March 31, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

The Globe and Mail (Canada)
28 March 2009

Mothers are more likely to be the parent behind children’s estrangement, yet fathers more often ordered into counselling, study finds

By Kirk Makin, Justice Reporter
From Saturday’s Globe and Mail

A study of alienated children has found that mothers were significantly more likely to be the parent who emotionally poisoned their children than were fathers….(Full Story)

____________
More PAS information at Fathers for Life.

Posted in Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

March 29, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

The blog entry identified by the following posits that in the US:

With our days as a manufacturing power a wistful memory and the marketing of fraudulent Wall Street “financial products” an infinitely self-replenishing source of national outrage, incarceration may soon become — by default — our leading national industry.

Pro-Libertate Blog

Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Liberty and Law, not “Law and Order”

….To an extent unrivaled in the Western World, and perhaps comparable only to the People’s Republic of China, America’s prison system is populated by non-violent offenders. This is due primarily to that inexhaustible well of policy foolishness known as the “war on drugs,” of course.

Another significant element in this equation is the use of jails and penitentiaries as “debtor’s prisons” for “deadbeat dads” — divorced fathers driven into intractable financial misery by the federal child support racket.

“A parent [generally a father] whose children are taken away by a family court is only at the beginning of his troubles. The next step comes as he is summoned to court and ordered to pay as much as two-thirds or even more of his income as `child support’ to whomever has been given custody. His wages will immediately be garnished and his name will be entered on a federal register of `delinquents.’ This is even before he has had a chance to become one, though it is also likely that the order will be backdated, so he will already be delinquent as he steps out of the courtroom. If the ordered amount is high enough, and the backdating far enough, he will be an instant felon and subject to immediate arrest.”

Jails and prisons across our land bulge at the seams with men who have been sucked into this vortex. Countless others are on probation, parole, or shackled at the ankle with electronic monitoring devices….(Full Story)

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

March 29, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Here is a link to an article that chronicles the unimaginable cruelty that led to the death of “Baby P”.

The second article identified in the following illustrates that the unimaginable cruelty that led to the torturous death of “Baby P” in the U.K. is the unavoidable consequence of efforts aiming at the planned destruction of the family.

The article identifies that the planned destruction of the family is being implemented through the systematic removal of natural fathers from the lives of their children.

The Salesbury Review (U.K.)
Spring 2009

Baby P and the Child Abuse Industry

Written by Stephen Baskerville

The Baby P killing reveals the child abuse industry at its most cynical. The Soviet-style ineptitude revealed daily is the product not of poor training or underfunding but of the logic inherent in bureaucratic politics.

We have long known what causes child abuse and why children like Baby P die. The vast preponderance of child abuse and child deaths occurs in single-parent homes. Very little abuse takes place in married, twoparent families. London’s Family Education Trust long ago demonstrated that children are up to 33 times more likely to suffer serious abuse and 73 times more likely to suffer fatal abuse in the home of a mother with a live-in boyfriend or stepfather than in an intact family.

Figures from the US Justice Department show that single mothers accounted for 55 per cent of child murders. Shorn of politically correct euphemism, what this means is that the principal impediment to child abuse is a father. ‘Fathers have often played the protector role inside families,’ writes Adrienne Burgess of Fathers Direct. A study in the journal Adolescent and Family Health found that ‘The presence of the father … placed the child at lesser risk for child sexual abuse.’

Yet instead of allowing fathers to protect their children, fathers are forcibly and systematically removed from their homes and children by family courts with the active support of social work bureaucracies….(Full Story)

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Child Murder, Family, The New World Order, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

March 26, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

National Post — Full Comment blog

2008 03 24

“Marionette Murders”

The Stefanie Rengel case reveals a flaw in the way we categorize homicides 

[Stefanie Rengel was a teen-aged girl whom a 15-year-old girl, “M.T.” (the Canadian social engineers, in their successful attempts to turn traditional moral standards upside-down, are convinced that her identity needs to be protected) whom “M.T.” convinced her boyfriend he had to kill another because “M.T.” did not like her, even though she did not personally know Stefanie.]

By Barbara Kay

…although M.T.’s case is particularly puzzling - most women murderers in “love” cases know and hate their victims for what they consider a good reason - her modus operandi is well within a gender paradigm. The crime literature on women who actively incite or tacitly endorse killing by a male surrogate - boyfriends, fathers, brothers - is extensive.

The lesson to be drawn? It is well known that spousal homicides are perpetrated in a two-to-one ratio by men against women. What is not understood is that this ratio has been established using murder statistics that deal only with direct murders. That is to say, if a man kills another man at the behest of the victim’s partner, the crime is registered as a homicide, not as a spousal killing. But in fact it is just as much a spousal killing as if the woman had done it herself, since the actual murderer - just as in the murder of Stefanie Rengel - would not have committed the crime, and has been coerced into it through sexual weakness or the threat of the loss of his relationship to the woman….(Full Story)

Posted in Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

March 22, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Oprah Is Harpo on Violent Women

from MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory by Marc H. Rudov

2009 03 22

She’ll Hit Again

Oprah Winfrey is increasing domestic violence in America. By being Harpo — remaining silent — on the truth about violent women, she unwittingly perpetuates the problem.? Repeatedly excusing women’s culpability and unfairly blaming men only serves to foment this pernicious societal scourge.

On March 19, 2009, Oprah aired an anti-male show about domestic violence (DV), to capitalize on the biggest news story: Rihanna. Oprah holds men totally responsible for both causing and ending DV. Outrageous! Nowhere on her show was mention of all-too-common incidents of female violence such as those involving actress Kelly Bensimon and NFL player Geno Hayes.

Instead, Oprah stridently cautioned her female audience: If he hits, he’ll hit again. Fair enough. Missing from her mantra, though, was: Never hit a man — out of anger, revenge, jealousy, hormone imbalance, or any reason whatsoever! Also absent from Oprah’s show was a reciprocal warning to men: If she hits, she’ll hit again.…(Full Story)

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

March 17, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Fathers rights activists like Stephen Baskerville, PhD., have advocated for years that to have children is suicidal and recommended to young men — to be able to survive and to avoid being criminalized as fathers:

Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children

Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.

2007-11-14 at 11:36 am · Filed under Men and Mating, Vox Populi

Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family. Those who argue that our civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.

And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young men to marry today. For many men (and some women), marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how easily “the divorce court leads to a jail cell,” mostly for men. In fact, if I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today it is this: Do not marry and do not have children….(Full Story)

Stephen Baskerville merely points out the circumstance of fathers expunged from their families — collateral damage resulting from current global population policies.  A far less personal issue that universally affects global population trends is the circumstance that populations in all developed nations, and increasingly in ever-increasing numbers of developing nations, are shrinking.

The plan is to reduce the global population to a population level between 300 million to a billion people.   You think that is an alarmist view of demographic trends? Well, think again.

 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)

Consider this:

How to Take the Chill Out of Demographic Winter

A speech by Don Feder to the New Generation Church, Riga, Latvia, November Nov. 15, 2007

….In half-a-century or less, Europe will be populated by strangers — who will wander by the continent’s cathedrals, museums, statues and battlefield monuments wondering what it all meant.

This catastrophe in the making can be most clearly seen in Russia. What Lenin, Stalin and Hitler failed to accomplish, the Russian people are doing to themselves. You might call it auto-genocide.

In Russia, the fertility rate is 1.17 (down from 2.4 in 1990, a decline of over 50%). Russia is losing three-quarters of a million people a year. Its current population of 145 million is expected to be reduced by a third by 2050. In Russia today, almost as many children are aborted as are born alive (1.5 million to 1.6 million)….

In terms of population replacement, Europe is going out of business. Of the 10 nations with the lowest fertility rates worldwide, 9 are in Europe. No European nation has anything approaching a replacement-level birthrate….(Full Story)

By now you must wonder how we got from the 1960s UN objective of Zero-Population Growth to the present calamity of accelerating population reduction.  It was easy.  It required a motivator that the social engineers in charge and control of global population growth could make palatable and have the masses swallow: Save the Planet — Reduce the Human Population.

Here is how that is made to work:

http://www.co2science.org

Your “Carbon Legacy”
Volume 12, Number 11: 18 March 2009

---

Politicians who bow to the demands of the world’s climate alarmists have long sought various means of reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. To date, the measures they have proposed have been rather mundane, focusing primarily on reducing emissions associated with one’s household activities and transportation habits. For example, we have been encouraged to replace our incandescent light bulbs with more energy efficient ones. We’ve also been asked to participate in municipal recycling programs, to drive less, to car pool or to utilize public transportation. But the “rules of the road” will soon be become much more stringent, and you and I may be asked - if not mandated by law - to make an unprecedented lifestyle change that could dramatically curtail one of our most cherished personal freedoms, all in the name of “saving the planet.”

Writing for the scientific journal Global Environmental Change, two academics at Oregon State University - Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax - identify this lifestyle change in a paper entitled “Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals.” In this treatise they attempt to quantify, in their words, “the carbon legacy of an individual,” and to examine “how it is affected by the individual’s reproductive choices,” based on the premise that “a person is responsible for the carbon emissions of his descendants, weighted by their relatedness to him.” So what did they find?

The two researchers calculated that a woman in the United States would reduce her lifetime CO2 emissions by about 486 tons if she implemented the green-approved household and transportation activities mentioned previously. But they estimate that if she were to have just one child, that child, over its lifetime, would eventually release nearly 20 times more CO2 to the atmosphere than the reductions achieved by its mother via her more mundane green activities.

In light of these calculations, Murtaugh and Schlax conclude that “the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle,” adding that “enormous [our italics] future benefits can be gained by immediate changes [our italics] in reproductive behavior,” and, therefore, that “an individual’s reproductive choices can have a dramatic effect on the total carbon emissions ultimately attributable to his or her genetic lineage.”

We can only hope, in this regard, that everyone’s future reproductive behavior will continue to be a matter of choice. But in light of the supposedly “enormous” CO2-related “benefits” of curtailing child-bearing - especially in the United States - no one can assume that such will continue to be the case, especially in light of the claims of climate alarmists such as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama, who consider CO2-induced global warming to be the greatest threat to the survival of civilization ever to be encountered. Faced with such a unique and unparalleled threat, we could well awake one morning and find ourselves with no choice in the matter, mandated by law to only procreate to the extent deemed ecologically appropriate by those enlightened few who somehow simply “know” what is best for the biosphere.

It may seem unthinkable today that our government - of the people, by the people and for the people - would ever assume the power to tell us how many children we can and cannot have. But much has happened in the past few months that truly was unthinkable, and only a single year ago. And if it’s happened before, it can happen again; for in times of crisis - either real, as in the current economic crisis, or imagined, as in Al Gore’s climate crisis - normally-rational people can do some wildly-irrational things. We must, therefore, maintain the eternal vigilance that is needed to preserve our God-given rights that no one has the authority to rescind. Stand up with us and demand that your elected officials carefully scrutinize both sides of the CO2-climate debate and think for themselves. We need thoughtful men and women of integrity to guide our nation, not mindless lemmings.

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

Reference
Murtaugh, P.A. and Schlax, M.G. 2009. Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals. Global Environmental Change: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.007.

That editorial by Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso is also accessible as a video (4.5 minutes) at YouTube.

Posted in Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Religion, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Health, Propaganda Exposed, Family, Men's Issues, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

March 16, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

WorldNetDaily

March 13, 2009

By Ilana Mercer

Unless there’s been a monstrous misunderstanding, the man is muddled, malevolent, or both.

Barack Obama has just signed “an Executive Order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. The mission of the Council will be to provide a coordinated federal response to the challenges confronted by women and girls and to ensure that all Cabinet and Cabinet-level agencies consider how their policies and programs impact women and families.”

Under the rubric of this Council, feral, (mostly) female bureaucrats will “ensure that agencies across the federal government, not just a few offices, take into account the particular needs and concerns of women and girls. The Council will begin its work by asking each agency to analyze their current status and ensure that they are focused internally and externally on women.”

Barack, however, has it backward: It is boys, not girls, who lag behind – and have for decades….(Full Story)

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

March 13, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

The following two excerpts from a couple of articles illustrate an instance of government censorship of information that has had a major impact on the promotion of pro-female and anti-male labour legislation.

Rather than using the truth to debunk the need for that intended legislation, the US Government pushed through the passage of that anti-male and discriminatory legislation, while at the same time removing all pointers to the report that had already been published prior to any attempts to have the legislation pass. The truth is now hidden, and the legislation that ostensibly but falsely and unjustifiably addresses non-existent inequities in wages and salaries paid to women now has the force of the law.

1. US Chamber of Commerce

January 28, 2009

Reasons for Wage Disparity - The Missing Report

by Mike Eastman

Earlier this month (before the end of President Bush’s term), the Labor Department released a report called An Analysis of the Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women – it was prepared by a contractor, the CONSAD Research Corporation and included a forward written by the Labor Department.

When the report was released, it was posted on the “highlights” section of the OFCCP’s web site (the OFCCP is part of the Labor Department’s Employment Standards Administration).The link to the file was www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/Gender_Wage_Gap_Final_Report.pdf but don’t click just yet.

After the change in administration, we noticed that the report has been removed from the Labor Department’s web site. The previous link does not function and other searches on the DOL site have not been successful at finding any reference to the report.This report is very timely – the House has already passed two bills, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, dealing with pay equity issues – one of those bills could be signed into law by the end of this week. We are disturbed that the DOL would take this step while Congress is considering these important issues – especially in light of the President’s call for a “new era of openness” in government.

Today, we filed this Freedom of Information Act request to receive an “official” copy of the report in addition to all records related to the Department’s decision to remove the report from its web site. You don’t have to wait for a response though, we fortunately have a saved copy of the analysis, take a look….(Full Story)

2. Renew America

March 12, 2009

Obama’s first cover-up: the gender wage gap myth

By Carey Roberts

Liberals never tire of convincing persons to believe they are victims in dire need of a government hand-out. But this time it’s a case of outright mendacity aided by the concealment of a high-level government official.

During the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton repeatedly made the claim that women suffer from pay discrimination. Barack Obama’s website likewise asserted, “Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. Throughout his career, Barack Obama and Joe Biden have championed the right of women to receive equal pay for equal work.”

It was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who engineered the recent passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Act. And just a few weeks ago Rep. George Miller of California made the red-meat assertion that women earn “78 cents for every dollar that is earned by a man doing the same job with the same responsibilities.”

Democrats call it as the “gender wage gap,” but I prefer to think of it as the “scare-the-female-electorate-into-submission” ploy. Claims about sex-based wage discrimination have been repeated so often that many Americans simply accept them as fact. But a recently published — and quickly suppressed — study reveals a different picture.

Titled “An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women,” the report tallies the results of over 50 studies. No one questions the fact that on average, men are paid more than women. But turns out this is an apples-to-oranges comparison.

The paper concludes the 20-cent odd wage difference is not caused by discrimination. Rather it’s women exercising their right to make lifestyle choices. What choices are we talking about?

1. A greater percentage of women chose to work part-time.

2. Women may opt to leave the work force for childbirth, child care, or elder care.

3. Women are often willing to accept a lower paying job in return for family-friendly policies that allow them to have fewer hours, flexible schedules, and a shorter commute.

In addition, women work fewer hours than men. According to an article posted on the Department of Labor website, “Among full-time workers, 24% of the men, compared to 10% of the women, usually worked more than 40 hours per week:” http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1984/06/art4full.pdf

And then the fact that men tend to work in occupations that are far more likely to injure, maim, or kill….(Full Story)

The US Government is not the first to engage in such a cover-up. There was a similar cover-up of a government-published study report that debunked the wage gap myth. That was during the early 1990’s, in Canada. The report that was covered up then, after it had originally been published at the website of Statistics Canada, was a study report by Ted Wannell and Nathalie Caron, commissioned by Statistics Canada, “THE GENDER EARNINGS GAP AMONG RECENT POSTSECONDARY GRADUATES, 1984-92″ (11F0019MPE No. 68, ISBN: 0-662-22499-X).

Abstract:

This study attempts to compare the earnings of men and women on an equal footing by concentrating on recent postsecondary graduates and using survey data on a number of earnings-related characteristics. The data cover three graduating classes of university and community college students: 1982, 1986 and 1990. These data indicate that the gender earnings gap among graduates has narrowed in recent years. In fact among the most recent class, we found that female university graduates are rewarded slightly better than their male counterparts after controlling for experience, job tenure, education and hours of work. A small gender gap persists among community college graduates: about three-and-a-half percent on an hourly wage basis. For all graduates, the earnings gap tended to increase with age, even after controlling for previous work experience….(Full Story)

Carey Roberts, in his article on the wage-gap myth and on the US Government’s efforts to promote that myth and to keep it alive, marvels that,

Claims about sex-based wage discrimination have been repeated so often that many Americans simply accept them as fact. But a recently published — and quickly suppressed — study reveals a different picture.

Nevertheless, even if such revelations of the truth about such persistent myths (there are many comparable myths, such as the age-old canard about male violence) would not be so extremely and purposely short-lived, there is one aspect of such propaganda that must never be forgotten:

The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan….

The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.

—Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI

There it is. The task of successful propaganda “is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly,” and therefore includes deliberate censorship of the truth.

–Walter

Posted in Men and Women Work, Censorship, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »