judges and ineffective law aren’t much better than bad behavior or murderous fits. There is no excuse for any of the evil that Americans actively support for the common good.

brave new world

brave new world

If family law is ever going to improve, the country has to stop demonizing men and women just because they are divorced. The government must get out of the business of breaking up the family in the name of children’s rights, a typical feminist ploy of the eighties. The old saying that it takes two to tango applies here. There is plenty of blame to go around when any relationship fails. Yet the court system claims to uphold the child without actually doing what it claims. The child suffers greatly in every way no matter how “good” or “capable” a single parent is. The reality is that the system encourages the blight to continue unabated as chaos continues to swallow the country. Parental alienation is rampant. No one is encouraged to get along. Life has become about the glory of the fight. The system has made it easy to bust up families in the name of convenience and political expedience, a system of social redistribution. The system has promoted selfish thinking that demotes the needs of everyone with the idea that times will somehow be better by selling-out.

~ E. Manning

"Venus": An Interesting Book to Consider

the dark sideIt’s easy to pick one another to death and that is the last thing any healthy human being would want to do. Unfortunately, many have become victims of unhealthy thinking promoted by a complicit court system. The origins of unconstitutional federal and state legislation originated from feminists with an ax to grind and upset abandoned women back in the 1990s. This is the same kind of thinking that is discussed in this telling and informative book.

It’s worth a read, especially if you are still unmarried. You still have time to do some homework to keep your life on track. The person that you partner with is the single most important person in your life. Therefore, the power of the book “Venus: The Dark Side” cannot be underestimated. If you are married, you may still be able to save yourself from heartache and total destruction at the hands of a merciless vixen and a stacked legal system that is in bad need of balance and repair.

The American culture often refuses to believe that women are capable of and in fact do commit violence and damage of all sorts against men. This book is an important step in breaking the wall of institutional silence and propaganda that allows men and children to remain in harm’s way.

“Venus: The Dark Side” reveals the problem of emotional abuse against men. Emotional abuse and emotional terrorism are primary tactics of abusive and manipulative women. Using the tools of emotional manipulation, the abusive woman can be a subtle foe; she often preys on men who are good of heart, twisting their good intentions until she achieves her objectives. The authors provide a look into the characteristics of the emotionally abusive and manipulative woman, and strategies to extricate one’s self from her grasp.

To some women, this book could appear to be vicious and one-sided. All women are not evil any more than all men are evil or twisted. However, the experiences of millions of men, similar to myself, say that ignoring reality is a sure means for self-destruction on many levels. This book is worth your time.

Tag Cloud