Info

You are currently browsing the archives for the Divorce category.

Calendar
March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Archive for the Divorce Category

A “fare-well” of sorts

This blog entry is intended only for the serious reader and student of human history and evolution.  Do not bother to read the rest of this entry if you do not like reading or if you merely seek judicial solutions to the damages caused by your divorce and child-custody issues.

Almost three months have gone by since I last posted an entry to dads & things, the blog of the popular website of Fathers for Life. Related to that, I also reduced the frequency of postings to the mailing list of Fathers for Life.

To keep up the frequency of the postings and updates, at the levels to which people had become accustomed to, as well as staying on top of the hundreds of e-mail messages that arrived daily in our inbox, required between 16 to 20 hours of work each day. Obviously and ultimately, that was more than I could cope with.

Little harm is done by me not answering requests for help and information.  Virtually all of the answers I can give are available at the website of Fathers for Life.  Surely, anyone who seeks answers can find them at that website.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so, as the home page of that website clearly states, is Fathers for Life.  No one expects to be led by the hand to explore Wikipedia….

If anyone wishes to get in touch with me, I still answer my telephone.  People frequently do get in touch by phone.  I gladly sit down at my PC to illustrate to them how to navigate the website of Fathers for Life, explaining to them over the phone which links to follow, while I also offer some common-sense advice to those who appear to be in need of it.

That sort of help is much more and better than what was available to me when I went through my separation and divorce, close to 35 years ago — when it took me about six months to find out that there was an organization in Edmonton that could or should have helped to provide some of the answers I sought but did not, even after I found it.

All of that does not mean that my life stopped.  I still seek answers.  The serious heart attack I experienced in February 2009 was a warning that I had to slow down.  I slowed down but did not entirely stop my efforts to find and understand the driving forces of the motivations for the planned destruction of the family within the context of the program for the re-engineering of humanity, of all of civilization, that is.

Quite some years ago, I posted an on-line edition of a book to Fathers for Life, The  Head of the Medusa. by Perseus.  The book was read by few fathers-rights activists, even then, and is being read by virtually no fathers-rights activists now. Yet, the book clearly identifies the forces that drive the planned destruction of the family within the context of the systematic re-engineering of humanity.

The Trinity of Humanicide — the destruction of the existing form of the human race — is formed by combining three such isms and let’s be honest, didn’t they all sound good when we first heard them? Let’s rip off the shining raiment and see what lies underneath.

  • Environmentalism — the war between people and the planet.
  • Multiculturalism — the war between the world and its component nations.
  • Feminism — the war between the two component human genders.

Unmasked, we can see these three imposters for what they are. They are not a Trinity to bring us together at all. They are three weird sisters met to tear us apart and create disharmony and destruction.

Here we have a witches brew, an all encompassing global ‘ethic’ that is the most powerful mechanism for human destruction in the history of the world. Anyone who cannot see, or understand this — and that is the vast majority of us — must believe that the three components of this spell are basically benign, altruistic aims. But, we have been fooled into biting into a poisoned apple. That is the true heart of this terrible human catastrophe.

In our lack of vision and understanding, we have ourselves become components in the most toxic and most powerful force for evil that has ever been unleashed in the history of human existence.

The Toxic Trinity of Humanicide, by Perseus

A few days ago I ran across a statement that, with very few words, sums up the fundamental, primary problem cause for what Perseus addressed in The  Head of the Medusa, “Communists are socialists who are in a hurry”.

Communism is socialism, but whether socialism is being put into place through a bloody revolution or through a slow death of a thousand cuts, once socialism is in place, whether its implementation took a hundred years or more or just a couple of years, it will have the nature of a centralized, totalitarian regime.

The Socialist Phenomenon, by Igor Shafarevich (English edition 1980, with a foreword by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and now accessible in full and for free at the indicated link) is required reading.

I came across that book as a result of reading Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 Commencement Address at Harvard.  He stated in that,

….The mathematician Igor Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliantly argued book entitled Socialism; this is a penetrating historical analysis demonstrating that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death. Shafarevich’s book was published in France almost two years ago [1976, in Russian] and so far no one has been found to refute it.

Igor Shafarevich is a world-renowned mathematician.  I read substantial portions of his book [2008 12 02 — all of it by now], and I must fully agree with what Solzhenitsyn stated about it.

Solzhenitsyn did not mention feminism as a form of socialism, and neither did Shafarevich in his book, where feminism is not mentioned at all.  Perhaps neither author deemed it necessary to state the obvious, namely that socialism favours the female of the human species as much as anthills and beehives favour the females of their respective insect species.  That favoritism is illusory, as it means nothing more than that females do all of the work, and males serve only a single purpose, to diversify the gene pool….(Full Story: Search-engine censorship, socialism, ant hills and female supremacy)

The Socialist Phenomenon makes for chilling reading and is without a doubt true.  It is even more chilling to consider the extent of censorship that is at work in the West, given that it took a world-renowned mathematician during the existence of the former USSR to provide a clear and concise summary of the pertinent issues, while no one in the West, not even the Pope, did anything comparable.  (–The Communist Manifesto, by Walter Schneider)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn explained in his 1978 commencement address at Harvard that The Socialist Phenomenon,

is a penetrating historical analysis demonstrating that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death.

Yes, socialism does that and nothing else.  Igor Shafarevich hammers the point home by describing the four major aspects of socialism:

It would seem that socialist ideology has the ability to stamp widely separated or even historically unlinked socialist currents with indelible and stereotyped markings.

It seems to us quite legitimate to conclude that socialism does exist as a unified historical phenomenon. Its basic principles have been indicated above. They are:

  • Abolition of private property.
  • Abolition of the family.
  • Abolition of religion.
  • Equality, abolition of hierarchies in society.

The manifold embodiments of these principles are linked organically by a common spirit, by an identity of specific details and, frequently, by a clearly discernible overall thrust.

Our perspective on socialism takes into account only one of the dimensions in which this phenomenon unfolds. Socialism is not only an abstract ideological system but also the embodiment of that system in time and space. Therefore, having sketched in its outlines as an ideology, we now ought to be able to explain in what periods and within what civilization socialism arises, whether in the form of doctrine, popular movement or state structure. But here the answer turns out to be far less clear. While the ideology of socialism is sharply defined, the occurrence of socialism can hardly be linked to any definite time or civilization. If we consider the period in the history of mankind which followed the rise of the state as an institution, we find the manifestations of socialism, practically speaking, in all epochs and in all civilizations. It is possible, however, to identify epochs when socialist ideology manifests itself with particular intensity. This is usually at a turning point in history, a crisis such as the period of the Reformation or our own age. We could simply note that socialist states arise only in definite historical situations, or we could attempt to explain why it was that the socialist ideology appeared in virtually finished and complete form in Plato’s time. We shall return to these questions later. But in European history, we cannot point to a single period when socialist teachings were not extant in one form or another. It seems that socialism is a constant factor in human history, at least in the period following the rise of the state. Without attempting to evaluate it for the time being, we must recognize socialism as one of the most powerful and universal forces active in a field where history is played out.

Igor Shafarevich
The Socialist Phenomenon, p. 200

_________
See also: Abolition of the family (at Fathers for Life)

Above, I mentioned that Igor Shafarevich’s The Socialist Phenomenon does not once mention feminism as an outcome or expression of socialism, but neither does it mention environmentalism.  That brings me to the motivation for posting this commentary.

MUST READ: What happened to global warming?
By Paul Hudson, BBC Climate Correspondent

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought [instead of “thought”, a better term would have been “falsely-alleged” –WHS] to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?  ….

(Full Story)

And this:

From The Times (UK)
October 10, 2009
Power cuts forecast to hit UK in four years
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor

Britain faces a return to 1970s-style power blackouts and disruption to its electricity supplies within four years, the energy regulator warned yesterday.

Ofgem raised the spectre of a return to the three-day week for British industry as the country scrambles to renovate its crumbling power infrastructure ahead of new EU pollution rules that will force the closure of a quarter of UK power stations by 2015….

(Full Story)

That is environmentalism gone insane, and so are comparable efforts, wherever they are being undertaken, such as in the case of the Alberta Government intending to spend billions of dollars for Carbon Capture and Sequestration while it cuts back on health-care spending for seniors and the disabled.  The reality of that sort of thing is that it is absolutely unnecessary, not only that but totally futile.  There is no way that a reduction of man-made CO2 emissions, emissions that constitute no more than 3.6% of the total CO2 content of the global atmosphere, will have a noticeable impact on climate trends.  The question is, what do power cuts and saving the globe have to do with the planned destruction of the family and with the abrogation of fathers rights?

Yes, I know.  A few fathers-rights activists asked me that question over the years, but, although I gave them the answer to that question, few of those who asked that question ever accepted my answer.  Well, if anyone still has a doubt as to whether environmentalism is part of the current program for implementing global socialism, consider how big a part of naziism environmentalism was.

Yes, naziism is a form of socialism.  The term nazi is a nickname for the name of the party that promoted that particular form of socialism, the National-Socialist German Workers Party (the acronym for the nazi party, NSDAP, stands for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei, that is, the National-Socialist German Workers Party –WHS).  If you have any misgivings about the fact that environmentalism was strongly intertwined with Hitler’s National Socialism, read


The Nazi-Enviro Connection: Uekoetter’s “Green and Brown”
(2009), at Environmentalism is Fascism, by William Walter Kay

Considering the global attempts under the auspices of the UN to implement international income and asset equalization between have- and have-not nations (true to the communist maxim, “from those who have to those in need”) at any cost, in the order of many trillions of dollars, the income and asset transfers from men to women in the name of women’s rights pale by comparison, and so does the accompanying extent of the human misery, suffering and deaths so created through the planned destruction of the family.

The third member of the Toxic Trinity of Humanicide, multiculturalism, will be covered in another commentary that I will, if time permits, post a few months or so from now.

For now, if we cannot stop the insanity of extremely expensive but totally futile, humanly and economically damaging efforts to implement climate control for the sake of environmentalism in the name of saving the globe, what makes anyone think that the ongoing planned destruction of the family can be stopped? The same organizations and ultra-wealthy individuals who fund and promote “climate control” also fund and control the planned destruction of the family, with the goal of reducing the world population to about 350 million to a billion people.  After all, they consider humanity to be a cancer on the face of the Earth.

If you have not yet caught on to the strong connection between environmentalism and feminism, then consider to what extent you, too, have become indoctrinated:

The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses’ attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. …

All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction. …

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.

—Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI

Walter Schneider

Why Did Feminists Attack The Family?

Definitely worth reading

From the blog Heretical Sex

Monday, August 27, 2007

Why Did Feminists Attack the Family?

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)

Roadkillradio.com

FYI,

Here is the chance you were always waiting for, a chance to have your say in public!

RoadkillRadio.com is worth listening to (Tuesdays, PST 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.) and even worth promoting.

Home Page: RoadkillRadio.com

Listen live:

Quoted from that web page:

NOTE: We only Broadcast “LIVE…” on Tuesdays, starting approximately 30 minutes before showtime! If its not Tuesday, you will not get a live stream. The archived shows however, will stream. All archived audio on the web site is of the MP3 file format.

Archived shows:

Archived Shows
All shows [a large and interesting list — WHS] are available for mp3 download

For example:

Download Show 8 Part Two

There will be time for some open-line then an eye-opening, in-depth discussion on Fathers Rights and the Rights of Children.  Vancouver lawyer and well-known advocate Carey Linde will be joining us to talk about this issue and parental alienation.  Are the courts getting it wrong?  (Note: The first third of that portion of the show deals with provincial politics in B.C..  Skip that to get to the interview with Carey Linde.  The discussion of fathers rights, feminist judicial bias, divorce issues such as parental alienation and much more is fascinating.  It is very important for anyone living in B.C. that the discussion contains a recommendation by Carey Linde to copy the results of the poll on shared parenting run by Saskatchewan MP Vellacotte and to forward that to the B.C. Attorney General — in view of the currently going-on revisions to family rights laws in B.C.. –WHS)


From the home page:

Important and Informative! Joins US!!

Broadcasting Live from Vancouver Canada
Unabashedly Canadian, BOLD, No Apologies!
Join Kari Simpson and Terry O’Neill as they expose and examine
the issues that affect your family, rights and liberties.

This Hard-Hitting current events online show dares to be
politically-incorrect and invites all those who have been silenced to be heard!!

May 12th 2009 - 7:30 p.m. - We ran out of time last week, so as promised you will hear a tape recording of a meeting (held on April 29, 2009) between RKR’s very own Kari Simpson, social workers and the parents of three children who are being “investigated” by these so-called child protection workers. Listen as social workers REFUSE to have the meeting taped for accuracy
(click here for an advanced listen part 1).

Then you will hear how they REFUSED to provide the findings of their investigation in writing!!!! (click hear for an advanced listen part 2)

For the rest of the show it is all about the BC Election!! Joining us in-studio will be pollster Glen Robbins from SceResearch and our own, politically in-the-know commentator Ron Gray. Former B.C. Premier Bill VanderZalm will be here and we will talk to candidates as their political fates are decided by BC VOTERS!!!!

We will be taking your calls and emails! This is a must listen… a must tell your friends and family to listen to… RoadKill Radio Rumble!

CALL IN: On-air telephone: (604) 525-4167

Important and Informative!

Your Calls, Your Thoughts, Your Opinions are welcome!

EMAIL THE SHOW LIVE: Roadkillradio@live.ca

WHERE: Listen live - http://www.roadkillradio.com

–Walter

http://fathersforlife.org

http://blog.fathersforlife.org

Children harmed by sole custody, report says

The Toronto Star
3 April 2009

Children harmed by sole custody, report says

Canadian judges rarely use voluntary arrangements in which kids live with each parent roughly equally

By Susan Pigg, Living Reporter

Family court judges are misguidedly harming children by granting sole custody to one parent - usually the mother - in bitter divorce battles, says a comprehensive new report.[*]

Too many children are being “robbed of the love of one parent” by a legal system that is out of touch with the needs of children and treats them like property to be won or lost, says Edward Kruk, an expert on child custody issues….(Full Story)
__________________
* Note by F4L:

The report by Edward Kruk, Ph.D.:

An unmarried husband: Unwelcome reality

The Free Lance-Star

March 29, 2009 1:14 am

AN UNMARRIED HUSBAND:UNWELCOME REALITY

By Stephen Baskerville

–The decline of the family now affects virtually every American and seriously threatens not only social order but freedom and constitutional government. G.K. Chesterton once observed that the family checks government power. He was writing about divorce: Despite other threats to the family, divorce remains the most serious.

Americans would be shocked if they knew what goes on in the name of divorce. Divorce today licenses unprecedented government intrusion, including the power to seize children, loot family savings, and incarcerate parents without trial.

The full implications of the “no-fault” revolution have never been publicly debated. Divorce today seldom involves two people simply parting ways; 80 percent of divorces are unilateral. Under “no-fault,” divorce becomes a power grab by one spouse, assisted by judicial officials who profit from the ensuing litigation: judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, and social workers. Involuntary divorce involves government agents forcibly removing innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It requires long-term supervision over private life by state functionaries, including police and jails….(Full Story)

Gold digger supreme

Adler Online

50 Million Pays to Leave your Lover
By Charles Adler
Friday, January 23, 2009

A fool and his money are easily parted…well sometimes not so easily. Sometimes it takes the judge’s gavel to pound on the pocket book to shake the shekels loose and it’s happening in Quebec.

As you heard on Adler OnLine earlier this week, a Montreal-based Billionaire is having a bit of a tussle in court with his former girlfriend, who feels that considering she lived with him for ten years and considering she had three kids with him, she should be considered his wife, and therefore be entitled to far more money than he paid her when she hit the trail 7 years ago with only 10K to find an apartment, another 10K for the kids and 5K for some new clothes. That’s what was reported earlier. However, in court today it emerged that she’s been getting more than thirty-thousand dollars a month in child support for the kids over the last five years and he also bought her a condo worth more than two-million dollars, with a staff of seven.

She is also suing in Brazil for half his wealth estimated at over a Billion dollars….(Full Story)

Leadership/diversity training is pure brainwashing

Leadership/diversity training is pure brainwashing

Beware “leadership training” and “diversity training” - it’s brainwashing!

By Don Hank

Friends, politicians, and particularly presidents, often use weasel words to beguile people. FDR spoke of a “New Deal,” which turned out to be Keynesian Big Government that greatly slowed the recovery from the Depression.

Lyndon Johnson used the “Great Society” to sell welfare.

Obama used “Change” to mask an attempt to nationalize American business and industry.

In the UK, they came up with “Common Purpose” to sell the EU, a veritable dictatorship which makes national governments redundant. Their only purpose: to harmonize (meaning, rubber-stamp) legislation handed down from Brussels.

Below is an urgent message from our friends in Britain. Note the words “common cause” in an Obama speech cited therein. Although the far-left global government advocates at Common Cause are only interested in enslaving Britons (as if mocking the famous lyrics of “Britannia”:  “The Britons never never never will be slaves”), they have inadvertently and unwittingly created a true common cause, namely, the backlash to this insidious plot: throwing off the yoke of the international cabal of leftists and bankers who run Europe like a Chicago gang boss….(Full Story)

Children need families, not 50/50 parenting

What children need - not 50/50 shared parenting but to be raised in the Family founded on Marriage and for the State to stop attacking the institution and instead obey the law and assist it when asked.

By Roger Eldridge
Feb. 2, 2009

I am writing this to Charles, who asked how the Council could help him achieve the presumption of 50/50 shared parenting after a “split.”

If you go to our website http://www.family-men.com you will see our position. Read it all, not just the “About Us” section which was put up seven years ago. It remains accurate but we have moved on.

You won’t find support for “equal custody” on there because we have found after ten years serious research and experience in this that the solution to children suffering from the Family being disintegrated is something else and we know, as men, that once you analyse the problem the solution pops out.

For a start there is no such thing as a “split”. This euphemism is used because it is not politically correct in the feminist state to allocate any reasons for relationship or Marriage breakdown - except that it is caused by men. In fact, under this regime, the fundamental principle of the Courts and government policy is the extraordinary presumption that relationships break down spontaneously by mutual agreement. This allows the State to promote the myth of “no-fault” separation and divorce. The state then claims that it is just facilitating the couple who wish to separate.

The spontaneous and free movement of two halves of formerly integral matter away from each other does not happen in Nature, has never been recorded in Science and does not happen in human relationships.

Until the last fifty years and the advent of feminism with its abhorrence of anything rational, it was accepted that relationship breakdown begins with one of the spouses losing their commitment to the promises they made when they became one flesh.

Like you and many others I was seduced into joining in the victim game and campaigned for many years for the “equality” panacea on the basis that women would not initiate a separation if it meant they would lose time with their children and would not be provided for financially.

Sadly, whilst it would deter some women, it might and probably would encourage many more fathers and mothers by the predictable outcome, to give up on their commitment to the Family they took on when they first opened themselves to the procreation of children.

All the evidence - and there is volumes of it - show that children suffer from EVERY separation, not just the “bad ones” where they are ripped from one parent but from all separations, including those where mercifully one parent is not encouraged and enticed by the corrupt family Law system to destroy the other parent and his relationship with his children.

If you think about it, your duty, whether you are Married or not, is to provide for, educate and protect your child. That means every day until the day you die.

Doing it as much as 50% of the time means you are failing your child the other 50% of the time and they suffer, believe me.

What a child wants and needs is security, stability and predictability in their life. The evidence shows that they don’t care if you and their mother argue all the time and it also shows they prosper better if you stay together despite the rows. They basically want their daddy and their mummy in their life EVERY MINUTE OF THEIR LIVES, not at weekends, not for an hour in the evening three times a week and neither do they want one or two weeks with one parent and then the reverse.

The 50/50 may be good for the parents because they can get on with their life and may be marginally better for children than a lop-sided arrangement but it will never be “good for them”.

As parents - see below the report by the Family Rights Institute of Ireland - we are expected to give our lives for our children and until the last forty years that is what parents did.

Marxism, the ideology of the subversive Statists/Fabians/Feminists, requires an atomised society so that the State can easily control its every move. The Family with its Christian values and extended family “in law” creates bonds that can never be shaken and represents an enormous barrier to their plans. The radical left-wing inflitrators have clandestinely subverted the organs of the State in the Western world and have mercilessly attacked the institution of the Family founded on Marriage.

You can, of course, succumb to their devilish plot or fight them back. We have chosen to do the latter. What aids our position is that we have the Rule of Law and the Constitution on our side. The changes that we all perceive to have taken place are all illusory and merely propaganda put out by their allies in the media. The law has not changed from its founding roots. It can’t so we see our job as restoring the law and ousting the subversives who are side-stepping the democratic process. When was the last time you heard any politician or political party talk about Family law in their manifesto. I guess it is never because they never have.

These so-called reforms were instigated by shadowy persons behind the scenes. Fortunately despite their claims and rhetoric the law can be used to protect Families and children.

We just need a critical mass of the untapped power of men in the Fathers/Family Movement to see the error of being led by the nose towards 50/50 which translates into leaving our kids unprotected and undirected for half their lives and to row in behind the law so that they can again ask a woman to be their wife, safe in the knowledge that the law works as shown below and will defend their right, as long as they conduct themselves appropriately, to properly parent their child EVERY MINUTE OF THEIR LIFE!

If you have any questions please ask

God bless, Roger Eldridge
Chairman, National Mens Council of Ireland, Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
familymen@eircom.net www.family-men.com 07196-67138 086-8180146

***

What children need - to be raised in the Family founded on Marriage and for the State to stop attacking the institution and instead obey the law and assist it when asked.

The Family founded on Marriage is the embodiment of Christian teaching in action.

The institution of the Family founded on Marriage existed prior to the State.

The Family founded on Marriage is a unit and by definition has its own sovereignty with its own Constitution and authority.

The State is not a parent.

Therefore the institution of the Family founded on Marriage is antecedent to and morally superior to the State and to all positive law. The legitimate role of the State relative to the Family founded on Marriage must respect the Subsidiarity Principle and be confined to providing assistance - and only where voluntarily required - by the heads of the Family - the Husband and Wife - acting with the joint power and authority vested bin them to carry out their duties on behalf of the Family.

The purpose and intention of parliament in the context of Family Law must be consistent with the foundational principles outlined above.

In practice this means that all primary legislation - in the form of statute, all secondary legislation - in the form of statutory instruments, court rules and regulations and all tertiary legislation - in the form of government policy and guidelines must act, in a moral manner consistent with Christian teaching, to facilitate the better functioning and continuation as a unit of the Family founded on Marriage.

Thus it can be shown that every action of government must be “Married Family Mainstreamed” - it must form the basis for all policy planning and decision making. Currently “Gender Equality mainstreamed” controls all such policy formation despite it being inconsistent with and repugnant to the Common Good, which allows for policy to discriminate positively, as it must, on the basis of a person or group’s capacity and social function.

For all these reasons the institution of the Family founded on Marriage possesses rights which are inalienable and imprescriptible and superior to all positive law. This simply means that these rights can not be ceded or transferred to third parties and can not be superseded and regulated by the State through its organs, including the Courts. The single exception to this is where the parents have failed for moral or physical reasons and the State is obliged to step in to replace the parents - but only until the family can be rehabilitated.

On Marriage (from the French word meaning to take a Husband - “mari”) the couple become wedded and form “one flesh”. From that point they are obliged to act as one and this is acknowledged in the Law where it recognises that the heads of the Family jointly control all the assets that they have accrued together during the lifetime of the Marriage since their wedlock. These assets necessarily include the Family Home, any land or other property, all material goods and savings. The most important asset however is any children they are blessed with.

The Married Family, like all institutions has its own Constitution and authority where its sovereignty is given expression. It necessarily must have a structure and a hierarchy of responsibility and government. The heads of the Family are a committee of 2 which must make all decisions jointly that involve a third party, especially any organ of the State. Each of them individually, if they believe the children’s welfare and safety requires their intervention, also have the right, at any time, to veto any prior decision jointly made but can not unilaterally initiate the involvement of a third party.

As one would expect, where Marriage is the daily theatre in which we act out our Christian faith and teaching, the most important duty of a spouse flows from the covenant made with God in the Marriage ceremony where we vow to “love” each other and any children we might receive by the Grace of God.

This “love”, what we call unconditional love, is the authentic Christian love that was shown to us by God sending his own son Jesus Christ to sacrifice himself so that we might be saved. In the same way spouses are expected “for richer, for poorer, for better for worse, in sickness and in health” to sacrifice their own comfort, their own welfare and safety and in fact their own lives for the benefit of their spouse and children and the Family Unit as a whole.

Jesus reminds us that the two most important of God’s commandments are that we should love Him above all else - that material and selfish desires should be resisted - and that we should love our neighbour and our enemy as we love ourselves. This second commandment directs that the most important duty of a spouse, apart from the duty to self-sacrifice for the rest of the Family that flows from the first commandment, is to be open to reconciliation in these troubled times when it is all too easy tfor the other spouse to be painted as “the enemy”.

It is falsely stated that the primary duty of a spouse is to co-habit. Plainly, whilst for practical purposes it is usually the case that the Family all live together, the principles of family law do not support it as being critical. Many families exist and function well whilst the members of the Family reside in different locations. For example where the Husband may be in the services or in the merchant navy etc.

The genuine key principles that distinguish a Marriage are:

The spouses act jointly as a single unit in decision-making involving any third party;

The spouse act selflessly for the benefit of the Family as a whole and subordinate their own individual needs and wishes;

The spouses are continuously open to reconciliation.

The act of living together, ie merely co-habiting, has been falsely promoted as a defining duty of spouses precisely to create the potential for any pairing of two people - of opposite sex or same-sex - to co-habit in a Marriage-like manner and so blur the real requirement for the love - self control, submission to regulation and openness to reconciliation - characterised by the authentic Family founded on Marriage.

Family Rights Institute of Ireland, Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
familyrightsinstitute@eircom.net 07196-67138 086-8180146

***

In order to pay the wages and make a profit the media has learnt that their clients - readers, viewers, listeners, must be good consumers or else the advertisers will go elsewhere. The best consumers are overwhelmingly women - Maureen Gaffney of the National Economic and Social Forum estimates that at least 90% of financial decisions and purchases are now made by women - so to survive and be successful editors everywhere must fill the spaces between the ads with content (what in the old days used to be called “News”) labelled WAWMAA - stories that reinforce what women like to hear - ones that say Women Are Wonderful, Men Are Awful.

It’s not that editors like women and dislike men, it’s just good for business.

The mantra of big business is growth so their strategy has to be always to maximise profit through sales. For every cent they pay to a woman they know they will get it back immediately in sales. For them to hire women rather than men, wherever it is feasible, suits their purpose.

It’s not that managers and company directors like women and dislike men, it’s just good for business.

Since the seventies governments have acted exactly like big business. They now claim taxes from virtually every purchase made so, if they want to expand their empire, they have a vested interest in ensuring consumerism is maximised.

That means it makes sense for government, like the media and big business, to have policies which use WAWMAA to justify the transfer of control of the Family income from the man to the woman. Hence the built-in bias in the governments family Courts - both in Custody and Domestic Violence cases - and Child Support laws and decisions.

It’s not that governments like women and dislike men, it’s just good for business.

God bless, Roger Eldridge
Executive Director, Family Rights Institute of Ireland, Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
familyrightsinstitute@eircom.net 07196-67138 086-8180146

Wife beats up her husband for divorce

by Deccan Herald
Sunday, 18 January 2009 22:25

Bangalore: Role reversal couldn’t have got more dramatic than this. In a classic case, a husband, unable to tolerate the antics of his drunken wife, has sought help from the City Police.

Thirty seven-year old S Babu, who is into construction business, has complained to Madiwala police that his wife Malini Babu was in the habit of popping sleeping pills, and was addicted to alcohol. According to him, she would regularly abuse  him, demanding a divorce and Rs 25 lakh [about $US60,000]…. (Full Story)

Polygamy and the Canadian Constitution

The Australian - Blog
14 January 2009

Rights charter is from 2009 BC

By Janet Albrechtsen

Here I am in Canada again. And once again I am receiving a few free lessons about a charter of rights. Just about every time I am in this otherwise great country, its Charter of Rights and Freedoms is making headlines for all the wrong reasons. Reasons that Australians should be digesting as the push for an Australian charter of rights unfolds this year.

This time in Canada it’s a cracker of a story about a preacher man who has had 26 wives and more than 106 children. Clearly a sucker for punishment, 52-year-old Winston Blackmore, from the aptly named town of Bountiful in British Columbia, was arrested last Wednesday amid much media hoopla and charged with breaching BC’s criminal prohibition on polygamy.

Not taking a backward step, Blackmore says his fundamentalist Mormon beliefs on polygamy are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the charter overrides BC’s criminal code….(Full Story)

______________

F4L:  Polygamy has been illegal in Canada since many years before Pierre Elliot Trudeau “brought the Constitution home” in 1982.  That no cases prosecuting polygamy by some in a few Mormon communities were ever brought to bear is for a good reason.  The authorities wanting to launch such an action always feared that they would run the risk that they would lose such a case.

The time is now ripe to bring such a case against polygamy into the court system, where it will most likely make it up to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), whereupon it stands a good chance to be lost and for polygamy to become legal, as that appears to fit in with the agenda for social engineering that the SCC actively promoted since 1982.

SCC justices had always had large powers to engage in social engineering, but they did not have the legal power to do so and to be necessarily successful in trying.  Since 1982 they assumed the legal power to usurp the power to legislate (that is, the power to make laws) from our lawfully elected legislators (lawgivers) in provincial and federal elected bodies of government.  Since 1982 there has also been a great escalation of rulings by the SCC that illustrate what its agenda for social engineering is and will be.

Since 1982 the SCC justices assumed the power to overrule, by hook and by crook, the wishes of our elected representatives.  Ted Byfield, the publisher of the now defunct news magazine, The Report, extensively commented on the growth over the powers of the SCC justices over the years and was given to call the SCC justices “judicial activists” and the “nine kings in purple robes.”

There is absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone in Canada holding conservative opinions that the SCC is out to re-engineer Canadian society, so as to extinguish and replace the set of moral standards we once held sacred and adhered to.  Going by the evidence of the SCC’s decisions since shortly after 1982, the SCC’s agenda promotes: world government; socialism; equality of outcomes; income equalization regardless of the merits earned by achievements; the abolition of the traditional nuclear family; Atheism; Paganism; the abrogation of individual rights for men; supremacy for women, homosexuals and ethnic minorities; the abrogation of traditional moral standards based on the code of ethics of Christian churches, and of the right of men to own and enjoy property and to be able to be the fathers and teachers of their children.

In short, the SCC is the major force driving the conversion of Canada to a socialist state that is to be incorporated into the global socialist world regime.  Igor Shafarevich, a Russian and world-renowned mathematician who became a historian in the absence of the historians that were exterminated through the purges that took place in the USSR, summed up the agenda of socialism as follows:

It seems to us quite legitimate to conclude that socialism does exist as a unified historical phenomenon. Its basic principles have been indicated above. They are:

  • Abolition of private property.
  • Abolition of the family.
  • Abolition of religion.
  • Equality, abolition of hierarchies in society.

The manifold embodiments of these principles are linked organically by a common spirit, by an identity of specific details and, frequently, by a clearly discernible overall thrust. (Igor Shafarevich, in The Socialist Phenomenon, p. 200)

In writing that, he aptly described the goals for the agenda of our SCC justices.

Our Supreme Court of Canada justices do not consider our Constitution to be a set of laws that they must live by, administer, interpret and apply, but that the Constitution is a living document to be changed as required so that it can be used as the tool by which to implement their agenda for social engineering. Seeing that most of our Supreme Court justices promote judicial advocacy for social changes such as those indicated above, one is forced to ask: By what law did the SCC justices assume the right to become judicial activists and to impose their world view on the Canadian people? (E. g.: SCC Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin’s speeches identified below.)

  1. The [Canadian] Charter — a judicial coup d’etat
    By Joanne Byfield, 2003 03 03
    If voters don’t support change, government can pay to take it to court

  2. Speech by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, “UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES: What is Going On?” (Dec. 1, 2005, NZ), in which she argues that the rights of judges must transcend common law, constitutions (it follows that the principles to be overcome by judicial advocacy also include the supremacy of God) and parliamentary principles.
  3. Remarks of the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C.
    Chief Justice of Canada:  Reaction and Pro-action: Bringing Family Law Advocacy Into the 21st Century (Family Law Dinner, Ontario Bar Association, Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, January 24, 2002)

Beverley McLachlin is by no means the only SCC justice who promoted the role of SCC justices as being the purveyor of radical social change in Canada, with the aim to impose socialism.  Nevertheless, neither the people nor their elected representatives ever gave the SCC justices such powers.  Our Constitution most certainly never gave them those powers; other than that the SCC justices busily engaged themselves in writing the consequences of their judicial activism into the Constitution.

Given that the SCC justices of Canada are re-writing our Constitution, thereby turning it, step by step and cut by cut, into something the Constitution was not meant to be, the conclusion appears to be unavoidable that our SCC justices are revolutionaries and traitors to our country.  They are captives and apostles of the ideology they promote and are no longer the servants of our country but made themselves its masters and tyrants.