Irrational Hatred from the Left

I've been told my writings often come across as "harsh", because I'm honest, blunt, and to-the-point. And I admit that sometimes, especially when I'm in a bad mood, my writings can come across as harsh, though I think it's because people aren't used to hearing some of the things I say. I'm just not "politically correct".

Often I get accused of being a "woman hater" because I advocate for equal rights and equal responsibilities for men and women. I say things like, "Men and women are equally human, and each are equally capable of evil and mean things towards each other". I'm all for women and men having equal rights and equal responsibilities. That also means that men should get the same rights that women have, and women should have the same responsibilities as men have. And neither gender should have privileges that are not given to the other gender.

On the Topeka Capital-Journal site (http://www.cjonline.com/), I often butt heads with certain commenters who disagree with my views. However you'll note that there are often as many people who DO agree with me and what I say.

One commenter in particular, named "TopekaVoter", takes the "hate Thomas" line a bit further in the comments section on Kathleen Parker's latest column, "Domestic violence requires new approach". (For the record, I am a big fan of Kathleen Parker and I respect her views very much. And I agree with her take on the domestic violence issue).

This "TopekaVoter" is a big pusher of gay marriage. His site is http://www.kansasequalitycoalition.org/ (because I believe in showing all sides of a disagreement).

I honestly don't care about the gay marriage issue. As far as I'm concerned, heterosexuals and homosexuals are both equally human. There should be no laws specifically discriminating for or against anyone based on sexual orientation. (Which is why I think most "pro-marriage" legislation is unconstitutional, if it specifically states that homosexuals cannot get married).

If gays want to marry, I say, "more power too them". Though I think they should be aware that marriage is no longer the commitment it once was, but is instead a potential trap, especially if children are involved. But IF we expand marriage beyond its current definition of one man and one woman, then we also have to allow polygamy, harems, and any other form of "marriage" - because if it's called "discrimination against gays" for marriage to be only one man and one woman, then it's also discrimination against other forms of marriage. You can see a better description of my views in my blog post about Gay Marriage "Rights".

Yet TopekaVoter will have NONE of that logic! So now he says I hate gays, women, and however many other groups he could think of. And he goes beyond the limit of "just plain ignorance" in trying to explain himself. Read our disagreement for yourself on CJonline's site, here <http://cjonline.com/stories/062708/opi_296139446.shtml>.

What is your take on my views, or about that discussion? I'm curious what you think.

Thomas Lessman
Website: http://www.thomaslessman.com/
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
================

Racism is Racism

Affirmative action IS racism. The sky IS blue. Those are two facts that are just plain common sense. One more and I'm on a roll...

The Wikipedia definition of RACISM: Racism, by its simplest definition, is discrimination based on racial group. People with racist beliefs might hate certain groups of people according to their race, or in the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism)

Telling me that I can't go this college because I'm white is every bit as racist as telling my friend he can't go this college because he's black.

I realize that some people are too racist to understand that. But I believe most people have enough common sense to understand that racism is bad no matter whom it's directed towards. Even if they don't have the courage to stand up and speak out against ALL forms of racism.

"It doesn't matter whether you call it 'reverse discrimination', 'white/black power' or 'affirmative action'; racism is still racism, and it's wrong."

Thomas Lessman
Web: www.ThomasLessman.com
Blog: www.talessman.blogspot.com
====================

Open Questions Regarding Abortion

What right can possibly be more precious or sacred than the right to life?

For the "pro-choice" crowd, and others who think that "a woman's choice" sounds nice: why do you not extend that same choice to men, or at least give equal rights to men? You claim to be "pro-choice", but only for women. How is that equal? What happened to equal rights? Or is it just that you think women are "more equal" than men?

I've heard feminists label unborn children as "parasites", fetuses, lumps of flesh, or anything else they can think of to de-humanize them. That's literally doing the same thing to unborn children that Nazis did to Jews.

The simple fact is that what you call "choice" is literally taking a human life, which is murder. You may call it abortion or choice or whatever. Nazis called it racial purity, but the end result is still the same. Murder.

I have an open invitation for anyone who has answers to my questions. Please answer them by responding in the comments section.

Thomas Lessman
Website: http://www.thomaslessman.com/
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
====================

Buzz Hates Atheists

A guy name Buzz had his opinion about atheists published on CJonline, in a piece titled, "Letter: Rights for All Others". I wonder if he held anything back, or did he tell us how he really feels?

I'm not even atheist and I can see the bigotry in his words. I'm going to repeat some of his rant, but I'll switch the words "atheist" and "christian" so you can see how this sounds:

"What societal good have Christians ever done? Atheism is the only reason Christians even have the right to believe in God. It wasn't some native tribe's beads that gave Christians that right, because it was Atheists who established protections for minorities in this country."

In his letter, Buzz blames atheists for Hitler, Stalin, and several other nasty characters in history. It makes me wonder, does he also blame atheists for the Crusades, the Inquisition, Islam, Oil prices, the Titanic, and Mondays?

Buzz, is there anything bad that you DON'T blame on atheists?

For the record, I do see atheism as a type of religion (religiously anti-religious). And some atheists do go overboard sometimes when they are defending their beliefs against others. Some atheists are even as fanatical as some christian or muslim fanatics (like Pat Roberts, Louis Farrakhan, Phred Phelps, and Bin Laden).

However most atheists are good and simple people trying to survive and live their life as best as they can. Just like the vast majority of christians, jews, muslims, and even spiritual but non-religious people like me. They have their own beliefs and don't want to be harassed or treated unfairly because of their religion.

Hate-filled rants and religious bigotry have caused enough misery on our planet. And it started long before atheism was even thought of.

Sincerely,

Thomas Lessman
Website: http://www.thomaslessman.com/
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
--------------------

World History Maps
: http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/

Gay Marriage "Rights"?

I got into a debate with a local "Gay Rights" activist on our local newspaper website over the "Gay Marriage" issue. I really don't care what consenting adults do, and I don't care if someone is gay or not (as long as they don't shove it in my face). Because honestly, the more guys who are gay, the less competition there is... DUH!

However, the issue of "gay marriage" interests me because I see the much of the same hypocrisy, distortions, and victimology from the "gay rights movement" as I do from Feminists and other "professional victim" groups.

First, there is no "Right to Marry", just like there is no "Right to have sex" or a "Right to drive". Marriage is only a government-granted privilege (not a human right). Marriage was originally a religious ceremony meant to symbolicly unite a man and woman in a committed relationship. Unfortunately the Government took over the power to grant marriages. We ALL know that when the government gets involved, bad things happen. So what was originally a religious ceremony has now become a potential gold mine for one partner, and a trap for the other. Government has no good reason to get involved in marriage, but they did it anyway and made a mess of it!

Second (and my main point) is that, IF traditional marriage (one man and one woman) is considered discrimination against gays, then doesn't it also discriminate against bigamists, polygamists, and guys with large harems? Thus, if we expand the definition of "marriage" to include homosexual couples, then don't we also have to expand marriage to allow bigamist, polygamist, plural, and any other type of marriages that aren't considered "traditional"?

(After all, would it be fair to discriminate against polygamists, and not allow them to marry the way they want to, simply because they aren't gay?)

One commenter responded by saying that we could write the laws so that any two (and ONLY two) people could marry. He obviously ignored or didn't see what I was getting at.

The gay rights activist, however, responded to my question with hostility, basically making false assumptions about me and my intentions. The interesting part was where he said, "I will not be derailed by your weak attempts to compare my committed loving relationship to any other controversial group. I.E. What's next people... robot marriage?"

In other words, he believes it's discrimination to not allow "his people" to marry the way they want to marry, but he believes it's okay to use that same "discrimination" against other groups that aren't like his. And even though he calls it discrimination, he still used the same type of argument that his opponents use against his cause. (His "What's next, robog marriage" is too similar to the "What's next, do we allow beastiality marriages" argument I've seen other people use to argue against gay marriage.

His response is comparable to a Jew arguing that it was ok for the Nazis to murder Gypsies, Gays, Poles, and other groups because they aren't like his people. It's exactly like feminists, who argue that gender discrimination is wrong, but only if it's against a woman because they think it's okay to discriminate against men.

Just like feminists and race-baiters, this guy is so stuck on seeing himself and "his group" as a victim class, that he can't see his own bigotry and hypocrisy and thus becomes what he accuses his opponents of.

Respectfully,

Thomas Lessman
Website: http://www.thomaslessman.com/
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
-----------------------------------

The Matrix (of Family Law)

This is something I published on the original Million Dads March Network site back in 2003. I got the idea after seeing an article by Jim Untershine on the Men's News Daily website.

(FYI the MillionDadsMarch.org domain name and website are no longer under my control. During my last campaign the domain lapsed and I apparently didn't renew it in time. Someone else took the domain name, and I have no idea who they are. The site is totally different than my old site).

The Family Law Matrix

"You are here because you know something. You can’t explain what you know, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life; that there is something wrong with the world. It is like a splinter in your mind driving you mad. It is this feeling that brought you here.

The Family Law Matrix is everywhere. Even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you enter the court room. You can feel it when you are allowed to visit your kids, and when you pay your $upport. You can hear it on the news. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

The truth is that you are a slave to Family Law. Like everyone else you were born into its bondage. Drawn into a deadly trap that you cannot smell or taste or touch. It is a prison for your mind.

Unfortunately no one can be told what the Family Law Matrix is. You have to experience it for yourself. If you pay the "child $upport bill" and accept being a visitor to your kids, the story ends. You will wake up in your bed and believe… whatever it is you want to believe.

If you refuse to pay the bill or to accept being an UNEQUAL PARAENT then stay in this wonderland, and we'll show you just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Remember, all we offer is the truth, nothing more…"
-------------------------------------------------------------

Thomas Lessman
. http://www.thomaslessman.com/
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
Email: talessman@yis.us
---------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
---------------------------

Is Rape OK if the Rapist is a Woman?

The big list of female teacher sex offenders is at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=39783 . (Keep in mind these are only the well-known cases. Many of these predators are never reported or punished.)

Some people may think there was no harm done, and some people even say the boys were lucky to be raped. In reality, statutory rape is every bit as harmful to boys as it is to girls. Notice that many of these teachers became pregnant by the boys they raped, thus leading to further victimization of the boys because,

1. How many 14 or 17 year-old boys are ready to be fathers? (Answer: young boys and girls aren't ready to be parents, period.)

2. Underage boys still have to pay $upport even though they were raped. For example, a 12 year-old boy in Kansas was forced to pay $upport to the babysitter who raped him. See:

. . . 2a. Hermesmann v. Seyer on Wikipedia (a good summary of the case)
. . . 2b. State of KS ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer, http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/ctapp/1997/19970905/76971.htm.

3. How will the boy handle the stress of raising a child, going to school, missing events, and working after school to pay $upport to his rapist?

4. How will this rape effect the boys' views on women and sex, and how will it affect his future relationships with girls his own age?

5. Will the boy be able to have a normal family of his own? Will having a child keep him from forming healthy relationships? If he ever is able to start a family, how will he be able to support his own family AND the person who raped him?

I can go on but any normal person understands how statutory rape can hurt male victims as badly as it can hurt female victims. It's not the fantasy some people may dream of, but it can become a life-altering nightmare.

Female sex predators are as dangerous to boys as male sex predators are to girls. Will this female teacher/rapist get the same punishment as a male teacher/rapist, or will she enjoy the usual female sentencing discount?

Thomas Lessman
Website: www.ThomasLessman.com
. Blog: www.talessman.blogspot.com
---------------------------------
--------------------------
---------------

Racial Issues, Part 1

I think Glenda Overstreet and I may finally agree on *something* related to racial issues. Seriously! The last 3 paragraphs in her post, "Apology vs. Action", may be the best common-ground place to start healing America's racial issues.

America has serious racial issues that we haven't handled very well. When I say "we", I mean EVERYONE in America: Whites, Blacks, Natives, Grandparents, Adults, Children, even Deceased people. Every generation in American history has faced racial issues that have changed over time. The issues we face are not the exact same racial issues that our parents, great-grandparents, or great-great-great-great grandparents dealt with. And each generation has handled these issues in their own way.

These racial issues are very complex and deep-rooted, and it will take a LOT of work on all sides before these wounds can be healed. I appreciate Glenda's last 3 paragraphs because she at least acknowledges that slavery has happened to some members of every race at some point in history. I'll add further that every race has also, at some point, enslaved members of other races. There is no such thing as an "innocent race".

I understand that in America's early years most blacks were brutally enslaved by some whites (not ALL whites). I also understand that blacks suffered discrimination even after slavery was abolished, and that some blacks still face various forms of discrimination. The thing is, Blacks aren't the only race to face discrimination in modern America. Policies like affirmative action, racial quotas, and other ill-conceived policies only substitute one form of discrimination for other forms of discrimination.

Whites and Latinos, Natives, and other races all suffer various forms of discrimination from members of other races. Everyone has their own stories of discrimination they've faced in their lives. Speaking from my view as a white male, I've seen and experienced discrimination many times, in many ways. But individual stories are not the point.

People must look past their own personal experiences, and realize that racism affects everyone. Blacks have legitimate reasons to feel historically exploited by America. So have Natives and Whites. There isn't any race in America that hasn't been exploited or discriminated against at some point in history.

Today we are all supposedly recognized as equals before the law, regardless of race or gender or etc. Which is how it should always have been, because each one of us is as human as the next person. Nobody is more human than anyone else. We are all equally human.

Respectfully,

Thomas Lessman
. http://www.thomaslessman.com/
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
Email: talessman@yis.us
------------------------------------
-----------------------------
--------------------------

World History Maps by Thomas Lessman
. http://www.worldhistorymaps.com/

Rape

(I decided to write this after reading an article in the Topeka Capital-Journal about a fundraiser for a new anti-rape group.

Rape is a terrible crime. There's another rape epedimic that gets little or no coverage, even though it happens more frequently than violent rapes.

The epedimic is in FALSE ALLEGATIONS of rape. Several studies have shown that between 20% to 40% of rape accusations are FALSE (as in, the accuser admitted she lied, or at least the evidence she lied was overwhelming).

Here's a good example: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?cat=21

False accusers have many of the same traits as other types of rapists. They pick victims and commit the crime based on revenge, it's a power trip, they don't want their husband to know what they were really doing out so late, they were bored or angry, etc.

Victims of rape by false allegation suffer many of the same problems as other rape victims. They become confused, fearful or suspicious of other people, withdrawn, unable to sleep, distracted or unable to work, depressed, and suffer post-traumatic stress syndrome.

Except that victims of other types of rape get support, shelter, sympathy, justice, and other help. But victims of rape by false accusation get none of that; instead they lose their friends, their jobs, their faces get plastered all over the news, and no justice (the rapist is rarely even punished).

I agree that true rape is a horrible crime. To falsely accuse someone of rape is actually a way of raping them. Someone who makes false accusations should be charged with "Rape by False Accusation", and if convicted get the same punishment like any other rapist.

Respectfully,

Thomas Lessman
. ww.ThomasLessman.com
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------
---------------------------
------------------

http://www.hisside.com/
http://www.falseallegations.com/

Parents' Rights Case Rejected by KS Court

* This post is in response to Michael Hooper's article, "Sperm donor takes case to Supreme Court", in the Topeka Capital-Journal on March 19, 2008.

Typical bureaucracy at work.

On one hand the government says it must force fathers to "be responsible". It passes more laws, hires more caseworkers, kicks in doors, even throws fathers in jail to force them to "be responsible". On the other hand, the courts decide that fathers won't be allowed to even BE fathers unless they have permission from the mother?

Most fathers are the best fathers they can be. But many fathers get blocked by vindictive mothers, biased judges, and a legal system that is hell-bent on destroying lives and families to keep itself in business. (see <Here> and <Here> and <Here> for related letters.)

I personally don't like what I've seen from this Daryl Hendrix guy. I heard him on the Jim Cates Show a few months ago and he said, "I don't want to go down the fathers' rights path...", like it's a bad thing. Maybe he was trying to be politically correct, I don't know. What I DO know is that a lot of people don't think before they speak. They don't care what happens to other people as long as it doesn't happen to them. They know what the courts are doing is wrong. They see me organize rallies to stand up for our rights as parents (see <Here> for example). But instead of stepping up and helping us defend their rights, they turn and walk away. Some are too lazy or apathetic, others think it won't happen to them, and everyone has an excuse for not getting involved. And when they finally get pulled into the system, they expect me to jump at the "opportunity" to help them.

The courts are segregating parents into unequal classes (custodial and non-custodial), which encourages parents to fight each other for power. Divorce and custody battles are big business for attorneys, mediators, judges, caseworkers, therapists, and other professionals who make their living off broken families. It's no longer about right and wrong; now the courts are mostly concerned about the almighty bottom dollar.

It's time to reign in the courts and end the bureaucratic industry of family destruction. The first step is to force the legal system to recognize Mothers and Fathers equally as parents (with equal rights and equal responsibilities), unless they are proven unfit by a jury. Each parent should have the child 1/2 the time (or as close as possible), and family law needs reformed so that it encourages parents to work together to raise their children instead of fighting for power in court.

Thomas Lessman
. http://www.thomaslessman.com/
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
Email: talessman@yis.us

* * * Equal Rights for parents website: http://www.acfc.org/ .
*** http://www.hisside.com/, Glenn Sacks' radio show and blog about men's and fathers' issues.

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

Prison Rape Board Game?

The article below my signature is from CJonline. The son of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius has created and is marketing a board game about prison rape, called "Don't Drop the Soap".

America's a free country and he has the right to create whatever dumb offensive games he wants to create. That doesn't mean we have to sit by and do nothing, either. Rape is not a joke, and it's dispicable that someone would try to make a profit by making a game about it, much less calling it "entertainment".

This guy is the son of the Governor of Kansas. She (Governor Sebelius) is supporting her son's efforts to market this game, even defending it. If he made a board game about raping women and called it "Entertainment", would she be so supportive of him then?

Considering the numbers of people who have been released from prison after being found innocent due to prosecutor misconduct, false accusations, fabricated evidence, and other issues in the justice system, the creation of this game becomes even more despicable.

Rape isn't a game, and it's not funny when anyone is raped, whether they are a woman or a man. Instead of supporting her son's efforts to profit from a despicable game, Governor Sebelius should be educating him on how prison rape is every bit as serious and harmful as other forms of rape.

--------------------
Thomas A. Lessman
Web: http://www.thomaslessman.com/
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
Email: talessman@yis.us
--------------------

Article: Sebelius' son sells game out of Cedar Crest
By Tim Hrenchir, the Topeka Capital-Journal. Date: 1-26-2008
Source URL: http://cjonline.com/stories/012608/bus_240507951.shtml

"Deadbeat Dads" editorial from KMBC-TV

This editorial by Wayne Godsey of KMBC-TV <Click Here> is a kick in the face to all fathers, and just in time for Father's Day. KMBC-TV can be emailed via their "Contact KMBC" page at http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/contactus/index.html

Trash Can editorials like this cannot be allowed to go unchallanged. Real reporters actually check facts and get both sides of the story. This guy is the GENERAL MANAGER of a TV station, yet he didn't think to talk to any of the people he's so carelessly stereotyping?

The facts are:
1. Most "deadbeat dads" are regular fathers crushed by child $upport orders that can take more than half of their income - literally leaving dads without money for rent, food, or bills. How is dad supposed to be able to take care of the kids when they're with him if he has no money to feed or clothe them?
2. States have incentives to keep child $upport high because they get federal reimbursements for every dollar they collect (Bradley amendment, USC 42 sec 666).
3. Courts routinely segregate parents into unequal classes (custodial and non-custodial), giving custodial parents a lot of power over the other parent's life and relationship with the children. This encourages parents to fight for power (in and out of court), which makes a lot of money for attorneys, therapists, and other court personnel.
4. Restricted visitation, parental alienation, and "Kids, meet your new daddy this week" syndrome are just a few issues that non-custodial parents and children face. Courts rarely do anything if mommy won't let daddy see the kids (but she tells the kids their daddy doesn't love them anymore - so she found them a new daddy at the bar last night, and he's better than the one last week...)

That's barely the beginning of the OTHER SIDE of the story that Wayne Godsey failed to mention when he jumped on his editorial bully pulpit. My question is, does KMBC-TV have the courage to show BOTH sides of the story, or should we write them off as a "Trash Can Newscast"?

Thomas A. Lessman
. http://www.thomaslessman.com/
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com/
Email: talessman@yis.us
----------------------------------------------