May 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

California’s top court overturns gay marriage ban
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation’s biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.

“Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation,” the court wrote.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco’s monthlong same-sex wedding march.

“Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco gays.

_________________
Comment by Fathers for Life: It appears that the power of judiciary activists over democratic rights has no limits.  Nevertheless, gay-marriage rights are practically a non-issue, as very few gays will exercise their right to be married.  Moreover, such marriages do on average not last very long.

Commited one-on-one relationships of male homosexuals last on average about one year, while female homosexuals experience on average a slightly longer interval of such relationships, about 1½ years.

It is quite likely that the only parties for whom gay marriage rights are truly a boon are those who make a living by working in the divorce industry.  The more gays marry, the more divorces there will be, and the more earnings and employment opportunities will be had in the divorce industry.

Posted in Gay issues | Print | No Comments »

May 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Although some time ago I had read a good portion of the article by Barbara Kay that is identified below, I did not get around until now to read all of it.

Please accept my apologies for not pointing you to it sooner. It makes little difference whether the apology is necessary because you read the article already or whether it is because you did not yet have a chance to read it.

Mercatornet
2008 04 04

Who’s oppressing who?

Barbara Kay
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/whos_oppressing_who/

Barbara Kay’s article is “an excerpt from a speech given [in about the beginning of April 2008] to the McGill University Women’s Alumnae Association on the Impact of Feminism on Society.” Her article exposes modern feminism as an ideology that has had and still has a very detrimental, even deadly, wide-ranging impact on society; not just nationally but increasingly on a global level. She explains the nature of the destructive impact of feminism on families, on women, men (”If one sex wins, the other loses.”) and children, and on social, moral, economic and judiciary standards.

The article received 88 comments by people from all sectors of society and from all over the world. Those comments, too, are worth reading. They include things such as [more or less picked at random]:

• A complaint by a fathers rights activist who expresses his anger about being a victim of feminism because he is a father. Incongruously, he didn’t say anything at all about the suffering his children (for some of whom he deliberately ceased to be a father; which fact he naturally did not mention) have to go through on account of growing up without their father.
• A comment by Kim that questions Barbara Kay’s journalistic integrity and objects to the whole article because the article identifies the Arabs’ hostility toward Israel as “anti-Semitism”.
  Kim stated: “Arabs cannot, by definition, be “antisemitic” since the Semitic language family includes Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic languages and the historical term “Semite” refers to all those who consider themselves descendants of the Biblical Shem, “anti-Semitism” should be likewise inclusive. “Anti-Semitism” should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs or Anti-Arabism.”
  Well, aside from being fond of run-on sentences, Kim is obviously a feminist. Weak and false logic has always been the crumbling all-pervasive glue of feminism; which almost certainly explains why feminists make so extremely little logical sense. Whether or not Kim will concede the point, Arabs can be and are anti-Semitic if they express their hatred of Jews in words and deeds — as surely as anyone can kill himself by accident or through suicide. However, going by Kim’s feminist logic, suicides could no more be real than anti-Semitism by Arabs against Jews can be.
• A comment by a father who raised children in a long-term marriage expressed profound disturbance on account of the state-manipulation of families identified by Barbara Kay. It is encouraging that this father so late in life discovered the long-standing reality of feminism’s oppressive social engineering. Let’s hope that he now will do something about what disturbs him.
• Then there is a profound comment by Yves Pageau, who stated that “In 1905 France voted a law déclaring the separation between Churches and state. I wished we would do likewise by declaring separation between feminism and government. It would make things a lot easier for everyone including feminism.” He is of course absolutely correct. Feminism is a state-sponsored and -imposed religion, not the least on account of the atheism (and, moreover, paganism) with which it is so exceedingly strong intertwined.
• Angelina Steenstra stated: “Having just read Ms Kay’s article I want to applaud and say thank you. Having been seduced by the feminist agenda and scarred, literally and figuratively by its false promises to the point of losing three children before birth to an abortion, abortifacient contraception and an ectopic pregnancy due to scar tissue from a sexually transmitted disease I am deeply grateful for this honest appraisal of the fruits of false feminism….”
• Denis identified the ideological foundation of feminism as being Marxist, by stating amongst other things, “The Marxists recognized the possibilities to use women as a way to expand Marxism throughout the culture. American women became useful idiots. The goal of the Marxists was the destruction of the West. To do this they needed to destabilize the relationships between males and females. They encouraged adversary and competition between men and women. They encouraged a promiscuous culture. America’s days as a great country will end. Those young and alive today will witness this….” Denis’ sentiments are born out by facts (to whom he points in his comments). If the feminist-communist connection is news to you, you may wish to look up some of the articles in this index.

The 88 comments contain a smattering of clearly feminist opinions (not surprisingly, quite a few are by feminist or homosexual men) that illuminate the extreme family-hostility of feminism. They provide an excellent profile not only of the diversity of cultural views on the family and on the politics of sex but also of the views of fathers-rights activists — of whom a few appear to be as self-centered as feminism is.

It must be hoped that in the end pro-family views in society will win over feminist extremism and over any other extremist cultural separatists. More articles like Barbara Kay’s Who’s oppressing who? will greatly help with that.

Barbara Kay’s article contains two relatively small flaws, although in absolute terms those flaws are not small at all. One of those is her omission of the Marxist ideological foundation of feminism. The other is an omission relating to children born to women late in life. The risks of such late births are serious for women, as Barbara Kay identified, but even more so for children. The risk that a child will be born with a chromosomal aberration increases with the age of the expectant mother. For Down’s syndrome alone, that risk ranges from one in 2000 live births by mothers in their twenties to one in 50 live births by mothers who are over 40.

Posted in Men's Issues, Education, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

May 14, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

World Congress of Families III
Mexico City; 29-31, 2004

FEMINISM AND THE FAMILY

Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D.

Quotes:

FEMINIST OUTCOMES ON THE FAMILY

Let me review some of the collateral damage from a promiscuous lifestyle of so-called “free” love.

• Currently, less than 52 percent of U.S. households include a married couple.

• More than 50 million women lived alone at the end of the twentieth century.

• Since 1970 the marriage rate has declined by about 25 percent and the divorce rate has increased by nearly 80 percent.  Half of all marriages have ended in divorce since the early ‘80s. This means that more than 35 million children  are left bereft with the majority of them living with a single mother and living in poverty.

• The total number of cohabitating couples at the beginning of this decade was approaching 5 million and the number is rising steadily.

• 10 million adults under the age of 25 will contract an STD this year.

• The staggering increase in out-of-wedlock births is the defining characteristic of the demographics of the 20^th century –– one-third of children are born out-of-wedlock in the U.S.

• Of the women between the ages of 15 and 44—those most likely to get married—less than half, only 49 percent, are now married.

• Abortion upon demand has meant the end of life for 45 million babies . . . and untold pain for the women who would have been their mothers.

• 59% of our children are now spending a significant portion of their childhood and adolescence in single parent families. That means, according to the social science evidence, that 25% of them will never reach productive adulthood.

Will we be able to do anything now?  At the end of the revolution?

One thing is clear – no nation can long endure without strong, healthy families founded on the inviolable institution of marriage –– the union of one man and one women committed to each other for a lifetime.

So something must be done – everyone has got to do something!

End Quotes

Full Story

Posted in Health, Family, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

May 14, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

OneNewNow.com

Planting the seeds of a demographic winter

Robert Knight - Guest Columnist - 5/14/2008 2:10:00 PM

Did you know that planting a tree won’t save the earth? You’ve got to plant 483 trees just to offset your household’s carbon footprint. And that’s just for two people.

We know this because the Washington Post Home section on May 8 featured a cover story encouraging folks to plant trees while sternly warning them that this won’t help much because people are a cancer on the planet.

Okay, they didn’t quite put it that way, but it would be hard to miss the message. A graphic with 483 little green trees illustrates this stat from the EPA: “A two-person household is responsible for releasing 41,500 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. To offset that, each household would have to plant 483 trees and let them grow for 10 years.”

If a two-person household is that bad, what does that make families with children? Environmental criminals, at the least, and maybe earth wreckers….(Full Story)

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Health, Family, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

May 13, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

This article is almost a year old but important to look at again in the context of the evolution of the decay of the Occident and the role of the implementation of the international agenda for the planned destruction of the family in the acceleration of the deconstruction of western civilization.

Heretical Sex
Monday, August 27, 2007

The contemporary cultural and political war against the family has several causes, of which feminism is by far the most significant.

‘First-wave’ feminists in the early Twentieth Century were not at all anti-family. Indeed, one of their demands was that control of hearth and home should be the domain of women. Reference.

It was only as a result of second-wave feminism, in the late 1960s, that the feminist attack on the family began. Neil Lyndon, in his 1992 book ‘No More Sex War’, was perhaps the first to trace the origins of second-wave feminist ideology to Marxism….

Full Story

Posted in Family, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

May 12, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Many males in western societies seem to be behaving very badly these days.

They seem to be becoming more involved with crime. They seem to be growing more dishonest. They seem to be increasingly hostile and aggressive toward others. They seem less committed to their partners and to their families. They are clearly doing less well in terms of their education. And they seem to be more pre-occupied with their own narrow self-interests than they used to be.

Why is this so?

What can possibly account for this apparent deterioration in the behaviours of western men?

Have their genes suddenly taken a dive for the worse?

Full Story

Posted in Men's Issues, Family, Feminism | Print | No Comments »

May 12, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Herald Sun (Melbourne)
9 May 2008

Andrew Bolt

PROFESSOR Mark Wooden this week learned how shocking it is to tell people the surest way to earn more is to work harder.

Actually, that’s not shocking at all, is it? Common sense, really. Refreshing.

But not if you’re a certain kind of professional complainer. Then you gasp at the crass rudeness of blockheads such as Wooden. Literally gasp.

To illustrate, here’s a report this week from news.com.au: “(The) pay equity gap between men and women in Australia will not close until women are prepared to work longer hours, an academic says.

“Social researcher for the University of Melbourne Mark Wooden said men were earning on average 15 per cent more than women because they put in more time at the workplace.”

Quite true, of course, but read on: “The only male taking part in a National Press Club panel discussion about the pay equity gap, Prof Wooden’s remarks drew gasps from the mostly female audience.”

Gasps? Here were professional women being told of a link between hours and pay, and gasping?

I refuse to believe all these women, including ones as successful and seemingly bright as Minister for the Status of Women Tanya Plibersek, are actually so dumb as to not know that Wooden is actually right….(Full Story and Comments)

Posted in Men and Women Work, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

May 12, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

WorldNetDaily
2008 05 11

YOUR GOVERNMENT AT WORK

Daughter fails math test, so dad thrown in jail

Pop gets 6-month sentence for contributing to delinquency

A northern Kentucky man is in jail today – serving a 180-day sentence – because his 18-year-old daughter failed a math test and didn’t get her General Equivalency Diploma, or GED, as a previous court order required.

Brittany Gegner, the daughter, says if anyone should be jailed, it should be her.

“It’s like I should, if anybody should be punished for this,” Brittany told WCPO-TV in Cincinnati. “I would way rather me go to jail than my dad.”

Even Brian Gegner’s ex-wife agrees the judge’s decision is absurd….(Full Story)

Posted in Education, Family, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

May 12, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

[U.K.] Daily Mail
2008 05 12

Fire-bombs, mugging and gang warfare - just what has gone wrong with girls?

Melanie Phillips

Was this really what feminism was all about?

According to Home Office statistics, to be published later this week, crimes committed by girls aged between ten and 17 have shot up by some 25 per cent over a three-year period….There has also been a string of murders committed by girls, often sickeningly sadistic….

The Government’s claim that overall crime is falling, as this week’s statistics also reportedly show, bears scant relation to everyday life.

Such figures - even in the supposedly authoritative British Crime Survey - are highly selective or manipulated….

The number of women arrested for being drunk and disorderly has leapt tenfold over the past five years….(Full Story)

Posted in Family, Feminism, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

May 10, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Some people do, actually, many people do.  That is why those “telethons” work so well, and that is why they are being put on time and again, even though it is a well-established fact that only about 20 percent (sometimes less and at times none) of the donated money gets to the advertised victims.

There is one other thing about those fund raisers.  It seems that the victims they depict (as tools for emotional appeals via which to collect their money) are suffering women, children and cuddly pets.  At times, endangered wildlife is also a popular and powerful motivator.

When it comes to the promotion of victim status, pets and wildlife serve well, but men need not apply, even though, world-wide, men live on average five fewer years than women do.  Generally, the more socialistic the country, the more likely it is that its women outlive its men by more and even far more than five years.

Certainly, many of the causes and victim groups those telethons collect money for are worthy of donations, however, as Angry Harry explains in one of his brilliant analytical commentaries, such fund raisers serve primarily the organizations that organize and sponsor them.

Charity or Self-Interest? The point of this piece is simply to demonstrate one example of how it is that socially-destructive organisations such as the NSPCC can become so powerful by providing self-enriching mechanisms for people whose main aim is to feather their own nests. — By Angry Harry

NSPCC stands for National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, an all-powerful organization in the U.K. that apparently is accountable to no one and grew so enormously powerful that it no longer can be controlled by anyone.

• The NSPCC is the only UK charity which has been granted statutory powers under the Children Act 1989, allowing it to apply for care and supervision orders for children at risk. ^[2] As of June 2007, the NSPCC operated ten teams of child protection social workers.^[3] (Wikipedia)

Wikipedia has a peculiar characteristic that prevents it from being considered a good source of the truth.  The contents for many of its entries change over time, apparently to adjust on demand for political correctness.  Unfortunately, one cannot determine from any particular entry in Wikipedia whether the current edition exaggerates or downplays specific concerns, or even whether a given entry is as complete as it should be.  For example, here are links to archived Wikipedia entries for NSPCC:

2004 09 05 contained the following information:

The NSPCC’s administrative headquarters are in Shoreditch, London (Weston House, 42 Curtain Road, London EC2A 3NH).

The NSPCC employs 1,800 people

In 2002/2003 it had an income of £100.3 million and expenditure of £90.6 million.

2005 03 01, 2005 05 18,  2005 05 26, 2005 05 29, 2005 07 17, 2005 12 02, still contained that information.

On 2005 12 15, that information was changed to the following:

The NSPCC’s administrative headquarters are in Shoreditch, London.

It employs over 2000 people and in 2005 spent £84,500,000 (or 79%) of its income http://www.nspcc.org.uk/documents/reportAccounts05.pdf on activities to end cruelty to children compared to £42M in 1997/98, a pattern of growth that indicates either that the N[S]PCC is becoming increasingly effective at discovering cruelty to children, or that levels of cruelty are themselves on the increase (which the NSPCC has evidently been powerless to prevent), or simply that people have become a lot more generous, and the money has to be given away somehow.

On 2006 09 13, that information was changed to read:

The NSPCC’s administrative headquarters are in Shoreditch, London.

It employs over 2000 people, and has a budget for 2006-2007 of £138 million. Of this £138 million, the NSPCC plans to spend £60 million (43%) on services for children and young people.

On 2006 10 20, that information still was included in the entry, but in the entry that was accessible today, 2008 05 10, the information pertaining to the administrative headquarters and to figures on employment and on budget and income had vanished.

It appears that the information was removed for the obvious reason that it is not good for the NSPCC’s reputation and cash-flow projections to publicize how lucrative a business the NSPCC really is.  Aside from that, there were other changes to the various editions of Wikipedia’s entries for NSPCC over time.  The most notable of those changes, on the other hand, is the addition of information on the NSPCC’s role in Campaigning and controversy and in the Satanic ritual abuse scandal.

It seems that Wikipedia has no qualms about identifying that the NSPCC is socially destructive but now shies away from identifying how much money is being earned by the NSPCC.  Perhaps that is done for no other reason than to prevent such information from coming into play in wage negotiations by its more than 2,000 employees, but I doubt that is the only or major reason for hiding how lucrative an enterprise the promotion of social destruction is for the NSPCC.

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »