April 27, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

In the early days of the Internet, when web browsers first came on the market, I found that I had problems finding information about advice for fathers who are being put through the wringer.  There were then few websites, but there were bulletin boards.

The first time I looked for whether there  was a fathers rights organization in or near Edmonton, Alberta, it took me about six months for someone to put me on the right track.  The lead came to me in a round-about way, in the from of advice from someone in the USA.

That experience led me to start the website for Fathers for Life.  I figured that it was wrong that any man in need of help and advice would have to look for months to find it.

Now I get help requests from all over the world, but mostly from the USA and from Canada.  Most of those come through e-mail, but some of them come by phone.

Early this morning I had a call from a man in Michigan whose boys had been placed in foster care because of a drug charge.  He is holding a good job now and his life is on the straight and narrow, while he had the misfortune to be a passenger in a vehicle the driver of which was charged with possession and transporting drugs.  Of course, he got charged and now mentioned that he had been advised to plead guilty, so as to get off easy.  Well, for one thing, getting off easy involves having another offence added to his criminal record.  Guilty or not, the charges he faces are at least legally warranted.  That is not the case with the woman who called me last night.

The woman called because she wanted to know whether there is any way by which her son can protect himself against false allegations of domestic violence.  He apparently went through a separation and divorce, and his ex got custody of his boy, of course, while he has standard visitation rights.  Now his ex is charging him again with domestic violence in connection with an assault she alleges he committed when he came to pick up his son.

It appears that there were witnesses who will testify that no assault took place at the time of the exchange of the boy, but now the mother of the father asked what he can do to protect himself against further wrongful allegations of violence by her son, and how an end can be put to that apparently widespread practice of women making such allegations against men and fathers whom they want out of their lives for good, except for the child-support money they will be forced to fork over.

We got into a little bit of a discussion on that, during which I provided a run-down of the causes and history of the evolution of Canadian feminist jurisprudence.  She still wanted to know what can be done to put an end to the widespread practice of making false allegations of violence and the associated injustices perpetrated by the courts.

I told her that there is no protection against that, no magic bullet, no remedy but to abolish feminism as the driving political force for the policies that make false abuse allegations so exceedingly effective and so often used effectively by women.

I explained to the woman that we live in a country that is becoming ever more socialistic, and that the evolution of Canadian feminist jurisprudence has the same Marxist roots that brought about increasingly oppressive feminist jurisprudence in the USSR.  Her response was that she came from [one of the nations] in the former USSR, but that terrible injustices such as those we have here now in relation to false abuse allegations never were a problem in the area of the USSR she came from.

I disagreed with her on that, but I will let you be the judge.  Have a look at Matriarchy in USSR.

See also:

• The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926, and
• History of the evolution and destructive social impact of Soviet divorce laws

Posted in Divorce, Civil Rights, False Allegations, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

April 26, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

AdelaideNow, April 13, 2011

Penis-burning wife Rajini Narayan walks free

It was predictable and predicted accurately. Again, a murderess or (if you don’t want that sexist term) a murderer walks, proving once more that women are incapable of committing crimes, especially the crime of murder.

She murdered her husband. She did it deliberately. It was premeditated.

However, in the latest hearing in a series that was nothing more than a travesty of justice, the murderer was set free, because — and you better believe it as it surely must be so on account of a judge assuring it on the basis of the true victim’s unsubstantiated assertions — she is the real victim, and not the husband whom she deliberately murdered by throwing gasoline on him and setting it on fire,

Therefore:

In sentencing today, Justice Sulan said Narayan had “deified” her husband and was “shattered” by his betrayal.

He said there was “no doubt” her thinking at the time was “unrealistic, muddled and illogical”.

“For the first time in your life you had confronted your husband, had found the courage to be assertive to the person who had mistreated you for 20 years,” he said.

“His response was to treat you with disdain, dismiss you and turn his back to you (and) you snapped.”

Justice Sulan further ordered Narayan be under Correctional Services supervision for two years, and undertake psychological counselling as ordered.

More

There you got it, straight from the judge’s mouth: women are not possibly capable of murder.

There is never an excuse when men murder. When women murder, no excuse is necessary. It is a waste of the valuable time of our courts to even have to contemplate excuses when women murder. Women cannot and do not commit murders.

More on the history of this case

Posted in Judiciary, Violence by Proxy, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

April 18, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Mail Online

My wife was sweet and demure - then the fashion industry made her a monster

By Zoe Brennan
Last updated at 11:48 AM on 17th April 2011

More

Quotes from the article, with comments by Dads & Things:

‘When I met my wife, she was sweet and demure. I believe she’s become egotistical and self-centred. The fashion world has turned her into something of a monster.’

If I read this right, she was a model already when she decided to have him for a husband, whereupon she could legally and without complications use him as a sperm donor — quite possibly on the advice of her handlers or her peers in the modelling industry.  Without a doubt, having a child is an asset for a model.  That sort of asset does not peter out as fast as her looks will.

Her campaigns have included Ungaro, Cavalli, Gucci and Paul Smith.

Those were not her campaigns.  The were campaigns designed and launched by advertising agencies that used her modelling agencies to supply a key ingredient for successful advertising, namely the image of Ujjwala Raut.

‘It has broken my heart to be apart from my daughter.’

Welcome to the world of the expunged fathers.  There are hundreds of millions of them.  If misery seeks company, he’s got more than enough of it now.

She, …has accused him of threatening behaviour.

Allegations of violent behaviour are standard fare in such cases.  He should consider himself lucky that as of now she has not accused him of sexually abusing his daughter. As far as false allegations are concerned, child-sexual-abuse allegations are the ultimate silver bullet, because they always get their man.

He blames the fashion world for turning his wife’s head…

That is an unjustified allegation, no matter how correct it may seem.  He, having been a part of that world, should know better.  She sold her soul the moment she decided to become a model.  He had rocks in his head for falling for her.

Sterry states that he still loves his wife. ‘If she said, “I made a mistake,” I would accept her back, even though she has done some really nasty things.’

Of course he would.  That is how men are made.  That is how they get suckered, time and again.

‘Her judgements have been wrong, but she is not inherently bad.’

Of course she is not inherently bad, no more so than a gun is, not until it is aimed and someone pulls its trigger.  “Wrong” is a relative concept, flexible, and always relates to someone’s standards.  From her perspective, everything she has done works out well and produces the desired results.  Don’t knock success.

For her part, Ujjwala has flatly denied both her husband’s claims of assault and the allegation that she has influenced the deportation proceedings in an improper way.

She has said: ‘If Maxwell is alleging abuse and intimidation, why is he not resorting to court procedures, which is how things should be?

‘This matter is sub judice [before a court, not yet judicially decided]. I don’t wish to comment on it. When the time comes, I myself will make an announcement.’

Smart move on her part.  He should have had advice like that a long time ago and followed it.  He should not have publicly commented on the collapse of his marriage, because what he told the Mail Online is more than enough to allow them to have constructed a long article.  Moreover, even though he is most likely correct with everyone of his observations, everything he said can and will be used against him in the courts.

He should now concentrate on what he will do during the rest of his life to be able to cope with the handicap of having to pay his daughter’s mother for a child he will most likely never get to see anymore, commensurate with the life-style his soon-to-be-ex has become accustomed to.

Posted in Civil Rights, Maternal Rights, False Allegations, Paternal Rights, Men and Women Work, Feminist Jurisprudence, Men's Issues, Divorce, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »

April 16, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

This relates to a discussion of the principles of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, a.k.a. The Communist Manifesto.

During the last week there has been a large drop in the number of visits brought to Fathers for Life through website searches via google.com.  During the week preceding last week there were 8,905 visits as a result of Google searches.  This week there were only 5,618 visits from google.com, a drop of 34 percent.  That is even though traffic from Bing increased by over seven percent.

It is not due to a drop in traffic volumes (those were on the rise).  It can only be due to Google having arbitrarily lowered either the ranking of, or the ease of finding information at, the website of Fathers for Life. I strongly suspect that the drop in traffic from google.com has something to do with someone complaining to Google about my conservative stance.

Ever since I became a bit more active on Facebook, a month ago, I became astounded about the extent to which many individuals actively promote socialism, especially the sort promoted by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.  Here is an example, namely a portion of an exchange between me and someone who, along with many others, wishes for nothing but to stop working for money, to abolish the obligation to work, and to establish the right of everyone to have his basic needs provided by the State.

Linda wrote (after I had pointed out to her that her ideas read as if taken straight out of the Manifesto of the Communist Party): “Walter I never read any marx or communist manifesto,…”

It boggles the mind.  Is that an example of “women’s way of knowing”?  If that is so, then why does anyone worry about the doctrines expressed by Marx and Engels?  Let’s just use “women’s way of knowing” to guide us by, and then the whole world will be happy and in eternal bliss.

I told her the following:

That is too bad, because you are doing a lot of needless work.

There is no need for you to re-invent the wheel. Your wish to abolish the obligation to work and to establish the right to be provided basic needs was expressed by Marx: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need

That is right down your alley.

Here are the main planks of the Communist Manifesto that every modern communist regime was or is built on (from “The Socialist Phenomenon”, by Igor Shafarevich):

1. The Abolition of Private Property

The fundamental nature of this principle is emphasized, for instance, by Marx and Engels: “The theory of Communism may be summed up in a single sentence: ‘Abolition of private property,’” (Communist Manifesto).  (p. 195)

2. The Abolition of The Family

The majority of socialist doctrines proclaim the abolition of the family. In other doctrines, as well as in certain socialist states, this proposition is not proclaimed in such radical form, but the principle appears as a de-emphasis of the role of the family, the weakening of family ties, the abolition of certain functions of the family. (p. 195)

3. The Abolition of Religion

It is especially easy for us to observe socialism’s hostility to religion, for this is inherent, with few exceptions, in all contemporary socialist states and doctrines. Only rarely is the abolition of religion legislated, as it was in Albania. But the actions of other socialist states leave no doubt that they are all governed by this very principle and that only external difficulties have prevented its complete implementation. (p. 195)

4. Communality or Equality

This demand is encountered in almost all socialist doctrines. Its negative form is seen in the striving to destroy the hierarchy of the surrounding society and in calls “to humble the proud, the rich and the powerful,” to abolish privilege.  (p. 196)

____________
The comments that follow each of those quotes are short, one or a few paragraphs each.  Just follow the links I identified.

The complete Manifesto of the Communist Party is here (PDF file, 539kB)

Then there is the context out of which Linda’s wish emerged during the discussion.  It emerged out of the proposal to work only enough to produce what is absolutely essential (without anyone specifying what they consider to be essential) and to do so without any money exchanging hands.  In other words, many of the people in the discussion thread in all seriousness contemplate that to solve the problems that bother many now living in the once-upon-a-time proud and wealthy U.S. of A. requires nothing less than to abolish money as a means of exchange and to substitute a barter system.

Hold on to your seat and consider this:

Allen (many others stated similar things) said: “stand up and stop working for money.”

To which I responded:

Okay, I’ll bite.  So, explain to me how you can exist without money. If you don’t make any mortgage payments, you will be paying rent. You need to pay for food, clothing, utilities, gas for your car, and even for Internet access and the PC or laptop you use, the software to run the applications on your PC, your cell phone, etc.

What about the infrastructure you are using, the roads, the sewer lines, the water for cooking, bathing and doing the laundry, the electricity you use, the fuel that is brought to your home to heat it, the education system that taught you and will teach your kids how to read, write and do arithmetic? How can any of that be supplied to you and anyone else without money?

What will you use as a means of exchange when buying goods and services — peanuts? Even if that were possible, how will you be able to get the peanuts? Did you ever try getting a ride on a bus by offering to pay with peanuts for the ride? Do you know of anyone willing to work for peanuts?

Here is a dose of reality. Even the cavemen had money. They used cowrie shells, flint stones and salt for money.

Kids used to learn about those things, if not before they went to kindergarten, then at least during the first two or three years in school.

At any rate,  it is not worth it to continue participation in that discussion.  As they say, the lights may be on, but no one is home.  The scary thing about it is that there are many people who are like that.  There are far more of them than there are voices of reason, and the clueless majority decides who gets into power to rule us all.

There is little doubt in my mind that this will play out throughout the world until the bitter end that is not all that far off, when everything will be in ruin and chaos.

The cavemen had more sense.  At least they provided the foundation on which our civilization was built, whereas now clueless people are hell-bent on tearing down all of what civilization achieved by voting accordingly and having no shortage of clueless “leaders” to vote for.

When I was younger, I had often thought that it would be nice to live a long life to see how things will turn out.  Now I am just about 75-years old, happy that most likely I won’t live long enough to see the the bitter end of it all and hope that that will hold off until after I meet my maker.

Posted in Men and Women Work, Censorship, Family, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

April 9, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Today I ran across a short video that no one should miss watching.

Hans Rosling and the magic washing machine
By Gapminder, featuring Prof. Hans Rosling

“What was the greatest invention of the industrial revolution? Hans Rosling makes the case for the washing machine. With newly designed graphics from Gapminder, Rosling shows us the magic that pops up when economic growth and electricity turn a boring wash day into an intellectual day of reading.” — Gapminder

Watch the video (nine minutes).  It is a fascinating and spell-binding presentation, as all of Hans Rosling’s presentations are, but this one is one of his best.

Prof. Hans Rosling concludes his presentation with:

Thank you, Industrialization!

Thank you, Steel Mills!

Thank you, Power Stations, and thank you, Chemical-Processing Industry, that they [his mother, his grandmother and all other women of the world] got time to read books.

Thank you very much.  (Which was followed by a very large round of well-deserved applause)

It is an impressive presentation about the wealthy in the world, the plight of poor women and their respective levels of energy consumption.

It stresses the power of democracy and that the poor suffering women in Brazil, for example, were able to elect a woman, the former energy minister of Brazil, as their prime minister, but it does not mention that, in doing so, they established an increasingly oppressive, corrupt, communist, totalitarian regime.

It stresses, with very likable humour, that the wealthy of the world need to reduce their energy consumption and replace half of their remaining energy use with energy from green sources.  However, it does not stress that in doing so right now, food prices escalated in the poor nations so much that hundreds of thousands of people now no longer can afford to eat and therefore starve to death.

It praises the advances brought about by industrialization, steel mills, power stations, the chemical-processing industry (which would include many other technological inventions and processes — including the washing machine that gave Hans Rosling’s mother the time to begin to read books)  and that they were inventions that made women’s lives easier, but it does not praise the innovators, men, whose innovations primarily made women’s lives easier and safer.

In all of the presentations by Hans Rosling that I watched over the years, I noticed that he seems to speak about his mother far more often than Liberace used to speak about his, but he never once mentioned his wife and perhaps only once mentioned his dad, and I wonder why that is.  Does his wife not deserve his concern as much as his mother does?  Is she not a mother, too?  Hans Rosling does have a son.

And what about his dad?  Was it not his dad who brought home the money that his family saved to buy the washing machine that gave his mother time to read?

What about all of the men who worked so hard to improve the living standards for all, who made it possible for all to increase their life expectancies by many years throughout the world, but primarily and far more so for women than for men?

To come back to washing machines.  I had a mother, too, as we all had or have, but I also had a father, just as Hans Rosling and everyone else had or has.  My mother used to wash by hand.  I know, I helped her, and so did all of my siblings.  Our family was very poor.  There was not the chance of a snow ball in Hell that we could ever have saved enough to buy a washing machine, as much as we all would have wanted to, not for as long as we were mired in poverty.

My mother was a very smart woman, she read a lot and studied, but she never once thought of building her own washing machine.  My Dad did.  The agitator for that washing machine he built was driven by water pressure from the water tap, using a two-cycle cylinder and piston on the washing machine.

And yes, my mother read and studied even more, thanks to my Dad, and she thanked him for that.  It is something that apparently never once entered Hans Rosling’s mind and that so many of us forget because we take what men do for granted.  For that reason neither Hans Rosling nor most others ever bother to thank men for making the things and the sacrifices of their lives that make women’s lives so much safer and easier.

Posted in Economy, Men and Women Work | Print | 1 Comment »

April 6, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

What is the men’s movement (MM) trying to achieve?  That is a bit hard for anyone to determine.  It seems that after decades of the existence of the men’s movement, no unified aim or objective for the men’s movement has emerged.  There is nothing the main stream media (MSM) has picked up and consistently presents to the public as the major goal of the men’s movement.

The MSM had no trouble picking up and popularizing women’s causes when the long-simmering radical feminism came to the fore in he 1960s and became the dominant and controlling force not only of feminism but of politics.  Then it was that one could not avoid images (real or mental) of bra-burners, sex-discrimination that allegedly kept women down, pay-discrimination that had women do men’s work for half the pay men were allegedly earning for similar work, and so on.  The MSM had no trouble to present such images on the tapestry it wove according to the feminist design:

• “The dreaded patriarchy oppressed women throughout the millennia.”
• “Women are good.  Men are bad.”
• “The family is a patriarchal tool for the oppression of women.”
• “Logic is patriarchal linear thinking.”
• “There is no job that a man does that a woman cannot do better.”
• “A woman’s body — A woman’s right”

Lapel buttons displaying the slogan “WHY NOT?” became very popular.  The MSM, aided from within by increasing numbers of women journalists indoctrinated through women’s studies programs taught by feminist lecturers who openly declared themselves to be Marxist-feminists, helped things along, while politicians fell over themselves to give “women” most of what they wanted as soon as women’s groups asked for it.

Women’s studies programs emerged in virtually all colleges and universities of the developed nations and usurped much of the funding formerly lavished on male-dominated sports programs.  More and more all-male institutions, even locker rooms, were invaded by women and even abolished, if so demanded, while women’s institutions and clubs remained pristine, if not necessarily feminine, unspoiled by the presence of any man — unless he was someone like a plumber needed to get a toilet going.

Government women’s departments sprouted up like mushrooms after a warm rain in summer in all developed nations. In some countries (e. g.: Canada) they were given names that brazenly declared their Marxist origin: Status of Women.  Still, whether or not they gave away their ideological roots through their names, the feminists that ran them and whom they employed had no problem with openly declaring their Marxist intentions.

New family legislation hostile to fathers emerged and was soon applied through a novel branch of the judiciary, the family-court system, and civilization soon had to cope with the fall-out from that: men and fathers expunged in unprecedented, escalating numbers from their families, losing contact with their children  Lawyers and judges experienced a boom of cases where men tried to regain (quite often unsuccessfully) some of the contact with and influence over their children, and where women tried (almost invariably successfully) to get men to pay for the sin of having dared to be fathers –with the aim to keep women in the style they had become accustomed to while their marriages were still intact.

Incredibly, the excesses of the feminist revolution in relation to expunged fathers were invariably justified by liberal doses of the application of the slogan: “In the best interest of child.”

The rout of the dreaded patriarchy was complete.

Right from the start of the feminist revolution a so-called men’s movement made itself known, but also right from the start it became obvious that men, the patriarchal oppressors of women, would never be able to gain as much sympathy and compassion as women did.  The MM floundered and many attempts to launch it successfully foundered. Quite simply, men were bowled over because women make more appealing victims.

Men, divorced men, and especially fathers expunged from their families, have well-justified grievances, but the well-deserved respect and appreciation that western civilization once had for men appears to be gone for good.  Feminist logic and women’s way of knowing have done their work, but, as the saying goes, women’s work is never done, and the persecution of men continues.

The persecution of men that started with the radical-feminist revolution in the West is alive and well and is being spread through feminist missionary work into developing and underdeveloped nations throughout the world.

__________
Part 2 will follow.

Posted in Education, Men and Women Work, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Divorce, Men's Issues, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, The New World Order | Print | 2 Comments »

April 3, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

There are few people today who know what the family wage was.

Three decades before ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), President Kennedy recognized the need for an amendment to the Social Security Act. He suggested improvements to benefits—including benefits for the disabled—in February 1961. His argument was persuasive, and he succeeded in signing the amendments on June 30, 1961. At the signing, Kennedy called the changes “an additional step toward eliminating many of the hardships resulting from old age, disability or the death of the family wage-earner.”

From Call to Action — the Sixth Floor Museum — Disability Rights
http://www.jfk.org/go/exhibits/call-to-action/disability-rights

I earned a family wage supplement in Germany, before I emigrated to Canada in 1962.  Prior to the early 1960s, it was in place in the USA but also in many nations in Europe, but it was one of the first issues on the agenda of the radical feminists that they had vowed to get abolished, because they claimed it was a symptom of patriarchal oppression.

In 1963 JFK had to give in to pressure by radical feminists, and family wages came to an end in the USA.

The women’s movement of the 19th Century struggled to establish not a male but a family wage. It did not favor men; it favored breadwinners. This policy derived from their primary concern that mothers should be able to devote full time to raising children and managing a home. To do that they had to be provided for, and it was the husband and father who had to do the providing, which meant that he had to earn a wage sufficient to support not only himself but his entire family.

The long enduring effort to institutionalize the family wage eventually succeeded. Robertson writes that “it has been estimated that by 1960 a family wage was paid by 65 percent of all employers in the United States and by 80 percent of the major industrial companies.” He adds, “Although feminist historians today call the family-wage ideal a “myth” designed to keep married women oppressed, few myths have come closer to becoming reality.”[4] He later states that “the family-wage economy that prevailed from 1945 to 1970 was the product of an ideal pursued deliberately, primarily by women’s organizations, through the political process….”[5]

The reversal of the traditional family order, the work of countless family women and men during the previous century, quickly accelerated. By 1963, President Kennedy had established a Women’s Commission which was stacked with career oriented women and in the same year Congress passed an Equal Pay Act, which dealt a blow to the family wage concept.

From “Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson”
A review by Frank Zepezauer
http://fathersforlife.org/hist/all_the_past2.htm

It would be interesting, although that is more than I can handle by myself, to determine the exact time and date when the family wage was brought to an end in each of the developed nations.  I am fairly certain that anyone discovering those dates will get a very astounding surprise.

At any rate, thanks to socialist feminism (a.k.a. radical- or Marxist-feminism), now neither men nor women nor the families they provide for get a family wage, but there is now government assistance funded by taxpayer largesse for all destitute single parents in need, the vast majority of whom are single mothers.  Socialist feminism has done much to give us the welfare state, for which we are supposed to be eternally grateful.

Posted in Economy, Single-Parent, Civil Rights, Men and Women Work, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

April 3, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

A little over eight years I came across a report, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance (pre-publication on-line version), June 2002, U.S. National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Commerce, pp. 164, 165 PDF File (4.7 MB), and wrote a commentary about it:

The Hive Mind: Rebirth or the End of Humanity?

Will the innovations brought by converging technologies for improving human performance augment or eliminate humans?

(Full Story)

This morning I listened to the radio and heard part of a discussion with Dr. Charles Higgins from the Department of Neuroscience at the University of Arizona.  He basically appears to be a proponent of much of what the commentary mentioned above targets, but he seems to have his feet a bit more firmly on the ground than the US National Science Foundation does.  I gathered from that discussion that we are still a long way off from creating an artificial intelligence that comes close to competing with human abilities, let alone equal or surpass them.

It appears that since the original report by the NSF and the DoC, the creation of artificial intelligence has not made much more inroads than to begin investigating the workings of the brain of the honey bee at a very rudimentary level, with an amount of equipment and a state of sophistication that is still a far cry from the lofty and ambitious goals set by the NSF  and the DoC, but it is a first step.  The amount of progress made towards creating the hive mind is comparable to  putting the stakes into the ground for a massive building, say, the Capitol Building in Washington DC, without the funding for the rest of it having yet been authorized, let alone secured — except that putting the stakes into the ground for a building that size today would require vastly less money than appears to have been consumed by Dr. Higgins in his efforts to investigate the workings of the brain of the honey bee and other insects that were the targets of his research.  However what does that matter?  The source of funding for both of those endeavors is inexhaustible taxpayer money.  There is no doubt in my mind that inexhaustible funding will be required and much of it consumed in the quest for the creation of the hive mind.

I will cover some of the impressions I gained by listening to the discussion involving Dr. Higgins, in this blog posting, which as of now is a place-holder and will be updated today and perhaps during a few more days before it is complete.

Posted in The New World Order, Uncategorized | Print | 1 Comment »