December 28, 2006 by Walter Schneider.

Found this via Angry Harry’s YouTube playlist:

Renuka Chaudhary has been exposed as the men-hating woman that she is. This interview clearly depicts the real Renuka Chaudhary and her attemtps to justify the Domestic violence bill of India, which gives sweeping legal power to women and gives them a legal way to harrass and extort money from the innocent husband and his family members. During the interview in the program “Devil’s Advocate”, she threatens to put a domestic violence case against Karan Thapar and says an ominously advises “Be Careful” at the end of the interview. Watch how female feminazi goons are taking over the media and the law making machinery in India.

Details at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E2FAC1957C0A4F0D

Why do men put up with this crap that is being rammed down their throats?

Posted in Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

December 28, 2006 by Walter Schneider.

Checked angryharry.com just now and found that Angry Harry, whose predictions relating to specific aspects of social evolution are without doubt and frequently right on the mark, engaged himself in exploring the possibilities of YouTube.

What Angry Harry says about YouTube:

“I do think that using facilities like YouTube will eventually make a huge difference to the men’s movement and I would urge MRAs to spend some time familiarising themselves with those facilities.” -AH

Angry Harry’s YouTube playlist

Posted in Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

December 21, 2006 by Walter Schneider.

Please enjoy sharing the best ever Christmas present that I ever got. Sam Butt
For : Sam Butt. Thank you. Composed by: Peter ‘F’
December 5, 2006

My Dad at Christmas

The teacher said to write to Santa, but no more than three pages.
The lads got going, making lists that seemed to take ages!!
Daniel wants Lego, and Jack asked for a brand new bike,
Adam wants a Ferrari, - that guy jeez what’s he like!

Deano wants a skateboard; Luke wants games for his PS2.
Sean’s letter is a disaster, - that boy hasn’t got a clue!
Santa will sure be broke with such a list of things to bring,
But he can’t really help me. I want for just one thing.

I love my Mom for she is the best, and I could never have another,
She’s always there no matter what, for me and my brother.
Little Ben and me live with Mom, the judge he made it be.
So, at Christmas time in our house, it’ll be gifts for just us three.

I also love my Dad so much, though he lives with us no more.
Sometimes he shows up at my school or at the pitch, to watch me score.
Other times we go for Big Macs or a film, if it’s not too late,
But its back to Mom by the evening, he drops us at the gate.

Mom and Dad don’t get on, why not, they never say.
They went to court to sorts things out, but things got worse that day.
Dad packed his bags and wept goodbye, it shook me to the core.
“He’s not coming back”, says my Mom, “Not a foot inside that door”.

I miss my Dad. I miss him lots, I think of him alone.
I want to see him Christmas Day, not just on the phone.
On Christmas Day I want to see my Dad, and wish him Christmas cheer.
I want to see Gran and Granddad for the very first time this year.

Dear Santa please help make it better, to you I plead and pray,
Make Mom and Dad stop fighting, for just a single day,
On Christmas Day, I don’t want no toys or anything else to play.
I just want to see my Dad, on a very special day…………..

…………Things are now sorted. It wasn’t Santa that helped me.
I’m going to see my Dad at Christmas, so a special day it’ll be.
The bestest present ever! – is not beneath the tree.
I’ll see my Dad at Christmas, thanks to Sam at Fathers.ie

info@fathers.ie – www.fathers.ie
1890 55 44 33 – 091 752355

Posted in Men's Issues, Shared Parenting, Family | Print | 2 Comments »

December 21, 2006 by Walter Schneider.

Perciva wrote:

What do you care if anorexia kills a lot or if it dosen’t? What difference does it make to you?

Since you say your site is based on facts, and since you have no idea what makes a person anorexic, why don’t you withhold judgement of the issue until you know the etiology of the disease?

I was an anorexic woman, cured many years ago now. I know why I became anorexic. I came to understand the driving force and dynamic behind the disease. With that in mind, the presumptuous angle of your writings looks rather silly. Take it from me, you are not fit to pass judgement on the personal or social impact of this condition.

Get the facts, Jack. Otherwise, you’ll be hopelessly lost, and will continue to look very foolish.

Perciva….

Hello Perciva,

Thank you for writing.

It appears that the facts presented at the anorexia nervosa pages at Fathers for Life don’t jive with your perception of reality and that that bothers you, but I will not apologize for that. The problem is yours and not mine. Facts are facts, and perceptions are biased.

As you were falling with the door into my house when you came knocking, you asked, “What do you care if anorexia kills a lot or if it dosen’t? What difference does it make to you?”

I won’t tell you why I care. I wouldn’t even tell you if the answer to your question weren’t already contained in the anorexia nervosa pages of F4L. You are just not objective enough a reader and sufficiently perceptive to have recognized the answer, in spite of it being in plain view and staring you in the face. Repeating myself won’t change your cognitive abilities.

From a logical perspective, my answer to your question doesn’t matter. A rational individual would not have asked for it to begin with. A personal opinion may be about reality, but, unless for a good cause, it should never be permitted to influence it. My opinion carries no more weight in relation to the attributes of reality than does yours or anyone else’s. The only thing that matters when measuring and evaluating reality are facts.

If you don’t like the facts, too bad. All that means is that you are in denial. Your denial of reality is totally immaterial, mainly and overwhelmingly because it is not representative of the vast majority of the people who write to Fathers for Life about anorexia nervosa.

Aside from all of that, I am sympathetic to your feeling that your personal experience with anorexia nervosa is the only yardstick by which everyone’s perceptions about anorexia nervosa must be measured. However, my sympathy does not constitute an endorsement of your views. It is nothing more than a personal expression of my condolences. It must have come as a bit of a shocker to you to find out that the affliction from which you were cured was not the dangerous and deadly disease you had imagined it to be, and that you are not as much a victim as you are a dupe.

There is no possible way you can succeed with imposing your biased perceptions as a universal moral standard on the whole world. You are wasting your time by trying to do so. You will be better off to preach your gospel to anorexia-nervosa addicts. As you should well know, those are prone to easily fall prey to distortions of reality. Still, I would like to extend my congratulations to you for having successfully kicked your habit of self-starvation.

Sincerely,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Anorexia Nervosa | Print | No Comments »

December 19, 2006 by Walter Schneider.

Townhall.com

The worst worsens
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, December 19, 2006

…After all this time, it finally came out in court last week that the DNA samples collected from the underwear and private parts of the alleged victim contained DNA from other men — but none from the Duke lacrosse players who were accused of raping her.

The head of the DNA testing laboratory testified in court under oath that both he and Nifong knew this and kept it secret.

You think that is incredible? How about a statement made afterwards by District Attorney Nifong that he didn’t say anything about this publicly because he was “trying to avoid dragging any names through the mud”?…(Full Story)

___________
F4L: It appears that the rape trial of the Duke Lacrosse Players will still go ahead in the spring of 2007. There is no information as to whether the woman who claimed to have been raped has been or will be indicted for making false rape allegations.

Update 2009 01 02:  Jim Kouri, Jim Kouri, fifth vice-president of the US National Association of Chiefs of Police, wrote (in “Duke Rape Case All Too Common” 2006 12 06, American Chronicle):

Zepezauer concludes his indepth study with this: “Believing the self-proclaimed victim of sexual misconduct has thus evolved from ideological conviction to legal doctrine and, in some jurisdictions, into law.  California now requires that jurors be explicitly told that a rape conviction can be based on the accuser’s testimony alone, without corroboration.  Canada is proposing that a man accused of rape must demonstrate that he received the willing consent of a sexual partner.”

The studies cited by Frank Zepezauer correlate with this writer’s experiences working on sex crimes case in New York. I found that about half of the cases were false complaints and, in fact, during intense interviewing, the women sometimes freely admitted and rationalized the bogus complaints.

The current case of the Duke University Three, who are facing rape charges based solely on the word of an intoxicated stripper and prostitute, is a perfect example of the dynamic of politics and political correctness outweighing justice.

This is an unjust situation we face within our justice system. False charges of rape hurt women who are indeed victims of predators, and they hurt men, such as the Duke lacrosse players who have had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend themselves against a woman who will pay little if anything for her deception.

Posted in Feminist Jurisprudence, Propaganda Exposed | Print | 1 Comment »

December 15, 2006 by Walter Schneider.

Scottish Rules Dangerously Off-Kilter

By Family Research Council

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU06L12&v=PRINT

A new policy of the National Health Service (NHS) in Scotland warns hospitals to watch their language. Under the policy, the staff has been told to stop calling parents “mother” or “father” to “avoid offending gay patients.” Instead, the policy tells doctors and nurses to use the words “parents” or “guardians.”

The terms “husband” and “wife” are also banned under the so-called “anti-homophobia laws” that are being implemented across the NHS.

A booklet called “Good Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Practice” says that workers who ignore the new rule will face disciplinary action.

The rule was imposed in conjunction with a radical homosexual group, “Stonewall Scotland.”

The war for the family is being waged in the field of semantics. If we allow liberal groups to hijack words in the name of fairness, then they will quickly succeed in making marriage and sex devoid of all meaning. Redefining the family starts with redefining our vocabulary. In their effort to be “inclusive,” all the NHS is really accomplishing is insulting mothers and fathers, who have been proven through research–and through the ages–to provide the best environment for children. To suggest otherwise is what is offensive.

Additional Resources:

Good LGBT Practice in the NHS

Posted in Gay issues, Family | Print | No Comments »

December 14, 2006 by Walter Schneider.

Athena wrote:

Ouch. Having a close friend affected by anorexia, I understand the reasoning behind wanting to get information out there for people. I just thought you would like provide nothing but legitimate information for people, so much that you would like to be aware of even something as simple as a photo is not what you’re asking people to believe what it is. It is the following image..http://www.fathersforlife.org/images/walkingdeade.jpg

Which is featured on the page http://www.fathersforlife.org/health/anorexia4.htm

With this text referring to it..

Click on the photo on the left if you wish to see a larger version with better resolution.  If that is not enough to convince you of the extents aficionados of anorexia nervosa will go, have a look at the website from which the photo was copied (archived file).

My dad never takes that sort of tone with me, especially when all that I was offering was what I thought was helpful. :/

AML
________________________

Athena,

Let’s concentrate on what you wish to achieve for your friend, not so much on what you assume is the intention of the anorexia-nervosa pages at Fathers for Life.

Let’s assume that there truly is such a friend whom you worry about and that your “friend” is not in reality you.  Let’s further assume that the image that concerns you is truly an altered image.  Let’s also assume that it was altered so as to make the particular anorexic look ugly.

Would an image that makes an anorexic look ugly and that brings out the full horror of the ugliness of anorexia nervosa not help your friend more than an image that makes the impact of anorexia nervosa look more benign?  By my reckoning it would.  Furthermore, with respect to your goal of helping your friend, an image that makes an anorexic look ugly is worth more than an image that doesn’t.  That is applied art that focuses on and emphasizes the truth.  Why are you bothered by the truth?  Don’t you like the truth?

With reference to your friend and the allusion to danger that anorexia nervosa poses to her and to other anorexics like her, anorexia nervosa is not a great danger to those who choose to be afflicted by it.  Perhaps you should also read the text of the anorexia nervosa pages in which the picture of concern to you is contained, so as to understand all of the details regarding the mortality rates of anorexics.

One snow flake doesn’t make a winter, and one picture of an anorexic does not constitute all that was posted at Fathers for Life about anorexia nervosa.  If you accept what has been quoted there from credible and reputable sources, your conclusion will unavoidably be that your friend is not in any danger at all.

Killing oneself through self-starvation in the midst of plenty is somewhat like attempting to kill oneself through holding one’s breath.  In the latter case one may fall unconscious but will commence breathing again as soon as one is unconscious.  Similarly, anorexics will always eat enough to keep themselves alive, otherwise they would die within about seven weeks or less after commencing their diet plan.  That, of course, is true only of the majority of anorexics who became anorexics by choice.  There is a small number of anorexics who are legitimately anorexic on account of specific medical conditions.

If a particular anorexic looks like a walking skeleton, and if she enjoys having that appearance, why not let her do what she wants?  It won’t do her much harm other that she won’t be able to do as much physical work as a normal person can, and that she quite likely will have difficulty thinking clearly and logically (which may be the case with you, as you obviously have problems forming complete. logical and comprehensible sentences).  However, that would be critical only if she holds a job in whose performance she will endanger the lives of others, such as being a nurse, an airplane pilot or a taxi driver.  So, unless she is employed in such a critical job, if she wants to look ugly and offensive to others, is that not her own business and no-one else’s?

The average life expectancy of anorexics is no worse than that of other people.  That means that anorexia nervosa is not a deadly habit, even though it does cause some extent of mental impairment but not likely any lasting brain damage.  Once an anorexic cures herself from her addiction by resuming normal eating habits, her mental aberrations with regard to her self image cease.

Your friend will without a doubt feel comfortable on account of having you worry about her.  Moreover, she will do all she can to keep up the level of concern others have for her.  If it takes excessive dieting or self-starvation to do that, she will keep on doing that or even do it increasingly more intensely in her attempts to earn the emotional rewards she seeks.  Moreover, if her friends become bored with giving her continued attention and expressions and signs of sympathy, your friend will devise strategies whereby she can replace those friends who don’t measure up to her expectations with new ones that pay her the homage she seeks.

Lastly, here is an observation regarding your playing-the-victim card (”My dad never takes that sort of tone with me…”).  If you wish to be treated as a fully capable adult, don’t play the victim card.  Accept full responsibility for what you say and do, and don’t try to evoke sympathy for you in others because they allegedly don’t behave like you say your dad does.  When someone tells you the truth, don’t be offended by it and don’t expect that others will spoil you like your dad does.  If you dad likes spoiling you, that is his business, not mine.

Anorexics look for sympathy.  They hope to create sympathy by making themselves look starved.  You are looking for sympathy by alleging that I don’t treat you like your dad does.  Are you anorexic?

I have grandchildren that are as old or perhaps even older than you are.  None of them pout like you do.  Those that did soon learned to do otherwise.  Are you fully grown up or do you still have a long way to go?

It is primarily teen-aged girls that go out of their way to become anorexics.  Normal adults are far too busy living and enjoying real life to be able to afford wasting any time in their lives by succumbing out of boredom to introversive fads like anorexia nervosa.

Regards,

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

Posted in Anorexia Nervosa, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

December 8, 2006 by Walter Schneider.

The way we handled school problems in the 70’s and the way we handle them today.

(This collection of education scenarios is circulating on the Internet. A friend sent it to me.)

Scenario: Jack pulls into school parking lot with rifle in gun rack.

1973 Vice Principal comes over, takes a look at Jack’s rifle, goes to his car and gets his to show Jack.

2006 School goes into lockdown, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

_____________________

Scenario: Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.

1973 Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up best friends. Nobody goes to jail, nobody arrested, nobody expelled.

2006 Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark. Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.

_____________________

Scenario: Jeffrey won’t be still in class, disrupts other students.

1973 Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by Principal. Sits still in class.

2006 Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a disability.

_____________________

Scenario: Billy breaks a window in his father’s car and his Dad gives him a whipping.

1973 Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.

2006 Billy’s Dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care and joins a gang. Billy’s sister is told by state psychologist that she remembers being abused herself and their Dad goes to prison. Billy’s mom has affair with psychologist.

_____________________

Scenario: Mark gets a headache and takes some headache medicine to school.

1973 Mark shares headache medicine with Principal out on the smoking dock.

2006 Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations. Car searched for drugs and weapons.

_____________________

Scenario: Mary turns up pregnant.

1973 5 High School Boys leave town. Mary does her senior year at a special school for expectant mothers.

2006 Middle School Counselor calls Planned Parenthood, who notifies the ACLU. Mary is driven to the next state over and gets an abortion without her parent’s consent or knowledge. Mary given condoms and told to be more careful next time.

_____________________

Scenario: Pedro fails high school English.

1973: Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.

2006: Pedro’s cause is taken up by state democratic party. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state school system and Pedro’s English teacher. English banned from core curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he can’t speak English.

_____________________

Scenario: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from the 4th of July,puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed.

1973 Ants die.

2006 BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated, Johnny’s Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

_____________________

Scenario: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary, hugs him to comfort him.

1973 - In a short time Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2006 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison.

___________________________________________________
More on the state of the education system and on what you can do about it

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

December 8, 2006 by Walter Schneider.

This comment is not politically correct, but it is not intended to run down the efforts of Barbara Kay to restore the truth in reporting in regard to feminist propaganda.

It is a good thing to have someone like Barbara Kay from the National Post write about how Gamil Gharbi’s (a.k.a. Marc Lepine) murder of 14 women at the Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal in Canada’s (he killed himself as well) is being used to promote feminist propaganda against men and especially against Canadian men.

The title of her article is, “Lone gunman: The Ecole Polytechnique massacre was a freak tragedy. So why is every man made to feel guilty for it?” (Full Story)

Although her article is right-on about the consequences of that long-running feminist propaganda effort, her commentary falls a little short of being perfect. It does not completely explain “why every man is being made to feel guilty for it,” although it makes it clear that the goal of that propaganda effort is being met. The evidence is clear. For days now, whenever we watch news coverage of proceedings on Parliament Hill, we see the spectacle of grown, well-educated and well-informed politicians (including Stephen Harper and other members of his party) sporting white ribbons on their lapels, apparently advertising their atonement for the collective guilt of all Canadian men for the sins of one murderous, deranged gunman [whose real and legal name was Gamil Gharbi, not Marc Lepine –WHS].

Aside from that, Barbara Kay’s commentary contains other serious factual errors.

To begin with, right at the start of her commentary, she asserts that Gamil Gharbi’s mass-murder was the worst in Canadian history. That claim is wrong, partially a result, too, of feminist propaganda. Too bad that Barbara Kay fell for it and helps to propagate that claim.

The worst recorded mass-murders in Canada’s history involved women as perpetrators, the women guilty of causing the deaths of 400 to 600 small children, the case of The Butterbox Children in Nova Scotia, from the late 1920’s through at least the late 1940’s.

There was another case that, even though it received much notoriety in the media at the time and actually involved more victims than the Montreal Massacre, is not ever being mentioned by feminist propagandists.

Joseph-Alberta Guay …devised a plan to get rid of his wife. With the help of Genereux Ruest, an employee with a talent for mechanical work, he designed and constructed a timed bomb.On 9 September 1949, he convinced Rita (his wife) to fly to Baie-Comeau to pick up some items for the store and, at the airport, took out an additional insurance policy on his wife in the amount of $10,000. Before the Canadian Pacific Airlines DC-3 left the ground, Ruest’s sister, Marguerite Pitre, air-freighted a package containing the bomb and it was placed in the forward baggage compartment.

The bomb exploded 41 miles into the trip, killing all 23 people on board.

Pitre confessed ten days after the explosion while in the hospital recovering from a suicide attempt. Guay, Ruest, and Pitre were arrested and eventually hanged for their crimes. At the time, it was the worst mass murder in North America.
http://www.famouscanadians.net/name/g/guayalbert.php

It is never a good thing to accept at face value anything feminists claim. Feminists lie or accept as the truth the lies of other feminists, and soon, with the help of unsuspecting journalists, those feminist lies take on a life of their own.

Barbara Kay’s assertion regarding “Canada’s worst mass murder” is not the only inaccuracy in her commentary. She also mentioned that “Women have been subjugated by men throughout history.” True, but that is only a partial truth. Feminists are addicted to telling partial truths, but objective journalists should never accept partial truths at face value, especially not the sort of “truths” contained in feminist propaganda (a.k.a. femprop).

Throughout history men did the dirty work for home and country. They died early deaths in horribly massive numbers on account of it, but although at times men were honoured for doing so (not vilified for it as modern feminists are prone to do), it is an accomplished fact that women always were treasured and even put on pedestals for being women. Men were the ones who were being subjugated ever more intensively, ever since and since before the Victorian Age.

All journalists partaking of a regular diet of femprop would do well to take a little antidote now and then. I cannot think of anything better to dispel the effects of femprop than to read two essays by Belfort Bax (he was a lawyer, a prominent socialist and a contemporary and acquaintance of Karl Marx and George Bernard Shaw), namely: 1.) The Fraud of Feminism (1913) and 2.) The Legal Subjection of Men (1908).

Those two essays are perfect eye-openers for anyone blinded or blinkered by femprop.

–Walter

______________________
By the way, real men don’t wear white ribbons. For more on that, do this search through google.com.

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

December 4, 2006 by Walter Schneider.

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
NewsWithViews.com

A chronology covering the stages of progressive success of more than 100 years of efforts by the government behind the governments of the world to construct the One-World-Order. (Part 1, 2006 11 27; Part 2, 2006 12 04)

Many of the developments outlined in Dennis Cuddy’s chronology are described in more detail in the entries that comprise the history section of Fathers for Life.

Posted in Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »