« Trish's Movie Recommendations | Main | Story Writing Time »

March 02, 2005

Isn't This A Kick In The Head

On a lark yesterday I checked the site meter for my web site, and found quite a few people from The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler had linked to me.

What was amazing was that we agreed on something. The people over there discovered right-wing fathers' rights nutball Robert Lindsay Cheney, and they weren't impressed. I've known about Cheney for about ten years.

This post, I Don't Hate The Jews, I Hate Everyone, on Cheney's blog caught their attention. I see the guy is still a raving lunatic even ten years after I learned about him. I couldn't make heads nor tails of his ranting, which was always par for the course for him.

How do I know about Cheney? He's a founder and member of the anti-Semitic, racist, and misogynistic Fathers' Manifesto. Fathers' Manifesto is often kicked off the multiple domains it had appeared in because it's been rightly labled hate speech, so it's hard to pin down. Here is a Wayback Machine archived page of the Manifesto signatories had signed. This page is the archive of the list of signatories. Fathers' Manifesto is an umbrella group of fathers' and men's rights organizations and individuals who supported this hate site. Signatories include leaders and members of major fathers' rights groups such as the American Fathers Coalition (aka American Fathers Alliance), Fathers for Equal Rights, Fathers United for Equal Rights, The Men's Internetwork, The Children's Rights Council, The Family Guardian Network, Fathers Rights and Equality Exchange, and The American Coalition for Fathers and Children. These groups position themselves as representatives of the mainstream mens' and fathers' rights movement. The thing was that when Fathers' Manifesto was being formed, fathers' rights activists publicly deplored founder John Knight and the group's agenda, but privately they were signing onto it, joining the mailing list, and endorsing everything from eliminating child support, father-only custody, and even repealing women's right to vote. What they didn't expect was for John Knight to take all that private talk and make it very public when he first opened the Fathers' Manifesto web site. When Knight went public, the signatories backpedaled like crazy trying to explain themselves away on Usenet and on mailing list groups. It was quite an amusing sight to see when that happened.

This is the Manifesto that the signatories had agreed to. It's linked above, at the Wayback Machine. Yes, there were actually people who endorsed this swill. Please note that talk about "fatherlessness" originated with this group. Neo-conservatives who latched onto blaming single and divorced mother homes for all sorts of social ills came after Fathers' Manifesto.

I) Marriage is a social contract for a woman to share her reproductive life with a man. It is the only agreement by which a man can have a family and legitimate children. Enforcement of this contract is vital to securing the interests of family and children.

II) The power of feminism to destroy families is exemplified by statements like: "I don't want to lead the life that my mother had" or "most mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children. " The present feminist concept of women's "independence" really means a government-enforced entitlement to be paid for the rewards of being a mother, without the responsibilities that go with it: to men, to children especially, and ultimately to the world at large.

III) To accommodate this "independence", the marriage contract is discarded by the woman and not enforced by the courts allowing women who want only the benefits and not the responsibilities of marriage to throw the father of her children out while keeping the fruits of his labor. No matter how little she has contributed to their joint assets, no matter how unsupportive or unsympathetic she has been as a wife, the man must continue to support his children without the benefits of his marriage while his children lose the benefits of the two-parent family created by this contract. The man who wants a family is powerless to prevent this.

IV) This creates and supports fatherlessness which is the industrial world's worst crisis, damaging boys and girls alike and creating social pathologies which harm every citizen. Fatherless homes absorb the majority of welfare spending and produce the majority of criminals. Most prisoners behind bars grew up in fatherless homes.

V) Children have the right to be raised and cared for by fathers, and fathers have the right to preserve their incomes and families. Enforcement of these rights will remove Incentives for divorce and illegitimacy, eliminate fatherlessness, reduce violence, reduce welfare spending; remove lawyers from family affairs, free police to fight real crimes, reduce the public debt incurred through attempts to replace fathers with government, restore incentives and vitality to our economy, reduce taxes, and enable healthier and happier children who grow up with a greater sense of commitment to the society that raised them.

VI) THEREFORE WE THE UNDERSIGNED FATHERS AND FUTURE FATHERS RESOLVE to oppose all attempts to replace paternal love with sole-maternal custody abetted by government largesse. We resolve to fight anti-father bias by honorable, vigorous, and sustained means . We commit ourselves to protecting the family and honoring fatherhood. We vow to provide physical, legal, and emotional care to current and future children to remove all government involvement from family matters by the establishment of the father as the head of the family, under God.

This Web Site is dedicated to the elimination of fatherlessness.

Robert Cheney is one of the founders of this group. He has been jailed repeatedly for refusal to pay child support, has endorsed liens against custodial mothers and father-only custody, and he's racist, anti-semitic, and misogynistic. He's a member of the Patriot movement. This is what I wrote about him in my Feminista article, which is nearly ten years old:

Robert Lindsay Cheney, Jr., Executive Director of the Sovereign Patriot Group in Chico, California, and one of seven signatories of the "Reaffirmation and Declaration" of Fathers Manifesto, was released from prison on May 1, 1997 for refusing to pay child support. Manifesto signatories John Knight (founder of Fathers' Manifesto), Christopher Robin, and Monica Hoeft-Ross had written extensively regarding Cheney's plight on the fathers' rights mailing list Parents and Children for Equality (PACE), including plaintive wailings of their fears that the poor man would die following his self-imposed hunger strike. (He didn't. One month after his release from prison he had spammed the mailing list FamilyLaw-L with his Sovereign Patriot Constitutional/common law mishmash nonsense.) Mr. Robin, a wealthy man from Hollywood, California, owns the Purple Heart House. He had covered his house with "purple hearts" for each father who, he claims, had been unfairly kept from his children. Ms. Hoeft-Ross is a member of both Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange (F.R.E.E.) and the Coalition of Parental Support (COPS -- alternative web site here). Discussion of Mr. Cheney's case and fathers' rights support of his Patriot and Sovereign citizen sensitivities ran rampant on the PACE listserv under subject headers such as "ROBERT CHENEY P.O.W. HUNGER STRIKE," "OROVILLE NAZI-LAND! FREE ROBERT CHENEY!," "ROBERT CHENEY, POLITICAL PRISONER," "FREE ROBERT CHENEY.......GESTAPO HEADQUARTERS," "FREE ROBERT CHENEY.....BOYCOTT BUTTE COUNTY....NAZI-LAND!," "Fwd: JUSTICE IN BUTTE COUNTY....HOME OF NAZI SHERIFF GREY....," "P.O.W. ROBERT CHENEY LATEST LETTER," and "BOYCOTT BUTTE COUNTY....FIRE SHERIFF RED-NECK MICK GREY....AVOID OROVILLE AT ALL COSTS!"

I got curious and went to The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler blog. My Feminista article and this entry on my web site were linked there as everyone discussed what a moonbat Cheney is. I let them know that I wrote the stuff, and that they were right about him. He's Moonbat Central. I was pleasantly surprised that they welcomed me over there, despite my being far too left wing for most of their tastes. I read the main page and there's little there that I'd agree with. It was an interesting experience, to be sure.

Posted on March 2, 2005 at 09:42 AM | Permalink

Comments

TW, Poster Womanette:
Obviously you are feeling better. Could you possibly do me a favor, O Great Archangel at the Apocalypse? Could you to stop over here. If Pinko Feminist Hellcat will have me,I would like to be Minister of Proper Ganders

Posted by: The Heretik at Mar 2, 2005 10:05:20 AM

Heretik, if you go to Pinko Feminist Hellcat and ask for that ministry in her comments section, she'll probably give it to you. By the way, there's no link in your comment, but I know what post you're talking about.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 2, 2005 10:47:05 AM

Thanks, TW. here ya go. Grassy ass, amiga. Salsa?

Posted by: The Heretik at Mar 2, 2005 10:59:23 AM

Hey Trish, my dad greases up the metal poles the bird feeders are hung from and those pesky Bay Area squirrels try to climb up there and keep sliding down. Eventually they rub off enough of the grease (or whatever he's using) and can make it up. Will have to suggest a blowgun to him.

In that latest post "Robert Lindsay" seems to deny that he is Cheney, so i hope i didn't link them erroneously when i found and linked to your site yesterday at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. There are just too many common themes to think otherwise though.

Posted by: Christopher at Mar 2, 2005 11:00:02 AM

My bird feeders mostly hang in trees, so I don't think greasing up the trees would work well. Two feeders hang on a pole, though, so I'll try greasing it up when the snow goes away.

I'm not sure if that was really Cheney posting or not. I couldn't make sense of what the guy said, anyway. I had no idea he had a blog. He might not be the same Robert Lindsay Cheney, but I'm not convinced. They have far too much in common, as you said.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 2, 2005 11:18:18 AM

Hiya Trish! I am yet another roamer from the Rott. I think you'll find that we don't even agree 100% on anything over there. And dissenting opinions are always welcome.

As for the squirrels, my wife and I invested in two things.

1. A birdfeeder that snaps shut when there is too much weight on it. To date, I have only seen one tree rat get to the food and she did that by bracing her legs on the roof and hanging upside down.

2. A suet feeder that has a cage around the suet which keeps it out of reach from them and the starlings. Only the chickadees and the woodpeckers have been able to get to it which is the whole point.

Posted by: Cameron at Mar 2, 2005 12:28:17 PM

Yet another Rott lurker stubbling in.

As a right-wing male feminist (Shocking!), I usually get odd looks from people when I tell them what I am. There's alot of things about marriage that I believe in that alot of other people don't seem to believe.

I believe in equal rights and liberties for both sexs, Ditto for same sex relationships.
But as an almost-Christian-Fundie I don't believe in homosexual marriage (and before I get hate mail, let me clear that up). I Do however believe in a similar institution being set up that provides the same exact rights a non-homosexual couple in a relationship recieves. The biggest problem I see with many people's outlook (Fundies and Liberals alike) is that they see Marriage as a instituion of law when it's a religous institution that's become incorporated into law when we adopted the British law system some 300 years ago.

But yeah, enough of that... Stop by the Rott anytime.

Posted by: LC The_Scribe at Mar 2, 2005 1:42:18 PM

Hi, Cameron and LC The Scribe. Welcome to my blog!

Cameron, I make my own suet for the birds. Yup, the squirrels won't touch it. I've never heard of feeders that snap shut, but I'll have to look into it.

Scribe, I think that marriage has both legal and religious components. You don't have to be married in a church to have a legal marriage. The ceremony can be religious but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. I've heard plenty of people recommend that marriages just become strictly legal issues and completely leave the church out of it.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 2, 2005 1:48:38 PM

*shudder*
I'd prefer it go the other way to be honest, and I've been to plenty of secular weddings (all of my siblings aren't religous) so I know that a lot of people don't view marriage as a secular... union... anymore.

I realized after I edited and posted that the post had nothing to do with your original post! I swear that it did but I had my boss looking over my shoulder so I wasn't paying enough attention. so to tie it all together:
I grew up in a fatherless home, my dad left when I was four, and it was for a pretty good reason actually... As I grew up my father and mom clashed constantly as she percieved that he was trying to steal her livelyhood away from her everytime that he went to court to see if he couldn't get the payments reduced. The court ruled in favor of him quite a few times, mostly because my mother mismanaged the money that she was given and spent it on cruises instead of what she was supposed to be spending it on (us kids and as perscribed by the judge, her education).

The Father's Manifesto uses the extreme feminist and makes that the mainstream, and then claims that father's need to fight against that... when truth be told, very few judges in America would rule against a father or mother provided they have enough good evidence one way or another.

that's what I was trying to say earlier and got on a tangent and had to edit...

Posted by: LC The_Scribe at Mar 2, 2005 2:06:54 PM

Shoot... I typoed in the first paragraph!

"lot of people don't view marriage as a religous... union... anymore."

Posted by: LC The_Scribe at Mar 2, 2005 2:09:08 PM

I understand what you're saying, LC. I prefer to have both legal and religious marriage for those who want to choose either or both. I know of people who would prefer to leave religion out of it, and the way things are now they can if they wish. I've been to both secular and religious ceremonies. The religious ones I've been to were Protestant and Catholic.

Most of the time, regarding divorce, the parents decide how to mete things out on their own, and they don't need a judge to help them do it. Fathers' Manifesto's version of feminism is an extremism that doesn't exist. I don't know anyone who fits their description of feminism, and I've been around a long time. Most feminists haven't done much work regarding divorce and custody issues. The major feminist groups certainly haven't. Fathers' Manifesto does promote father-only custody. Most fathers' rights activists today know that's not possible, so they opt for presumptive joint custody, which isn't doable either. The courts are supposed to decide custody based on the best interests of the child, but children's welfare is sometimes lost in a lot of the cases. It becomes about adult desires as opposed to the welfare of children and recognizing who the primary caregiver was.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 2, 2005 2:16:31 PM

We bought our feeder at Wild Birds Unlimited but they don't seem to have it anymore. This place has a few that are similar though.

http://www.heritagefarms.biz/birdfeeders/sp/?cartid=820499672226506

As for the nutbar that brought us to your site, you have my sympathy for dealing with him that long. -:-)

Posted by: Cameron at Mar 2, 2005 2:23:01 PM

Thanks for the link. I'll look into it. I'm in the market for a new birdfeeder. I have one suet cake left that I made that I'll get around to putting outside, as soon as the snow dies down. There's a woodpecker out here that likes it.

Nah, I didn't have to deal with the nutbar for nearly a decade. I just have known about him for that long. You should have seen some of the crap he wrote on the Familylaw-L mailing list back in the late '90s. It would curl your hair.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 2, 2005 2:38:25 PM

Good lord, is this why these nutbars who've been at Hugo's blog have been screaming about contracts? The idea that marriage is just a way for a man to have access to a woman's reproductive tract is heinous.

All the birdfeeder discussion reminds me that I want one on my fire escape to attract the flock of wild parrots that live in Brooklyn.

Posted by: zuzu at Mar 2, 2005 3:32:17 PM

Hey, Trish, please do come on back over to the Rott. Yah, you say you're too far left for us, and that prolly is so. BUT! We are willing to compare notes and look at sane arguments.

Regarding marriage, I do think that marriage is a social contract between a man and a woman, but the way that drooling moron Robert apparently opines, the woman is basically a kiddie oven that has no say. This right winger thinks that just doesn't fly.

Posted by: Bill H at Mar 2, 2005 6:17:28 PM

I grew up in a fatherless home, my dad left when I was four, and it was for a pretty good reason actually... As I grew up my father and mom clashed constantly as she percieved that he was trying to steal her livelyhood away from her everytime that he went to court to see if he couldn't get the payments reduced. The court ruled in favor of him quite a few times, mostly because my mother mismanaged the money that she was given and spent it on cruises instead of what she was supposed to be spending it on (us kids and as perscribed by the judge, her education)."

Here we go again...


Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 2, 2005 6:26:44 PM

"Good lord, is this why these nutbars who've been at Hugo's blog have been screaming about contracts? The idea that marriage is just a way for a man to have access to a woman's reproductive tract is heinous."

Well that's what they claim marriage USED to be about and then women took it and made it into a sacrament; with the priests, the white dress, all the other pomp and ceremony...

Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 2, 2005 6:32:31 PM

"Robert Lindsay Cheney, Jr., Executive Director of the Sovereign Patriot Group in Chico, California, and one of seven signatories of the "Reaffirmation and Declaration" of Fathers Manifesto, was released from prison on May 1, 1997 for refusing to pay child support."

I think this one paragraph pretty much saids it all...

Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 3, 2005 1:09:50 AM

Hi Trish! Hey, you like blonde jokes, right? Here's a few for ya, babe!

1. Husband noticed that his blonde wife was staring at a jar of frozen orange juice for an abnormally long time. He asked her why she was doing that. The blonde said, "It says on the label "concentrate". Haha.

2. 2 blondes were walking along a river, one on one side and one on the other. One blonde shouted to the blonde on the other side: "Hey, how do you get to the other side?" The blonde on the other side shouted back: "You're on the other side, you idiot!" Haha.

3. A blonde was seen with her hair piled high in a beehive hairdo. Someone asked her why she piled her hair so high. The blonde gave an angry look and said, "I was tired of people always saying I couldn't understand something because it was over my head." Haha.

Like em, Trish? Thought so. We all need a good laugh, even you humorless feminists.

Posted by: Robert Lindsay at Mar 3, 2005 2:47:22 AM

Hi, another Rottie here.

Please come back to the Rott. We have few intelligent
arguments from the left, and those we get, we talk to
as best we can. The trolls, on the other hand, are lunch
meat; I think you can see that from our previous postings.
This Robert Cheney dude is just a

Posted by: kschlenker at Mar 3, 2005 3:43:22 AM

OOPS! This dang laptops keyboard goes wango on me every once
in awhile.

As I was saying, Robert Cheney is a sicko. Sounds like he
wants to make women into baby factories for men;
Thomas Aquinas, but without the intellect.

Posted by: kschlenker at Mar 3, 2005 3:53:34 AM

Hi, guys. I'll be back to the Rott. It was just getting late and I wasn't online. And I thought the blonde jokes were cute.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 3, 2005 6:56:51 AM

Yes, Trish, do come back to the Rott again. We always enjoy intelligent discourse with nonmoonbats. We even have a minister of intellegent discourse who is slightly to the left so that we look at all sides of the issues. What I see of some of your writings you would actually fit in unless the language we use on the trolls is too much.

Posted by: anstranger at Mar 3, 2005 1:04:56 PM

Another LC from the Rott here. Just looking around. We could use intelligent debate over there, most of the moonbats usually have no effing clue.

Posted by: GodandStarcraft at Mar 4, 2005 3:29:44 PM

I get moonbats here too, GodandStarcraft. Just a different sort.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 4, 2005 3:46:46 PM

Hey Trish glad you liked the jokes! And I must say, this is a superb blog here, and you are a good writer. As feminists go, you're about 80% sensible and maybe 20% feminazi, which is not too bad. Hey, you're actually married to a guy you like. Hey, you actually write erotica that's not lesbian erotica. Hehehe. Hey, you actually dog on other women, accusing them of being catty, etc. Hey, you laughed at blonde jokes. Those are some real great qualities for an open-minded feminist.

You like rock, too? Rolling Stones? You like "Under My Thumb"? Hehe. My favorite.

Re: the bird feeders discussion on Rott, spend about $200 and buy yourself a professional bird feeder. If you are in CA, there is a great store over by the Bay Area somewhere (I'll try to remember the city). $200 gets you a 100% squirrel-proof feeder. It's a metal pole that goes into the ground. 1/2 way up it has a round thing on the pole that keeps the squirrel away somehow. Then it branches into 2 branches. You can put a feeder on each branch. Feeders are reached via ladder.

Right now I've been pretty OD'd on wintering Oregon Juncos out there - there are usually about 17 at any given time. I built an enclosure for my feeders. It is a small fenced compound with the feeders inside accessible via latched gate. Fence keeps cats out. I had unfenced feeder in front yard and cats were getting a bird a day. You have to keep the compound hosed off a lot as the birds mess it up. Good idea to take some brush and strew it around in there, branches and stuff, as the birds love that.

Posted by: Robert Lindsay at Mar 4, 2005 6:45:21 PM

Well, FWIW, I got most of the way through the I Don't Hate the Jews... post mentioned above.

Don't know how anyone could make such a detailed investigation into the the number of left-leaning Jews in Great Britain in America and be so clueless as to what might account for ( other than the nutball Vast Jewish Conspiracy thing ) why, for instance, substantial numbers of Jewish Americans might be inclined to support a rather pro-active response- like, say, Neocon-- toward a group of nihilist well armed religious psychopaths who, oddly enough, run around yelling death to Americans and death to Jews.

Oddly enough, similar historic precedents, such as the various and sundry previous attempts to end the existence of Israel are mentioned with no effect on the consistently clueless commentary.

reminds me of the heading for another link I followed thru the blogosphere earlier from Keshertalk- Should be used for one of those Public Service Mental Health ads:

anti-Semitism makes people stupid.

Posted by: Rev.Churchmouse at Mar 9, 2005 8:02:53 PM

Churchmouse: I am not clueless at all about why so many left-leaning Jews are heading Right in terms of the Terror War. It is precisely the reason that you elucidate - these Jews see the Muslim movements, and Islam and the Arab World in general, as leading a war against the Jewish people, notably the state of Israel. They are lining up on the side of the Jews (the Jewish state) against her enemies: Arabs in general, Muslims in general, and especially such hostile forces as Hezbollah, the Iranian regime, the Palestinians, the Syrians, the Iraqis, the Afghans, etc. They are also hostile to the Egyptians and the Saudis at the very least. Most Jews I have met are *openly* hostile or at least suspicious towards *all* Arabs and *all* Muslims period. And, as you note, who can blame them? Though not noted in my piece, this Jewish "pro-war Left" is also turning on the mainstream Left in general because it is seen as anti-Israel and sometimes critical of Jews themselves.

They have similar feelings about "Old Europe". They are starting to turn on Russia too, as Russia is starting to oppose the US in Iraq and line up with Syria and Iran. They are pursuing the interests of their ethnic group in a time of conflict/war, which is a perfectly logical, sensible, reasonable, non-evil thing to do. Clearly you do not understand the piece. As you note here, in 1967 and 1973, there were 2 wars against the Jewish state. Though Israel came out on top, these wars were clearly traumatic to many Jews who didn't care much about Israel previously. They felt threatened by these wars against their brethren and lined up with their tribe in times of war, circling the wagons, increasing in-group solidarity and out-group hostility, increasing ethnocentrism, purging "traitors" and soft-liners, etc. Hey, this is what nations, states, religions, sects, ethnic groups and tribes DO during conflicts and times of war, GET IT?

The line you voice here in your comments, which you claim I miss completely in my piece, is PRECISELY the line of my article, which you somehow completely failed to catch on to. We agree, you and I. OK? I suggest you go back and read the piece. Perhaps I did not make my line clear enough? Finally, why is this piece "anti-Semitic", if, as noted, you are I are in complete agreement about these Leftwing Jews are leaning Right in this sense? Obviously, it can be seen in their interests to line up with the Jewish people in these deadly times. Why is it "anti-Semitic" to note that they are doing precisely that? Is it only "anti-Semitic" in the sense that we Gentiles (as noted in piece) are not allowed to discuss or write anything at all about Jews, Judaism or Israel other than fawning, submissive, worshipful support?

Posted by: Robert Lindsay at Mar 10, 2005 3:32:56 AM

It might be considered slightly anti-Semitic in the sense that many on the traditional left have moved rightward in the war on terror...so why even mention the Jews?

See what I mean...

Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 10, 2005 9:36:16 AM

Mr. Lindsay/Cheney, could you clarify your politics? Your website seems to indicate that you are pre-New Left left, as in CP USA Stalinist stuff. Yet you also have links to the far right via the Father manifesto, which does seem to agitate for the privatization and/or elimination of all remnants of the welfare state? Yet your blog explicitly takes to task the libertarians and their naive faith in privatization of basic servies, and how this has been disastrous for California utilities, education, et al? Just trying to get a handle on this.

Posted by: silverside at Mar 10, 2005 11:10:21 AM

Silverside, I am not going to comment on any attempts to link me with any persons, living, dead, imagined or real. I write under my real name. If you want to think that my real name is Robert Lindsay Cheney, fine. I will not comment on that or on any other links folks may try to make. Re: the Father manifesto, I am not going to take responsibility for that document. Perhaps you can track down some fellow named Robert Lindsay Cheney and ask him about it. Last I heard he was in Chino, possibly an Engineering Professor at Chino State. My politics are not pre-New Left, they are New Left, and I am not wild about Stalinism or Stalin. Yes I joined CPUSA and never left but got thrown out of local chapters for lacking Communist-ness - for "supporting capitalism" "not being a revolutionary" and whatnot. See in the profile under Sandinistas, Hugo Chavez, mixed economy, civil libertarianism, antiauthoritarian. I am also a Green Party member too. Why ignore that? I'm much more active with them. And I give $ to the Left wing of Democratic Party. So go figure.

My position on father's rights is complex. I do not think it is a good idea that the children almost always go to the mother alone. I guess I support joint custody. In some cases they may be better with the father. Fatherlessness is a problem, but it's not to be solved by forcing children to their Dads. Lack of a mother is not too cool either. I disagree with Trish that men are the cause of all divorces, by either leaving the woman (probably good idea many times) or in "being a bad father or husband so the woman leaves the man". Wa-la! Can't win! Perfect setup, it's always the man's fault. Why does Trish's husband put up with this tripe? I'd walk out of the room if my woman talked like that. If you go to my site now, you will see 2 pieces. One takes hard line on *real* sexism versus *fake* sexism. Fake sexism being what semi-silly women like Trish are all hotted up about. You know, words, phrases, sentences. Then there is the rest of the world. If you go to my blog today, you will see a sentence along lines of, "While women on most of the planet cringe under the terror boot of patriarchal dictatorship". So, given statements like that, it's a bit rich to paint me as some anti-feminist male sexist fanatic?

Re: my position on the welfare state. My position is summed in the piece on Libertarianism. Suffice to say that I am a very strong supporter of the welfare state - welfare for mothers (but could be reformed), jobs programs, unemployment benefits, disability, social security, state housing, full medical benefits. There is no aspect of the welfare state or state public spending that I disagree with. I am hopping mad about efforts to to eliminate the welfare state. The US welfare state needs to be expanded, not reduced or eliminated. You tried to pin a Stalinist label on me, but European-style social democrat would be more accurate.

Posted by: Robert Lindsay at Mar 10, 2005 12:25:38 PM

NY Mom: You make an interesting point. It's not really true at all that "many on the traditional Left have moved Right with the War on Terror". Some have, most have not at all. Amongst those who did, I started researching the issue, and noted that it seemed like a very large number of them were Jewish. So it got me thinking. Jewish Leftwingers and liberals seem more likely to move Right with the Terror War due to tribal identifications with their people, who are seen as one of the parties in this war. It's true, as you note, in further researching the British pro-War Left, I found quite a few were also Gentiles. But most of these Gentiles had a very strong Jewish identification, such that for a long time I thought they were Jewish. Their blogs were not too different from the Jewish PWL bloggers. Jews this, Israel that, Palestinians this, Holocaust that, anti-Semites this, radical Islam that. Just a lot of writing about the Jews, their state and their enemies. Apparently these are what Lindemann may call Judaized Gentiles. Or perhaps you like another term. A colleague calls them honoraries. Or maybe you like Judeophiles. Anyway, quite a few folks just love the Jews. Being strongly pro-Jewish, pro-Israeli, seemed to be a strong factor influencing many British pro-War Left Gentiles.

It's kind of another matter altother here in the States, due to the politics being so different. Why write about the Jews? Hell, why not? Cuz you and (everyone else) says I can't write about them (other than praise-worship) without being slammed as an anti-Semite? Huh? I can't write about these people? I'm perverse. You tell me I can't write about these folks under severe penalties if I do and that just pisses me off and makes me want to write about them even more. Because you say I can't, that's why. Just to piss everyone off and offend as many as possible.

I'm very much involved in the Arab Cause, so the Jews and their state does enter into that. And I have been intensely involved with 1000's of Jews in the past few years, so I have learned a lot about them and interacted a lot with them. Also did a lot of reading and research. Fascinating subject. It's been an interesting journey. The piece is observational, sociological and maybe political science. No moral judgements. Maybe being a pro-War Leftie or liberal is a good thing? Maybe being a neoconservative is a good thing? I don't like it, but what do I know? No need to read evil motives into innocent materials.

I intend to do an update to that piece, but I need to get a lot of materials together. In the update, I am going to question whether the British Pro-War Left is really a Jewish-led and -dominated movement. It remains to be proven. Jews are way overrepresented in British PWL, but there are plenty of Gentiles there too. It's nothing like neoconservatism here in the US. Another aspect is that the British Jewish community is a lot smaller and less powerful than their brethren in the US. Plus in general British Jews seem to be way assimilated. Sorry, need to do another post on this. :)

Posted by: Robert Lindsay at Mar 10, 2005 12:52:17 PM

But you're not an anti-semite...

Well thanks for the update Robert...

Nice talking to you...

Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 10, 2005 1:28:14 PM

Robert (May I call you Robert?):

Actually, I have no opinion about who you are at all. I know nothing about it. However, I did have my doubts that you and the manifesto signer are/were the same person, as they have radically different political orientations. And though I may not agree with all you say, you strike me as quite intelligent and quite capable of seeing through the radical political inconsistencies that range from the manifesto to your blog. There are people who just pick up a line and run with it, without being able to understand, or bothering to understand, the theoretical underpinnings or inconsistencies of their position. You don't strike me as that way. Hence my question.

Since you say you were kicked out of CP USA, I guess that clarifies that. And you are correct. Green Party and CP USA are rather different animals, so I was bit confused. So your position on the "woman question" (to resurrect a quaint old left rhetorical device!) is not in line with the "manifesto" right, but is in fact, relatively moderate, if not exactly in line with what some feminists espouse. Fair enough.

So it appears that we are dealing with a case of mistaken identity? (I did find myself nodding along with a lot of your critique of libertarians, by the way).

Posted by: silverside at Mar 10, 2005 1:30:37 PM

"While women on most of the planet cringe under the terror boot of patriarchal dictatorship".

Yet if we listened to the Mens Rights Movement here in the US or even the Relgious Right Movement or the Fathers Rights Movement, ALL women would be under the boot, instead of most...does it ever occur to any of you that you should be proud and happy for the accomplishments of women in Western civilization as we are the ONLY women on the planet who have achieved this position?

Instead of encouraging us in this endeavour, 'our brothers' appear to spend every waking hour day and night in figuring out ways to 'shut us down'...it's a puzzlement really, it is...

Posted by: NYMOM at Mar 10, 2005 1:36:45 PM

Robert Cheney: "Trish that men are the cause of all divorces, by either leaving the woman (probably good idea many times) or in "being a bad father or husband so the woman leaves the man".

That's not what I believe. I know that women file for the most divorces, but that doesn't necessarily mean that men caused the divorce. While there can be serious problems that lead to a divorce, sometimes people just drift apart. Women leave when the cons of remaining in the marriage outweigh the pros. That doesn't necessarily mean that men "cause" divorce. Nor do I think, in case you were planning on bringing this up, that women leave their marriages to "find themselves."

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 10, 2005 3:28:06 PM

Trish,

Your acquaintance, Robert Lindsay Cheney, Jr., Executive Director of the Sovereign Patriot group apparently has been in the process of transforming his name. I cannot think of a reason to write it as "Robert Lindsay; Cheney, Jr." with an oddly placed semi-colon, other than in the hope of thwarting database identification.
http://www.lbduk.org/3rd%20Appelatte%20FORMAL%20CONSTITUTIONAL%20CHALENGE.htm

Regards,

liz
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/

Posted by: liz at Mar 10, 2005 4:23:06 PM

That's what I figured, Liz. Hey, "Robert Lindsay; Cheney, Jr.", why aren't you in jail? You're still making Constitutional challenges to child support after all these years? Writing your name in that fashion was a slick way of avoiding database identification, but it wasn't slick enough.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 10, 2005 4:39:08 PM

Why should I be in jail, Trish honey? What on Earth for, baby? There are no outstanding charges against me. I do not take responsibility for the "Constitutional Challenges to Child Support" document either. Hmmm, so Cheney is in Paradise now. Sounds like the foothills, the Ozarks, of California, eh? And yes, some women do indeed leave marriages to "find themselves". It's a fact. Hey, divorce happens. Get over it already. So don't get married in the first place.

Yes, Silverside, my position on The Woman Question is not in line with that Manifesto at all, though that Manifesto was written in a pretty sneaky way to make it seem like a reasonable document. And yes Silverside, these feministas or feminazis or whatever they are have just taken a good thing too far. What are you feminists fighting for anymore? You've got it good.

The battle's basically over, and you're all hot and bothered and off to the War Against the Men. Great. Western feminists should consider going to the 3rd World to help some *really* oppressed women instead of this increasingly solipsistic project they are overinvolved in here in the West.

And single Moms need to consider ways to involve a father figure in the child's life (especially boys). There are father figures in the neighborhood who can serve as role models, relatives, husbands or boyfriends of the mothers' girlfriends, etc. Not to mention dates, boyfriends and male friends of the mother.

And there are the excellent mentoring programs in some communities. That's a better way to deal with the fatherlessness problem. That and joint custody, which needs to be the norm, as in 70-80% of cases. Child lives with Mom, visits Dad on weekends, no problem. If Mom and Dad make the same salary, Mom and Dad should contribute equally to the childraising.

Posted by: Robert Lindsay at Mar 11, 2005 12:33:56 AM

Oh, stop it, Robert Lindsay; Cheney, Jr. Stop pretending you aren't who you are. You're just as much of a kook now as you were nearly 10 years ago. Even the guys at The Rott could see that, and they banned you. I see you jumped on the joint custody bandwagon. What happened? Father-only custody wasn't as politically popular as you and your Fathers' Manifesto moonbats had hoped?

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 11, 2005 9:01:52 AM

For those here who want to know more about Robert Lindsay; Cheney, Jr., read this link. It's from a men's rights internet magazine. Poor Mr. Lindsay; Cheney, Jr. held a hunger strike while he spent time in jail for refusing to pay child support. He believes child support violates the Constitution, and that children are the lawful property of their fathers. He seems to have since changed that view since father-only custody wasn't getting the attention he wanted it to get, so he switched to joint custody. The guy is a moonbat, and nothing he writes here is going to change that.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 11, 2005 9:09:39 AM

Trish is right about Robert Lindsay Cheney, Jr. He is a member of the Christian Identity movement and he is also a member of the sovereign citizen movement. Both lunatic movements that have mostly merged.

Members of these movements have had a strategy, for years, of finding groups of disaffected people and infiltrating these groups in order to obtain leadership positions. At the moment two of the groups of people the lunatics have managed to control and influence are fathers' rights groups and groups dedicated to helping mothers who have somehow become involved with Child Protective Services in the various states.

The lunatics have also taken over the homeschooling agenda.

Eric Rudolph was one of the lunatics.

The lunatics are extremely dangerous, especially because of their ability to infiltrate mostly mainstream, but politically active groups.

The lunatics' ideas have even seeped into discourse about mainstream subjects as diverse as immigration policy, welfare policy, foreign grant policy, etc.

The Antidefamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a blog called Orcinus and many local groups monitor the activities of the lunatics.

For some reason the main stream media tend to ignore the activities of these dangerous homegrown terrorists.

Posted by: John Hays at Apr 15, 2005 11:43:17 PM

Thanks for all that great info about Cheney, John. I've known about Cheney for years. When I ran into him about eight years ago he was a member of the Sovereign Patriot Group and he is a founder of Fathers' Manifesto, a misogynistic, racist, and anti-feminist unbrella group of men's and fathers' rights groups that attacked women and feminists, and urged for a repeal of women's right to vote. Nasty group. He was in jail for willful refusal to pay child support. I see today he hasn't changed all that much.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 16, 2005 5:40:12 AM

He won't change. Cheney and his buddies (which also include a surprsing number of females) consider themselves to be at war with the Zionish Occupied Government, in other words, American society.

You're right about the Father's Manifesto. It should be called the Christian Patriot Manifesto.

I've talked to many father's about it (I'm a father) and at first they think it might be a good idea, then they actually read it and condemn it mightily.

There is a discussion about Children Protective Services and the extremist patriarchal view taken by many in the Christian Identity movement at this topic on one of my forums. And I'm not just talking about normal patriarchy where women should be in this place or that place, but a patriarchy where women are relegated to the role of only having as many babies as possible in order to man the coming war against the Zionist Occupied Government and all the inferior races.

Read the last post at the topic.

Cheney and his buddies are truly crazy and they need to be fought everywhere they rear their lunatic heads and even where they underground.

Sorry for the lecture.

--------------------

You're a blogger so this is about a different subject. I put up some forums so people could post their opinions, even opinions disagreeing me to such an extent that the opinions could be called hate opinions. This doesn't really bother me, but lately I've been inundated with such a vast amount of porn spam and online poker spam and drugs spam that I'm thinking of closing the forums.

Maybe there should be an organization of bloggers to fight this spam. And I'm not talking about violating anybody's first amendment rights, but spammers are not posting opinions, they're posting advertisements without our permission or paying us for them while using our blogs as billboards.


Posted by: John Hays at Apr 16, 2005 10:05:18 PM

Wow, Cheney really has gone farther off the deep end than he used to be. I always thought he was a few tea bags short of a pot. Thanks for all the additional updated information. I'll take some time to read it as well as your link.

Fathers' Manifesto was mostly men, but there were some women in the group as well. One in particular lobbied heavily for Cheney when he was in jail for willful refusal to pay child support. He was on a hunger strike to protest the alleged constitutional violation of men paying child support, amongst other things. There are a lot of women in today's fathers' rights movement as well. It's not a male-only movement. I've heard the guys say that, anecdotally, about 40% of the groups are comprised of women, mostly second wives, girlfriends, and mothers of the guys in the groups. Some of these groups have their own second wife chapters. The guys love having women in the groups because (also according to a male fathers' rights activist) the women do all the grunt work for the men while the guys can sit around and talk about "issues."

-----

Regarding your spam problems, are you hosted on a blog forum that has a way to deal with this, or are the forums your own creation? I have been told that MT Blacklist is good at nuking that kind of spam. I don't know how to do it because Typepad does it for me, but you have to create a global ban to ban the spammers with non-static IP addresses.

Here's the link for MT Blacklist. It's a plug-in. I hope it works for you. I'm not able to use it. Typepad has its own way of handling that kind of spam.

MT Blacklist

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Apr 16, 2005 10:18:24 PM