August 12, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

USA Today
2011 08 11
Pa. judge gets 28 years in ‘kids for cash’ case

SCRANTON, Pa. (AP) — A longtime northeastern Pennsylvania judge was ordered to spend nearly three decades in prison for his role in a massive juvenile justice bribery scandal that prompted the state’s high court to toss thousands of convictions.

Former Luzerne County Judge Mark Ciavarella Jr. was sentenced Thursday to 28 years in federal prison for taking $1 million in bribes from the builder of a pair of juvenile detention centers in a case that became known as “kids for cash.”….(Full Story)

Posted in Child Abuse, Corruption, Judiciary, Civil Rights, Family, Social-Destruction Enterprise, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

August 6, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

It’s about time some politicians grew a backbone.

August 5, 2011

Politicians tweaking the nose of radical feminism

By Carey Roberts

Two weeks ago Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democratic National Committee chair, met her match in one Rep. Allen West. It seems that Wasserman Schultz waited until West left the House floor, then cut loose with a liberal jeremiad for the congressman’s support of the GOP-supported Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.

Apprised of the incident, the former Lieutenant Colonel fired back, calling her “the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the House of Representatives…If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face.”

It wasn’t the first time the libber-turned-congresswoman saw her grandstanding tactics backfire….(Full Story)

I don’t think that there are as many Canadian instances of radical feminism getting its come-uppance as illustrated in the long list Carey Robert describes in the article for the United States, but the political system does have a bit more freedom and democracy in the U.S.

In Canada, feminism was imposed by the government.  It did not grow from the grass roots as it did in most other nations, but consider that much of feminism was imported ready-made into Canada.  Perhaps, just maybe, it is possible to import the liberation from radical feminism to Canada as well.

_______________
Carey Roberts column

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Carey Roberts’ best-known work, his exposé on Marxism and radical feminism, is not necessarily easy to find, but this link will help with that. (Some of the URLs for the article series appear to keep changing.  For that reason the identified link leads to an Internet search for the series.  The first or second link in the return list will most likely lead you to the series.)

Posted in Civil Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Men's Issues, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

August 3, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

It is difficult to find a better introduction to the issues addressed in this Facebook album on Justice for Men than the following YouTube video (7 minutes, 37,468 views as of 2011 08 03) http://www.youtube.com/wat​ch?v=57EWApOypIQ&feature=p​layer_embedded

Regardless of whether you are a woman or a man, whether you have or are a husband, father, brother, son, uncle or granddad, you need to watch the video.

From the introduction to the YouTube video: “…Societal forces like chivalry, misandry and the onerous male sex role of provide and protect have been having the unfortunate consequence of obscuring the needs of men. This short video will give you an introductory glimpse of some men’s issues.”

Men’s Issues

www.youtube.com

What are men’s issues? Watch this short flash video to get a beginning idea. Societal forces like chivalry, misandry and the onerous male sex role of provide…

Posted in Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Suicides, Media Bias, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Single-Parent, Marriage, Books & Films, Men and Women Work, Abortion, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Child Abduction, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child-Custody Awards, Divorce, Health, Men's Issues, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

July 27, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

A July 25, 2011 press release by SAVE puts “Dr. Phil” into a totally different light: Dr. Phil’s Testimony was ‘Reckless and False,’ Group Charges.

“Dr. Phil’s” testimony was delivered during a July 13, 2011 hearing on the Violence Against Women Act held by the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Full Story)

Posted in False Allegations, Violence by Proxy, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Media Bias, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

July 18, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Daily Telegraph
Attention: Christopher Booker

Re: Child protection system tears two more families apart, by Christopher Booker, 16 Jul 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/8642651/Child-protection-system-tears-two-more-families-apart.html

The latest official figures show that the number of children being taken into care by social workers (now averaging more than 800 a month) has soared in the past two years by 41 per cent, to its highest ever level. In many of these cases, it seems that children are torn from their parents for no good reason, to such an extent that this has become one of the most disturbing scandals in our country today.

I read the article again, and it still bothers me. I have a lot of respect for Christopher Booker, the journalist who wrote it. Nevertheless, he is not an objective observer.

It is obvious that Christopher Booker cannot liberate himself from the father-hostile bias that decades of feminist indoctrination and strict adherence to the western chivalry code instilled in many but especially in many journalists whose expressions are constrained and formed by feminist censorship of the media organizations they write for.

The photo accompanying the article shows a mother and child, thereby invoking a subconscious image of the Madonna and Child. That is a deliberate choice, probably an editorial decision.

The article mentions the word “mother” 13 times, the word “father” only once (but only “the father of her youngest child”, not the father or fathers of the older two children of the mother), the word “family” (or families) twice, once in the heading and once in the text of the article, and the word “parents” four times.

The impression that leaves, of course, is that fathers don’t matter, that mothers do, that it is deplorable that the government should dare to violate the bond between a mother and child, and that the paternal feelings of fathers don’t matter, that fathers matter so little that they don’t even need to be mentioned.

Things get no better in the article in relation to what constitutes a family. A family only needs a mother and her child. That completes the Madonna-and-Child image. To introduce fathers into that sacred icon would spoil things, wouldn’t it now? It would diminish the appeal to the emotions over the pain of the mothers the article discusses and downplay their struggle against the excessive totalitarian force exercised against the mothers.

Sorry, Christopher Booker, as objective as you may feel you are, the feminist slip that very much influences your thinking and the way you express yourself is showing. If you don’t believe me, just check a few more of the articles you wrote on family issues. They are more akin to promoting a Madonna cult than objective commentaries that do justice to both sexes. I wonder why you do it; did you ever wonder about that? Did you ever feel the pain of having a child ripped from you? Believe me, if you were a father having that done to you, it would hurt very much, and it would matter not a whit whether it had been done by the government, the mother of the child or both in collusion.

One more thing, in relation to the observation in the article “that children are torn from their parents for no good reason, to such an extent that this has become one of the most disturbing scandals in our country today.” Don’t you find it odd that ever since the divorce epidemic began, children have been ripped from their fathers “on the flimsiest pretexts” and often with no excuses at all, and that that never raised the slightest concern with many, let alone apprehension that it might be scandalous?

Sincerely,

Walter Schneider

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Violence by Proxy, Child Abuse, Single-Parent, Marriage, Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order, Divorce, Censorship, Media Bias, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

June 23, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Judicial second-thoughts on pussy-pass for killing husband…

Appeal sought on husband killer’s sentence
www.heraldsun.com.au

THE sentence imposed on an Adelaide woman who escaped jail after killing her cheating and abusive husband by setting him on fire would fail to deter others, a court has heard….(Full Story)

__________
She murdered her husband. She did it deliberately. It was premeditated. Still Rajini Narayan was let go, to be under Correctional Services supervision for two years, and to undertake psychological counselling as ordered.

Now the lawyers get another chance to earn more money by talking this case to death, while the outcome is most likely still a foregone conclusion: Women are incapable of committing crimes, because there is always an excuse, while when men commit crimes of equal severity there is never an excuse. (More on the history of this case)

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

June 17, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

International Business Times US
June 17, 2011 11:55 AM EDT

American Father Self-Immolates To Protest Against Family Courts

On June 15 around 5:30 pm, a 58-year-old New Hampshire father named Thomas Ball self-immolated in front of the Cheshire County Court House.  Ball was pronounced dead at the scene.

Before he died, he sent a letter [to] The Keene Sentinel to explanation his actions.  The full text of the letter can be found here. (Also in PDF format: Tom Ball’s Last Statement; 133 kB)

Ball said he set himself on fire in front of the courthouse because he was “done being bullied for being a man” by the US family court system.

Ball’s troubled started in April 2011.

He said he slapped his then four-year-old daughter, giving her a cut on the lip, when she refused to obey him after three verbal warnings.

His wife then called the child’s mental health provider.  Ball claimed the health provider told his wife that if she did not call the police, both she and Ball would be arrested….(Full Story)
_______________
Note by F4L: That article is full of errors.

• Tom Ball’s problems did not start in April 2011.  They started in April 2001, when the incident with his daughter occurred and he was arrested for the first time in his life, a Vietnam veteran and 48 years old at the time.

• Tom Ball did say that he was “done being bullied for being a man,” but he did not say that he was being bullied just by the family court system.  He did not even single out the family court system, but he felt that his rights were being violated ever since 2001, by the police, mental health providers (not necessarily the mental health provider of the daughter whom he had disciplined, but one for another daughter), the State of New Hampshire, the State Attorney General, the Legislature, the State Governor’s Office, the U.S. Department of Justice, his Congressmen, Senators, the Federal Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, The U.S. Attorney General’s Task Force on Domestic Violence, the Police department in the nation (at least the 93% of them who are actively engaged in the persecution of men), the police, prosecutors and judges in general, the NH police department, the Jaffrey NH police department, Monadnock Family Services, their lawyer Byron, Judge Sullivan, guardian ad litems, and more, but also the federal government for waging war against men since about 1975 and for running an Office on Violence against Women, even though when the government program for the persecution of men started there were equal numbers of female and male perpetrators of domestic violence.

Tom Ball did his research, and he was no crank. He was a man wronged, wronged like millions of other men (and like some women, as well).

His observations regarding the legal system that put the squeeze on him are right on the mark, and especially his remarks regarding the circumstances, origins and workings of the domestic-violence industry are on target.  Still, I should not have to summarize any of the key point that concerned him.  He wrote a very lucid statement, but obviously not just on the day he killed himself.  That statement is 12 to 15 pages long (depending on the font-size your printer uses).  Read it, you will not regret it.

For instance, did you know that 72 million Americans have been made homeless at one time or another during the 25 years or more that the U.S. Government has been waging its war against men and their families?  As I said, Tom Ball did his work, and he did it well.  Read what he wrote.  I included him in the list of men who broke, at Fathers for Life.  He broke, alright, but he did not crack.  I wish he were still with us.

Tom Ball died for you, for me and for all of our children and grandchildren.

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Child Support, Economy, Child Abuse, Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Family, Men's Issues, Media Bias, Suicides, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | 1 Comment »

June 9, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Front-page cartoon published in the Dec. 17, 1942 issue of Der Stuermer.

The cartoon shows Jews being afraid of the truth (Purity, manifested by a woman), in relation to the theme of Der Stuermer on racial defilement.  You must realize that even someone who was one-eights Jewish was likely to be sent to the concentration camps and was at the very least barred from holding government jobs or working in any of the academic professions.  His career prospects were finished.  The only work he could have found would have been the performance of menial tasks.

The racial policies of the Nazis were in effect an Affirmative Action program for “Aryans”, with an Aryan being anyone who was obviously not Jewish or who could prove that his ancestors were not Jewish, going back for some generations.

To qualify for membership in the SS, one first of all had to prove, going back for eight generations, that one did not have a Jewish ancestor.

The curious aspect of the Nazi dogma was that women were revered as the spiritual and emotional centres of homes and families, much more so than that has ever been the case in other nations and other times.  Women were important to the Nazis for a number of reasons, such as: to give men something worth fighting for, to give men tangible emotional and physical comfort and support in the home-sphere, and to breed and raise children for the next war that was seen as being necessary and certain to come.

That is where national socialism differed from communism of the kind in place in the USSR and other communist nations who more closely followed the teachings of Marx and Engels.  The Nazis were a bit smarter than the latter, in as much as that they considered the Marxist dream of bringing all women into the workforce and thereby to increase production for the state to be impractical.  It was considered to be impractical because only with a woman in charge of her own children she raised with the support of her husband was it to be expected that the children would grow into worthy members of the State.

Still, women needed to be married to produce children, as illegitimacy and births out of wedlock were frowned upon.  For which reason, towards the end of the war — in the face of the enormous losses of men’s lives experienced throughout the war — Hitler considered to make polygamy legal and desirable and issued a memorandum to that effect through his personal secretary, Martin Bormann, on January 29, 1944.

Now let’s replay that a bit.  Women had to be married to men to have children.  SS-men needed to be married to women to have children.  For women to be able to marry SS-men, they had to become members of the SS and prove, with an enormous amount of digging for documents, birth certificates for their parents and all of the birth certificates of their grandparents and all ancestors, going back for eight generations, that they were not Jewish.  That was only one mandatory requirement.  Another one was that every aspiring member of the SS, including women who wanted to marry SS-men, had to pass a test proving that he was well versed in the doctrine of Nazi ideology.  Only then could marriage to an SS-man be entered into.

No woman could become an SS-member by default, through marriage.  If she wanted to be come married to an SS-man, she had to go through a lot of effort to first become a member of the SS.  The Jews in the front-page cartoon in the Dec. 17, 1942 issue of Der Stuermer had every imaginable reason to be afraid of Purity in the form of a woman, because if a woman would hold them to account, it would quite possibly be an SS-woman and certainly be one of many (nurses, secretaries, cooks, telephone operators, etc., etc.) when they entered the concentration camp.

Gudrun Schwarz, in “Eine Frau an seiner Seite : Ehefrauen in der SS-Sippengemeinschaft,” (”A Wife at his Side: Wives in the ‘SS-Clan-Community’”) reports that, “Between 1931 and 1945 about 240,000 woman married SS-men.” (p. 11)

Not one of those women became an SS-wife by accident.  Read the rest of the story to find out whether or how many of them were held to account.

Posted in Media Bias, Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

June 8, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Avoiceformen.com
2011 06 07

It is now seriously suggested that women’s prison close

By Paul Elam

Great Britain is about to lend new meaning to the pussy pass.

At least, that is the recommendation in a report issued by the Women’s Justice Task Force which has concluded that offering healthcare services, housing and drug abuse treatment to female criminals is better than holding them to the same standards of punishment to which they hold men….(Full Story)
_________________
Comment by F4L:

If women with children should be at home and not in jail, then the question remains why that should be so. Perhaps the report justified the recommendation by arguing, based on the evidence the authors selected, that it is better for such women’s children to be brought up by women criminals than by the government or by the children’s fathers.

How will that play out in a court of law, in a hearing in which it will be settled what is “in the best interest of the children”?

Millions of anti-father decisions in child-custody cases were rationalized by asserting that they were in the best interest of the children. Still, although there is plenty of evidence that father-custody is almost always better and in the best interest of the children, it has not ever been established in any court of law that obligatorily awarding child custody to mothers is in the best interest of the children.

The reality of the recommendation is that it comes after the fact and only establishes as a rule what is already being done with women criminals. Virtually all women criminals that should be serving time (94% in the US and 99% in Canada) are on the loose. All that will happen when the recommendation of the report is accepted (and that will most surely be not only in the U.K. but in all developed nations) is that the remaining small proportion of women criminals who had the misfortune of being incarcerated will be let loose, too.

Sex ratios of incarcerated prisoners

Unites States: 16 Men for every woman (Note 1)
Canada: 99 Men for every woman (Note 2)
_______
Notes:

1. About 12 years ago, the ratio for federal prisoners in the U.S. was 17.6 men for every woman. I don’t know what it is now, but it is quite likely larger now.
2. That was the sex ratio of prisoners in the Canadian federal prison system about 12 years ago.  The total capacity of all six Canadian women’s prisons then was 258 inmates, while the women’s prisons housed only 150 women criminals, men’s prisons held 13,500 prisoners who were double-bunked.

Those ratios take into account only convicted and incarcerated criminals. The disparity of the ratios exists because, compared to men, women are,

• Far less likely to be suspected of having committed a crime, and, if suspected,
• Far less likely to be indicted, and, if indicted,
• Far more likely to have their crime plea-bargained down to a less severe category of crime, and, when having successfully done that,
• Far less likely to be brought to trial, and, if brought to trial,
• Far less likely to be judged guilty, and, once found guilty of crimes of equal severity to those committed by men,
• Far less likely to be sentenced to being incarcerated, and once incarcerated,
• Far more likely to be serving a shorter sentence for a crime of equal severity, and, once serving a sentence,
• Far more likely to be released early on parole.

We don’t know how many women criminals there are. All we know is that women are as human as are men and are as likely as men are to commit crimes and that vastly fewer women criminals are serving time in jails or prisons.

Judicial crime statistics are the worst possible source of criminal statistics, as they indicate only one of the consequences of judicial bias, namely how many prisoners of either sex were caught, brought to trial, convicted, found guilty and sentenced to serve time in incarceration. Judicial crimes statistics pertaining to both sexes are a good indicator of judicial gender bias.

It is not practical to make judicial bias applicable to an identical extent to men criminals, because then we would have a catastrophic number of job losses in the judiciary, in its adjuncts and in its support and service industries.

There is an aggravating factor that makes it necessary to be absolutely lenient with women criminals. To keep a woman incarcerated costs approximately 2.5 times as much money than to keep a man incarcerated for an equal length of time.

All of those are arguments in support of letting women go free if they have committed crimes.

Of course that promotes chaos and anarchy, and of course it is damaging to all of society and to the well-being of the children by such women criminals, but is it reasonable to argue that the comfort of some women should be sacrificed, so that society can be protected against them and to deter other women from committing crimes? Is that not looking at things the wrong way when it comes to promoting women’s rights?  Should women’s rights and privileges not trump the welfare of society, even the future of civilization?

Those are age-old questions, and the answers to them were expressed and written down more than 2,400 years ago.

For, a husband and wife being each a part of every family, the state may be considered as about equally divided into men and women; and, therefore, in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury.
–Aristotle, in Politics

Posted in Civil Rights, Judiciary, Child Abuse, Single-Parent, Paternal Rights, Child Murder, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child-Custody Awards, Men's Issues, Women's Violence | Print | 3 Comments »

June 6, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

I am a bit late with opening my e-mail, but I got a pleasant surprise when I did, a message from Dr. Warren Farrell:

Dear Fathers for Life, As you know, I’ve listed you on my web site for years to let people who know of me also know of you. Father and Child Reunion has just become available as an e-book via Amazon’s Kindle. I’ve been touched to hear from many of the thousands of dads who were inspired by Father and Child Reunion to fight for their child’s right to their dad. I am sure you have helped many of these dads and their children. I’m pleased with the book’s availability as an e-book, since many dads are more comfortable reading e-books than wandering through book stores’ self-help sections! To jump start the book’s availability as an e-book and simultaneously celebrate Father’s Day, I will make a contribution of $50 to your organization if ten or more people from your organization purchase it for $9.99 any day in June. In essence, I will be giving you $5–or half the book’s price–for each of the ten e-books purchased. The only thing I will need from you is the name, city and email address of the ten people who have told you that they have made a purchase. In the meantime, I’d love to hear how things are going for your group; feel free to send me an email so we can catch up. Warren

Posted in Books & Films, Organizational News | Print | No Comments »