November 10, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The family models shown and described at Fathers for Life have been expanded and at the same time simplified to show the evolution of the relationships and the relative powers of men and women, families, people, government and business over time.  That was done by Angry Harry (a pseudonym used by a man who is eminently qualified to write about such things).  The models by Angry Harry, explaining things in the greater context of the state of recent and current modern society, are as follows.

Those diagrams give you the general picture, but you would miss out a lot if you were not to spend about ten to twelve minutes in reading the information, advice and instructions offered in the essay by Angry Harry that contains them:

Why Governments Love Feminism, 2008-11-09, by Angry Harry

Feminism has very little to do with equality between the genders, and it also has very little to do with the rights of women.

However, as Angry Harry explains in his essay, feminism has much to do with the growth of government, with the escalating destruction of our families and with the ever-increasing deterioration of the quality of our lives.

See also more detailed family models as per Robert Lindsay Cheney Jr.

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

October 19, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

 This is all that needs to be said, the open letter from the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to Senator John McCain must be read, not so much because the climate alarmists are wrong but because policies based on their errors are deadly to the human race.

There is related discussion paper by the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley that is required reading for anyone who ever spread climate alarmism, for anyone ever taken in by it, and for anyone worried about the consequences of the attempts by the governments of the world to fool-around and interfere with the forces of nature and of the free market system: that is, untold misery, starvation and death for many tens of millions of people:

35 INCONVENIENT TRUTHS
THE ERRORS IN AL GORE’S MOVIE

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Organizational News, Civil Rights, Media Bias, Health, Propaganda Exposed, Men's Issues, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

October 18, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

U.S. must stop exporting weapons of family destruction

By Uma Challa
web posted January 29, 2007

Pearl S. Buck once wrote, “The lack of emotional security of our American young people is due…to their isolation from the larger family unit…no mere father and mother…are enough to provide emotional security for a child.  He needs to feel himself one in a world of kinfolk, persons of variety in age and temperament, and yet allied to himself by an indissoluble bond…”

The much envied Indian family structure is, in fact, based on mutual tolerance and coexistence of persons belonging to different generations, and provides safety and security to individuals at all stages of life. The larger family also acts as a buffer to mitigate everyday stress and helps minimize conflicts between inexperienced married couples. This stable and time-tested cultural institution has suffered the most serious assaults due to the export of family-breaking ideologies originating in the Western world. Understanding and tolerance to build harmonious marital relationships, are now being projected as a form of slavery. To make things worse, senseless U.S. anti- family laws, which have literally destroyed trust between American men and women, are now being thrust on India, without any heed to cultural relevance, social consensus, or the presence of a suitable law enforcement system for their proper implementation….(Full Story)

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Paternal Rights, Judiciary, Health, Family, The New World Order, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

October 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

By ROB GILLIES – 2 hours ago

OTTAWA (AP) — Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday he will reach out to all parties during the global financial meltdown after his Conservative Party won in national elections but fell short of a parliamentary majority.

Harper had called Tuesday’s elections early in hopes of getting his party a majority, and in doing so he became the first major world leader to face voters since the financial crisis….

With nearly all the returns in, Canada’s election agency reported on its Web site that the Conservatives had won or was [sic] leading in races for 143 of Parliament’s 308 seats, an improvement over the 127 seats the party had in the previous Parliament.

The Conservative Party needed to win 155 seats to govern on its own…..

Voter turnout Tuesday about 59 percent [sic], the lowest in Canadian history. It was unclear how much stringent new proof-of-identity requirements affected the turnout….(Full Story)

____________
Comment by F4L: I helped to run the advance polling station in our area, as well as that my wife and I help to run the regular polling station in yesterdays voting in our home town.

As to how the “stringent new proof-of-identity requirements affected the turnout,” that is hard to say.  It depends on a number of things.  To some extent it depends on how well voters will remember at the next elections how seriously they were affected by those “stringent new proof-of-identity requirements.”

• Many people could not find the place at which the advance polls were held.
• Many people who did find the advance polling station had to search for an hour-and-half and more to find the place.  That was not helped by the fact that the address for the place was misleading, mislabelled and plainly wrong.
• Having found the place, a large portion of the voters had to face long waits caused by time-consuming searches for names on the electors’ lists.  Many of those delays (often up to 20 minutes long - in line-ups that contained no more than three or four people) were caused by electors not being listed on electors lists that would have been logical choices for them being listed, while there was no information at all as to what the geographical boundaries of the areas were for which they should have been listed.
• Those problems were compounded by the frequent need for having to register electors or to have to correct their address and contact details.

It seemed that, at the time of the advance poll, those problems were, if not specific to advance-polling procedures, at least aggravated through those procedures.

Having also helped at the regular and final poll, yesterday, it became obvious that the problems arising out of the “stringent new proof-of-identity requirements” were endemic to the election procedure.

• The vast majority (about 70 percent and more) of voters required corrections to their addresses and contact details.  A very large portion of voters required to be registered; even many that were older voters who had been registered many years before and never had changed their addresses.
• Some electors got tired of waiting to make it through the resulting line-ups and left without casting their ballots.
• I heard of some electors who, upon seeing the large line-ups at the polls, did not even join the line-ups and quite simply went home.
• Anyone who joined the line-ups had to wait for a considerable amount of time before they could cast their ballot.
• The average waiting time was about one hour during the last four hours the polling station was open.

The general impression I gained from the ordeal the voters were put through was that if anyone would have wanted to sabotage the voting procedures, the best way to do it and to get away with doing it would have been to design it to be run the way it was run.

After we closed the doors to the polling station, yesterday, it still took over a half hour before the last person waiting to vote then had a chance to cast her ballot.

It would not surprise me at all if the anger expressed by a good number of voters at our polling station, due to the consequences of what can only be described as a giant bureaucratic screw-up, resulted at some of the polling stations in Canada in the eruption of fisticuffs.

Just as many of the voters stated, I agree that never in my life did I experience such long waiting times for anyone who voted, waiting times that were many times longer than what anyone had ever experienced previously.

Neither my wife nor I will ever bother to vote again in federal elections, especially not in view of the fact that the Canadian electoral system and resulting “democratic system” will produce nothing better than an elected dictatorship run by the Prime Minister’s Office, a bureaucratic sector that is far more powerful and costs far more to run than the House of Commons.

After the last ballot had been cast at our polling station (one half hour after the doors to the polling station had been closed), it took us another three hours before all of the counting and associated paper work was done.

It had been a gruelling day that was more than 15 hours long, an experience that neither my wife nor I wish to repeat.  By the way, not a single legitimate scrutineer who represented any of the electoral candidates was present at the counting of the ballots.

It has been that way for decades, but yesterday’s experience underscored it,  democracy in Canada is dead.

The mother (92-years old) of one of our friends had never missed an election for as long as she had been eligible to vote.  Our friend asked her why she did not vote in this federal election.  Our friend’s mother replied, “Why bother?  They all lie!”

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

September 27, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Barbara Kay, columnist at Canada’s National Post, in her speech at the 25th Anniversary Conference of REAL Women of Canada, The Effect of Feminism on Canadian Society (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 20 September 2008), in describing what has in effect become a totalitarian society dominated and controlled by feminist ideology and doctrine, stated:

….Nothing is more illustrative of the punitive character of feminist excesses than family court. Here is where misandry in its most open, cynical and pernicious form is found. Over 85% of contested custody suits end with mothers receiving sole custody over children. The remaining 15% divide children between other family members, agencies and fathers, so in fact fathers arrive at sole custody about 7% of the time.

Only an extreme systemic contempt for the value of a father’s role in the life of a child can explain such a disparity, and only an extreme prejudice against men in general can explain that contempt, and nobody pretends otherwise.

Indeed, one of the more chilling statements I have ever read, one that captures the casual acceptance of democracy’s fall from grace in family court was this from the National Association of Women and the Law: “Courts may treat parents unequally and deny them basic civil liberties and rights, as long as their motives are good.”…. (See Full Speech)

__________________________
More of Barbara Kay’s speeches

Although Barbara Kay did not dwell on it in her speech, the totalitarian system created and controlled by feminists such as in Canada now prevails in all developed nations and extends to virtually all developing nations, in what is becoming a truly feminist, global, socialist, totalitarian State.

Posted in Media Bias, Censorship, Education, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Organizational News, Judiciary, Civil Rights, Paternal Rights, Divorce, Health, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

September 23, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The following message was sent Sep. 22, 2008,

To Leon Benoit
Member of Parliament
Conservative Party of Canada
Vegreville-Wainwright
Alberta

Dear Leon,

This is in reference to the discussion we had during your attendance at the supper at the Bruderheim Seniors Club, Friday, September 19th, 2008, after your address to those present.

I had asked you about what plans the Canadian Conservative Party has to establish a government department “Status of Men”, to provide a counterweight to that of “Status of Women”, so as to promote balance in addressing issues pertaining to both sexes.

The discussion I had hoped would develop out of that question never had a chance to emerge.  That is because you insisted that “you” (I took that to mean the Government of Canada under the leadership of the CPC) do not have a government department “Status of Women Canada”.

You are mistaken.  Your insistence on the assertion that Status of Women Canada does not exist is quite plainly wrong.  Proof of your assertion being wrong is provided by the fact that the budget allocation to Status of Women Canada was, even though not eliminated, slashed in 2006 by the government your party leads, slashed by,

$5-million: Administrative reductions to Status of Women Canada (see full story: Ottawa’s $2-billion hit list, Sep. 27, 2006)

Here are a few Government of Canada web pages that illustrate that Status of Women Canada is very much alive and kicking.

• http://www.cfc-swc.gc.ca/index_e.html (English)
• http://www.cfc-swc.gc.ca/index_f.html (French)
• http://www.cfc-swc.gc.ca/funding/wp/wpguide_e.html
  

The last of those web pages identifies, amongst many other things, that,

The following issues have been identified as Women’s Program priorities for 2008-2009:

• women’s economic security (with a focus on financial literacy)
• women’s economic prosperity
• women’s leadership development
• women’s safety
• elimination of all forms of violence and discrimination against women and girls

That Government of Canada web page identifies also that,

To be eligible for Women’s Program funding, an organization’s mandate and objectives must reflect: Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which stipulates, “(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability” and “(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups, including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability”;

Those laudable provisions and conditions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should equally apply to men, especially in view of the rampant, excessive and even fatal discrimination against men by the Canadian Government under your leadership, all the more so in view of the fact that the discrimination against men prevailed already for decades.

Are men’s issues such as those listed for women, above, any less important?  There should be no doubt in any objective individual’s mind about that funding allocations should also be made to promote:

• men’s economic security (with a focus on financial literacy);
• men’s economic prosperity;
• men’s leadership development;
• men’s safety, and the
• elimination of all forms of violence and discrimination against men and boys.

A search of the website of the Government of Canada for “Status of Women” shows information that pertains to as many as 14,338 items of federal government expenditures, covering millions of dollars spent on behalf of Status of Women Canada, further proving that Status of Women Canada is very much alive.  The expense claims for which compensation was provided could not very well have been made by individuals from a government department whose demise is being so vastly exaggerated by you.  After all, it appears that the most recent record of those expense claims was updated Sep. 4, 2008.

It is particularly disturbing that many of those expenditures, many of them to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, were quite clearly used to promote a Canadian feminist agenda on the international political scene.  What comparable expenditures for comparable reasons took place on behalf of men?  Is the feminist agenda thus promoted representative of the international policies of the government under the Conservative Party of Canada, or is Status of Women Canada a government department that is out of control?

Leon, women own roughly 70 percent of all personal property in Canada.  Women receive 70 percent of all payouts from social safety nets (while men make 70 percent of all contributions to those social safety nets).  Women comprise less than two out of every 20 job fatalities (see Death by Numbers).  Women receive the benefits of government research funding for women-specific diseases that are much larger than the research funding for diseases specific to men.  Women’s presence at universities and colleges vastly exceeds the number of male students.  Last but not least, Canadian women outlive Canadian men on average by seven years.

Those are just a few of the examples that show that Canadian women fare much better than the conditions for Canadian men permit for men.  They illustrate that the creation of a government department for the Status of Men is necessary and well justified.  If that is not so, please identify a time and place to permit some representatives of the Canadian Men’s Movement to meet with you and to be able to discuss those matters in greater detail.

Leon, to make a last point and to impress upon you the importance of issues such as those I identified in this message, consider that the importance of the growing voting block of the elderly that you identified and stressed in your address last Friday could be made to be far more important for the party that actually cares enough about the prevailing early demise of men, so as to attempt to make the proportions of women and men over 65 and still alive equal, instead of it being, as of now, one man for every two women.

The issues brought up in this message relate not merely to the respective well-being of the sexes but are quite literally matters of life and death, especially so for men and boys.  Without a doubt, to address those issues, in a manner that is favourable to Canadian men, boys and those who love and respect them, will have a beneficial impact on your party’s fortunes in the coming election.

Respectfully awaiting your response,

Walter Schneider

P.O. Box 62
Bruderheim, Alberta
T0B 0S0

Tel: 780.796.2306

http://fathersforlife.org
http://blog.fathersforlife.org

Cc: Men’s rights activists, various citizens and concerned individuals

Posted in Health, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Family, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | 2 Comments »

September 20, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Mike McIntyre ,  Winnipeg Free Press
Published: Friday, September 19, 2008

WINNIPEG - A man charged with a vicious rape has been released from jail and cleared of wrongdoing after his alleged victim got caught lying to Manitoba justice officials about her relationship with the accused.

Veteran defence lawyer Sheldon Pinx says he’s never seen such a case during his many years of practice. He said the woman should now be charged for what she put his client through, including nearly seven months behind bars….(Full Story)

______________
Comments by Fathers for Life:  Obviously, the lying woman used the full power of the State to persecute the man she had had voluntary sex with.  The story says nothing about why she did so, but she could have done it for the most inane reasons.  After all, she has got all of the power and a crown prosecutor who is eager to believe her lies but who is reluctant to accept the possibility that the accuser’s assertions and allegations could be fabricated.

The story mentions that the real victim in the case, the man who served seven months in jail on account of a wrongful allegation that carried not an ounce of truth, feels vindicated.  How can that be?  Seven months served for a wrongful allegation and no complaint about loss freedom, wages and reputation?  There is something seriously wrong with either the reporting of his sentiments or with the man or both, even though the story reports that the man is angry.

“Veteran defence lawyer Sheldon Pinx says he’s never seen such a case during his many years of practice.”  Right, he may never have seen such a case, but is he ignorant of them and of the fact that lying by women is endemic in Canadian jurisprudence?

Pinx can hardly be ignorant of the fact that a large number of Canadian men served many years in prison and were then exonerated, under very similar circumstances and for very similar reasons: lying accusers and a system out to get those falsely accused men, including making all possible efforts to deny the existence of exonerating evidence.

Many of those men were then released and compensated with millions of dollars for having had their lives destroyed.  Many of them proved, after having been indoctrinated through the prison culture, that their lives had been destroyed permanently, and that compensation for time wrongfully served in prison hardly is a remedy for what was done to those men.

“Pinx said his client feels vindicated…” He said the woman should now be charged for what she put his client through…

That most likely means that no charges of perjury will be filed, and that the man will not be compensated for the ordeal he was put through.

One would expect that the woman should be held responsible for all legal expenses, even for the cost for incarcerating the man whom she had falsely accused, but so what?  It’s all paid for already anyway, through the magnificent benevolence of the Canadian taxpayers.  It would never do to hold such a woman responsible for the consequences of her actions.

The general sentiments are that such women (as do all women) belong on pedestals and must never be made to foot the bill for what they cause through lying.  That is what is wrong with the system.  It enables women to lie with impunity, to be violent with impunity, and to impose violence by proxy, with the State serving as proxy to inflict great harm on men with very little effort by women.

