Father hounded for child support dies in jail 28 April 2005

A Roselle man sent to the Monmouth County Jail for failure to pay child support on April 13 died in the facility a week later, according to a jail spokesman and a cousin. Monmouth County Undersheriff Ted Freeman said Charles Kaiser, 48, was brought to the infirmary on April 15 and was put on a special watch that consisted of a 24-hour camera monitor and personal checks every half-hour.

Freeman said Kaiser died on April 20. The results from an autopsy are not yet available, he added. Freeman would not say why Kaiser was taken to the infirmary, citing confidentiality of medical records. Greg McMillan of Manalapan said the family is awaiting the autopsy results to find out what caused Kaiser's death.


Published in the Asbury Park Press

NYT and Amnesty Collude in Gender Propaganda Piece 27 April 2005

By Carey Roberts

In a brazen attempt to skew public opinion and exploit the fears of women, the New York Times recently ran an article on intimate partner violence. Cleverly titled "Sweden Boldly Exposes a Secret Side of Women's Lives," the essay suggests patriarchal beatings have become as commonplace in Sweden as driving a Volvo station wagon.

Of course, research paints a completely different picture - that women around the world are equally likely as men to engage in partner aggression http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID16.pdf , and that men represent 38% of all persons who suffer an injury as a result of the incident. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ But that didn't stop NYT reporter Lizette Alvarez from quoting Swedish politician Gudrun Schyman's description of domestic abusers: "It's every man and in every class of society."

Forgive the comparison, but the insight of that remark rivals the paranoid rants of persons who used to claim, "Jewish bankers control the German economy" and "The Trilateral Commission is conspiring to take over the world." In order to understand how responsible journalism at the Times morphed into this egregious example of gender-bashing, we need to go back to 2001.

That's the year Irene Khan took over at the helm at Amnesty International. In addition to being a lawyer and former UN career bureaucrat, Ms. Khan is an ultra-feminist. Four years later, Khan has now proven how easily a respected human rights organization can be turned into a breeding ground for the radical feminist cancer.

Pay a visit to the AI web page at www.amnesty.org, and you will learn about the "greatest human rights scandal of our times." No, Amnesty is not referring to the forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of persons in the Darfur. And it's not the trampling of civil liberties in Communist countries. The greatest human rights scandal is - get ready for this, "violence against women."

That claim is sheer nonsense. The fact is, men are far more likely to be harmed by violence. The World Health Organization reports that twice as many men die from violence-related causes as women. http://www5.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/main.cfm?p=0000000592 Part of Amnesty's fem-socialist strategy is to promote women's activism at the local level. And that includes advocacy research. Which brings us to Ms. Alvarez' recent contribution to impartial and balanced journalism.

The centerpiece of the NYT article is a "stinging Amnesty International report" on domestic violence that "set off a national reckoning" in Sweden. But it turns out the article, filled with suggestive innuendo and alarmist claims, has more holes than a hooker's fishnet stockings. The article claims that the number of police reports for assaults on women increased by 40% in the 1990s. But police files are a notoriously unreliable source of information about partner assault because of the problem of under-reporting – especially by male victims.

A bigger hole is that Alvarez never gets around to telling us the actual name of this report. After extensive searching, it turns out the document is not even posted on Amnesty International's website. The paper, "Men's Violence Against Women in Intimate Relationships," can be found only on the website of Amnesty's affiliate in Sweden. http://www2.amnesty.se/svaw.nsf/mvaw/$File/mvaw.pdf Strange that a New York Times reporter would write a column about a ground-breaking report, but never reveal its title or tell us where to find it. It's almost as if Alvarez didn't want us to read it.

Maybe that's because a perusal of the document reveals it is larded with neo-Marxist slogans about the "gender power structure" of society. Or perhaps because the report never defines the word "violence," a word that is subject to the broadest of interpretations in the hands of feminist advocacy researchers. Indeed, we don't learn until page 25 that their all-inclusive concept of "violence" includes men's "controlling behavior" - whatever that means.

Based on that hyper-inflated notion of violence, the AI account notes that in 85% of incidents the woman didn't even bother to file a police report. Why? Because in most cases, the event was "too insignificant" to the woman who had been "abused." But the truth finally slips out on page 33. That's where we learn that at the Swedish Federation for Gay and Lesbian Rights, half of the hotline calls concern violence in intimate relationships.

Lesbians being beaten up by their partners, their lavender lady-friends? You mean to say, women are also capable of instigating domestic violence?

All the News That's Fit to Distort - get it now at the New York Times.


Grateful Slave 27 April 2005

by Paine's Torch

I am a grateful slave. My master is a good man. He gives me food, shelter, work and other things. All he requires in return is that I obey him. I am told he has the power to control my life. I look up to him, and wish that I were so powerful.
My master must understand the world better than I, because he was chosen by many others for his respected position. I sometimes complain, but fear I cannot live without his help. He is a good man.

My master protects my money from theft, before and after he takes half of it. Before taking his half, he says only he can protect my money. After taking it, he says it is still mine. When he spends my money, he says I own the things he has bought. I don't understand this, but I believe him. He is a good man.

I need my master for protection, because others would hurt me. Or, they would take my money and use it for themselves. My master is better than them: When my master takes my money, I still own it. The things he buys are mine. I cannot sell them, or decide how they are used, but they are mine. My master tells me so, and I believe him. He is a good man.

My master provides free education for my children. He teaches them to respect and obey him and all future masters they will have. He says they are being taught well; learning things they will need to know in the future. I believe him. He is a good man.

My master cares about other masters, who don't have good slaves. He makes me contribute to their support. I don't understand why slaves must work for more than one master, but my master says it is necessary. I believe him. He is a good man.

Other slaves ask my master for some of my money. Since he is good to them as he is to me, he agrees. This means he must take more of my money; but he says this is good for me. I ask my master why it would not be better to let each of us keep our own money. He says it is because he knows what is best for each of us. We believe him. He is a good man.

My master tells me: Evil masters in other places are not as good as he; they threaten our comfortable lifestyle and peace. So, he sends my children to fight the slaves of evil masters. I mourn their deaths, but my master says it is necessary. He gives me medals for their sacrifice, and I believe him. He is a good man.

Good masters sometimes have to kill evil masters, and their slaves. This is necessary to preserve our way of life; to show others that our version of slavery is the best. I asked my master: Why do evil masters' slaves have to be killed, along with their evil master? He said: "Because they carry out his evil deeds." "Besides, they could never learn our system; they have been indoctrinated to believe that only their master is good." My master knows what is best. He protects me and my children. He is a good man.

My master lets me vote for a new master, every few years. I cannot vote to have no master, but he generously lets me choose between two candidates he has selected. I eagerly wait until election day, since voting allows me to forget that I am a slave. Until then, my current master tells me what to do. I accept this. It has always been so, and I would not change tradition. My master is a good man.

At the last election, about half the slaves were allowed to vote. The other half had broken rules set by the master, or were not thought by him to be fit. Those who break the rules should know better than to disobey! Those not considered fit should gratefully accept the master chosen for them by others. It is right, because we have always done it this way. My master is a good man.

There were two candidates. One received a majority of the vote - about one-fourth of the slave population. I asked why the new master can rule over all the slaves, if he only received votes from one-fourth of them? My master said: "Because some wise masters long ago did it that way." "Besides, you are the slaves; and we are the master." I did not understand his answer, but I believed him. My master knows what is best for me. He is a good man.

Some slaves have evil masters. They take more than half of their slaves' money and are chosen by only one-tenth, rather than one-fourth, of their slaves. My master says they are different from him. I believe him. He is a good man.

I asked if I could ever become a master, instead of a slave. My master said, "Yes, anything is possible." "But first you must pledge allegiance to your present master, and promise not to abandon the system that made you a slave." I am encouraged by this possibility. My master is a good man.

He tells me slaves are the real masters, because they can vote for their masters. I do not understand this, but I believe him. He is a good man; who lives for no other purpose than to make his slaves happy.

I asked if I could be neither a master nor a slave. My master said, "No, you must be one or the other." "There are not other choices." I believe him. He knows best. He is a good man.

I asked my master how our system is different, from those evil masters. He said: "In our system, masters work for the slaves." No longer confused, I am beginning to accept his logic. Now I see it! Slaves are in control of their masters, because they can choose new masters every few years. When the masters appear to control the slaves in between elections, it is all a grand delusion! In reality, they are carrying out the slaves' desires. For if this were not so, they would not have been chosen in the last election. How clear it is to me now! I shall never doubt the system again. My master is a good man.

How Do Women's Organizations Benefit From False Charges of Domestic Violence? 27 April 2005

By John J. Xenakis

The evidence indicates that various women's organizations collude with one another to bring false charges of domestic violence against men. These w omen's organizations - social service organizations, court clinics, women's advocates, women's shelters, visitation centers, feminist legal services agencies, women's protective services, and so forth - support each other to bring false charges of abuse against men in order to increase their own budgets. These women's organizations get their funding from government grants and United Way grants. In order to justify these grants, they need to generate as many charges of abuse as possible, and they need to get as many women as possible to live in women's shelters. Unfortunately for them, there are far too few truly violent men to come anywhere close to justifying their budgets.

Bringing a charge of abuse against a man is very lucrative for these agencies because the man will fight back against the charges. When he fights back, all these women's organizations provide services to the woman making the charges - everything from psychological evaluations to legal support to free housing, even picking her up and driving her to court. A single falsely charged man may bring tens of thousands of dollars per year in grants to these women's agencies. The people who run these agencies use this money to pay their own salaries, as well as the salaries of their feminist friends.

These women's organizations receive no oversight, either from other government agencies or from the press. The only oversight is one women's agency checking on another women's agency. The evidence seems to indicate that these women's agencies not only do not check on one another, but actually collude with one another with false charges, in order to obtain lucrative grants. The evidence suggests that the grants to these agencies for false charges of abuse against men totals billions of dollars per year.


International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance 21 April 2005

Smile: you're under global surveillance

A newly-published report warns that a global infrastructure of registration and surveillance is emerging through the efforts of groups such as the EU, G8 and ICAO. According to the report, which was produced by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Focus on the Global South, Friends Committee (US), International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (Canada), and Statewatch, anti-terror and security measures being driven largely by the US are being used to roll back freedom, increase powers and exercise increasing control over individuals and populations.

The report details a number of "signposts" on the road to global surveillance, and argues that these add up to a bigger picture where the aim is to ensure that "almost everyone on the planet is 'registered', that all travel is tracked globally, that all electronic communications and transactions can be easily watched, and that all the information collected about individuals in public or private-sector databases is stored, linked, and made available to state agents.

Most of the signposts are already clearly visible. Registration systems for foreigners, national ID schemes and biometric passports provide the registration process, while electronic borders, passenger data sharing and threat lists cover surveillance of physical movements. The increased sharing of database and their convergence at an international level have accelerated the globalisation of surveillance and security, while mutual legal assistance arrangements contribute to an erosion of democratic values and sovereign checks and balances. The technological capacity of the structures being built "dwarfs any previous system and makes Orwell's book Nineteen Eighty-Four look quaint", says the report.

The result, however, will be a massive loss of freedoms in exchange for systems which do not succeed in their intended purposes, and which may even obstruct them by chasing down the blind alleys of predictive 'threat models' and risk profiling. "The initiatives described in this report are not effective in flagging terrorists or stopping their determined plans," it says. "They divert crucial resources away from the kind of investments in human intelligence we need to give us good intelligence about specific threats, rather than useless information on the nearly 100 per cent of the population that poses no threat whatsoever." On the back of the report the groups have, with the support of around 100 civil liberties groups and NGOs world-wide, launched the International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance (ICAMS), which will campaign against mass surveillance-oriented anti-terrorism efforts. Commented Statewatch director Tony Bunyan: "Our message is that mandatory registration and mass surveillance are not the answers to the problem of terrorism, and not a road that any nation should be heading down. What is needed is good intelligence on specific threats - not the so-called 'risk-profiling' of entire populations and the generation of more information than can possibly be usefully analysed. There is a real danger that in trying to watch everyone you are actually watching no-one." ®



The theft of children by LESBIAN social workers in the UK is an epidemic

Parents wrongly accused of abusing their own children cannot sue the health care professionals who made the wrong diagnosis, the House of Lords ruled today. Three sets of parents took action after suffering psychiatric damage and financial loss when their children were taken from them. All the parents were eventually reunited with their children but they sued the individual health care trusts involved for the lasting injury they suffered. Today four Law Lords out of the five hearing the cases dismissed the appeals, ruling that doctors and social workers do not owe a duty of care to the parents, only to the children they are examining.

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said: "The doctor is charged with the protection of the child, not with the protection of the parent. "The best interests of a child and his parent normally march hand-in-hand. But when considering whether something does not feel 'quite right’, a doctor must be able to act single-mindedly in the interests of the child.

"He ought not to have at the back of his mind an awareness that if his doubts about intentional injury or sexual abuse prove unfounded he may be exposed to claims by a distressed parent." He said the seriousness of child abuse as a social problem demanded that health professionals should not be subject to potentially conflicting duties when deciding whether a child has been abused.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill was the only Law Lord to dissent, ruling that the law of negligence should "evolve" and allow the appeals of the parents who had lost their cases in the courts below. He said the cases should go to trial so that a judgment could be made on the liability of the various defendants on facts which could be fully explored.



When one country continually looks around for an enemy to fight and seldom if ever, tries to ensure peace and stability for a world presently driven by GREED and POWER ,the worlds citizens have to ask ,why the most powerful countries on earth seem to exert the same power as a bully would in a school playground. When the so called elite in a country who control it ,continually suggest they have to always fight an enemy to ensure democracy, when in fact that democracy consists of nothing more than two parties whose leaders consistently are hand picked from some elitist secret society, the world has to ask itself what exactly is their agenda .

Why is it that they continually point a finger at countries they are about to bully while internally jailing more MEN per head of population than even the WORST third world countries. The so call freedom and liberty they continuously shout about ,that they wish to protect ,is nothing more than a smokescreen for the secret society illuminati THUGS to continue to exert their power over the world and in particular good men and allow the continuance of their unquenching greed. Not to eliminate poverty for us all , but to ensure an elite group of evil warmongers continue to prosper on the backs of wars generated by the complicity of the worlds bankers who ensure the gravy train goes on while avoiding civil unrest within their own country.

It is a fact that most of the worlds wars have been sponsored by money and weapons from the most powerful nations on earth and that included the financial support given to Hitler in the second world war. Germany obtained moneys from the leading world banks and was maybe one reason why some nations took so long to enter the war,knowing the very funding of that war originally came from within. It is time for the worlds citizens to TAKE BACK control from monsters who have used all means, including blanket control of the worlds media ,to exert their hidden secret lucifer driven agendas on us all . Presently there is no MAN on earth FREE of some form of threat or oppression due to the sinister hold they have over the worlds population .It is only modern technology that has finally shown the ILLUSION they have kept mankind under for so very long .Something which at last is being finally broken and major cracks in their plans are becoming glaringly obvious to anyone witnessing the exposures that have been coming through these new channels of communication over the last few years.

Can judges act "unlawfully" 20 April 2005

Because this appears to be the heart and soul of the difference between those who want accountabilty for judges and those who think that accountability for judges would bring our system down around our ears, let me try one more way of explaining the difference:

Should a police officer investigate crime? Yes. They are doing their duty when they investigate crime. That's their job. But should a police officer conduct an illegal search without a search warrant in order to investigate crime? No. What's the difference? In both cases, the police officer is "doing his job" and is pursuing a noble goal.... to investigate and stop crime. Why is one okay and the other not okay? The answer is in HOW the officer does his job.

It is possible for a police officer to be violating the law while working as a police officer. The same is true of judges. It is NOT ENOUGH for a judge to be wearing black robes and sitting up high and deciding cases. That is NOT sufficient. It also matters HOW a judge does his job and how a judge decides cases. It is not sufficient to say that a judge is acting as a judge. It is necessary to ask whether the judge's actions as a judge are pursuant to law or not pursuant to law. A judge can be acting UNlawfully even while carrying out his duties as a judge.

What if a police officer uses torture -- a hot branding iron or boiling oil -- to get people to talk? The police officer is "doing his job" -- investigating crime. So, how can we question what the police officer is doing? Don't we have to support police officers and let them do whatever they think is necessary to further their resposnibilities? However, there is a difference between a government official performing his job lawfully and doing his job UNlawfully. Judges who make decisions outside of the law are acting unlawfully just as surely as a police officer who uses torture to interrogate witnesses is doing his job unlawfully.

Jon Moseley

Humorous quotes about Government 20 April 2005

Reflections of Great Minds on Government.

1)  Suppose you were an idiot.  And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. ...Mark Twain

2)  I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle. .........Winston Churchill

3)  A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. ...............George Bernard Shaw

4)  A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with their money. ............G.  Gordon Liddy

5)  Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. .........James Bovard, Civil Libertarian  (1994)

6)  Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. .......Douglas Casey, Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University

7)  Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. ........P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian

8)  Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. ...........Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)

9)  Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:  If it moves, tax it.  If it keeps moving, regulate it.  And if it stops moving, subsidize it..........Ronald Reagan  (1986)

10)  I don't make jokes.  I just watch the government and report the facts. ...............Will Rogers

11)  If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free. .........P.J. O'Rourke

12)  If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal.  If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative.  If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate.  If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist. ......Joseph Sobran, Former Editor of the National Review  (1995)

13)  In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. ........Voltaire (1764)

14)  Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you. .........Pericles (430 B.C.)

15)     No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. ....Mark Twain (1866)

16)  Talk is cheap . except when Congress does it. ......Unknown

17)  The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. ........Ronald Reagan

18)  The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings.  The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. ....Winston Churchill

19)  The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.  Mark Twain

20)  The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. .....Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)

21)  There is no distinctly native American criminal class .... save Congress. ......Mark Twain

22)  What this country needs are more unemployed politicians. .......Edward Langley, Artist (1928 - 1995)

23)  A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. ........Thomas Jefferson, Founding Father and American Revolutionary



Fathers Commit Suicide Protesting Discrimination In Israel Child Custody Laws

The above fictitious headline could easily turn into hard, cold reality for many Israel dads if the Israel government does not take immediate action to reform it's archaic, callous and discriminating child custody family laws. Laws which separate fathers from their children. In fact, many fathers have already committed suicide in Israel, the US and in the UK as a direct result of being separated from their children. And the numbers are staggering. The following fictitious account is saturated with both facts and injustices that many loving fathers may not be able to bear for much longer. Israel police were summoned to the house of Zvi Katz, 44, of Kfar Sava, a northern suburb of Tel Aviv, when friends and work colleagues noticed that he was absent from work and was not returning telephone calls. "We entered Katz's home and everywhere we looked we saw pictures of him and his children," said Israel police spokesperson Dor Levy. "It appears that he committed suicide after taking a large dose of barbiturates. He had just completed a 4 hour visitation with his 3-year-old son, was still wearing the pink paper wrist band of an amusement park that they had just visited and left a suicide note next to his body."

What police did not tell reporters, was that Katz had uploaded his suicide note to an Israel Fathers Rights Organization Web site in Israel describing the nightmares that he had been subjected to by the local children welfare department in Ra'anana and family courts in Israel. Katz's stated in his note that he could no longer bear the pain of being separated from his children by his ex-wife with the assistance of negligent child welfare departments and family courts in Israel which openly and blatantly discriminate against dads directly due to gender bias following an outdated family custody law which was written in 1962. Ruth Wexler, a child psychologist with over 30 years of clinical experience, was a close friend of Katz stated: "Zvi was one of the most respected professionals in his industry, had a perfect military record where he served as an officer in the Israel Defense Forces reserves and was an example of how loving, attentive and caring he was as a dedicated father." She further noted: "a totally negligent child welfare and Israel family court system which reinforced the pathological behavior of Zvi's wife in preventing him from having equal access to his child murdered Katz. He had no history of mental illness. If there was any aberrant behavior here it was on behalf of the social workers in Ra'anana who recommended only a few hours a week for Zvi to see his child." The child psychologist said that she had even made contact with the head of Welfare Services in the City of Ra'anana, Israel who told her that it was "impossible" that there was no visitation plan implemented for Katz during the upcoming Passover holiday. Just hours before discovering Katz's tragic death, the child psychologist spoke with a social worker who handled Katz's case and admitted that no plan had been written or submitted.

The child psychologist said that she had even made contact with the head of Welfare Services in the City of Ra'anana, Israel who told her that it was "impossible" that there was no visitation plan implemented for Katz during the upcoming Passover holiday. Just hours before discovering Katz's tragic death, the child psychologist spoke with a social worker who handled Katz's case and admitted that no plan had been written or submitted. "Gross, professional negligence by both the family courts and the child welfare system in Israel led to Katz's death," said Wexler. "If the mother who was suffering from Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), the courts and the child welfare department set aim at preventing this dad to be with his child, they finally succeeded." Again, the INA reminds our readers that the above account is fictitious in where this suicide was enacted and the above names were changed, but the account of the Ra'anana child welfare department is factual. And the below facts of a staggering suicide rate by dads who are prevented access to their children is anything but fictitious. According to the Centers for Disease Control and the National Fathers' Resource Center, eighty-six percent of men have at least one child during their lifetimes. Using the 50% divorce rate figure, and knowing that fathers lose custody of their children about 80% of the time, it can be calculated that about 34% of American, English and Israel men will experience the loss of child custody sometime during their lives.

It is well-known that noncustodial fathers often experience high levels of psychological distress. Social scientists have made observations such as the following. Wallerstein noted that post divorce visits with children "can lead to depression and sorrow in men who love their children". Ross observed that many divorced fathers are "overwhelmed by feelings of failure and self-hatred," and as a result are "disengaging from a family that is no longer really theirs". Umberson and Williams highlighted the sense of failure that these fathers experience. As a result, these men "exhibit substantially higher rates of psychological distress and alcohol consumption than do married men." Blankenhorn described non-custodial fathers in this way: "These men are very angry. Indeed, their white-hot sense of injustice can sometimes produce in them the phenomenon of pressured speech, in which emotional intensity derails normal conversational rhythms." One very cruel irony - over the past 20 years, society has admonished fathers to become more attentive to their families. As more wives entered the workforce, this relieved some of the financial pressure on men, and has allowed fathers to devote more time to their children. And during that same period of time, a series of laws have been enacted that have enabled wives to obtain court orders to exclude fathers from the household, in the name of preventing domestic violence.

So given the frequency and gravity of the problem, it is not surprising that numerous anecdotes have appeared in the popular press detailing non-custodial fathers who have resorted to killing themselves. One very cruel irony - over the past 20 years, society has admonished fathers to become more attentive to their families. As more wives entered the workforce, this relieved some of the financial pressure on men, and has allowed fathers to devote more time to their children. And during that same period of time, a series of laws have been enacted that have enabled wives to obtain court orders to exclude fathers from the household, in the name of preventing domestic violence. Once a precedent of paternal separation has been established, child custody is almost always awarded to the mother. Hence, these domestic violence edicts have made it more difficult for fathers to maintain meaningful involvement with their children. In some cases, their own children have come to view their loving fathers with suspicion and distrust. So noncustodial fathers have become increasingly frustrated and angered by the mixed messages that they are receiving. They find it incomprehensible that their basic human right to be a parent is being curtailed by a legal system that they perceive to be expensive, cloaked in secrecy, and unfair. Is it any wonder that some fathers crack under the pressure? On Thursday, January 23, 2003, a BC father, Mark Edward Dexel, 42, took the only exit fathers are left with when dealing with the most corrupt justice system ever known in the history of Canada, he committed suicide. This latest tragedy has shocked many non-custodial parents among the local support group Parents of Broken Families and other non-custodial parents groups across the nation. It was a grim reminder of the same tragedy that led Darren White, another member a similar group, to take his own life back in early 2000. A distraught father struggling with overdue child support obligations and adverse family court decisions committed suicide on the steps of the downtown San Diego courthouse Monday. Angrily waving court documents, 43 year-old Derrick Miller walked up to court personnel at the entrance, said "You did this to me," and shot himself in the head. Miller is one of 300,000 Americans who have taken their own lives over the past decade - as many Americans as were killed in combat in World War II. America, the UK and Israel are in the throes of a largely unrecognized suicide epidemic, as suicide has become the eighth leading cause of death in the United States today, and the third leading cause of death among adolescents.

Many recognize that the US is rife with violent crime, but few know that 50% more Americans kill themselves than are murdered. Who is committing suicide? For the most part, men. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, males commit suicide four times as often as females do, and have higher suicide rates in every age group. There are many risk factors for suicide, including substance abuse and mental illness, but the two situations in which men are most likely to kill themselves are after the loss of a job, and after a divorce. Because our society strongly defines manhood as the ability to work and provide for one's loved ones, unemployed men often see themselves as failures and as burdens to their families. Thus it is not surprising that while there is no difference in the suicide rate of employed and unemployed women, the suicide rate of unemployed men is twice that of employed men. It is for this reason that economic crises generally lead to male suicide epidemics. During the Midwest farm crisis of the 1980s, for example, the suicide rate of male farmers tripled. A sharp increase in male suicide occurred after the destruction of Flint, Michigan's 70 year-old auto industry, as documented in the disturbing 1989 film "Roger and Me." Some suicide experts fear a rise in suicide related to our current economic downturn. The other most common suicide victims are divorced and/or estranged fathers like Derrick Miller. In fact, a divorced father is ten times more likely to commit suicide than a divorced mother, and three times more likely to commit suicide than a married father. According to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major: "Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It's a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children. Most of the men I deal with never saw their divorces coming, and they are often treated very unfairly by the family courts."

According to Sociology Professor Augustine Kposow of the University of California at Riverside, "The link between men and their children is often severed because the woman is usually awarded custody. A man may not get to see his children , even with visitation rights. As far as the man is concerned, he has lost his marriage and lost his children and that can lead to depression and suicide." There have been a rash of father suicides directly related to divorce and mistreatment by the family courts over the past few years. For example, New York City Police Officer Martin Romanchick, a Medal of Honor recipient, hung himself after being denied access to his children and being arrested 15 times on charges brought by his ex-wife, charges the courts deemed frivolous. Massachusetts father Steven Cook, prevented from seeing his daughter by a protection order based upon unfounded allegations , committed suicide after he was jailed for calling his four-year-old daughter on the wrong day of the week. Darrin White, a Canadian father who was stripped of the right to see his children and was about to be jailed after failing to pay a child support award tantamount to twice his take home pay, hung himself. His 14 year-old daughter Ashlee later wrote to her nation's Prime Minister, saying, "this country's justice system has robbed me of one of the most precious gifts in my life, my father." Fathers' rights groups contend court bias plays a direct role. One divorced father committed suicide on the steps of San Diego's courthouse, another set his car afire outside Alaska's child-support office. Fathers' rights groups, joined by a few academic experts, see a common denominator in these recent bursts of rage, and ask whether America's family court system could be partly at fault by deepening the despair of many divorced men.

"None of these guys are poster children," said Lowell Jaks, president of the Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights. "But when you cause this much pain to so many men, there are going to be repercussions - a certain percentage are going to crack." Women's groups and government officials doubt that courtroom bias is the cause for most of these destructive outbursts; some experts say divorced men simply experience more isolation after divorce than women. But Jaks is convinced of his position. "Some guys kill themselves, some snap and go out and kill others," Jaks said. "You can dismiss them as crackpots, you can say we need more protection for women, but it's not going to take away the problem." Augustine Kposowa, a sociologist at the University of California-Riverside, has conducted studies concluding that suicide rates among divorced men are much higher than for divorced women or married men. He attributes the difference to what happens in family courts. "Decades ago, the pendulum swung in favor of the men, but clearly in the past two decades the system is stacking up against men," Kposowa said in a telephone interview. "The man loses his marriage, then he loses a second time when child custody is granted to the woman," he said. "Unless something is done, by examining family laws and having new policies to aid men, the situation is bound to get worse." Extrapolating from Kposowa's research, fathers' rights activist David Roberts contends that child-support orders - part of what he calls "the war on fathers" - contribute to the suicides of more than 5,000 divorced fathers each year. Roberts, president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, concedes that his estimate is un-provable and that suicides often may stem more from personality factors than legal bias. But he is bitter at what he perceives as unwillingness by politicians and most academics to take the suicide and violence phenomenon seriously.

Outside the fathers' rights ranks, government officials and leaders of women's groups acknowledge that divorce and custody procedures are often imperfect. Joey Binard of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges said states are shifting away from the traditional presumption that mothers should get post-divorce custody of children. Many states now say preference should go to the parent most involved with the children, she said, "but that still leaves men on the short end of the stick, because most are not primary caretakers." Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, stressed repeatedly in an interview that divorced men who commit violence are "the rare exception." However, Horn said men commonly experience depression or other mental health problems after a divorce. And he suggested that some family courts may still give "subtle preference" to mothers in custodial hearings. "Even if, objectively, there is no bias, if the man perceives it as such, it's a source of stress," Horn said. Horn predicted that court procedures would become more evenhanded. "There's greater recognition that it's important to keep dads actively involved in a child's life, that child support should be more than just going after dad's wallet," he said. National suicide statistics do not provide a comprehensive look at marital details - for example, whether a male suicide victim was a divorced father who lost custody of his children. However, psychiatrist David Clark, a suicide expert at Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center in Chicago, said fathers facing loss of custody are at above-average risk of suicide. "You go through the open-wound agony of the divorce, you go through the agony of losing day-in, day-out contact with your children - and if you add either clinical depression or increased drinking - that's a combination that gives us gray hair," Clark said. Israel lawmakers, family court judges and child welfare social workers totally bear the blame for these murders.

Lowell Jaks recalled fantasizing about suicide during his divorce. "You're just expected to move on," he said. "And you know that by moving on, that might be interpreted as neglecting your child." Fathers' rights groups say the frustrations of many divorced men could be eased through legislated changes in court practices. Another suggestion - offered even by skeptics of the fathers' rights movement - is to provide more emotional support for men going through divorce. But the real and lasting solutions for both fathers and their children will never be found in the artifical chemicals of antidepressants such as Prozac. In the real world, the real blame for fathers taking their lives are the family courts and child welfare systems.

One reporter asked a Fathers Rights supporter in Israel: "why would a father take his life, if he truly cared about his child?" The Fathers Rights leader responded: "the courts and welfare system in Israel stripped away his title of parent and his ability to care for his child. How can you "care" for a child when you don't see them," he asked. How many Derrick Miller's and Zvi Katz's will Israel, the US, Canada and the UK witness in the next year? What is the Israel Knesset, Israel family courts, Israel child welfare departments doing to eradicate this barbaric injustice to both father and child? How many more loving fathers will be sentenced to seeing their children a mere and fatally depressing once or twice a week for a few hours, while the mothers legally kidnap their children? How many divorced dads will be separated from their children on Passover eve as their son or daughter asks: "why is this night different than all other nights." Perhaps because the child has lost a father.

Israel lawmakers, family court judges and child welfare social workers totally bear the blame for these murders. It's time that we, as a community, speak out in support of these emotionally abused fathers and children. It's is you, the reader, who bears the blame by your silence. For if you do not act, do not expect the US Congress, the English Parliament or the Israel Knesset to shed one single tear for the next grave to be danced upon by an angry, disturbed mother.



Glimpse at the big lie 19 April 2005

Rockefellers, CIA, Knights of Malta
Same Names - Same Bullshit

One by one our most established institutions fall suspect and we become engaged in conflicts, not of our choosing. And throughout it all, the same names keep popping up - The Knights of Malta, The CIA, The Rockefellers, The Council on Foreign Relations, The Bilderburg group, The Trilateral Commission. It is with complete accuracy to state that these organizations do not exist to support the hopes and aspirations of the free democratic people of the world. No, what these groups are all about is the privledge of the few. These massive undemocratic, unelected and top secret groups are as big as governments and dedicated to one goal. the enrichment of the fortunes of a few families. But how to explain the complexities of this massive strategy, to joe and jane sixpack. Simple - grab them and cast doubt on everything they, "know." Tell them that they are getting fucked.

People have a knack for knowing when they are getting it hard. Sometimes it takes someone to explain just how hard they are getting it. And then you see people snap out of it, and go, "Ya know, I kinda thought so." Get them to start questioning the stories - show them some of the facts - as soon as they start questioning the stories, even the dimmest of persons are able to catch glimpses of this dark "control through deception" scheme. Once they catch their first glimpse at the big lie that is attempting to lure them in, they are free. For once you catch a glimpse of the truth, your taste for it becomes ovewhelming - You want more.


How National Security Agency access was built into Windows 19 April 2005

Careless mistake reveals subversion of Windows by NSA.

A CARELESS mistake by Microsoft programmers has revealed that special access codes prepared by the US National Security Agency have been secretly built into Windows. The NSA access system is built into every version of the Windows operating system now in use, except early releases of Windows 95 (and its predecessors). The discovery comes close on the heels of the revelations earlier this year that another US software giant, Lotus, had built an NSA "help information" trapdoor into its Notes system, and that security functions on other software systems had been deliberately crippled.

The first discovery of the new NSA access system was made two years ago by British researcher Dr Nicko van Someren. But it was only a few weeks ago when a second researcher rediscovered the access system. With it, he found the evidence linking it to NSA. Computer security specialists have been aware for two years that unusual features are contained inside a standard Windows software "driver" used for security and encryption functions. The driver, called ADVAPI.DLL, enables and controls a range of security functions. If you use Windows, you will find it in the C:\Windows\system directory of your computer. ADVAPI.DLL works closely with Microsoft Internet Explorer, but will only run crypographic functions that the US governments allows Microsoft to export. That information is bad enough news, from a European point of view. Now, it turns out that ADVAPI will run special programmes inserted and controlled by NSA. As yet, no-one knows what these programmes are, or what they do. Dr Nicko van Someren reported at last year's Crypto 98 conference that he had disassembled the ADVADPI driver. He found it contained two different keys. One was used by Microsoft to control the cryptographic functions enabled in Windows, in compliance with US export regulations. But the reason for building in a second key, or who owned it, remained a mystery.

A second key

Two weeks ago, a US security company came up with conclusive evidence that the second key belongs to NSA. Like Dr van Someren, Andrew Fernandez, chief scientist with Cryptonym of Morrisville, North Carolina, had been probing the presence and significance of the two keys. Then he checked the latest Service Pack release for Windows NT4, Service Pack 5. He found that Microsoft's developers had failed to remove or "strip" the debugging symbols used to test this software before they released it. Inside the code were the labels for the two keys. One was called "KEY". The other was called "NSAKEY". Fernandes reported his re-discovery of the two CAPI keys, and their secret meaning, to "Advances in Cryptology, Crypto'99" conference held in Santa Barbara. According to those present at the conference, Windows developers attending the conference did not deny that the "NSA" key was built into their software. But they refused to talk about what the key did, or why it had been put there without users' knowledge.

A third key?!

But according to two witnesses attending the conference, even Microsoft's top crypto programmers were astonished to learn that the version of ADVAPI.DLL shipping with Windows 2000 contains not two, but three keys. Brian LaMachia, head of CAPI development at Microsoft was "stunned" to learn of these discoveries, by outsiders. The latest discovery by Dr van Someren is based on advanced search methods which test and report on the "entropy" of programming code. Within the Microsoft organisation, access to Windows source code is said to be highly compartmentalized, making it easy for modifications to be inserted without the knowledge of even the respective product managers. Researchers are divided about whether the NSA key could be intended to let US government users of Windows run classified cryptosystems on their machines or whether it is intended to open up anyone's and everyone's Windows computer to intelligence gathering techniques deployed by NSA's burgeoning corps of "information warriors". According to Fernandez of Cryptonym, the result of having the secret key inside your Windows operating system "is that it is tremendously easier for the NSA to load unauthorized security services on all copies of Microsoft Windows, and once these security services are loaded, they can effectively compromise your entire operating system". The NSA key is contained inside all versions of Windows from Windows 95 OSR2 onwards.

"For non-American IT managers relying on Windows NT to operate highly secure data centres, this find is worrying", he added. "The US government is currently making it as difficult as possible for "strong" crypto to be used outside of the US. That they have also installed a cryptographic back-door in the world's most abundant operating system should send a strong message to foreign IT managers". "How is an IT manager to feel when they learn that in every copy of Windows sold, Microsoft has a 'back door' for NSA - making it orders of magnitude easier for the US government to access your computer?" he asked.

Can the loophole be turned round against the snoopers?

Dr van Someren feels that the primary purpose of the NSA key inside Windows may be for legitimate US government use. But he says that there cannot be a legitimate explanation for the third key in Windows 2000 CAPI. "It looks more fishy", he said. Fernandez believes that NSA's built-in loophole can be turned round against the snoopers. The NSA key inside CAPI can be replaced by your own key, and used to sign cryptographic security modules from overseas or unauthorised third parties, unapproved by Microsoft or the NSA. This is exactly what the US government has been trying to prevent. A demonstration "how to do it" program that replaces the NSA key can be found on Cryptonym's website. According to one leading US cryptographer, the IT world should be thankful that the subversion of Windows by NSA has come to light before the arrival of CPUs that handles encrypted instruction sets. These would make the type of discoveries made this month impossible. "Had the next-generation CPU's with encrypted instruction sets already been deployed, we would have never found out about NSAKEY."


Africans Declare War on Freemasons 19 April 2005

Thousands vow to eradicate shadowy cult

Amidst a growing global awareness of the problem of the worlds covert religious cults, mainstream Anglican, Catholic and Presbyterian churches in Africa have joined with leaders of Kenya's Mungiki youth movement in calling for the abolition of the Freemasons. The Parish Pastor of Nairobi’s St Andrew’s Presbyterian Church of East Africa (PCEA), one of the oldest traditional churches in Kenya, said recently that Freemasonry needs to be abolished, citing, "It has no moral standing in the wider community," he said. The Mungiki movement with some 4 million followers, has accused the Freemasons of involvement in the disappearance of children and a mysterious string of murders that have recently rocked Nairobi.

The pronouncement came after a consortium of churches, during an interdenominational conference, called for the total ban on Freemasonry in Kenya. The Nanyuki conference, attended by officials of the National Council of Churches, Evangelical Fellowship of Kenya, the Catholic Church and representatives of the Independent Churches of Kenya, lashed out at the Freemason society, accusing it of "engaging in undercurrent activities." The churches pointed out that Freemasonry is a secretive society whose activities may not be good to the welfare of the human society. On 3 September, Rev. Samuel Muli of the Church of Christ led a group of demonstrators in the city as part of the ongoing campaigns to outlaw the Freemasonry in the East African country. Accusing the organisation of clandestine operations, Muli who is also the director of Evangelism Association - a consortium of evangelical revival churches, said Freemasonry is a threat to the human race and thus the need to have it abolished.

It's no wonder there's a growing backlash against the covert western based quasi religious, quasi military cults - many Africans believe the recent the Paradise Hotel bombing, was in fact perpetrated by another quasi religious, quasi military group - the CIA (with Mossad assistance.) And so the secret societies, such as the Jesuits, the Freemasons and the Knights of Malta, which represent the west, continue to rampage around the world causing enumerable blunders, screw-ups and miscalculations - all in the name of each and every citizen in the west - and it will be the ordinary citizen who will pay the price for the mischief of our secret cults.


The Israeli Spy Ring 19 April 2005

"Israel does not spy on the United States of America."
-- Mark Regev, a spokesman at the Israeli embassy in Washington

Prior to 9/11, the FBI had discovered the presence of a massive spy ring inside the United States run by the government of Israel. This seems a harsh gratitude from a nation which obtains 10% of its annual budget from the American taxpayer, $3+ billion a year. Over the years, American taxpayers have been required to send Israel more than four times what the US spent to go to the moon.

What Israel has done in return was to set up government subsidized telecommunications companies which operate here in the United States. One of these companies is Amdocs, which provides billing and directory assistance for 90% of the phone companies in the USA. Amdocs' main computer center for billing is actually in Israel and allows those with access to do what intelligence agencies call "traffic analysis"; a picture of someone's activities based on a pattern of who they are calling and when. Another Israeli telecom company is Comverse Infosys, which subcontracts the installation of the automatic tapping equipment now built into every phone system in America. Comverse maintains its own connections to all this phone tapping equipment, insisting that it is for maintenance purposes only. However, Converse has been named as the most likely source for leaked information regarding telephone calls by law enforcement that derailed several investigations into not only espionage, but drug running as well.

Yet another Israeli telecom company is Odigo, which provides the core message passing system for all the "Instant Message" services. Two hours before the attacks on the World Trade Towers, Odigo employees received a warning. Odigo has an office 2 blocks from the former location of the World Trade Towers. "I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now."-- Senator Graham as quoted in Senator: At Least One Foreign Country Assisted the 9/11 Terrorists

Let us be clear here. There is nothing benign about Israel spying on the United States. When Jonathan Pollard stole our nuclear secrets (which your taxes paid to develop) and sent them to Israel, Israel did not hesitate to trade those secrets to the USSR in exchange for increased emigration quotas.

The implication of these facts is that the billions of our tax dollars sent to Israel (while women and children sleep in America's alleys and eat out of trash bins) have bought and paid for a monstrous phone tracking and phone tapping system that can eavesdrop on almost any phone call in America. Even the White House phones were open to such tapping by listening in on the other end outside the White House itself.

This actually happened. The Ken Starr report on Whitewater describes how Bill Clinton informed Monica Lewinsky that their phone sex conversations had been recorded. At the same time, Clinton ordered the FBI to cease the hunt for an Israeli mole known to be operating inside the White House itself!

So here we have a foreign nation able to listen in on most phones at will, using taps that cannot be found because they are built into the phone system itself, and willing to use the information gleaned from those calls to blackmail Americans into any desired course of action. This may well be what Ariel Sharon meant when he stated that the Jewish people control America. That the information gleaned from these phone taps is being used to coerce the behavior of key individuals in the US Government and media is illustrated by the manner in which the government and the media have handled this scandal of the largest spy ring ever uncovered inside the United States, and of phone taps on all of our phones. They are downplaying it. Actually, burying it is a better word. Fox News, alone of all the media, actually ran the story as a four part broadcast, and put the story up on its web site. Then, without explanation, Fox News erased the story from their web site and have never mentioned it again. CNN followed by "Orwellizing" their report of the two hour advance warning of the WTC attacks sent to Odigo employees. But far more telling is the admission made by a US Official in part one of the Fox News report that hard evidence existed linking the events of 9/11 not to Arab Muslims, but to some of the more than 200 Israeli spies arrested both before and after 9/11, but that this evidence had been CLASSIFIED.

"Investigators within the DEA, INS and FBI have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying ... is considered career suicide."-- Carl Cameron, as quoted in The Spies Who Came In From The Art Sale Since then, any and all mention of the Israeli spy ring and phone tapping scandal has resulted in a barrage of shrill screams of "hate" and "anti-Semite", two well worn and frankly over used devices to try to silence discussion on any topic unfavorable to the nation which owns the spy ring in question.The story of the uncovering of the largest spy ring ever discovered inside the United States should be the story of the century, if indeed the US media is looking out for the best interests of the American people. That this spy ring helped drug smugglers evade investigators should be a major scandal, if indeed the US media is looking out for the best interests of the American people. That the spy ring includes companies able to track and tap into any phone in America, including the White House, should be a cause celebre', if indeed the US media is looking out for the best interests of the American people. But they are not. The media is trying to bury this story. They are spiking it, erasing it from their web sites in a chilling real-life Orwellian rewriting of history. The actions of the US media are those of people trying to protect this spy ring and those that the spy ring worked for. "While I agree with you, if I say anything about US geopolitical interests with Israel, I might as well clean off my desk."-- Unnamed reporter as quoted in American Media Censorship and Israel

The actions of the US media are those of traitors to the American people.


George Bush: World Class Monster 19 April 2005

“George Bush is a satanic, sadistic, brutal monster. Compared to George Bush, Adolf Hitler was a true gentleman.”

- Michael Boren Williams, former Campaign Manager for Senator Gary Hart and Bush murder attempt victim

“For the record, if I had my choice as to which one of the two (Clinton or Bush) represented the greater evil, I would say George Bush - in the blink of an eye....” - Michael Ruppert, former LAPD Narcotics detective

True evil does not develop in a vacuum.

Evil is arrogant. It has no conscience. It is utterly self-serving. It hides from the light and will attack, even destroy others to preserve its own demented delusions. It is an unrestrained sociopath, wallowing in the murky darkness of its own psychosis while endlessly rationalizing its terrible deeds. It infiltrates the weak-minded and subverts the weak of character.

Evil... creates a world of shadows - shadow play - shadow government. It lives by the lie.

“The Big Lie,” once thought to be the exclusive purview of the Nazis, has become canonized in our form of government. And it is growing more perverse—more insidious. Like the Nazis before the fall of the Third Reich, we are a nation wallowing in the murky darkness of our own psychosis. I can think of no contemporary American family more twisted and evil than the Bush dynasty.

The Bush family’s rapacious greed and depravity can trace its lineage to New England’s Pierce family. Both George Herbert Walker Bush and his wife Barbara Pierce (of Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith), as was President Franklin Pierce, are descended from this same family. Originally the powerful Percy family, they changed their name to Pierce and quickly emigrated to America when Thomas Percy’s involvement in the Gun Powder Plot to assassinate King James I was revealed.[*] Bush’s membership in the shadowy Yale secret society of Skull and Bones (S&B) has likewise not been widely reported. S&B is made up of members recruited exclusively from the ranks of the wealthy Eastern Establishment.[*] As Hoover Institute professor Antony Sutton writes in America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones: “Those on the inside know it as The Order. Others have known it for more than 150 years as Chapter 322 of a German secret society. More formally for legal purposes, The Order was incorporated as The Russell Trust in 1856. It was also known as the Brotherhood of Death....”[1]

Many historians claim that S&B sprung up as a direct extension of America’s oldest Greek-letter college secret society, Phi Beta Kappa. As Sutton writes: “The Order is not just another campus Greek letter fraternal society with passwords and handgrips, common to most campuses.... Chapter 322 is a secret society whose members are sworn to silence. It only exists on the Yale campus. It has rules. It has ceremonial rites. It is not at all happy with prying probing citizens.... Above all the Order is powerful, unbelievably powerful....”[2]

S&B members occupy key positions in commerce, media, diplomacy, education, espionage, finance, law and politics—having a profound impact on world events. As Sutton adds: “Among academic associations, the American Historical Association, the American Economic Association, the American Chemical Society and the American Psychological Association were all started by members of the Order or persons close to the Order.... These are key associations for the conditioning of society.... The phenomenon of The Order as the first on the scene is found especially among foundations.”[3]

more at

Aren¹t all family law cases concerned with the welfare of children? 19 April 2005

The answer is NO! NO! NO! and this point has been missed over the past twenty years by those of us who have been struggling to explain to the public that what is going on IN SECRET FAMILY COURTS is simply persecution and asset-stripping of the Married Family by solicitors and the state taking over the control of the family.

This article examines the perplexing difference in the way that the state, through the courts, respects the rights of parents where there exist serious PUBLIC concerns for the welfare of a child (as in well publicised cases of child abuse such as Kilkenny Incest trials, the Cleveland trials and the McColgan family etc) but fails to respect the rights of parents where THERE ARE NO PUBLIC CONCERNS for the welfare of a child as in 'PRIVATE' family law cases. PRIVATE family law cases account for 99% of all family law.

Importantly it highlights the fact that in PRIVATE family law cases, ie where one parent takes an action against the other, BY DEFINITION there are no concerns for the welfare of the children. This will come as a shock to most members of the public but the facts are indisputable.

For mothers, who have been encouraged by the state to take a PRIVATE family law action, there is the inescapable implication that the reason they did it was for the money and the power it gave them over their husband! Nothing else! Certainly not because there were any problems with the welfare of the children.

It is about time that a campaign was launched on foot of this information to question whether the general public intends to continue to support the state in encouraging mothers to initiate PRIVATE law actions which break up their marriages and deny their children the protection and care of their fathers. Now that it has been established - with the PROOF that it was a PRIVATE family law case - fathers, who have been cruelly and ILLEGALLY removed as Custodians of their children, need to demonstrate in court and outside that there was never any justification for the state to act as it did. Then they need to go and claim their family back.


In Ireland, family law, as is the case in the UK and elsewhere, falls into two categories. PRIVATE AND PUBLIC family law. The law and public policy requires that any person who suspects or is aware that a child¹s welfare is at risk must notify the Health Board. Where there exist PUBLIC concerns for the welfare of a child and after an investigation by Health Board staff which confirms that there is a case of child abuse to answer applications to the Court are deemed 'PUBLIC' family law cases and proceedings are instituted by the Health Board themselves under the Child Care Act, 1991. It is actually a criminal offence in Ireland for a person who has concerns for the welfare of a child to NOT REPORT it to the Health Board.


In the remainder of cases where there are also minor children in the Family - these account for the vast majority of family law cases - the proceedings are not brought by the Health Board but by one of the parents and it follows therefore that the welfare of the children, in these cases, IS NOT A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN and so not in jeopardy.

These proceedings are denoted as 'PRIVATE' family law cases as they are initiated by one parent against the other (invariably a mother against the father for reasons shown later). These proceedings are held in-camera and are typically titled along the lines of A.B. versus B.B.

There are no PUBLIC concerns for the welfare of the children of these Families otherwise the Health Board would have had to be notified and be taking the case themselves. In these cases the Supreme Court has ruled that the children¹s welfare remains exclusively the responsibility of the Married parents.

Unlike ŒPUBLIC¹ family law cases where the application is for the children¹s welfare to be supervised by the state, the intention of PRIVATE family law proceedings for the applicant parent is solely to secure the possession of the child(ren) for themselves.


In Ireland, in law, the state holds the Husband as head of the family and as Custodian of the children of the Marriage. Because of this the current legal process actually dictates that the Mother must present argument of some nature to the court to justify disturbing the Father¹s Custody - even though, as we have seen, she can not have any serious concerns for the welfare of any of the children. (If she did and still pursued a PRIVATE law case she would be committing a criminal offence because she had not reported it beforehand to the Health Board or had reported it but her allegations had been found to be unsubstantiated)

Her desire to bring a case against the father in these circumstances obviously leads to the fabrication of the sort of Œtheatre¹ of false allegations of violence and/or abuse with which we have all become so familiar.

Where there are no PUBLIC concerns for the welfare of the children the only reason that can be put forward for these proceedings is that the applicant mother has taken the children from the Father out of purely selfish and exploitative motivation in order to benefit from the financial settlements and desirable social status that accrues from such possession. The state further encourages this action by invariably rewarding the mother with lucrative property and lump sum payments as well as maintenance payments for herself and the children she has captured.

(Note: There are no provisions in law in Ireland any more that might assist a deserted married father in defending his marriage and hence his ability to continue to care for and provide for his children. The laws that he used to be able to rely on to do this were all swept away in the eighties by the state when it pretended that it had to appease absurd feminist claims that Marriage was a means of oppression by men over women and children.)


Once PUBLIC and PRIVATE family law is thus clearly delineated by this method of deduction the truth of the situation regarding the welfare of the children is exposed and we can now tackle the abuses of process and the misunderstandings that have been perpetrated. Any father, who has had a PRIVATE family law case brought against him where the court took Custody of his children away from him because his wife made mere allegations against him, can now re-enter the case and claim his children back because the logic of this deduction clearly shows everyone including the Judge and the PUBLIC that THE MOTHER COULD NOT HAVE HAD GENUINE CONCERNS FOR THE WELFARE OF HIS CHILDREN IN THE FIRST PLACE to cause his Custody to be disturbed.

This is very good news for children and for the stability of Marriage on which society is founded. As every study indicates this is also good news for women as well as men!


In the meantime the trick carried out by the state is that whilst it is an offence to publicise any minute detail of a PRIVATE family law case, the details of PUBLIC family law proceedings, as in the example below, are usually heavily publicised with just the personal details kept secret. Invariably Judges are reported in these PUBLIC family law cases paying huge respect to the rights of these parents who are alleged to have ACTUALLY abused their children and this is widely commented on by the media.

In doing this they cynically attempt to persuade the innocent unsuspecting PUBLIC

A) that ALL family law cases are about children being abused

B) that parents have such strong rights that the state can't punish them for committing even horrendous child abuse

C) that as parents have such powerful rights that where a parent Œloses¹ Custody it must have been because they were found guilty of some terrible child abuse, even worse than the cases which are reported in the press where the parents don¹t lose Custody

D) that the state is BENIGN in its actions, that the state is trying desperately to save children from the clutches of evil parents and that children would be better off with the state looking after them than their own parents.

Thus the truth that in PRIVATE family law cases the state is violating Married fathers rights to protect their children and prevent their marriages from being destroyed is kept hidden This is of course the state¹s intended evil propaganda and shows that the courts and media are an integral part of the state's apparatus to remove our liberty and our children by destroying Marriage.

Roger Eldridge, Chairman. National Men's Council of Ireland

VAWA Law Helped by a Propaganda Ploy 19 April 2005

Un-Constitutional VAWA Law Helped by a Propaganda Ploy
By Carey Roberts

What do you get when you mix equal parts of gender myth, a casual disregard of Constitutional protections, and old fashioned political pork? VAWA – the Violence Against Women Act - that's what. For the past decade, Americans have been subjected to the relentless message, There's no excuse for domestic violence against a woman. OK, but what about Piper Rountree who was convicted six weeks ago for the ambush-slaying of her former husband, University of Richmond professor Frederic Jablin? Are cases of female-on-male violence so rare as to be an amusing oddity in the newspaper obituary columns? Here's the shocker: Women are just as likely as men to commit domestic violence against their intimate partners.

Chances are you've been heard the urban legend that follows the predictable line, male = abuser, female = victim. So I'm going to repeat my statement, this time with emphasis: Research shows that women are equally likely to commit partner aggression against their boyfriends, husbands, and ex-husbands. We're not talking about a handful of studies. Over 100 research reports have shown this to be true - you can see for yourself by visiting this website: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm Here's how attorney Linda Kelly recently put it: "men and women commit violence at similar rates." http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf

Psychologist John Archer reached an even stronger conclusion in his article in the Psychological Bulletin: "Women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10989615&dopt=Abstract It's not a casual toss of a pillow or a playful jab at the chops. According to Dr. Archer, 38% of all persons who suffer domestic violence injuries are male. So why don't we read about these cases of female-on-male violence more often in the newspapers? Because men are far less likely to report the incident to the police – nine times less likely, according to one landmark study. http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-22.htm#pgfId-1378765

To understand the DV urban legend, we need to go back to 1991, when senator Joe Biden of Delaware introduced VAWA for the first time. http://www.vawnet.org/SexualViolence/PublicPolicy/VAWA-SVPubPol.pdf But many in Congress were opposed to Biden’s bill because it ignored key provisions of the United States Constitution. First, the proposed law flaunted the intent of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteen Amendment. Knowing that men are equally likely to be victims of domestic violence, how could anyone in good conscience propose a law that would confer greater protections and services, but only for women? Second, Biden's proposed bill violated the principle of federalism enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, and thus infringed on state sovereignty.

Not surprisingly, Biden's bill was soon relegated to the legislative deep-freeze. That didn't please the rad-fems. So someone came up with the idea of a publicity stunt. In January 1993, a daring group of women called a press conference in Pasadena, California. Sheila Kuhn of the California Women's Law Center made the statement that would provide the boost the feminists were desperately looking for: Super Bowl Sunday was the "biggest day of the year for violence against women." That stunning claim quickly appeared on Good Morning America, in the Boston Globe, and elsewhere. The Oakland Tribune would report the Super Bowl causes men to "explode like mad linemen, leaving girlfriends, wives, and children beaten."

How's that for dispassionate news reporting? Some remained unconvinced, however, including reporter Ken Ringle of the Washington Post. In his article "Debunking the 'Day of Dread' for Women," Ringle showed the feminist claim was a preposterous fraud. http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/superbowl.asp But Ringle's expose came too late - the genie was out of the bottle. The Super Bowl Hoax, as it was later dubbed, no doubt will become a classic in the propaganda textbooks. And it clearly did succeed in triggering a surge of letters and phone calls to Congress. The following year the Violence Against Women Act was signed into law by President Clinton. Less than five months from now on September 30, VAWA is set to expire. That means the Sisterhood's billion-dollar-a-year gravy-train will dry up. Renewal legislation has not yet been introduced, apparently because the Republican majority hasn't warmed up to the idea of dishing out mega-bucks to the GOP's avowed political foes.

As the clock ticks down to September 30, the rad-fems are beginning to panic. Armageddon-Day strategy memos are circulating on the Internet. Decisive action soon will be needed to galvanize public support. Get ready for a reprise of the Super Bowl Hoax.


Watchdog criticises Faculty of Advocates 15 April 2005

SCOTLAND'S legal services ombudsman has publicly criticised the Faculty of Advocates for refusing to comply with her recommendations. In an unprecedented move, Linda Costelloe Baker has placed a public notice highlighting her concerns over the faculty's handling of a complaint against an advocate. With no powers to make compensation orders binding, her notice, which will appear in a Scottish newspaper today, is a last resort – ensuring maximum embarrassment before the largest audience. She told The Herald last night: "I have issued the notice because I am concerned at the faculty for not recognising a complaint when it sees one. I find that quite extraordinary." Her action follows an investigation by the faculty which found a member failed to provide an adequate professional service. At the time, the notice added, the faculty also had no powers to award compensation – so the complainant had written to the advocate, claiming professional negligence.

However, the advocate – Robert Sutherland, QC – did not acknowledge receipt, leading to a further complaint being lodged with the faculty. Last night, the faculty stood by its claim that no-one had complained that a member was guilty of professional misconduct or had provided an inadequate service. The complainant, David Emslie, who lives in Aberdeen, has previous victories in disputes against the faculty which led to it being criticised by the ombudsman last year for "appalling, avoidable delays" and "maladministration". The latest dispute has roots in the way Mr Sutherland had handled Mr Emslie's defence in a case involving a housing association, with the faculty upholding the complaint. Mrs Costelloe Baker was then asked to intervene by Mr Emslie over concerns about the faculty's subsequent responses.

First, she recommended the faculty explain to Mr Emslie what was acceptable conduct and provide a copy of the advocate's response to his complaint. She also recommended compensation, and that the faculty should repay Mr Emslie's costs in writing to the ombudsman. Her notice continues: "The faculty's position was that there had never been a complaint about an advocate, and it refused to comply with all three recommendations. I disagreed with that because Mr Emslie had made a specific complaint about the failure of the advocate to acknowledge a claim, and the faculty had started to investigate that complaint."

She added: "The faculty does not think that anybody made a complaint of professional misconduct or providing an inadequate service. For this reason, it does not accept that the Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations. "I think that I do, because the ombudsman's powers apply whether or not the professional organisation concerned has treated the complaint as a conduct complaint." Of the faculty refusing to comply with her recommendations, she said: "The only power I have is to give the matter publicity. I have decided to do that as the faculty has not, in my view, made a reasonable interpretation of what constitutes a complaint." Mr Emslie said that self-regulation should now be removed, arguing: "Like the Law Society, the faculty sits and makes judgments on itself.

"Complaints should be taken out of their hands, and given to independent organisations with neither advocates nor solicitors on board." The faculty declined to comment, other than repeat its position as in the public notice – which it will have to pay for. The ombudsman's findings will be placed on her website for a month.


Ukrainian Opposition Unveiled Masonic Conspiracy 15 April 2005

Ukrainian opposition is to make a sensational exposure. As leader of Ukraine-s Social Party Alexander Moroz says, about 300 high-ranking officials in Ukraine are members of a Masonic lodge which representative office is located somewhere abroad. These are Ukraines prosecutor general, chief of the Ukrainian security service, the minister of defense, the first president of Ukraine and parliament deputies. As LIGA online informs, Alexander Moroz says it is abnormal that Ukraine-s prosecutor general is at the same time a chevalier.¦ The Socialist leader says that people belonging to a Masonic lodge cannot hold key governmental posts.

The matter concerns the Order of Saint Stanislav into which representatives of Ukrainian elite and high-ranking officials are actively dubbed. The initiation ceremony of some politicians (for instance, initiation of Ukraine-s first president Leonid Kravchuk) was photographed, and the pictures were later published in a book. The opposition presented the book as the evidence of the Masonic order-s existence. Former Vice-premier of Ukraine Julia Timoshenko says ?charters of such organizations are frequently esteemed more than the Constitution and legislation of Ukraine.¦ Ukraine-s Ex-president and leader of the parliamentary social democratic faction Leonid Kravchuk says that accusation of his belonging to masonry are ?bluff and lie¦. However, he admits that he has been member of the Order of Saint Stanislav since 1999; the organization has its priory in Ukraine. But Leonid Kravchuk doesn-t consider the organization Masonic; agency Ukrainian News quoted the ex-president as saying that the order ?is a positive organization.¦

Indeed, declarations published on the official website of the Order of Saint Stanislav are positive: strengthening of mutual understanding between nations, consolidation of the ideals of humanism, virtue, human rights and freedoms protection.¦ In a word, even if the Order is not a Masonic lodge, its Charter resembles that one of Masons very much, the latter are also known as humanists. The above mentioned objectives must be achieved by some chevaliers of the Order, majority of which are elite of the society. It is known that a priory of the Order was opened in Ukraine in 1999, about 300 people were dubbed into the society. Ex-president Leonid Kravchuk says that many political figures of Ukraine and businessmen donating for charity are members of the organization.

Andrey Lubensky

Translated by Maria Gousseva



Woman arrested as inquiry launched into baby death 14 April 2005

A woman is due to appear in court after the death of a baby boy at a house in the north east town of Buckie. A four-bedroom house in Rathburn Street has been cordoned off since the death was reported to Grampian Police.

The house is the home of a local fish merchant, his wife and two teenage children. A forensics operation began there on Wednesday. A woman arrested by police is to appear at Elgin Sheriff Court on Friday. A report has been sent to the fiscal.


Wifes live-in lover murderers husband 14 April 2005

Murder Suspect Was Living In Victim’s Closet

Monday, police arrested a suspect accused of murdering a man in his south Nashville home. Police arrested Raphael Rocha-Perez, who was charged with criminal homicide.

Rocha-Perez was living in the home of the victim, Jeffrey Freeman, without the victim’s knowledge. Police said Rocha-Perez was a guest of Martha Freeman, the murdered man’s wife, and was actually living in her closet. Martha Freeman told police late Monday afternoon that her husband discovered Rocha-Perez asleep in the closet. She said there was an altercation between the men. She accused Rocha-Perez of forcing Jeffrey Freeman into the bathroom at gunpoint and then killing him.

She ran to a neighbor’s home and asked them to call police.

Police later found Rocha-Perez after a neighbor spotted him running into a nearby home under construction. Officers found the suspect in an attic about two blocks from the crime scene. Police said they’re not certain if the suspect knew the victim. Investigators were trying to determine how Freeman was killed, police said. An autopsy was scheduled to be performed on Tuesday.


Voters will get the quality of justice that they demand 13 April 2005

America has a dual system of law, where the courts "develop" the law as they go along through precedents, and the legislature also passes law by statute. 

The idea of "common law"(developed by the courts) is an idea whose origin is in a TIME in England when THERE WAS NO LEGISLATURE or much of any other government at all.  Today, the idea of common law is really inconsistent with the structure of government that we now have.  The English courts developed ("discovered") the law because they were left to their own devices, in the complete absence of any other governmental structure. 

The king was not interested in local private matters, so the courts were left to work things out on their own.  If you committed treason against the king, he would send a knight to kill you, but if your neighbor refused to pay you what he owed you, the early kings could not care less.  A private debt was your problem.  So the courts "developed" (discovered) the law out of benign neglect by the king.  Today, we have elaborate structures of legislatures and governors and local governments, and the original reason for judge-made common law is questionable.

The idea is supposed to be that where the legislature has left GAPS in the law or questions unresolved, the courts are supposed to fill in the gaps.

The idea of sovereign immunity is one of those big concepts that have been developed by the courts as part of the common law.

However, ANYTHING created by the courts is subject to being CANCELLED or modified by a statute of the legislature.  The only justification for the courts making up these rules on their own is that the legislature left certain ideas undefined, so that the courts have to fill in the gaps.

Technically, the theory goes, the legislature has "delegated" law-making authority to either the executive branch or the courts by leaving questions unresolved, so that the courts MUST fill in the missing ingredients.  They really have no choice, because there are questions that the legislature did not answer which the court needs to know before moving forward to arrive at a conclusion in the case before them. 

They literally don't know what the law says, so they have no choice but to answer the question for themselves.  So the case really CANNOT be decided without filling in the gaps, and "finishing" the law that the legislature left "unfinished."  Sometimes the legislature might do this intentionally because the legislature does not know exactly what the circumstances will be when the law is applied.  So the legislature may intentionally (and perhaps reasonably) kick the can down the road and have the details fleshed out on a case-by-case basis by a judge with the facts in front of him.  By letting the courts work out the details, based on real, concrete case, the legiislature leaves the law flexible to the particular situations that arise.

But this gives enormous power to judges, who might not write rules of law that the public wants.  Notice that I said "GIVE."  The legislature has GIVEN this power to the courts, and what the legislature has given, it can also TAKE away.  But no one pays any attention to that, and nobody puts pressure on the legislature to stand up like men and be accountable to the people.  People rail against the judges who are wielding authority delegated to them by the legislature, but no one asks the legislature "Why did you give them the authority to do that?  Why couldn't you be bothered to write the law with sufficient detail to answer the questions that the court was trying to answer?"  Frankly, if the legislature cannot be bothered to fill in the details in the law, how can we blame the courts for finishing the job the legislature failed to finish?

HOWEVER, it is important to understand that the legislature can wipe the chalkboard clean in an instant, with the stroke of a pen.  Because the courts are only filing in the gaps left by the legislature, the legislature can eradicate all of the court's precedents in an instant by enacting an actual, written statue on the same topic.  Any such statute wipes out and replaces the entire body of judge-made law developed by the courts.

So if the courts make up laws to fill in the gaps of "unfinished" laws in ways that the legislature did not intend, the legislature has the right and power, nay the duty, to go back and FILL IN the gaps they previously left and to explicitly state what law they had in mind.  This ERASES the previous, judge-made rules, laws, and presumptions.

So, if the legislature wanted to eliminate the judge-made doctrine of sovereign immunity, they could do so tomorrow morning.  What they lack is the desire.  Or, more correctly, they lack the belief that they will lose votes by maintaining the status quo.

Of course, nearly all States and the Federal government have carved out LIMITED exceptions to sovereign immunity, such as when a city bus kills a woman at an intersection (an actual case I worked on), because the public outrage would be too great if the husband of a dead woman could not sue the bus that killed her.

See how it works?  The legislature passed laws to limit the previous common law rule created by judges to the extent that the public would have tarred and feathered them at the voting booth had they not done so.   When the voters care about something, the politicians start to care about (although don't be fooled by the long time lag that can exist; persistence is required).  In other words ....

After legal abuse syndrome sets in 13 April 2005

I hear the sentiments of an idealist who has not been personally and professionally a target of courts.  Your perspective changes, after legal abuse syndrome happens to you.    That's one of the 30 or so reasons it is so hard to relate to 'the legal abuse experience' second-hand.  And so members reduce themselves to speaking in angry explicatives.   

And so, I disagree:  The problem is indeed judges - who are at the helm of these dysfunctional cases.  I am not saying dysfunctional people - all people, regardless of their mental condition -  are entitled to 'fair' court hearings to find 'the truth'.    I observe an epidemic of judicial behavior that is 'not fair' according to the standards and principles we (as Americans) expect.   The appeals courts are massively clogged, because litigants who have been unfairly treated, attempt to get review and correction in individual cases.  My experience is people can lose and get on with their lives - if they believe they were treated fairly (and with respect) in the court process.  But, if they perceive they were cheated in the process - (perhaps because the legal process is slanted to favor insiders and certain litigants based on power, prestige , or, $), they fight like hell afterwards and don't readily give up trying to fix it - to make it 'fair'.    

It is the shock of betrayal along with some personally devastating court outcomes.  The betrayal of Trust (in an institution), is enormous.    That's why I think we all are here - it is the institutional betrayal of national trust we expected in courts and judges.  Fundamental stuff - like Mom and apple pie.    I was shocked when I finally figured out - professionally - that there was judicial corruption in my state and it was systemic.  After sitting through 3 months of legislative investigative and impeachment hearings of our entire state supreme court, I KNEW (later) the betrayals of trust were widespread and the judges seemed stunned that they were being forced to answer public questions.  They had grown into a way of life where they provided professional favors and preferential treatment secretly, and overlooked or avoided or covered-up the ethical violations of what they were doing.  

The attitude seemed to be - ethics rules are for commoners - not us - because we write the rules.  And it doesn't seem to have stopped - they are just more careful hiding the tracks.   The reason the bar association plays into this - 'unified' state bars control members.  (by using ethics rules in reverse).  Educated, knowledgeable people in the bar who might otherwise help uncover and correct court problems - are institutionally disinclined to help as a matter of self-preservation.  Their private case work becomes interwoven into a legal industry where it is not good to rock the boat.  So court reform is largely in the province of lay people.   This is NOT a problem of Congress, the executive branch, or the legislature, as suggested.  It is uniquely a court/judge ethics problem.  If that premise is true, the remedy needs to target the offenders - either with civil liability or criminal treatment.  Instead, the Court Branch handles its judge ethics problems internally and privately by closed committees of bar and court people.   

In desperation, People turn to the other branches of government to animate/stimulated those branches to step over the separation of powers line and get involved in court cases.  It is a desperate attempt to 'solve' problems that appear 'unfair' or mis-managed in the court area of government.   - ie Terry Cheviot: trying to get Congress to pass a federal law for one person.  Last time I remember that was Dr.  Elizabeth Morgan's case.  Cases that offend the social conscience.  The subliminal message?

"Don't trust courts."   

  C. Douglas, Esq.

Passport applicants must give fingerprints 13 April 2005


Preparation for ID cards goes ahead without parliament

Ministers are to press ahead with the mandatory fingerprinting of new passport applicants using royal prerogative powers to sidestep the loss of their identity card legislation last week. The police are expected to be given the authority to carry out checks against this newly created national fingerprint database. The home secretary Charles Clarke has authorised the passport service to acquire 70 new passport service offices across the country so that all adult applicants for new documents can be interviewed in person from next year. The service currently has seven offices.

The Home Office admits that the new network could also be used in future as identity card enrolment centres and the introduction of mandatory fingerprinting of passport applicants will form an important "building block" for the future ID card scheme. Ministers have already made clear that the police will be allowed to conduct routine checks of fingerprints found at the scene of a crime against this new fingerprint database. Civil liberty campaigners fear that, with 80% of British citizens holding a passport, the new fingerprint database will open up the potential of routine identity checks using fingerprint scanners, whether or not the individual is carrying a passport at the time.

It had been expected that the government's failure to get legislation paving the way for a national identity card scheme onto the statute book before the general election would at least have delayed the project. But ministers have confirmed in correspondence that they are to press ahead despite the lack of parliamentary authority because passports are issued under the royal prerogative rather than legislation. By the end of this year all new passports issued to first time adult applicants and those whose passports have been lost or stolen will include a chip containing a digital image of the normal passport photo. This will not involve applicants going in person to a passport office. But from next year the 600,000 a year new adult applicants will no longer be able to apply by post and will have to present themselves for a personal interview at the new passport offices where they will also be fingerprinted.

Confirmation that this will be quickly extended to the 5 million people renewing their passports every year is contained in the HM passport service's corporate and business plan for 2005-2010. It shows that the new national fingerprint database will build up at a rapid rate. A £415m funding boost to the passport service to introduce these new "biometric passports" has already been agreed with the Treasury. The Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, Mark Oaten, said the government was trying to hide the true costs of its identity card scheme by turning the passport into a biometric identity card.

"The compulsory identity cards scheme is an expensive white elephant and a serious threat to civil liberties. It is an abuse of democracy for Labour to use the royal prerogative to put the nuts and bolts of the system in place without parliamentary approval," said Mr Oaten. "There are no international obligations on the UK to put fingerprints in passports. The idea raises important privacy questions which must be properly debated, both in public and in Parliament." Tony Bunyan of Statewatch, the civil liberties organisation, said the International Civil Avi ation Organisation had told everyone to include a digitised photograph on every passport. But he said the recent agreement amongst the European Union Schengen states to include fingerprints as well did not include an obligation on the United Kingdom which retained its "opt-out" over such arrangements. Caoilfhionn Gallagher, policy officer of Liberty, said: "If the government cannot convince parliament or the public of the need for a multi-purpose ID card it is wrong to create a national biometric database by stealth without proper debate."


The Impact of Feminism on the Family 13 April 2005

Quote: "The fiction of fatherhood is a giant religion called Christianity." - Jill Johnston in Lesbian Nation

Gloria Steinem sounded the war cry, "We don't just want to destroy capitalism," she said, "we want to tear down the whole f____ patriarchy." Men were not husbands, lovers, employers, or friends, they were "PJs" - patriarchal jerks.

As the women's movement turned fanatical and ugly in the 1960s and 70s the focus began to shift from reform and equal opportunity. The feminist leaders - humorless, militant, pugnacious, and angry with their particular lot in life, launched programs that were anti-God, anti-capitalism, anti-family, anti-birth, anti-heterosexual and fostered a virulent hatred of anything having to do with males. They no longer wanted to equalize the status of women, but instead wanted to irreversibly alienate women from men and vice versa.

The big concerns at their recent national convention were pushing the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin, bashing the Christian men's group Promise Keepers, and pushing for the rights of "transgendered people," which could be anything from hermaphrodites to people waiting for sex change operations.

To accomplish their goals, organizations such as the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, the National Education Association, and the People for the American Way, the Gay-Lesbian Caucus, and their ilk have arisen to champion unrestrained sex, homosexual rights, abortion on demand, while they attacked Christian beliefs, conservative organizations, and all the traditional family structures of America.

Home and traditional family values were no longer accepted answers to the questions, "Who am I?" and, "What am I here for?" The preeminent purpose for some women became their careers, and they decided against the value of home and family.

Betty Friedan, founder of NOW, once referred to traditional family life as a "comfortable concentration camp" from which women needed liberation. Sheila Cronan, one of the feminist movements most respected leaders and spokeswomen said, "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking marriage."

etc, etc, etc...


Jailed Solicitor 'Betrayed Grieving Clients' 13 April 2005

Police who investigated a solicitor jailed for six years after stealing more than £1 million from the estates of dead clients today described his crimes as a “betrayal of trust of staggering proportions”. John Ingham, 60, was jailed at Leeds Crown Court yesterday after admitting 19 counts of theft from accounts held by his firm in Otley, West Yorkshire. A specialist unit of West Yorkshire Police began investigating senior partner Ingham in October 2003.

A police spokesman said: “The Economic Crime Unit team working with the Law Society quickly established that in excess of £1 million had been stolen from the client accounts of the law firm between February 18, 1993 and June 27, 2003. “The monies stolen from the client account had all been held there against probate matters being dealt with by John Richard Ingham. “This investigation was a complex and far reaching enquiry, which uncovered numerous betrayals of trust by Ingham whilst supposedly acting for grieving families in winding up loved ones estates. “With thefts from 19 separate probate accounts discovered, the impact on the victims cannot be underestimated. Being a well-known and prominent solicitor in a small market town, the betrayal of trust was of staggering proportions.

“Some relatives were induced to wait in excess of seven years for funds, whilst others either never received the funds, or as in some cases passed away themselves.” Det Sgt Chris Thwaites, who led the operation, said: “Together with the investigation team my thoughts are with the victims of this dishonourable and dishonest man, who has put his own greed above his professional duty, and the needs of the vulnerable and grieving relatives.” Today a Law Society spokesman said Ingham, who lived in Thirsk, North Yorkshire, was struck off in February.

He said: “This was an extremely serious incident of dishonesty. “The vast majority of solicitors will welcome the fact he was struck off and will think that the length of yesterday’s sentence was perfectly correct. “It was good to see that he was reported by his own firm. “That should provide some reassurance to the public.”

Ingham admitted 19 charges of theft.


Watchdogs call for regulation shake up of legal profession 13 April 2005

As three top consumer watchdogs join forces to lobby for the government to introduce tougher regulation for lawyers, a survey shows three in ten people feel they are getting poor value for money from their solicitor. Heads from Which?, Citizens Advice and National Consumer Council (NCC) will all speak to an audience of legal professionals and politicians at the conference: 'The future of legal services – putting consumers first', organised by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. New research carried out by Which? shows eight in ten people have used a solicitor and:

A third of those don't feel they are getting a good service. Almost a quarter of those surveyed think their solicitor did not listen to their opinion.

Almost a third did not feel well informed about how much they would be charged for their solicitor's services. Citizens Advice has raised concerns about unregulated 'claims farmers' who handle personal injury cases. In their report No win, no fee no chance they report widespread misselling of supposed 'no win, no fee' deals, and high costs that are often passed onto consumers as a result of poor advice and service.

The lobby is calling for major reform to the current systems of self regulation, the introduction of an independent regulator to cover the whole of the legal services industry and available sanctions to tackle firms providing poor service – as recommended by the recent independent review undertaken by Sir David Clementi. Changes should also include:

Direct access to a single complaints service.

A publicised list of upheld complaints.

Less restrictive practices in the way that lawyers can offer services to the public. Additional research published in July 2004 and August 2001 found that people are getting a poor service from solicitors. The Legal Services Ombudman itself has said that there is one complaint for every six solicitors in England and Wales as people complain about costs, treatment from legal professionals and delays – one person said "it would have been quicker to do a course in conveyancing." Nick Stace, communications director, Which?, said:

"Self-regulation isn't working. People complain to Which? time and again about the second rate service they receive from solicitors; often during stressful times. Other professions can't get away with this type of behaviour and it's time for the government to rein in this complaint-riddled industry." Teresa Perchard, director of policy, Citizens Advice, said:

"It is now up to the legal industry to show they can work constructively with a new regulatory regime and put consumers' interests first. We urge the government to ensure that the new regime covers the whole of the legal industry, especially claims farmers, insurers, assessors and other firms giving consumers direct legal advice."

Deirdre Hutton, chair, National Consumer Council said: "An independent legal services regulator will not only give people the greater protection they deserve, but it will also help restore confidence in a system that has failed consumers for too long. If the new regulator is to be successful, it is vital that it sets strict standards, exerts close scrutiny and, where necessary, is ready to bare its teeth." Notes to editors:Which? fights for consumers' rights in two ways. We campaign to make sure consumers get treated fairly. And we publish magazines, books and websites to help people make the right choice for them.

The Citizens Advice service is a network of independent charities that helps people resolve their money, legal and other problems by providing information and advice and by influencing policymakers. For more information see www.citizensadvice.org.uk. The advice provided by the Citizens Advice service is free, independent, confidential, and impartial, and available to everyone regardless of race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion, age or nationality. The National Consumer Council (NCC) is an advocacy organisation, conducting rigorous research and policy analysis to investigate key consumer issues, and work with public service providers, businesses and regulators to make change happen. We have strong connections within government, but our independence means we are ready to challenge any organisation that does not give consumers a fair deal.


Occult Significance of the Apollo Landings 12 April 2005

The Magic of the Moon
The Occult Significance of the Apollo Landings

Evidence suggests that secret societies were involved behind the scenes.
Part 2: A Mason on the Moon

Of possible secret societies involved behind the scenes in the space program, the Freemasons are the most widely known suspects. However, they may not be the only ones. Jack Parsons, for instance, was a brilliant chemist who was one of the founding members of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which oversees most of America’s civilian unmanned space probes. Parsons was also a practicing occultist and sex magician, a student of the self-proclaimed Great Beast, Aleister Crowley, and for a while a fellow conjuror with none other than L. Ron Hubbard, the science fiction writer who founded the cult of Scientology. (An excellent book, Sex and Rockets, has been written about Parsons, his role in the formation of JPL, and his occult connections.) Sometime after Hubbard ran off with Parsons’ girlfriend and boat, Parsons was blown to bits in an explosion in his home workshop. Since then, JPL no longer boasts of his role in its creation. It is impossible to say whether Parsons was the only occultist involved in JPL, or how he may have influenced its future development. However, the evidence gathered by Richard Hoagland is quite suggestive that something funny’s going on with the space program.

Astronauts with aprons

It is claimed by some that a number of astronauts, including Gus Grissom, Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin, were Freemasons. I have not been able to find any documentary proof in the case of Armstrong, and it appears most unlikely. However, Aldrin certainly was, or rather, is a 33rd Degree Mason. In the Headquarters of the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite in Washington D.C. there supposedly hangs a Masonic Banner Buzz took with him to the Moon

Col. Buzz Aldrin, 33rd degree Mason

In Aldrin’s autobiography, Return to Earth, the only mention of Masonry is when he says that he temporarily lost his grandfather’s Masonic ring that he wanted to take to the Moon while suiting up for the mission. He says nothing about that banner, nor of the “SPECIAL DEPUTATION” he undertook for the Texas Grand Lodge on the Moon. However, the charter of the Tranquility Lodge in Waco indicates it was to “claim Masonic Territorial Jurisdiction” on the Moon for the Lodge.

So Aldrin apparently claimed the Moon for Texas Masons. The whole thing, frankly, sounds like a fraternity prank; except that there is no mention of the banner whatsoever in his book nor at the site of the Supreme Council. It is a secret, just like the ceremony was. Since the mission, timed to the second, did not allow for much playtime, perhaps it was more important than it seems. This at least demonstrates that Buzz knows how to keep the Craft’s secrets (though Neil, Mason or not, is even more close-mouthed).

Lunar rites

It is perhaps all the more remarkable then, that Aldrin performed a rite that he was not so reticent about discussing. It is another one of his “firsts” — he was the first man to perform a religious ritual on another world, shortly after landing. Here’s how he described it in Return to Earth: During the first idle moment in the LM before eating our snack, I reached into my personal preference kit and pulled out two small packages which had been specially prepared at my request. One contained a small amount of wine, the other a small wafer. With them and a small chalice from the kit, I took communion on the moon, reading to myself from a small card I carried on which I had written the portion of the Book of John used in the traditional communion ceremony. (p. 233)

He goes on to say that he’d intended to read it back to Earth but that NASA had requested he not do this due to the legal battle that had erupted over the Apollo 8 crew reading Genesis 1 on Christmas Eve, 1968. Instead, he called for a moment of silence to contemplate the event and give thanks, and during that consumed the Sacred Elements. Meanwhile, Armstrong looked on with an “expression of faint disdain (as if to say, ‘what’s he up to now?’).” Another source identifies the words as being the verse he read as, “I am the vine and you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit.” (John 15:5) This was not the first prayer uttered in space, by any means. Apart from whatever unspoken thoughts the avowedly atheist cosmonauts might have had, the first known prayer was Al Shepard’s supposedly muttered on the pad before the first manned Mercury shot: “Dear Lord, please don’t let me screw up”or something to that effect.

The first formal prayer in space was probably Gordon Cooper’s. He uttered a prayer he had written beforehand privately during one of the later orbits of his flight, the last Mercury mission, shortly before the power went out. He later read it to a joint session of Congress. As for Aldrin’s Communion service, as far as I have been able to determine, this rite is probably Episcopalian in origin rather than Masonic. It wasn’t the first scriptural reading beyond Earth, however, since Borman, Lovell, and Anders had read aloud the first chapter of Genesis on the first circumlunar mission.

And it was followed shortly by a very symbolic statement — Neil Armstrong’s famous declaration while stepping onto the lunar surface, “That’s one small step for man ...ah... one giant leap for mankind.” Buzz said that even en route to the Moon, Neil had said that he was “still thinking about” what he would say. Yet Buzz intimated that the statement might have been “thought up by Simon Borgin, a United States Information Agency offical who was in frequent contact with the astronauts and who accompanied us around the world. He was also the rumored source for Frank Borman’s reading of Genesis. For his part Neil declined to comment on any of these rumors to anyone including Mike [Collins, the Command Module pilot] and myself.” (p. 234)

In other words, the public religious and civic symbolism quite possibly originated with, or was at least influenced by, the astronauts’ State Department handler. But whether there is any occult significance to Neil’s statement — or the supposed “goof” he made, I have not yet been able to determine. Still however, it is significant that the first ritual performed upon another world was not one of mere nationalism, like raising the flag, but a religious way of taking possession for God, something the Spanish did whenever they claimed a new land for their king.


Woman comments on womens lib 12 April 2005

Hello - I wanted to let you know (as a woman) how much I agree with much of what you are saying about women's lib. Personally, I think it is a tool of the devil. It certainly hasn't done anything to improve life for us women, or for our families. My mother was a stay at home housewife, and that is all I have ever wanted to be - unfortunately, society won't stand for it.

Women should have stayed in the kitchen. by joining men in the workplace they have gained nothing - we certainly don't have more income - couples may make twice as much, but now everything costs twice as much. And as a concequence, we now have no choice but to keep working, or find a wealthy man to support our decision to raise good children instead of working.

I would love to be at home where I feel I belong - my husband could come home everyday to a hot meal and a fire in the fireplace, and it would be neat and tidy. Instead we walk through the door together, the house is a mess and dinner ends up being whatever fits in the microwave. I think of leaving my job, but we would be ruined without my income. I curse the womens lib movement, and would love to help your cause if there was any way for me to do so. Feel free to use my words to prove to the world that not all women are trying to emasculate you men. there are many of us who long to see you as masters of the universe, kings of your castles - we just can't find a way to do it.



How America can end its divorce epidemic 12 April 2005

By David Kupelian

When 32-year-old Paul and his 17-year-old fiancee Anna walked into the Norristown, Pa., courthouse to apply for a marriage license, the justice turned them down flat when he learned they had known each other for only one day. Yet after much pleading and persuasion, the judge reluctantly granted them their license, and Anna and Paul were married three days later. The wedding, held at Paul's brother's house, wasn't much – only four people in attendance, no wedding gown, no flowers, no cake, not even a picture taken. He was poor, and she was poorer. As marriages go, this one didn't sound like it had too much of a future.

Yet, exactly 50 years later, I was privileged to attend the golden wedding anniversary party of Paul and Anna Paulson, my grandparents. It was memorable. They were as loved by their many friends and relatives as George and Mary Bailey in the final scene of "It's a Wonderful Life." Although their marriage had been arranged by their Greek families according to old-country custom – hence the absence of any courtship – Grandmom and Grandpop had learned to love each other. Along the way they raised four children (including my mother, Louise), kept them safe and sound through the Great Depression, built a successful business, put all four kids through college, saw them all married and producing 13 grandchildren, and lived a long and exemplary life of Christian service to others. What magic kept their marriage so rock-solid despite the tremendous stresses and hardships they endured? I didn't know the answer to that as a 14-year-old boy at their 50th anniversary party, nor did the question occur to me. Why would it? After all, their marriage didn't represent anything out-of-the-ordinary. When I was a kid, marriage was normal. Almost all grownups were married, and the marriage lasted until one of them died. That's just the way it was, or so it seemed.

I had heard about Elizabeth Taylor and other movie stars who scandalously seemed to marry for a short time, get divorced and then remarry and then re-divorce and remarry yet again. Some would just sleep around and not bother with the charade of marriage at all. But that was Hollywood. In the real world where I lived, people got married and stayed married. I vividly remember the day I discovered divorce. My mother introduced me to Yvonne, a friend of hers who had been divorced. I still recall my feelings of awkwardness and embarrassment, a gut recognition of some private shame. I knew there was something very wrong, something tragic, about divorce. Today, decades later, it seems every few weeks I hear about another friend or acquaintance of mine whose marriage has detonated. With stunning rapidity, divorce has been transformed from something relatively rare, stigmatizing and traumatic to something commonplace, accepted – and traumatic. Indeed, divorce today is almost expected, with one in every two marriages ending this way. It is only the numbing frequency and ubiquity of divorce that make us forget the full-blown tragedy it really is – the devastation of a family.

"All it takes is one confused spouse who thinks that divorce will solve their unhappiness," said Michelle Gauthier, founder of Defending Holy Matrimony, a Catholic organization. "When that one spouse visits a lawyer, they place the entire family in the hands of a hostile court system. Children become wards of the state, and all marital assets are controlled by the courts. It is truly a tragedy." A tragedy, yes, and nowhere more so than in its negative impact on children. "National studies show that children from divorced and remarried families experience more depression, have more learning difficulties, and suffer from more problems with peers than children from intact families," writes Judith Wallerstein, widely considered the world's foremost authority on the effects of divorce on children. In her landmark book, "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce," Wallerstein reveals: "Children from divorced and remarried families are two to three times more likely to be referred for psychological help at school than their peers from intact families. More of them end up in mental health clinics and hospital settings. There is earlier sexual activity, more children born out of wedlock, less marriage, and more divorce. Numerous studies show that adult children of divorce have more psychological problems than those raised in intact marriages."

It gets worse. Besides the more obvious results of rampant divorce – such as the massive growth in single-parent homes – "virtually every major personal and social pathology can be traced to fatherlessness more than to any other single factor," says author Stephen Baskerville, a professor of political science at Howard University. Citing violent crime, substance abuse, unwed pregnancy, suicide and other problems, he says, "fatherlessness far surpasses both poverty and race as a predictor of social deviance." Indeed, the growth of the youth-gang culture – police say Los Angeles County alone is home to an estimated 150,000 gang members – is eloquent testimony to the powerful need boys have for a father. If they don't have a real father in their lives, they'll gravitate to another male role model, even a poisonous one. Equally alarming, although largely unrecognized by most people, is the expansion of government power to which rampant divorce has given rise. As Baskerville puts it: "The result of three decades of unrestrained divorce is that huge numbers of people – many of them government officials – now have a vested professional and financial interest in encouraging it. Divorce today is not simply a phenomenon; it is a regime – a vast bureaucratic empire that permeates national and local governments, with hangers-on in the private sector. In the United States, divorce and custody comprise over half of civil litigation, constituting the cash cow of the judiciary and bringing employment and earnings to a host of public and private officials, including judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, mediators, counselors, social workers, child support enforcement agents and others.

"This growth industry derives from the impact of divorce on children. The divorce revolution has spawned a public-private industrial complex of legal, social service and psychotherapeutic professionals devoted to the problems of children, and especially children in single-parent homes. Many are women with feminist leanings. Whatever pieties they may voice about the plight of fatherless, poor, and violent children, the fact remains that these practitioners have a vested interest in creating as many such children as possible. The way to do it is to remove the fathers." "Where you have minor children, there's really no such thing as no-fault divorce for fathers," says Detroit attorney Philip Holman, vice-president of the National Congress for Fathers and Children. "On the practical level, fathers realize that divorce means they lose their kids." For an out-of-control, ever-expanding government such as America's, divorce represents a hard-to-resist growth opportunity. "Once the father is eliminated," Baskerville explains, "the state functionally replaces him as protector and provider. By removing the father, the state also creates a host of problems for itself to solve: child poverty, child abuse, juvenile crime, and other problems associated with single-parent homes. In this way, the divorce machinery is self-perpetuating and self-expanding. Involuntary divorce is a marvelous tool that allows for the infinite expansion of government power."

This may appear to be a sinister, almost conspiratorial-sounding assessment of government's role in divorce. But if you look objectively at what has happened to the institution of civil marriage since the 1960s and pay attention not to what people and governments say, but to what they actually do, Baskerville's harsh conclusions are hard to deny. Consider just how absurdly easy it is to get divorced today. Writer Dennis E. Powell explains how, upon learning his wife desired a divorce, he quickly found the state more than eager to help break up marriages: "I have discovered how my state – Connecticut – has done all it can to make ending a marriage easy, while making little or no provision for preserving it. In Connecticut, as in other states, "no-fault" divorce means "divorce because it suits the mood of at least one partner." The state has produced an official publication, the "Do-It-Yourself Divorce Guide" to make getting a divorce as simple as mounting a defense against a speeding ticket – even if your spouse has no interest in divorce.

"Especially if your spouse has no interest in divorce. The "Do-It-Yourself Divorce Guide" offers everything one needs to know to obtain a divorce, but no guidance as to how one who opposes a divorce might respond. There is plenty on how to battle for a bigger piece of the marital corpse and on getting court orders of alimony, child support, custody, and exclusive use of the family home. There is no mention of another pre-judgment court order ... available under the law, in which the court may order two sessions with a marriage counselor or other person trained in the resolution of disputes within families ... "Filing for divorce, the guide notes, is a simple matter. Fill out a couple of forms, take them to the court clerk, and have copies delivered to your spouse by a process server." In Connecticut, divorce is routinely granted about 90 days after one spouse files the necessary papers. Total cost to the divorcing party if one represents oneself pro se (without an attorney): approximately $225-$250. Ninety days. A couple hundred bucks. No reason required – other than "the marriage has irretrievably broken down." Breaking a marriage "contract" today is easier than firing an employee hired last week or getting out of a cell-phone contract.

In truth, there is no genuine civil marriage in America anymore. The "contract" part of the marriage contract is non-existent. After all, two parties enter into what they call a contract – and yet either party has the power to end that "contract" at any time, for any reason, whether or not the other party agrees. Thus, there never was a real contract, a binding agreement, in the first place. Yet, the "binding," extremely-hard-to-break nature of the marriage contract is essential to marriage itself. Marriage is difficult, and there comes a time in many, if not most, marriages when conflicts and suffering cause one or the other spouse to contemplate ending the marriage. The marriage contract is meant to protect both spouses – and their children – against exactly such a period of weakness. No-fault divorce destroys that protection. How did this happen? How have we managed to cripple civilization's primary institution, marriage, and with such blinding speed? 'Marriage is legalized rape' Let's begin our exploration by considering that a best-selling pro-marriage book almost never saw the light of day just a few years ago. Harvard University Press had contracted with University of Chicago sociologist and professor Linda J. Waite, a self-described "liberal Democrat," along with co-author Maggie Gallagher, to write a book based on Waite's studies about marriage.

Apparently, the Harvard-based publishing house expected the book to do the politically correct thing and criticize marriage, as is so common among today's academic elite. But, as the Harvard scholars reviewed the manuscript, they found it revealed married men and women live happier, healthier, more financially secure lives, and even have "more and better sex." So naturally, the university's publication board members decided at the last minute not to publish the book – titled "The Case for Marriage: Why Married People are Happier, Healthier and Better Off Financially" – a book they themselves had commissioned. One Harvard Press reviewer said she didn't like the book's "tone." That's about as close to an answer as the public ever got. By way of "tonal" comparison, check out another Harvard Press author, feminist Catharine MacKinnon who frequently compares male sexual desire to rape – whether women consent to sex or not. Expressing what one reviewer called "a whole-hog hatred of men," MacKinnon explains: "What in the liberal view looks like love and romance looks a lot like hatred and torture to the feminist." A professor of law at both the University of Michigan Law School and the University of Chicago Law School, MacKinnon has written no fewer than five books for Harvard Press. Her message: "Feminism stresses the indistinguishability of prostitution, marriage, and sexual harassment."

So, marriage-equals-rape is OK with the Harvard University Press, but marriage-equals-happiness is not OK. Fortunately, although Harvard turned down "The Case for Marriage" at the 11th hour, it was ultimately published by Doubleday and enjoyed wide readership and critical acclaim. Flatly contradicting the cherished divorce-may-be-good-for-you myths of the '60s and '70s, Waite and Gallagher argued – using a broad range of indices – that "being married is actually better for you physically, materially and spiritually than being single or divorced." But they introduce their findings with a warning: "For perhaps the first time in human history, marriage as an ideal is under a sustained and surprisingly successful attack. Sometimes the attack is direct and ideological, made by "experts" who believe a lifelong vow of fidelity is unrealistic or oppressive, especially to women.

"Even in the early 1960s," sum up social historians Steven Mintz and Susan Kellogg, "marriage and family ties were regarded by the 'human potential movement' as potential threats to individual fulfillment as a man or a woman. The highest forms of human needs, contended proponents of the new psychologies, were autonomy, independence, growth, and creativity," which marriage often thwarted. The search for autonomy and independence as the highest human good blossomed with the women's movement into a critique of marriage per se, which the more flamboyant feminists denounced as "slavery," "legalized rape," and worst of all, "tied up with a sense of dependency." "From this vantage point" Mintz and Kellogg note, "marriage increasingly came to be described as a trap, circumscribing a woman's social and intellectual horizons and lowering her sense of self-esteem." "Slavery"? "Legalized rape"? How could anyone think of marriage in such terms? Let's travel back to the 1960s and '70s and listen to the feminist drumbeats. And keep in mind that, like much of what was being preached and written about with religious zeal in those days of cultural revolution, even the most absurd ideas had a way of magically morphing into public policy a few years later.

- "We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage ... By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God ... We must understand what we are attempting is a revolution, not a public relations movement." – Gloria Steinem, quoted in the Saturday Review of Education, March 1973 - "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession ... the choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." – Vivian Gornick, feminist author, a tenured professor at the University of Arizona, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981 - "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." – Feminist author Robin Morgan, who became an editor at Ms. magazine - "If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry ... The plight of mothers is more desperate than that of other women, and the more numerous the children the more hopeless the situation seems to be ... Most women ... would shrink at the notion of leaving husband and children, but this is precisely the case in which brutally clear rethinking must be undertaken." – Germaine Greer, author, scholar and lecturer at the University of Warwick, England, in "The Female Eunuch" in 1971

- "Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women." – Radical feminist author Andrea Dworkin in 1983 - "Until all women are lesbians, there will be no true political revolution." – Feminist author and journalist Jill Johnson, in "Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution," 1973 - "The legal rights of access that married partners have to each other's persons, property, and lives makes it all but impossible for a spouse to defend herself (or himself), or to be protected against torture, rape, battery, stalking, mayhem, or murder by the other spouse ... Legal marriage thus enlists state support for conditions conducive to murder and mayhem." – Claudia Card, professor of philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, in 1996

First, let's be very clear about what we're looking at – pure rage, an all-consuming hatred of men, and often a hatred of God as well. If you think I'm exaggerating, go read their writings for yourself. You will be shocked at the depth and intensity of anger, the kind one associates with deep personal violation or trauma. Indeed, in some well-known cases, feminist leaders report having been sexually abused as children or beaten by a violent husband. Apparently, they have concluded in their blind anger that all men are predatory beasts and molesters, and thus are determined to save their fellow women from the "slavery" and "oppression" of family life.

Alien nation Most people who lived through the '60s remember the militant feminists and their angry speeches, demonstrations and bra-burnings. But when this spectacle left the front page of mainstream consciousness – along with the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, long hair, LSD and the rest of the '60s psychedelic cultural revolution – did America just go back to "normal"? Nope.

We had been transformed. Today, a generation later, we debate issues like cohabitation, divorce, same-sex marriage, civil unions, polygamy and the redefinition of marriage, seemingly oblivious to the fact that marriage as a fundamental institution of civilization was crippled back in the late '60s and early '70s with the advent of no-fault divorce. Although radical feminism has always been too strident – and frankly, insane – to be embraced by the American public (though it is to this day a powerful molding influence on America's college campuses), its core agenda has mysteriously become our reality. The same thing happened with abortion, the No. 1 cause of feminists today. The public has never accepted the radical pro-abortion agenda – national polls repeatedly show barely 25 percent of Americans embrace unfettered abortion-on-demand at any time, for any reason. Yet that radical agenda is the law of the land in the United States today. In the same way, the feminist movement – from the "mainstream" variety that pushed women into the workplace to the man-hating radical variety that demanded an end to marriage and the mainstreaming of lesbianism – has succeeded in turning its agenda into public policy.

Look at what its purveyors wanted: to persuade women to be ashamed of their roles as homemaker and mother and to set their sights instead on the workplace; to institute no-fault divorce; to make lesbianism an acceptable alternative to heterosexuality; and most of all, to "free" women from marriage. They scored big-time. The question is: "How?" While feminism was relentlessly driving the family apart from the sidelines, what on earth was the mainstream thinking? After all, it was state legislatures and judges and governors, not militant lesbians, that actually tossed out the powerfully binding civil-marriage contract by instituting no-fault divorce. Wallerstein describes the seduction of "mainstream" America: "Up until 30 years ago marriage was a lifetime commitment with only a few narrow legal exits such as proving adultery in the courts or outwaiting years of abandonment. American cultural and legal attitudes bound marriages together, no matter how miserable couples might be. Countless individuals were locked in loveless marriages they desperately wanted to end, but for the most part they had no way out. Then, in an upheaval akin to a cataclysmic earthquake, family law in California changed overnight. A series of statewide task forces recommended that men and women seeking divorce should no longer be required to prove that their spouse was unfaithful, unfit, cruel, or incompatible. It was time, they said, to end the hypocrisy embodied in laws that severely restricted divorce. People should be able to end an unhappy marriage without proving fault or pointing blame.

"The prevailing climate of opinion was that divorce would allow adults to make better choices and happier marriages by letting them undo earlier mistakes. They would arrive at an honest, mutual decision to divorce, because if one person wanted out, surely it could not be much of a marriage. "These attitudes were held by men and women of many political persuasions, by lawyers, judges, and mental health professionals alike. The final task force that formulated the new no-fault divorce laws was led by law professor Herma Kay, who was well known as an advocate for women's rights. In 1969, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the new law and people were jubilant. It was a time of hope and faith that greater choice would set men and women free and benefit their children. Within a few years, no-fault divorce laws spread like wildfire to all 50 states. People all across the country were in favor of change." "But," adds Wallerstein, whose groundbreaking work involved a 25-year study of children of divorce, "what about the children? In our rush to improve the lives of adults, we assumed that their lives would improve as well. We made radical changes in the family without realizing how it would change the experience of growing up. We embarked on a gigantic social experiment without any idea about how the next generation would be affected." Why did Reagan, a champion of family values, sign the nation's first no-fault divorce bill into law? He was shattered when his first wife, actress Jane Wyman, filed for divorce. Although it was Reagan's growing anti-communism that alienated wife Jane – she complained in her divorce papers that "my husband and I engaged in continual arguments on his political views" – she accused him of "mental cruelty," since divorce laws in the 1940s required a charge against the other spouse of adultery, extreme cruelty, willful desertion, willful neglect, habitual intemperance, felony conviction or incurable insanity.

As son Michael later explained in his book "Twice Adopted," "Even though listing grounds for divorce was largely a formality, those words were probably a bitter pill for him to swallow." In signing California's no-fault divorce law, said Michael, "He wanted to do something to make the divorce process less acrimonious, less contentious and less expensive." But Reagan later regretted the decision as one of the worst he ever made, as divorce rates skyrocketed and divorce conflicts and legal costs remained "as ruinous as ever," Michael added. Looking back at America's decades-long divorce "experiment," Glenn Stanton, Focus on the Family's marriage expert, sums up its results. While adults suffered terribly, children "fared even worse," he said. "Many saw the innocence of childhood evaporate the day their parents announced the divorce. Others described being "scarred for life." They told countless stories of being crippled by anxiety, possessed by anger, disoriented by confusion and immobilized by fear of total abandonment. Their behavior, grades and physical and mental health plummeted. They were different children. In fact, they didn't see themselves as children any longer. Divorce forced them to become adults, even before they became teens. We now know these children carry these problems cumulatively into adulthood."

Contemplating the stupendous amount of pain, deprivation and trauma we so jubilantly and foolishly invited into the national family a generation ago – during which time we overthrew most if not all of the rules we had lived by for centuries – we must ask ourselves: What happened to America during the 1960s? I mean, what really happened?

What exactly was this mass seduction that we call "cultural revolution" that overtook America during that tumultuous period? I have yet to hear a really good explanation for it. It seems a combination of powerful factors – like planets that rarely align – all came together during that particular period and ushered in a transformation the American mind. One factor was the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It was to the '60s generation what Sept. 11, 2001, was to today's Americans – a national shock beyond all other national shocks. It signaled the end of America's innocence, of the '50s world of "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best." The handsome Camelot president – he and Jacqueline were the closest thing to royalty in modern America – had his brains blown out on national television.

Like everyone else alive then, I remember where I was – in my eighth-grade science class. It was right after lunch and the teacher walked into the classroom and said: "I suppose you've all heard Kennedy was shot." My first reaction was: "Kennedy? He must mean the boy in our class named Kennedy." It didn't occur to me that it could be our president. Presidents weren't assassinated – just as married couples didn't get divorced. Assassinated presidents were people like Lincoln and Garfield, but it didn't happen in America now, I thought. It was a major psychic shock. And shock has a strange way of opening people up to new ideas – and not necessarily good ideas. Then there was the Vietnam War. From an ideological point of view it was arguably one of America's most altruistic wars, as we were there to stop the spread of communism and had little to gain ourselves. But the war's actual execution by America's leaders was incompetent and disastrous, as Defense Secretary Robert McNamera later famously admitted. The nation was polarized and intensely emotionalized over the controversial war. Powerful emotion also has a strange way of opening people up to new ideas. Then there was the rock music invasion from England. What started with the Beatles, Rolling Stones and other groups immediately exerted a powerful hold on America's youth and soon introduced and sugar-coated the psychedelic drug subculture – "Turn on, tune in, drop out" – which was, in turn, energized and unified by opposition to the Vietnam War.

A primary effect of mind-altering drugs is that they open people up to new ideas – maybe that's why they're called "mind-altering." And then, most devastating of all, there was widespread confusion among America's churches and churchgoers over God. Time magazine's infamous 1966 cover story, "Is God Dead?" shockingly quoted top church leaders expressing anxiety and uncertainty over Who God is, or even if He is. With America's traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and moral standards in doubt or disrepute, alien philosophies and beliefs readily flooded into the vacuum – paganism, occultism, channeling and New Age practices of every conceivable sort. Similarly, without a godly paradigm – whereby we comprehend that man's only true freedom is to be a servant of Heaven, rather than a slave of Hell – our whole concept of freedom was transformed. This naturally opened America up to a torrent of "liberation" movements, from sexual liberation to women's liberation to gay liberation. In America's morally weakened and confused state, even the most radical and alien ideas exerted an immensely powerful influence on the national mind and mood.

As if all this wasn't enough, there was something else at play – something seldom mentioned in polite circles out of fear of ridicule. And that is the issue of communist influence. We didn't just get high on LSD and fall off the cliff during the 1960s. We were pushed. Hard as it may be to believe today when communism has been so thoroughly discredited, back during the '30s, '40s and '50s many people – including some well-known Americans – actually believed Marxism was a good thing. There was an ideological struggle going on in the world, and the seduction of communism was in its heyday – including in the United States. During this time, the Soviet Union was engaged not only in its very public military and scientific buildup, but also in massive espionage and infiltration. And, as the public record undeniably shows, the USSR had direct ties with the Communist Party USA. The entertainment industry was one area targeted by the Communist Party USA, which had been active in Hollywood since 1935. Headquartered in New York, the CPUSA had decided to wrest control of the entertainment industry – and therefore of what Americans would see in their movie theatres – by taking over Hollywood's labor unions.

"By the end of the Second World War, [communist] party membership in Hollywood was close to 600 and boasted several industry heavyweights," reveals Peter Schweizer in his celebrated book, "Reagan's War." "Actors Lloyd Bridges, Edward G. Robinson, and Fredric March were members, as were half a dozen producers and about as many directors." (Some, it should be noted, later renounced their Communist Party affiliation.) It was none other than Ronald Reagan who took the leading role in throttling this attempted communist takeover of Hollywood when, as head of the Screen Actors Guild, he very publicly and courageously opposed them. It marked Reagan's entry into the world of politics – and the anti-communist mission he would complete 40 years later when, as president of the United States, he took the central role in engineering the end of what he himself had aptly called the "evil empire."

But back in the era immediately preceding the 1960s, there had been many communists infiltrating America's government and institutions. Without a doubt, America came under a direct revolutionary assault – pushed primarily by avowed leftists of every stripe – during the 1960s. Most U.S. college campuses were swept up in the revolutionary fervor, and leftist propaganda and agitation were everywhere. Believe me, I know – I was there. When all these various national assaults and traumas hit the nation at once – an unpopular war, presidential assassination, music-and-drug cultural invasion, a massive erosion of faith – the anti-America subversion that previously had existed below the surface of society seized the moment and burst forth into open rebellion. Looking back, one has to wonder just how successful the radical left was in subverting key American institutions, including government, education, entertainment, the press and the churches. Looking back, one has to wonder just how successful the radical left was in subverting key American institutions, including government, education, entertainment, the press and the churches. It's hard to say for sure. But it's very sobering to realize that today, America's colleges and universities are absurdly to the left of the mainstream. In fact, just about the only place in the world you can fi


Operation Clean Sweep 8 April 2005

"For what is liberty but the unhampered translation of will into act?" – Dante Alighieri (1265-1320) Italian poet

The core group of colonials who birthed this nation gave us a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Whose government is this anyway? It is ours. A government of the people, by the people, for the people. Unfortunately, over the decades career politicians backed by the two major party machines have taken over this republic. It is no longer a government of, by and for the people – it has become a tyrannical government. If we are to truly be a government of the people, by the people and for the people, then the people themselves must take it back and the only way to do that is for the millions of Americans who see this republic and our Constitution hanging by a very slim thread, make the sacrifice to run for public office at all levels in every state of the Union. If you can't run, then please help constitutional candidates get elected by working for their campaigns.

We are the power, but we cannot exercise that power without making the sacrifice of putting our lives on hold and clean the communists, fascists, socialists (liberals) and phony conservatives out of public offices. Who makes the laws in this country? City councils, county boards of supervisors, members of the 50 state legislatures and Congress. Local school boards and water districts make rules and regulations. Who enforces these laws, rules and regulations? The courts at all levels, district attorneys and sheriffs. All elected officials.

The destruction of the rights of Americans has reached monstrous proportions and the people responsible are those sitting in public office today. Lesbians and homosexuals on school boards, in Congress and in our legislatures are advancing their toxic agenda at an alarming rate. We will have elections in two years for the entire House of Representatives, some governorships and offices at all levels throughout the Union. In four years, if we're lucky, there will be national elections which include the office of the president. We the people cannot wait until the last minute to find out which new world order facilitator will be our only choice. Haven't the people had enough of "hold your nose and vote?" With the exception of Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, the entire House of Representatives must be removed. No exceptions. This entire body has been in office for over a decade. They have done nothing to seal off the borders, but have passed unconstitutional legislation like the USA Patriot Act, national IDs and driver's licenses and the massive, colossal waste of money called Homeland Security. Collectively they have been busy destroying this republic, while bribing the American people with "free" prescription pills, and promises of even more money for the unconstitutional federal Department of Education. We the people cannot wait until six months before the election in 2008 to see which new world order facilitator the Democrat and Republican parties will once again force party faithful to vote for ... just to keep the other party from winning.

This is a dangerous game that must stop. The people must get involved in the political process at every level. Complaining about the serious problems plaguing America isn't going to solve them – only removing those who are responsible is going to save our republic and our freedoms. There are talented constitutional attorneys all over this country. They work for public advocacy groups, i.e., Thomas More Law Center and hundreds of others. They are in private practice. America needs you to make the sacrifice to run for superior and district court judges and district attorneys in every state. We need those who qualify to run for county sheriff – the highest law enforcement officer in a county. We need to get all these bad judges off the bench and oust sheriffs who will not stand up to the feds. We can't do anything about the federal judges or the U.S. Supreme Court until we clean out Congress and put strict constitutionalists in who have the guts to do what needs to be done. Veterans and retired Americans: Your country needs you with all your years of experience, courage and talent. There is no more time for fun and games. If the Senate ratifies the Free Trade Area of the Americas, Bush will sign it and America as a sovereign republic will finally be gone. Even the AFL-CIO is fighting this mechanism for world government. The FTAA will be the final death blow and Bush is pushing hard for it. If you can't run for office, please help constitutional candidates in your area get elected.

We are the people of this government and now the people must put their actions where their mouths are and begin the process of running for office. Freedom is not a spectator sport. Click here for guidelines on how to run for public office at all levels. Let "Operation Clean Sweep" be our battle cry and begin today ... because every day counts from now until the elections.

Devvy Kidd authored the booklet, "Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty,"



By Carey Roberts

I have seen their shell-shocked eyes and unbelieving expressions.

Men saddled with crushing child support obligations, forced to live on scraps or else fall into a desperate sea of mounting debt. A few of them are white-collar guys who once held respectable jobs and lived in comfortable houses. Time marches forward, and the cases only become more bizarre. Steve Barreras paid $20,000 to support his daughter, a girl he had never met. In fact, she didn’t even exist. His ex-wife Viola Trevino took another family’s daughter to court and claimed the child as hers. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson has now ordered an investigation. In Michigan, Terrace Hale had $300 garnished from each paycheck for three years. The money went to support a woman he's never met to raise a child he's never fathered. Now, Marilyn Stephen, director of the Michigan Office of Child Support, refuses to give Mr. Hale’s money back. Then there are those cases of adolescent boys who were victimized twice. First by their adult female rapists, and then by an inflexible child support system that came knocking [Read].

The voice of justice and outrage asks, How could this happen in America? The answer can be found in our nation’s 30-year crusade to extract child support payments from mostly minority, low-income fathers, men who now bear the contemptuous epithet, “Deadbeat Dads.” Last year professor Stephen Baskerville of Howard University probed the allegations that have been leveled against these “deadbeats.” His must-read article, “Is There Really a Fatherhood Crisis?,” reached some surprising conclusions [Read]:

Charge #1: Most marriages break up because fathers “have chosen to abandon their children,” as president Bill Clinton once put it. Not true. Margaret Brinig and Douglas Allen found that women file for divorce in 70% of cases. Likewise, Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver reports in his book Divorced Dads that two out of three divorces are initiated by women.

Charge #2: When women do leave the marriage, it’s to escape domestic violence and abuse. False. The number one reason cited by divorcing moms, according to Braver, is “not feeling loved or appreciated,” and not anything to do with violence.

Charge #3: Dads don't pay their child support because they don't care about their kids. Absurd. A 1998 Rutgers and University of Texas study concluded: “many of the absent fathers who state leaders want to track down and force to pay child support are so destitute that their lives focus on finding the next job, next meal, or next night’s shelter.” The problem is not dads who are dead-beats, the problem is men who are dead-broke.

Charge #4: Kids don’t really need their dads, anyway. Absolutely false. This is the most scurrilous myth of all, because the truth is the polar opposite, and the harmful effects on children are so great. “Virtually every major social pathology has been linked to fatherless children: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, unwed pregnancy, suicide, and psychological disorders,” notes Baskerville. It is no coincidence that all four of these myths place fathers in a bad light. And that suits the Divorce Industry – that veritable army of lawyers, family court judges, custody evaluators, and child support enforcers -- just fine. These myths have become so ingrained in our thinking that basic Constitutional protections are being casually tossed aside. One brief on child support from the Left-leaning National Conference of State Legislatures made this stunning recommendation: “The burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant,” which of course means, “Fathers can be assumed to be guilty until proven innocent.” Of course, it’s divorce that triggers the monstrous child support machinery to lurch into motion. The rise of no-fault, unilateral divorce does not trouble the Sisterhood. In fact, they welcome it.

Over the past 50 years, the National Association of Women Lawyers has spearheaded the adoption of no-fault divorce legislation throughout the country, laws that made marital dissolution that much easier. The NAWL now notes with satisfaction, “the ideal of no-fault divorce became the guiding principle for reform of divorce laws in the majority of states.” A growing divorce rate. Disenfranchised dads. Children lacking paternal guidance and protection. An ever-expanding child support apparatus. Careless disregard of Constitutional protections. A growing totalitarian mindset.

That’s the Matriarchy at work.