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

September 18, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The election of Maurice Vellacott, incumbent MP for electoral district Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, for a new term in the House of Parliament appears to be a given.  He won his seat with substantial majorities of the votes in four previous terms.

Maurice Vellacott recently tabled a Private Members Motion (PMM-483)  which  proposes changes to the Federal Divorce Act to enshrine the principle of Equal Parenting during and after divorce (see Maurice Vellacott (MP) on F4J Crusade for Equal Parenting).  It was fairly safe to do so.  There was little chance for that bill to pass and that it would raise any controversy before the Parliament was dissolved for the current election.

Still Maurice Vellacott’s stance on the rights of fathers during and after divorce received attention in a newspaper article from Saskatchewan.

The StarPhoenix

Sep. 17, 2008

Challengers not deterred by long odds

By David Hutton

….Taking out incumbent Conservative Maurice Vellacott in Saskatoon-Wanuskewin is going to be a formidable task….

In the past, those opposing Vellacott have run on the notion he has done little for the riding since he’s been in office other than promote his socially conservative views. In the last election, the campaign became heated after a Liberal campaign worker phoned a call-in show on cable television and made accusations of Vellacott that prompted a lawsuit.

This time, though, his opposition seems less willing to resort to personal barbs and name-calling. “I won’t attack Mr. Vellacott,” Zipchen said. “There are a lot of other issues.”

That suits Vellacott just fine, he says. He hopes to shift the focus to promote his campaign to change divorce laws to enshrine the principle of equal parenting. Currently, divorce laws are stacked against fathers, Vellacott said. “Every candidate for every election I’ve ever had has crabbed about Vellacott didn’t do this or that, it’s stock and trade. … But that hasn’t worked. Everyone has tried to use it and it’s time to try something else.”….(Full Story)

The odds of Maurice Vellacott being elected again will quite likely not be harmed by his pro-father stance, that is even though the Canadian Conservative Party proved itself, at best, to be apathetic to fathers and family rights, and to the rights of “fetuses”, that is, children waiting to be born, in what once was the safest place to be for them, their mothers’ wombs. The CPC’s election platform, as was apparent even as some of its members gained their seats in the House of Commons when neither the CPC nor the Canadian Alliance Party were yet in existence, varies very little from that of the Liberals in many of the major issues that matter most.

Stephen Harper quite clearly and intensively engaged on the path of political expediency.  That leaves little room for the promotion of the restoration of the rights of the traditional nuclear family that had made Canada as great as we had once become accustomed to, before the dismantling of such rights was begun in earnest by Liberals as well as by Conservatives, in the 1960s.

No, I am afraid that there are now few reasons why one should choose between one or the other of the two leading political parties in Canada.  As I wrote a few elections ago to the Reform Party of Canada, by the time Conservatives gain a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, their trend towards populism will have molded their election platform so much that most differences between the declared intentions of the two leading parties will have disappeared.  The two parties will then be distinguishable only by their respective party colours and spelling of their names.

Being for fathers rights will not hurt Maurice Vellacott, other than to make fathers expunged from their families to be more likely to vote for him.  However, his Private Member’s bill to that extent appears to have little chance of being put into law.  It quite simply does not fit his Party’s agenda.

As Ralph Klein, former long-standing premier of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta indicated a couple of elections ago, when he explained the secret of his success in his speech to the National Convention of the CPC, “That is not rocket science.  One does not have to lead the parade.  The people know where they want to go.  All it takes is to put oneself at the front of the parade.” (Quoted from memory)

Now, in a nutshell, that is populism, and Stephen Harper learned his lessons well.

The problem with that is, of course, that what passes for public opinion are the sentiments of vocal minorities but not the sentiments of the masses.  The masses do not have a voice in the media, but the vocal minorities do, and many journalists are merely the spokesmen for the latter. That is what drives Canadian politics and those in all developed nations.

As to Ralph Klein’s opinions on expediencies in politics, at the beginning of his political career, a reporter once asked him, as they were walking across the parking lot of Ralph Klein’s favorite watering hole: “What made you choose a career in politics?” to which Ralph Klein replied: “You slide farther on B.S. than on gravel.”

Not that I am a friend of the Liberals, I cannot ever forgive them for the social and economic destruction they wrought on Canada, in their all-out drive to turn it into a socialist nation in which half of ever dollar spent goes to pay for government “services” (i. e.: government-funded abortions in excess of 100,000 a year, while Canada manages to compensate for its shrinking population only through massive immigration from underdeveloped nations) and diktats of one sort or another, the vast majority of whom I neither want, need nor receive, and for whom I have to pay anyway and must live by, but Stephen Harper and those under his direction are sliding a long way.  They do much of what the Liberals did, only more so and more oppressively, but ostensibly for different reasons.

As to what our options are in this election, David Warren from the Ottawa Citizen said it best.  See his article, The unprincipled cynic and the honest fool (Sep. 13, 2008).

David Warren figures that only Stephen Harper and the CPC are able to form a functioning government, but he provides no answer to the question of whom one should vote for: “But how does one choose between an intelligent unprincipled cynic, and a relatively honest fool?”

That leaves the dilemma unsolved, but does it?  I cannot vote for either party.  One of them legalized not only the whole-sale “terminating” of unborn children but even made it the law to have the taxpayers fund it.  The other condoned that crime against Humanity by not only doing nothing but by nodding its approval of that ghastly government-sponsored practice through bestowing Canada’s highest award, the Order of Canada, on the main promoter and performer of government-funded abortions: Henry Morgentaler.

Yes, I know, our governor general is politically independent and merely the representative of the Queen, but you don’t seriously believe that the Queen told her representative to Canada to honour Henry Morgentaler, do you?  But this I firmly believe: Canada’s ship of state has a figure head for a captain who actively averts his eyes so as not to find what he needs to avert looming disaster: a moral compass.  To find and use one of those would hurt political expediency.

Posted in Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Media Bias, Family, Abortion, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

September 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Many of you probably know about that already, but it is always good to have a reminder, as familiarity breeds, if not contempt, then at least apathy.

From the Internet:

The Sad Passing of Common Sense

Today we mourn the passing of an old friend - Common Sense - who has been with us for many years.

No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn’t always fair, and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place.

Reports of a six year old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate [upon her urging him to do so - see footnote 1], teens suspended from school using mouthwash after lunch, and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Paracetamol, sun lotion, or a sticky plaster to a student - but, could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, churches became businesses and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn’t defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault. Common Sense finally gave up the will to live after a woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in his death by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife Discretion, his daughter Responsibility, and his son, Reason.

He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I’m a Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realised he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.

P.S. And to top it all off, as one final insult to the passing of Common Sense, we now give compensation to drug addicts for having to go cold turkey when we put them in jail!!!

___________________
Notes:

1. ….One of my school buddies received a public ridiculing and castigation.  It came about because he was [partly] Jewish.  I did not know he was that, nor would I have cared if I would have known.  He was my friend.  His mother had asked my closest friend Willi and me to come and pick him up on the way to school and to drop him off afterwards, because some older boys were bullying him.
   The Hitler Youth marched into our class one day, with drums, fifes and flags.  The school principal and a few party officials showed up with them.  They singled out my friend who sat towards the back of the class.  He was asked to come to the front and was used as an exhibit to illustrate what an enemy of the Fatherland looked like: curly brown hair, brown beady eyes, budding hooked nose, etc..
   Does anyone think that what was done to my friend was that much different from putting Jonathan Prevette^* in isolation for giving his friend a peck on the cheek on her request?  My friend was castigated because he was [partly] Jewish.  Jonathan Prevette had to spend time in isolation instead of at the scheduled ice-cream party, because he was male.

   Jonathan came out of his ordeal intact, because his mother could put up a fight for his rights.  My school buddy was dead the morning after the public ridiculing.There was no answer at the door when we went to pick him up to give him protection on the way to school, as his mother had asked us to.  His mother had taken her own and his life overnight.  She had preferred a gas chamber of her own making over that which awaited them.  She had turned on the oven without lighting it.  I found out when the teacher, Fraulein Krappot, who had started it all, sent me to my friend’s house to find out why he wasn’t at school.  My seven-year-old friend died because he was considered to be an enemy of the state.

   Nine-year-old Sean Pelletier (page down to “Oral Questions, SEAN PELLETIER CASE at that URL) in Chilliwack, B.C., Canada, hanged himself because he could not tolerate a life without his beloved father — to whom his mother denied him access.  He is now no better off than my school buddy.  He also was a direct victim of discrimination gone wild.  So are the teen-aged sons (three in total) of my neighbours’ families who committed suicide within the last few years.The [now more than] 300 boys and 3,000 men in all of Canada who kill themselves each year are victims of gender discrimination and gender hatred just the same.  Many of them die simply because nobody cares or has any compassion for them.  They die because they have given up hope in a society that is anti-male and appears to offer no promise of a better future for them.  In February, 1997, we heard on the news that within the preceding month five teenagers took their lives in a single town in central Canada.  The announcer kept it gender-neutral.  He said they were teenagers.
   We supposed then that we would see more details about that epidemic of suicides in a single town when the papers would publish more about it, that we would then know which gender it is that is represented by these teens.  It should not have come as a surprise to anyone if they were all male.  On average, the chances are 5:1 that they would be.  It seemed to me that the fact that the announcer did not mention their gender is a give-away.  The gender is not important when men or boys are involved.  The gender is then hidden, because to mention it might create concern for the male sex (as it turned out later, all were boys)…. (Full story)

_______
* Jonathan Prevette is a boy in South Carolina who as a first grader violated his teacher’s interpretation of his school’s sexual harassment rules.

–Walter

Posted in Health, Media Bias, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, The New World Order, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

September 14, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Investigative reporting of US judiciary, investigative reporting of ground-shaking importance, at least as important as that of the Watergate investigation.

Call to action for investigative reporters

Reporters’ Opportunity to Test
Judges’ Unaccountability at the U.S. Judicial Conference
on September 15-17

Dear Reporter,

Kindly find below an article submitted for publication that deals with the annual meeting of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and the other top federal judges of the Judicial Conference in Washington, DC, next Tuesday-Wednesday, September 16-17.

The Conference Committees are scheduled to meet on Monday, September 15, at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building (see below).

The Conference will afford reporters, investigative journalists, and bloggers the opportunity to confront the judges of the Judiciary’s governing body with, in general, the facts discussed below of their unaccountability for the totality of their conduct of judicial and non-judicial acts and, in particular, the referenced evidence of bankruptcy, district, and circuit judges who are abusing such unaccountability to support and cover up a bankruptcy fraud scheme driven by a most insidious corruptor: Money!

In addition, given the enormous power that judges wield over people’s property, liberty, and even lives, and the fact that however they exercise it, they can get away with it, they have turned their judicial power into absolute power. Such is the power that corrupts absolutely.

For those media people who seize the opportunity of the Conference to set in motion an investigation into how unaccountable judges have used the Money and Power corruptors to operate a scheme and who ultimately bring judges down from their “Above the law” position to account for their coordination of wrongdoing, the rewards can be high:

1) to win a Pulitzer Prize, as Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post did for their exposé of Watergate;

2) to be portrayed in a movie, as they were in “All the President’s Men”, staring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman; and

3) to earn the higher moral reward of the recognition of a grateful nation for their contribution to bringing our judicial system closer to the lofty goal of “Equal Justice Under Law” in a nation where nobody is supposed to be above the law.

I would appreciate your letting me know at your earliest convenience whether you will publish the article. I also encourage you to cover the Conference and interview its members (see the link to their list below).

Sincerely,

(Signed: Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.)

That link, the text of the preceding call to action by Dr. Richard Cordero, as well as the full text of a news release that explains the salient points of the circumstances of the unaccountability of US judges in relation to jurisprudence and the upcoming judicial conference are contained in this document (458kB PDF file)

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »