Question? "Gay agenda" 30 May 2005

What people ("i.e, consenting adults" i.e. over 21), do behind closed doors, is no ones business.

BUT. if you take it to the streets, then be prepared to be dealt with in a street manner.and please don't hide behind the words hate crime or bigot if brought in our schools,( " and it has been" ) be prepared to feel parental wrath. And please don't hide behind the words hate crime or bigot, or claim it is your civil right to teach children things that should not be taught in public schools.

Question? "homosexual agenda" care to comment on it?
OH, a simple denial would be an unacceptable answer

P E Phillips
simply a MAN, Father, who is repulsed by open, in public, displays of homosexuality.

US wants to be able to access Britons' ID cards 30 May 2005

The United States wants Britain's proposed identity cards to have the same microchip and technology as the ones used on American documents. The aim of getting the same microchip is to ensure compatability in screening terrorist suspects. But it will also mean that information contained in the British cards can be accessed across the Atlantic. Michael Chertoff, the newly appointed US Secretary for Homeland Security, has already had talks with the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, and the Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling, to discuss the matter.

Mr Chertoff said yesterday that it was vital to seek compatibility, holding up the example of the "video war" of 25 years ago, when VHS and Betamax were in fierce competition to win the status of industry standard for video recording systems. "I certainly hope we have the same chip... It would be very bad if we all invested huge amounts of money in biometric systems and they didn't work with each other.Hopefully, we are not going to do VHS and Betamax with our chips. I was one of the ones who bought Betamax, and that's now in the garbage," he said. Mr Chertoff also proposed that British citizens wishing to visit the US should consider entering a "Trusted Traveller" scheme. Under this, they would forward their details to the US embassy to be vetted. If successful, they would receive a document allowing "fast- tracking" through the US immigration system.

A pilot scheme will start within a few months between the US and the Netherlands, allowing Dutch visitors to use a Trusted Traveller card to enter the US without being subjected to further questioning or screening. Britain is one of 27 countries whose citizens do not need visas to enter the US if they intend to stay less than 90 days. The American government has said it wants 27 to issue new passports by 26 October this year containing a computer chip and a digital photograph. Mr Chertoff said compatability and the checking system was intended purely to track down "terrorists and criminals" and the main aim was to provide a "fair and reasonable system". US diplomatic sources stated later that Washington did not wish to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries.

"When we screen based on names, we're screening on the most primitive and least technological basis of identification - it's the most susceptible to misspelling, or people changing their identity, or fraud," he said. The scheme will also, say diplomats, ease confusion over who exactly constitutes a suspect. The most high-profile case was that of Yusuf Islam, the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens, who was barred from entering the US because his activities "could be potentially linked to terrorism". The British government is insistent that Mr Islam had no such links. However, this is the latest controversy to surround Britain's proposed combined identity card and passport due to be introduced in three years' time. Rising costs have pushed the cost up to £93 each after the overall estimated 10-year cost of the project grew from £3.1bn to £ 5.8 bn. There have also been problems over the effectiveness of the biometric technology which is supposed to safeguard the security of the cards. There were also verification problems with 30 per cent of those whose fingerprint was taken during an enrolment trial of 10,000 volunteers.

On the plains of hesitation beach the bones of countless millions who, on the dawn of victory, stopped to rest and resting died.
...Author: Omar Kayam

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." ~Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail,"
Why We Can't Wait, 1963

He who would disarm me threatens my life
and will be dealt with accordingly.

Corrupt judges necessary to protect organized crime (Ohio) 28 May 2005

On May 17, I received this acknowledgement of my letter to Attorney General Gonzales, shown below. I have not heard anything since. The cases of Elsebeth Baumgartner and Kenneth Thompson demonstrate what happens when gangsters get control of a state government. At least in the case of Kenneth Thompson, Federal judges are also involved in protecting the criminal organization. The way these cases develop, it is evident that corrupt judges are absolutely necessary to protect organized crime when it operates within a government.

When I last drove across the country, I was strongly impressed by the criminal efficiency of Taft’s government. In the rest stop at the state line, there was a large pad of wanted posters for “dead-beat dads,” who the State of Ohio is trying to extort money from, even though they obviously do not have it. After looking at the pictures, I had to doubt whether these men would be able to afford a place in a homeless shelter. They all looked completely down and out, but that would not keep the Taft gang from throwing them in jail for being poor. There was also a picture of Governor Taft, the heir to a long line of politicians, including a president. Taft’s prosperous look contrasted strongly with the looks of the down and out “dads” he was trying to find and toss in debtors prison. As I drove through Ohio, I noted a large number of cars being ticketed by state police along the interstate. Between Washington and Connecticut, Ohio was the only state besides Washington where I observed drivers being ticketed. This is generally a good indication that the state government is looking to squeeze every cent out of its citizens.

As a veteran, I was interested in what Ohio does for its former servicemen. The state has a website on veterans benefits. This page is a list of all the penalties that await any veteran who makes a mistake filling out a state application for some benefit. It is phrased in such a threatening way that many veterans would be too intimidated to file for a benefit. Governor Taft himself never served in the armed forces. The administration of Ohio State University is famous for inventing the term, "unrepentant veteran," for anyone who puts military service on a resume. If anyone wishes to back me up in demanding that the U.S. Department of Justice look into the corrupt Empire of Ohio, just forward my letter about the Thompson case or comment in your own words on that or the Baumgartner case and e-mail it to If there are enough inquiries, we might force the hand of the DOJ and get some of these crooks in Ohio put behind bars.

Charles Heckman

Honorable Alberto Gonzales
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.

Honorable Attorney General Gonzales:

This is a preliminary inquiry concerning apparent organized criminal activity at a high political level in the State of Ohio, which was brought to my attention by a fellow veteran of the Vietnam War, who has become a victim of this activity. The information he has provided indicates that the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Statute, 18 U.S.C. §1961-1968, may have been violated by persons in public office, including judges, in order to deprive this veteran of his civil rights. It appears that charges he made against employees of the Federal Small Business Administration concerning illegal actions they took to assist a business competitor of his have resulted in the exposure of a closely knit political ring with strong connections with the Ohio Attorney General’s office. During the ensuing years of litigation, the successful business of this veteran was ruined, and he was forced to seek employment to support himself. Because he is qualified as a teacher, he applied for a teaching license, and he would have received it if it were not for interference by persons in the Attorney General’s office, who insisted that he drop all legal claims against the wrongdoers in the Ohio government and cooperating Federal agencies before the license would be granted.

This appears to violate a whole series of Federal laws, which protect persons from reprisal for filing criminal and civil complaints. These violations added to the criminal actions that were alleged in the original civil lawsuits by this veteran are sufficient to bring the matter under the RICO statute. As you know, judges are immune from civil accountability for their actions. However, the U. S. Department of Justice is empowered to investigate and prosecute criminal violations. Such criminal violations seem to be demonstrable in this case. The Greylord Investigation brought to light a whole series of institutional violations in Cook County, Illinois, and resulted in the conviction of more than 10 judges, 40 lawyers, and other officials. During the many years since these prosecutions, the example they set for public officials tempted to abuse their offices has become weak. Obviously, in Ohio, a corrupt organization of public officials is again violating the civil rights of citizens for personal and political gain. In this case, it has picked as its victim a combat veteran who defended the United States in one of the most dangerous assignments of the Vietnam War. The bad attitude of the Ohio elite toward servicemen and veterans is exemplified by the phrase, “unrepentant veteran,” invented by the administration of Ohio State University for veterans who put their military service on their resumes rather than covering it up. This anti-military sentiment emboldens those who seek to profit from the ruin of a war veteran.

I sincerely hope that you will undertake a serious formal investigation of this matter and punish those who have abused the trust the public has placed in them. If you decide to do so, I will place your investigator in contact with the person who has access to all records necessary for you to take action. His name in Ken Thompson, and he resides in Columbus, Ohio.

Sincerely yours,
Charles W. Heckman, Dr. Sci.

59 speeding cops let off 27 May 2005

SAFETY groups were furious last night after a police force let off 59 cops caught speeding. All of the marked cars were nicked by speed cameras without their blue lights flashing. The disclosure came hours after a PC from the SAME FORCE accused of a 90mph car crash was cleared because the black box that recorded his speed had gone missing.

Road safety groups accused Derbyshire Police of operating double standards — one for its own officers and one for other motorists. Mark McArthur-Christie, of the Association of British Drivers, said: “If a civilian steps over the speed limit by just 2mph they are slapped.

“But if the police do the same they get away with it. “It’s evidence of more damage being done to the relationship between the police and the public.” Caroline Chisolm, of safety charity Brake, said: “Little wonder people lose confidence in the police when officers escape punishment for the same offence.”

Kevin Clinton, head of road safety at RoSPA, said: “At the very least they should have been using emergency lights and sirens.” The 59 tickets were issued during 2004. Each officer was sent a notice of intended prosecution. Cars attending emergencies are exempt from speeding raps. And no penalty is issued if the flashing blue light is seen by the speed cam. But in each of the 59 cases no blue light could be seen.

Police spokesman Royston Smith said: “In every case the vehicle was being used for operational purposes where it was necessary to exceed the speed limit.” He said some cars may have been snapped in a split second their flashing light was not visible. On Wednesday, a judge at Derby Crown Court cleared PC Daniel Swain, 30, of dangerous driving. Last week there was outrage when PC Mark Milton, 38, was cleared of dangerous driving at 159mph in Shropshire.,,2-2005240471,00.html

The Bloodsport of Divorce 27 May 2005

By A. Green

Imagine how a woman would feel if a man could petition for divorce and have her thrown out of the marital home? Imagine how a woman would feel if men were automatically given custody? Imagine how a woman would feel if they could only see their kid every other weekend? Imagine how a woman would feel if her ex-husband denied her visitation to be vindictive and the system did nothing about it.

Imagine special laws where a man could persecute his former wife by falsely accusing her of sex abuse or physical abuse. Imagine a system where a woman would have to spend thousands to prove her innocence while a lying ex-husband had no liability for telling such lies? Women would scream that such a system was sexist, paternalistic, unjust, unfair, irresponsible and injurious to both genders and the kids and they would be right. But this is the system, except fathers are the victims and mothers smugly accept the maternal monopoly over children that the system has handed them.

This has been the system for at least forty years and social engineers are getting exactly the results they want. What are some of the consequences of this state-enforced matriarchy?   By destroying the balance of power in the family the state provides a wonderful incentive to divorce. If custody weren't a certainty, many young women would find a way to resolve conflicts instead of resorting to divorce.

Consider some of the problems:

1) Divorce is expensive, more expensive than most people understand. Often it leads to bankruptcy. Because the state provides financial assistance and medical care, many young women joyously jump into the social safety net only to hit the bricks. Life is then composed of harder options than in the lost marriage.

2) Although there is aggressive collection of child support, there is not aggressive enforcement of visitation. Women generally understand that they can use the children to formalize acts of revenge. Turning the children against dad is a favorite sport. Denying or frustrating visitation is a standard post divorce strategy for most women.

3) Post-divorce the kids quickly learn that dad is a big, dumb, powerless fairy that you hustle for bucks. Mom has all the power. The kids quickly learn how to work both ends against the middle. The disadvantage of disempowering dad is that there is no enforcer of a family moral order. Especially for boys, mom is not an obstacle to early entry to sex, drugs and crime. However, there is one advantage; in this manner millions of clients are being created for the welfare state and criminal justice system.

4) The system has no ethical standards at all about post divorce co-habitation. It is not uncommon for children to have to live with a succession of unrelated renegade males. The system does not even protect the children from mom moving an ex-con, a child molester, an alcoholic, a drug addict or a known child abuser; this over the objections of the father. The dangers posed to children contradict the state's claim that it is acting to promote the "best interest of the children." Such a claim would be laughable if it weren't so utterly tragic.

5) The matriarchy reveals the depth of its malice toward men in abortion laws. A wife can abort her child without consent of the father. Even if the father desires to assume full responsibility of his unborn child, the mother has the dictatorial right to kill the child anyway. In essence the system regards men as "sperm donors." The system strips the father of his fatherhood and then identifies him as a mere "visitor." He's a wallet for sure and nothing more.

6) It has long been the goal of socialistic utopian planners to destroy the traditional family and replace it with a socialistic, collectivist, blended family; one that's been through the blender. For example the Communist Manifesto clearly identifies destruction of the traditional family as a prerequisite to installing a totalitarian system. If one seeks insight into why family law is what it is, one will arrive on the doorstep of the state's hidden agenda. The goal is to destroy the traditional family. By shifting the balance of power in the family, the state could essentially eliminate divorce. By imposing joint physical custody and paternal family custody (where appropriate) the state could greatly reduce the incentive to divorce.

I am not optimistic. The divorce industry is a bloodsport and is run by predatorial attorneys (a redundancy) who support subjective laws, social engineering and universal female custody upon demand. The goal of the state is to destroy the traditional family and it solicits the help of the guild of attorneys who exploit divorce conflicts for money. To "reconstruct" society one must first "deconstruct" it. That is the goal.

California court mulls parental rights in lesbian couple disputes 27 May 2005

California's highest court was asked to create a legal framework for what constitutes a family as justices weighed parental rights for lesbian couples who broke up after having children. The state supreme court, hearing oral arguments Tuesday in the cases of three women seeking child custody or support from their former partners, pondered whether children from same-sex households should be treated the same under the law as out-of-wedlock offspring of heterosexuals. Attorneys for some of the women and the California attorney general argued that children should be given the same protections they would have with two traditional parents, since gays cannot marry and may have legitimate reasons for not registering as domestic partners or formally adopting their children. They urged the court to apply long-standing laws governing absent fathers to estranged gay and lesbian couples who used reproductive science to conceive, a practice that leaves one partner without a genetic link to the family.

"In every situation where possible, parentage should be established," said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, arguing on behalf of a woman who wants to share custody of the daughter her ex-partner conceived with a sperm donor. "It seems very unfair to this particular group of children to say that when assisted reproduction results in being born to unmarried same-sex couples, we can't establish parentage." On the other side are two women seeking to retain sole custody of their children and one who argues she shouldn't have to pay child support for her former lover's twins. Their lawyers warned that if someone without a biological, marital, or adoption-related claim on a child can legally assert parental rights, it would open the door to all sorts of custody disputes.

"There will be no limit to the numbers of companions, be they related or not, to single parents making claims of parentage," said Diana Richmond, representing a woman seeking sole custody of the twin girls she bore with her former partner's donated eggs. "This court would be substituting its judgment for what's better for the children than the judgment of the parent. " Several justices seemed inclined to side with the women who want their former partners to live up to the coparenting arrangements they made when starting a family. "The legislature states there is a compelling state interest in establishing paternity for a child," observed Associate Justice Joyce Kennard.

Noting that Elisa B., the woman trying to avoid paying child support to her partner's twins, breast-fed the babies, took time off work to care for them, and listed her partner as a dependent on her insurance and tax returns, Kennard said it seems as if she functioned as a "presumed parent." "Here, there was a holding out of the party as the parent of the twins," Kennard said. But several other justices appeared worried about permitting someone to make a claim to parenthood simply because that person participated in the planning of a pregnancy and helped care for a child. A boyfriend, for instance, could claim to be the father of the child his girlfriend had with another man. "That seems to open up a lot of possibilities for intrusion on the parent role by all sorts of people, practical strangers," Associate Justice Janice Brown said.

In a sign of the broad acceptance same-sex parents have in California, the state attorney general's office supported the mothers who asked the justices for an updated interpretation of the state's parental rights laws. Several child-advocacy organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs taking the same side. After the three-hour hearing, the women talked about how difficult it was to have their romantic histories examined in a packed courtroom, but how proud they were to be fighting for their children. "It's been a tremendous experience and it's been atrocious, and I'm going to celebrate Mother's Day with her next year if it's the last thing I do," said Lisa R., a Los Angeles County woman who is seeking to uphold a pre-birth court judgment that established her as the second parent of the 5-year-old daughter her former partner had with donated sperm. While Lisa R. has been able to visit the child she feels is hers, a Marin County woman known as Kim M. hasn't been as fortunate. Even though the twin daughters her former partner gave birth to were conceived with her eggs, lower courts ruled that Kim waived her parental rights when she signed a standard donor consent form before the medical procedure.

Gay rights advocates said they were gratified the justices agreed to hear the cases. "They understand what's at stake here," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "From our point of view it's nothing less than that children born through reproductive technology to same-sex parents have the right to be treated equally." (Lisa Leff, AP)

The secrecy of Judicial Appointments 26 May 2005

Should not be tolerated

Sir,—With reference to a recent article regarding Professor Bonnington’s criticism of the way in which judges are chosen I agree that the process is not perfect. As a 57-year-old in 2002 I was faced with standing trial for the first time in my adult life at Dunfermline Sheriff Court. I wrote to my local MSP, Scott Barrie, (a member of the Justice 2 Committee of the Scottish Parl- iament) and asked how judges and sheriffs were chosen and what information we were entitled to know about them. I was told that with regard to the former point the process was a bit of a mystery, and with regard to the latter, we are entitled to know nothing of those who judge us. But, said Mr Barrie, the new Scottish Parliament was changing all of this secrecy and a new Judicial Appointments process was in the offing and the system would be fully transparent and impartial.

Jim Wallace MSP, the Justice Minister, was making similar noises about putting an end to the Old Boy Network by the introduction of an independent Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland (JABS). He also promised legislation to formalise the duties and criteria of the JABS. This was music to my ears as my research at the time showed that 67% of our Law Lords belonged to one all-male society, The Speculative Society of Edinburgh. All of these men came from public schools before attending the University of Edinburgh. So much for meritocracy. The promises of our politicians, however, do not seem to have made much of a difference. The ten person selection board is dominated by a judge and a sheriff principal, Lord MacLean and Bruce Kerr. Another prominent lay member of JABS is Sir Robert Smith. All three are members of the Speculative Society.

In Parliament Jim Wallace rejected a suggestion by the Justice 2 Committee that members of JABS register membership of the Masons, Speculative Society, or other such fraternal groups. That our legal process is dominated by sects who belong to all-male elites is a disgrace, but not such a disgrace as the fact that it is tolerated and approved of by Justice Minister, Cathy Jamieson.

Tom Minogue.
94 Victoria Terrace,

Lawyers Wince at Grandparental Alimony Claim 26 May 2005

By Lisa Brennan

A divorcing wife's attempt to saddle her in-laws with alimony and child support to keep up her lifestyle is raising matrimonial lawyers' eyebrows. Plaintiff's lawyer Patricia Barbarito is asking a Morris County judge for leave to add as defendants the husband's parents, who assumed his mortgage and other expenses when he got too ill to work. "If one understood the uniqueness of the facts and circumstances, I'm sure they'd agree with me that this is the logical approach," says Barbarito, of Denville's Einhorn, Harris, Ascher, Barbarito, Frost & Ironson.

But while Barbarito calls her third-party-liability theory a logical extension of existing case law, family lawyers reacting to it last week say it's at best a stretch - and at worst the height of chutzpah. "I have a hard time seeing it," says John Paone Jr. of Woodbridge's Paone & Zaleski. "From the point of view of maintaining standard of living, this is a bowl of sugar from a neighbor, not an obligation. In New Jersey, we have alimony; and we have palimony. But we don't have patrimony." "Alimony is a creature of the Legislature," says Cary Cheifitz of Summit's Ceconi & Cheifetz. "Under the case law, it has got to be between a husband and a wife."

Douglas and Cynthia Idleman were married in 1988. They have two boys, Devon, 13, and Ryan, 10, the younger one autistic. Douglas, now 43, retired early from AT&T seven years ago. They bought their Denville home with most of his $350,000 retirement package. He then became a self-employed public relations and marketing consultant. Cynthia, now 40, had been a stay-at-home mother for most of their marriage. In 2002, Douglas was diagnosed with end-stage liver disease and was repeatedly hospitalized. The next year, he underwent liver transplants followed by months of hospitalizations and rehabilitation. When he finally was discharged, his wife asked that he go to the Madison home of his parents, Lee and Sue Ann, because she said she would be unable to care for him, in addition to caring for their autistic son. The parents began paying $20,000 a month to meet the family's mortgage, private school tuition and other expenses. In a brief in support of the motion, Barbarito and her co-counsel Thomas Snyder say Douglas' parents set a standard of living that they are bound to uphold. "Lee and Sue Ann Idleman created a financial dependency on the part of Cynthia Idleman and the minor children . . . [who] relied on that support," they write.

They say the state Supreme Court's ruling in Weishaus v. Weishaus, 180 N.J. 131 (2004), which said the source of a couple's marital standard of living "is of use to a court when making an alimony award," left open how to consider the sources of funds that supported the lifestyle, such as regular and continuous contributions from third parties. But the lawyer for husband Douglas Idleman calls the argument ludicrous. "The plaintiff would have this court believe that the defendant's parents are legally obliged to assume responsibility for the gap between the defendant's present limited ability to pay and the heightened marital standard of living," Theresa Julian, of Summit's Cooper, Rose & English, writes in her brief. "There is no statutory or common law support for the plaintiff's claim for alimony against her mother-in-law and father-in-law," Julian adds. Superior Court Judge Allison Accurso is scheduled to hear the motion on Friday

The State Matriarchy 26 May 2005

More on Fathers' Rights: The State Matriarchy
by Paul C. Robbins, Ph.D.

Under the current system of family law, fathers typically lose their children in return for financing the destruction of their own families. When the system fails to work as promised, fathers are blamed and put in jail. But the system is at fault, not fathers. The system makes it far too easy for mom to expel dad, keep the children, and force him to pay for her decisions using the police power of the state. The theory behind the system holds that the traditional family and marriage can be destroyed with acceptable consequences, as long as mom gets the kids and dad (or the taxpayers) can be forced to pay. Feminist sociologist Stephanie Coontz presents a version of this theory in a recent Los Angeles Times editorial. According to Coontz, over the past decade "the number of families headed by single mothers rose five times faster than the number of married-couple families"and "the number of couples living together unmarried increased by more than 70 percent" but several negative trends decreased during this same time. She attributes this decrease in part to more dads paying their child support, then argues that "it doesn't help today's diverse families to be told their children are doomed unless they can shoehorn themselves into a traditional marriage."

Maybe not, but would Ms. Coontz make the same arguments if "diverse families" were routinely created by fathers expelling mothers from the family home and then forcing these mothers to pay child support under threat of jail? I doubt it. And despite the rosy tone of her piece, she concludes that "there is much left to work on" and that "divorced and unwed parents" (read "single mothers") need advice on effective parenting, job training, more education, and high-quality daycare. In other words, more government programs. This is the hallmark of the system that I call "state matriarchy": the creation of single-mother families followed by calls for more government programs to help those families. We are assured the problem is not single-mother families; the problem is a government that doesn't do enough to help these families. So why shouldn't government spend massive amounts of money on welfare, daycare, and training programs for single-mother families? And why shouldn't the government expend even more money to round up fathers and put them in jail?

Because to do so requires the government to spend massive amounts on welfare, daycare, and training programs for single-mother families, then expend even more money to round up fathers and put them in jail. Until recently, few political powers had either the means or the will to do so. Especially since there was a much simpler and less costly alternative: fathers. And especially since there was a very simple way to give children fathers: marriage. Marriage was an agreement based on an exchange: roughly, his ability to provide for her ability to have children. Marriage was the central agreement in a system of agreements that made families possible. Without this system of agreements, reproduction took place at will, with children likely left in the care of the mother, creating a de facto matriarchy. No man knew who his children were and thus had no reason to undertake their care, making family formation impossible. Marriage was the solution to the problem of de facto matriarchy, the solution adopted independently by every major civilization. The current system of family law is creating what might be called "state-mandated" or "state-imposed" matriarchy (or simply "state matriarchy" for short). Historically, matriarchies fail, but in a theory a matriarchy can be made to work with sufficient use of government force and money.

In a state matriarchy, the children belong to the mother but the state is responsible for supporting those children, either indirectly, by forcing absent fathers to support those children (child support), or directly, by using tax monies (welfare and other government programs). The ideological foundation for the state matriarchy is modern feminism, which opposes both traditional marriage and to fathers' rights but favors expanded welfare and child support enforcement programs. In the state matriarchy, marriage is not an agreement based on a mutually beneficial exchange. It is merely a "no-fault" contract that serves as the legal pretext for a divorce in which mom usually gets the kids and dad gets a support order. Marriage and fatherhood thus become unilateral obligations for the man, who can expect little in return. The state matriarchy presumes a custodial mother financially supports her children–she's innocent until proven guilty. The state matriarchy presumes the absent dad does not financially support his children–he's guilty until proven innocent. And if for some reason the father cannot be forced to support the children, the state does so using tax revenues, aligning taxpayers against fathers–after all, if he doesn't support the children, the taxpayers must. A divorced or unmarried father thus becomes public enemy number one.

The state matriarchy gives women rights and powers that can be exercised arbitrarily and without accountability: the unilateral right to decide if children are born (abortion), the power to divorce their husbands at will (no-fault divorce), the right to retain the children when they divorce (sole mother custody), the power to force fathers and men to pay for reproductive decisions made unilaterally by women (child support), and the right to lie about the paternity of their children (paternity fraud).. It also gives women a number of ancillary rights: the right to preferred treatment in academia (Title IX), the right to preferred treatment in employment (affirmative action and sexual harassment laws), the right to remove their husbands at will (restraining orders), the right to have their husbands arrested at will (domestic violence laws), and the right to refuse marital relations within a marriage (marital rape laws). Men have no legal say over abortion, can file for no-fault divorce but will likely lose their children and property, are less likely to graduate from college, find it difficult to get restraining orders against wives, will likely be arrested themselves if they file a domestic violence complaint, and can be jailed for failing to support another man's children under default judgments and "presumption of paternity" statutes. The state matriarchy makes marriage and motherhood an easy game for women to win, but makes marriage and fatherhood a game very difficult for men to win. And when men do lose that game, to offer them no way out. Tragically, some men do find a way out: suicide. Sometimes suicide preceded by homicide.

The feminists provided much of the anti-male and anti-marriage ideological impetus for the state matriarchy, but they could not have created it without the help of judges and elected officials. How did they get judges and elected officials to help? By portraying women as poor helpless victims abused and brutalized by ruthless men, like the hapless heroines of old-time melodramas. The politicians and judges fell over themselves running to their rescue. The dominant cultural narratives of the state matriarchy are two: the noble, virtuous single mom and the "deadbeat dad." In these cultural narratives, single moms are bravely struggling to raise their children, saintly victims of circumstance and scumbag dads who abandoned them. (In fact, most single mothers today are single by choice.) Her counterpart is the "deadbeat dad" who walked out on his family and now refuses to support them. (In fact, most divorced dads are legally expelled from their families against their wills.) If these narrative don't work, a third one is hauled out: domestic violence. According to this narrative, husbands routinely batter their wives as a way to impose patriarchal dominance. These narratives are told over and over again by politicians and social commentators and even pro-marriage groups. Any facts that don't fit within these two narratives are denied or ignored. These two polarizing narratives define the social context in which social policy is defined. Fathers can expect few rights within the social policies defined by these two narratives. Any human rights fathers might have--such as the right to their own children, to their own property, or to their own liberty–get in the way of the state matriarchy's authority to determine the "best interests" of the children and force fathers to pay for its determinations. And certainly, the state matriarchy does not grant men the same reproductive rights as women, for that would really muck up the system.

So what's wrong with state-mandated matriarchy?

The system is unfair to children, depriving them of their rights to a father. Fatherless children suffer numerous disadvantages compared to children with fathers. Even Stephanie Coontz recognizes that being fatherless is a risk factor for teens. It is inimical to human rights, depriving men of their rights to their children, their own property, and often their liberty. It discourages men from marrying and becoming fathers. Its power is virtually unchecked. Women are rewarded for using its power. Men can avoid marriage, fatherhood, and sexual relations with women, but few will do so. The state matriarchy counts on women being able to find men to have sex with it. Women usually do. It cannot deliver on what it promises. In theory, it promises women the social and sexual freedom of being single while retaining both their children and the economic benefits of marriage. After all, if mom has the children, she can demand support from dad in the name of the children.

But that is a promise made by the state to women on behalf of men. The state does not ask men what they promised women; it simply jails men if they fail to deliver on the promises it made to women on their behalf. Some would reply that single moms don't have it all that great. Look at all the child support that isn't paid, how many divorced moms struggle. Why, being a single mom is practically synonymous with being a victim. But that is simply another argument against the system–it makes victims of single moms because it cannot deliver on what it has promised. Victim moms, jailed dads, fatherless kids. That is what the state matriarchy delivers.

So what can we do?

While I support a number of changes, including presumptive joint custody, if I were to make one change, it would be the following: return to the practice of treating marriage as an agreement between two parties. That means that the two parties should have the right to define the agreement in advance. It is my view that neither party would enter an agreement that assures they will be treated unfairly in the event of a divorce. A pre-defined marriage contract would be broad in many aspects, but definite about what happens if one or both parties wants to dissolve the contract. The role of the government would be limited to enforcing the contract as written if either party seeks to end the contract. Either party could request a trial by jury, limiting the power of judges to decide the matter based on unwritten social policies or the judge's opinion of the "best interests" of the children. Under current no-fault divorce laws, a divorce court does not enforce the original marriage contract. It enforces the only right provided by the contract: the right of one or both parties to break the marriage contract. Divorce judges do not care who kept or did not keep the terms of the marriage contract because the contract had no terms; the only term it defined was the right to divorce. Judges simply decide who gets the spoils of the marriage using their own criteria, in effect defining the terms of the contract ex post facto, after the fact. Both parties should be able to know and define the terms of the marriage contract in advance. Yes, private marriage contracts take the romance out of falling in love and getting married, but they're better than placing one's life, children, and livelihood in the hands of a biased family court judge. And they would begin to dismantle the state matriarchy, wherein the rule of law is replaced by the rule of a woman's will, backed by the police power of the state.

I have no problem with society expecting fathers to meet their responsibilities to their children. But society in turn must protect fathers' rights to the care and custody of their children. That is a fair an equitable arrangement, not unaccountable judicial power backed up by unaccountable state power in the service of divisive social theories. A society that fails to protect a father's rights loses the moral authority to demand he comply with his responsibilities.

Paul C. Robbins, Ph.D.

Dr. Robbins lives in Colorado, where he likes to fish for trout, hunt for elk, ski the Rockies, and, mostly, spend a lot of time with his daughters, Sarah and Carey. A divorced dad, he has witnessed first hand the injustice of family court. He also has a dream--to open a spiritual retreat in his beloved mountains. You can contact him at

Slut Pride: Mainstreaming Casual Sex 26 May 2005
By Henry Makow Ph.D.

A spate of new books exhorts women to overcome their inhibitions about having casual sex. Typical is "Happy Hook-Up: A Single Girl's Guide to Casual Sex" which counsels women to proudly embrace the labels "whore" and "slut." It has been excerpted on Feminist authors Alexa Sherman and Nicole Tocantins pretend to be offering women "options" (as with careers.) Typically, their real agenda is coercive and subversive, to prevent women from getting married and starting families.

"Cultural norms will catch up with us if we give them no choice," the authors write. "We, as females, need to show the world that sex without commitment is absolutely our prerogative... Say, "I'm a slut I'm a whore! I love sex!" and mean it. Society needs to change and begin to encourage women to find pleasure for pleasure's sake." Pleasurable sex in the context of a loving marriage isn't mentioned as an "option."

This perverse propaganda is yet another assault on marriage and family, the institutions that sustain us both as individuals and as a society. For centuries, London-based Masonic bankers have used "sexual liberation" -- sex unfettered by bonds of marriage and love -- to undermine society in advance of their totalitarian New World Order. Women are naturally monogamous. Surveys indicate they do not find casual sex satisfying and mostly regret it. Thus "Happy Hook-up" is devoted to helping women overcome their natural instinct to become attached.

Women are instructed not to get to know their sex partner too well. "Try not to discuss too much about your past or future or his. That said, it never hurts to inquire about his sexual history [and] gauge what risks are involved. Then, focus on the action and the action alone." They are told to terminate the relationship after one or two trysts and distract themselves with work or hobbies. Don't think about "what's going to happen next, whether he's going to call you, want you and be your everything. It's just not going to happen honey. At least don't expect it to. Stay in control...accept that that's it. Finito. The end. Flip him over. He's done."


It is perverse to divorce sex from propagation, and fixate on it for pleasure. I'm NOT saying sex should be confined to procreation. I AM saying it is designed to take place in the psychological and social context of procreation, i.e. marriage or a long-term loving relationship. Nature has put an alluring bloom on young women for an obvious reason, and it fades in time with their fertility. Males are attracted to the bloom. In their bee-brains, pleasure is separate from procreation. They deposit their semen and move on to the next flower without concern for the woman or the consequences. Sexual liberation sanctions and encourages this callous and primitive behavior and invites the woman to collude in her own exploitation and degradation.

It allows the male to take the only thing that interests him and ignore the woman's humanity in terms of her natural life cycle as a wife, mother and grandmother. Sexual intercourse represents the essence of her commitment to her future husband and offspring. Women who have had many partners find it more difficult to bond to one man, and consequently he has difficulty bonding with her. Take away a woman's innocence and she is a man, with a male sex-pattern, treating lovers as sex objects. Then we have two male pretenders trying to bond. Like many homosexuals who cannot form biological families, they remain alone, isolated and obsessed with sex.

Casual sex is another form of masturbation, only more risk, trouble and often not as good. These days, we strain to remember that sexual intercourse reenacts the ritual of procreation, where an egg is fertilized (or not), and a new being capable of knowing God is created. Free sex is promoted in order to destroy the heterosexual family. The bankers who financed Communism (and Feminism) want the state to replace the father as head of the family. In their vision, the family of the future will have no husband or father. This is straight out of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World where babies are born in test tubes.


Feminism is largely responsible for turning woman into a sex object by undermining her identity as a wife and mother. Let me remind you of the hate feminist theorists feel toward heterosexuals and the biological family. In the book, Feminist Politics and Human Nature, Allison Jagger, a philosophy professor at the Univ. of Colorado, writes that the nuclear family is "the cornerstone of woman's oppression: it enforces women's dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation." Feminist ideology aims to destroy heterosexual marriage, the cornerstone of social and individual stability. Our purpose, identity, values, support, companionship and love all depend on our family relationships.

Due to family decline caused by Feminism, male-female relations have been reduced to the level of sex and poisoned. Every male and female has become a potential sexual object or predator. It doesn't matter if someone is married or underage. No one is off limits. Men who do not become husbands and fathers and continue to see women as sex objects suffer from arrested development. Dozens of tits-and-ass magazines like Maxim perpetuate a juvenile attitude. There isn't one print magazine devoted to fatherhood. Young women today put their energy into sex appeal. Men are attracted by sex, but they stay for a woman's other qualities. Someone said, there is nothing sexier than intelligence.


We live in a society under the malignant grip of a satanic totalitarian philosophy, call it neo-Communism. Central bankers want to extend their monopoly on credit to control our bodies, minds and souls as well. Psychological warfare techniques pioneered in wartime are being directed at us. Under the deception of "protecting" female or homosexual rights, heterosexuals are under relentless attack in schools and the media. The giveaway is the campaign to treat homosexual and heterosexual marriage as if gays and straights were identical. Equal does not mean identical unless the real goal is to turn heterosexuals into homosexuals, i.e. people who cannot establish a permanent bond with a member of the opposite sex. As someone said, equality = no quality. The promotion of casual sex is designed to degrade and dehumanize us by attacking our natural heterosexual institutions and mores. How long are we going to tolerate this vicious underhanded assault on our humanity by political and cultural leaders who have sold us out?

Thanks to Paul for bringing the ivillage article to my attention.

See also my "Sexual 'Liberation' is Illuminati Subversion."
Also, "The Young Lady is a Tramp"

'Stubborn' father's bid to have case heard in Scotland fails 26 May 2005

A SCOTSMAN whose stubborn refusal to deal with the English judiciary has denied him access to his daughter has failed to have the case passed to Scottish judges. The father, from Aberdeenshire, who cannot be named for legal reasons, split from his wife in September 2000. The mother took their daughter, ten, to live with her in London and obtained a residence order there. But as the child, who is disabled, was born and raised in Scotland and came under its legal jurisdiction, the order was unlawful at that time. The failure of her father to challenge the order and the five-year lapse in time has meant that she is now the legal responsibility of the English Courts.

The father now wants access to his daughter and, if possible, for her to live with him in Scotland. Yesterday, he asked Lord Justice Wall, who was sitting at London's Appeal Court, for permission to appeal against all the orders ever made in English courts in relation to his daughter, with a view to having them all overturned and jurisdiction over the case being returned to the Scottish Courts. However, Lord Justice Wall refused him permission to appeal, telling the father that only his own stubbornness stood between him and access to his daughter. "The father has the passionate view that the needs of his daughter can only be met in Scotland," said the judge.

But he added: "If he wants any form of contact with his daughter, he must come to the English courts to get it. It's as simple as that. "Until he submits to their jurisdiction, they are not going to make any orders in his favour."



Eager to divert attention from their galaxy-class misadventure in Iraq, the Republicans have been trying to generate a smokescreen by attacking the U.N.'s pre-war Oil for Food program. No doubt there was corruption and there were corrupt people involved, but the Republicans seem to have singled out the wrong guy as a target -- one who claims innocence and knows how to speak intelligently!

George Galloway is a Member of Parliament. He's a British politician who quit Blair's government in the buildup to war. He has been accused of profiting from kickbacks in the Oil for Food program, an accusation he denied [today] in an appearance before Sen. Coleman's committee. He's smart, eloquent, and mad as hell at being accused of wrong-doing. He handed Sen. Coleman (R) his ass on a platter today, and in doing so put words to the frustrations that many have felt. For those in a hurry, the final seven paragraphs will prove readworthy.

Testimony of George Galloway, MP (UK)
Permanent Subcommittee for Investigations
United States Senate
Senator Norman Coleman, Chairman

Washington, DC
May 15, 2005

"Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader, and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one--and neither has anyone on my behalf. "Now, I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice." "Now, I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I want to point out areas where there are--let's be charitable and say--errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had 'many meetings' with Saddam Hussein. This is false.

"I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein. "As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of... Defense made of his.

"I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce. "You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do. "Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am 'the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil.'

"Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London. I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise. "Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today. "You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now realize played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq. "There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow been filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this disaster. "You quote Mr. Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, I've never met Mr. Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in those places. "I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what he said, then he is wrong.

"And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any money, it would be before the public and before this committee today because I agreed with your Mr. Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel on the committee]. "Your Mr. Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today.

"Now you refer at length to a company names in these documents as Aredio Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny. "Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know? Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who this senior former regime official you were quoting against me interviewed yesterday actually is? "Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year. "You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 - never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.

"And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period. "But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries. "Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero, senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies. "In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful about it.

"The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime. "Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies. "I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning. "Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.

If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac, who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth. "Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Halliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer. "Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.

"Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government."

Bid to make Lawyers admit secret membership 24 May 2005

Lawyers' Masonic link to be exposed

Scottish Sunday Express - 9th May 2004

SCOTTISH solicitors could be forced to declare whether they are Freemasons. MSPs will meet later this month to discuss calls for lawyers to reveal if they are members of the notoriously secret society. Researchers claim there is evidence many solicitors are wrongly using their Masonic connections in cases, causing conflicts of interest. They are now demanding law firms be forced to register any lodge members. MSPs will debate the issue at the Scottish Parliament's public petitions committee this month.

The move comes two years after another Holyrood committee asked ministers to review rules over what private interests judges should declare, including membership of Masonic lodges. Backbench MSPs on the Justice II Committee wrote to then Justice Minister Jim Wallace, after considering a petition calling for members of the judiciary to declare, whether they were masons. But the Executive insisted there was no evidence that Freemasonry influenced judges and also said Scotland's independent judicial appointments board protected the public. The latest petition was lodged at the parliament last week by author and researcher Hugh Sinclair, founder of the Movement for a Register of Freemasons.

Mr. Sinclair, who has previously investigated links between Freemasonry and the Church of England, said yesterday: "Solicitors have to survive in an unforgiving market place. "There is the potential for Masonic influence to be used improperly by solicitors whose personal integrity falls below the expected standard. "Freemasons are bound by oaths which historically impose gruesome penalties for breach of secrecy. "Citizens need to know if solicitors are free from a conflict of interest." The Law Society of Scotland currently has its own code of conduct designed to preserve the integrity of solicitors but in his petition to the Parliament, Mr. Sinclair claims it is not enough.

Last year the Masonic movement, which is thought to have some 75,000 members in Scotland, opened up the membership registers of its 600 lodges north of the Border to quash persistent rumours that Dunblane killer Thomas Hamilton had been a Mason. Claims that membership of another secret society had compromised the impartiality of some Scottish judges were rejected last year by the Court of Session. Robbie the Pict, a veteran Skye Bridge tolls protester, had claimed the bench was biased against him because of the influence of the Speculative Society. His claim related to a failed appeal against his conviction for non-payment of the bridge tolls, heard in 1998 by Lord Osborne, a member of the Edinburgh-based society. Mr. Sinclair, from Ellington, Northumberland, expects to have his petition heard on May 26. He, said: "I am not deliberately trying to attack Freemasonry but simply arguing there needs to be a great deal more honesty and openness. "There is no suggestion of widespread corruption but we really need to protect the public from the possibility of conflicts of interests interfering in the justice system."

The Scottish Sunday Express 9th May 2004. (Why the paper chose to illustrate an article about Scottish Freemasonry with the regalia of the Secretary of an English Lodge is unknown - Ed.)

To read Mr Sinclair's Petition click on the link to the Scottish Parliament web site below. Please remember that you will leave the Grand Lodge of Scotland web site and to return to this page use the 'back button' on your browser.

Single parent control alienates too many children 17 May 2005

Grandparents make call for rights

The executive plans to revamp family law

Grandparents should be given the legal right of access to their grandchildren, campaigners are to tell MSPs. The call will be made as Holyrood's justice 1 committee examines reform under the proposed Family Law (Scotland) Bill on Wednesday. The Scottish Executive plans to increase the rights of cohabiting couples and unmarried fathers. But the Grandparents Apart self-help group will argue for extending the right of contact to grandparents.

They say disagreement between separating parents can deprive their children of contact with grandparents they love and who provide much-needed stability. Measures under the proposed legislation also include speeding up divorces. However, while ministers recognise the importance of grandparents' input in a child's upbringing they decided that parents should determine who has access to their children. Grandparents Apart said that single person control over a family has already alienated too many children

Damning view on judge selection 17 May 2005

The record of the new independent system for selecting judges and sheriffs has been lambasted. It is claimed that some lawyers "of less than average legal ability" have been appointed to the Bench. The stinging criticism of the Judicial Appointments Board comes from leading lawyer Alistair Bonnington in an influential professional magazine. However, the board has insisted that there are mechanisms in place to safeguard appointments. Its chairman, Sir Neil McIntosh, said all recommendations from selection panels could be vetoed by five senior lawyers if they were unhappy with the candidate.

Lay members

But Mr Bonnington's verdict, written in the Law Society Journal, has also prompted concern from a senior MSP, justice one committee convener, Pauline McNeill. She stressed that the board was not established by legislation and MSPs have never debated it. The board started work three years ago because of concerns that the existing system of senior jobs being decided by the Lord Advocate could be portrayed as "jobs for the boys". Judges can take your children away from you, they can send you to jail.... it's a big job, we need the best people

Alistair Bonnington

Mr Bonnington argued in his piece that widespread disquiet existed over some recent appointments. The solicitor advocate, a visiting professor at Glasgow University and BBC Scotland's legal adviser, is concerned that lay members form the majority on selection panels. Mr Bonnington told BBC Radio Scotland: "Lay people selecting who will be a good judge is just completely stupid. They don't know. "If you're going to have to have lay people on it because of modern management thinking then you should have a couple of them just to make sure the lawyers aren't doing corrupt things, which I'm sure they never were. (BULLSHIT) "How can a person like that know who is going to be a good judge? They've never done a court case, they've never been in court - how can they possibly know?" Leading lawyers last year criticised the Scottish Executive policy of increasing the numbers of temporary judges to hear High Court cases.

'Great concerns'

Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson defended the charge from the Faculty of Advocates. Ms Jamieson said she took the decision to appoint more sheriffs and advocates to act as judges to process a backlog of appeals. But senior lawyers alleged that the highest courts in the country had been undermined. Mr Bonnington said experts should choose judges because it was a very important task.

He explained: "They (judges) can take your children away from you, they can send you to jail, they can say that you're not allowed out late at night. "It's a big job, we need the best people and I don't think that we are getting it. "From the very top of the legal profession downwards there are great concerns the judicial appointments board is not doing as well as it might do." Sir Neil, who previously worked in industry and local government, said the board did not have a lay majority and decisions were made by consensus. He added: "It's also the case that the professional members of the board have to agree that any candidate taken forward has the necessary legal knowledge and experience

"Lay members contributed a range of experience.

"They don't just walk off the streets, but are people with wide experience of making appointments in the public and private sector." He said the professional members of the board included a judge, a former dean of the faculty of advocates, a past president of the Law Society of Scotland, a sheriff principal, and a highly-respected sheriff. "These are not people who are going to let anyone walk off the street and start becoming sheriffs or judges," he said. Sir Neil said the board would listen to the criticisms being made.

Men learn all about spouse abuse in family court 15 May 2005

The price to be paid is unfair. By Russ Maney A recently divorced friend of mine is afraid of the mailman. He cringes as he checks his email. His heart races every time his beeper goes off. No, he's not being stalked. He lives in fear of Family Court. Just this past week, another fat envelope of injustice came in the post - another ruling ordering him to pay more money he doesn't have. My friend did nothing that warrants such one-sided treatment. No physical  or verbal abuse, no smoking, no drinking, no drugs, no adultery, no gambling, no "too many nights out with the boys." The "irreconcilable  differences" his wife cited boiled down to money. She wanted to spend it.

He wanted to save it. She wanted the divorce. He wanted to save the marriage.

Now, thanks to draconian spousal maintenance, child support and numerous other private school, therapy and other medical expenses, the court is now forcing him to pay, he's poised on the cliff of bankruptcy. Forty-three years old and a well-respected family doctor, he can't afford to live anywhere but in his old bedroom at his parent's house. Meanwhile, his wife drives a brand new $50,000 SUV, lives comfortably in what was their upper-middle class house and cashes his checks.

This isn't an isolated incident. Anti-male bias in family courts is epidemic. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Supreme Court found that when fathers are brave and rich enough to seek custody of their children, they receive primary custody less than a third of the time and joint physical custody less than half the time.

When it comes to who cashes whose checks, the trends are even more lopsided. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, less than a third of custodial fathers receive child support from their former spouses, while 80 percent of custodial mothers do. Even more telling, almost half of these non-custodial mothers default on paying, while less than a third of non-custodial fathers do.

Many researchers now believe that this bias is wrecking the institution of marriage itself. According to the National Center of Policy Analysis, at least two-thirds of divorce suits are now filed by women, most often without grounds of wrongdoing by the father.

If you know you can take the kids - and the house and the bank accounts - with you, why stay and work on the marriage? To be clear, we're not talking about victims of abuse or adultery, who have every right to run and should. These are women who think the grass might be greener on the other side of the "irreconcilable differences" fence. And it well may be, especially if they get to bring most of the "green" from their current side of the fence.

Unfortunately, there's often little the man can do about it. Thanks to most states' current "no-fault" divorce statutes, a mother can have a half-dozen previous divorces, commit adultery, level false charges and (in some cases) even assault the father, and none of these will have any bearing on custody or child support decisions.

The ethical stench emanating from many family courts gets even worse as you dig deeper into the cesspool of recent decisions. Florida's Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that Michael Anderson had to continue paying child support, despite DNA tests that showed he wasn't the father. He's far from alone. A 1999 Florida Department of Revenue study found that about one-third of men identified by mothers as possible fathers in child support cases were found not to be the fathers after DNA tests.

In cases like this, many argue that once a man agrees to be a father, both emotionally and financially, then he shouldn't be allowed to wriggle off the hook, even if he turns out not to be the father. But what if that hook was a lie all along? Anderson married the woman in an attempt to "do the right thing," after she had become pregnant and told him the baby was his. She knew it might not be, but he didn't know this until three years later.

The Florida Supreme Court formally endorsed this blatant fraud by ruling that Anderson must continue paying child support anyway.

My friend was raised to believe that courts were hallowed ground - ivory towers of wisdom, truth and justice for all. Now, not only has his entire life been shattered financially and emotionally, so has his faith in "the system."

I, too, have been divorced, but this column isn't sour grapes. My own experience, in a county without family courts, wasn't biased. I'm thankful that my ex-wife has been similarly fair and shares custody of my daughters with me. It's a shame that I appear to be an exception to a very disturbing trend. Meanwhile, my friend waits for the next envelope and wonders where he'll get the money to pay for it all. There are far too many good men just like him.

Discipline crackdown on lawyers 12 May 2005

MINISTERS yesterday moved to strip the right of Scotland's 10,000 practising lawyers to police themselves, acknowledging that piecemeal reforms to a much-criticised system of self-regulation have failed to win public confidence. In a consultation paper, Cathy Jamieson, justice minister, proposed changes which would remove ultimate control over the resolution of complaints about lawyers from the governing bodies, the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates. The options include streng-thening the powers of the external watchdog, the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, or setting up a totally independent complaints-handling body with a non-lawyer majority. The Scottish Parliament's Justice 1 Committee produced a string of recommendations for improving complaints-handling three years ago, while endorsing the regulatory role of the professional bodies.

Controversially, however, its suggestion that the powers of Linda Costelloe Baker, the ombudsman, be enhanced was ignored. The Scottish Executive also failed to act on the suggestion that her office could work as a "clearing house" for all complaints about lawyers and that she should monitor the progress of those complaints. Yesterday's consultation paper suggests the ombudsman could conduct most complaints investigations. At present, the ombudsman, who is not a lawyer, can get involved only when a client's attempts at resolving their complaint with either the lawyer or professional body have failed. Even then, she has no power to force the society or faculty to comply with her recommendations on matters such as compensation. The two bodies can, and frequently do, ignore them. Last November, Ms Costelloe Baker went so far as to castigate publicly the society in a rare press release for failing to implement her rulings. She also lambasted the Edinburgh-based body for failing to compensate lawyers' clients adequately for loss, inconvenience, and distress during the complaints process. Ms Jamieson said the consultation paper set out ways to build "greater public confidence" in how complaints are handled. She referred to a range of possible reforms built around the central principle that users of legal services must be at the heart of the regulation of those services. She added: "We are inviting views on introducing more independence and oversight into the complaints-handling system to ensure that it is more representative of the public interest. An efficient, transparent and accountable complaints-handling system is essential. Substantial progress has undoubtedly been made since the Justice 1 committee report, but more needs to be done." In her first annual report four years ago, the ombudsman urged the executive to radically rethink complaints handling. She has consistently argued for a greater degree of independence.

Yesterday, she said: "I am just so pleased that something has finally happened." She stressed the paper did not put forward the "status quo" as an option. For Ms Costelloe Baker, a key sentence is the executive's endorsement for giving her the power to investigate the actual substance of complaints decisions made by the professional bodies, rather than simply the way complaints about lawyers were handled by them. "As soon as this office has powers to determine complaints then that's the end of self-regulation," she said. If the Law Society loses the right to regulate its members altogether, then its status is reduced to that of a trade association, but Duncan Murray, its president, greeted the paper as an "opportunity to show how much progress has been made by the society in complaints handling". However, Roy Martin QC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, said he welcomed the opportunity "to demonstrate that our handling of complaints is robust and independent", but added: "I believe that it is vital to the preservation of an independent legal profession that it is permitted to regulate itself."

Way to regulate lawyers 12 May 2005

Lawyer, investigate and punish thyself? Doctors continue to regulate themselves. So do police forces. Why not lawyers? The question demands an answer because, in a consultation paper published yesterday, the Scottish Executive recommends an end to self-regulation; or co-regulation as the Law Society prefers to call it – on grounds that an independent legal services ombudsman and other bodies already have a role in the complaints procedures against lawyers. But an answer cannot be given in isolation. In the last of her five reports on the Dr Harold Shipman murders, Dame Janet Smith concluded that the doctor-dominated General Medical Council (GMC) should lose its powers to discipline the profession. She believes that the GMC pays too much attention to the interests of doctors as opposed to those of patients. In Scotland, the executive is consulting on whether to establish an independent police complaints commission, amid concerns that the present system (police forces investigating and possibly disciplining their own) could be open to abuse. If there is a move from internal to external regulation in these two cases, why should it not also apply to the legal profession?

Being swept away on a prevailing mood is not, of course, a good reason for effecting change. There must be a sound, sustainable case for changing the present system. This involves the Law Society, which promotes the interests of solicitors, also investigating complaints of malpractice against lawyers and striking them off in the most serious cases when a complaint is upheld. At present, the ombudsman, Linda Costelloe Baker, can only investigate complaints against the society and other legal bodies. She would like to be given new, legally-enforceable powers because she believes regulation fails at present to meet public expectations. The executive tends to agree. It wants to go further than the Justice 1 Committee, which recommended retaining self-regulation. Ministers say in the consultation paper that the complaints process takes too much time and is too complicated, and can demand too much of the public. They also say consumers get a better deal from other organisations than from legal bodies. There is a general feeling that the process might be loaded in favour of lawyers, the executive concludes. Four options for change are outlined in the paper, ranging from giving the ombudsman more powers to creating a new, independent body to handle complaints with a lay chairman or woman, and a lay majority. While the best way forward might be open to debate, it is clear that the status quo is not an option. There is a strong case for opening up regulation. What is there to fear for the legal profession from doing so? Lawyers and the public have the opportunity to influence the future model. Both should seize that chance. The public needs to have confidence in the legal profession, and feel it can trust lawyers. Knowing that complaints were investigated promptly, thoroughly and with a completely open mind would raise levels of trust and confidence. Without trust and confidence there would be no business for lawyers. Clearly, it is also in the profession's interests to show that its house is kept properly in order.

Acting as a law unto themselves? 12 May 2005

GEORGE Bernard Shaw observed that all professions are conspiracies against the laity. An extreme view, certainly, but it is true that self-regulation – what Austin Mitchell, the maverick Labour MP, calls "chaps regulating chaps" – is a tarnished concept, from medicine to accountancy. Nowhere has the practice generated more scepticism, cynicism even, north of the border than in the legal profession, despite much-trumpeted improvements to the complaints-handling system by the Law Society of Scotland. Yesterday, Cathy Jamieson, justice minister, proposed changes which would remove ultimate control over the resolution of complaints about lawyers from the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, their governing bodies. The Law Society, which governs 9000 practising solicitors, generates the vast bulk of complaints to the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman.

Improvements since 2002 include 50% lay representation on society committees and more expeditious handling of complaints. Commendably, the society has also called for legal powers to discipline solicitors for their conduct and suspend a solicitor who does not co-operate with a complaints investigation. However, the society's efforts have had limited impact on its public image. As Linda Costelloe Baker, the ombudsman, observed yesterday: "It's all a little bit late." She added: "There is a perception of remoteness and arrogance which has got (the legal profession) into the position it's now in." Ms Costelloe Baker has the facts to back her assertions.

Public disquiet over how Scotland's lawyers are regulated has soared since 2001. In that year, her office received more than 100 complaints about the way the society and faculty handled complaints about their members. In the year to March 31, 2005, she received more than 500, a 27% rise on 2004 alone. Over 90% were about the society. The society counters that the increase in the number of complaints reflects people's faith that it is worth complaining. Yet this argument is somewhat specious. If every solicitor in Scotland generated a complaint, would that constitute the ultimate vindication of the complaints-handling system? Critics continue to lambast those who argue that professional bodies can simultaneously act as both trade associations promoting the services of their members and regulators protecting the interests of consumers. The consultation paper points out: "Many consumers who complain about legal services (say) the complaints process is too long and too complicated, requiring undue persistence to reach a conclusion…And there is a general feeling that the overall process might be weighted in favour of the lawyer."

The society has a "dual" role as defender of the public interest and lawyers' interests, yet it can still gloss over uncomfortable facts. Its response yesterday alluded to "various aspects" of its regulatory work being endorsed by, among others, the Office of Fair Trading. The statement omitted to mention that the OFT took the rare step of going beyond its remit in February to ask searching questions about the Scottish public's access to justice when complaining about solicitors. The watchdog also claimed there was evidence that some Scottish consumers had found difficulty in finding another solicitor to represent them in malpractice claims.

When pressed by The Herald, the society could not defend its public boast that 100 legal firms would pursue negligence actions against other solicitors. Instead, it could name only four lawyers who would help people with their complaints. All are members of a pursuers' panel – appointed by the society. Unanswered questions also involve the panel, which last year received 160 inquiries but pursued only 60 cases. In defending the complaints' handling process, Duncan Murray, the society's president, said in a letter published by The Herald: "Further, the society believes that there are about 100 firms of solicitors in addition to the pursuers' panel who act in professional negligence claims against other solicitors."

A spokeswoman has now admitted: "The society does not have the names of the firms which represent people pursuing claims against other firms, except the four solicitors who make up the pursuers' panel . . . ." "The society has established through Marsh Ltd, the insurance brokers of the master policy, that there are approximately 100 firms who pursue negligence claims against other solicitors." In 2002, the Scottish Executive held back from implementing some of justice 1's more far-reaching recommendations, including conferring extra powers on the ombudsman. It is not lost on reform campaigners that some 16 MSPs have direct links to law and that seven are members of the Law Society.

Changes must favour consumer interests 12 May 2005

JOHN SWINNEY MSP and former leader of the Scottish National Party

The layman's view

THE publication yesterday of the consultation document on reforming the process of handling complaints against solicitors and advocates is a welcome step forward for the consumer interest. The document in my view sets out an agenda that lives up to its claim as an attempt to build confidence in the legal profession in Scotland. The crucial test for the Scottish Executive is whether it will deliver a system consistent with its aspirations. The current process is slow, and struggles to achieve consistency in its deliberations, and an outcome in the consumer's interest. The striking conclusion of the consultation paper is that the status quo is just not an option. The debate now, therefore, is about how far reform needs to go. In my opinion, the balance between the regulatory and representative functions of the legal profession must be fundamentally altered in favour of the interests of the consumer. There must be greater consistency in the decisions taken in handling complaints. A strong independent voice is needed to ensure the legal profession implements decisions in relation to the conduct of solicitors – an influence that delivers justice for those who have been deprived of it. Lastly, the reformed system must eradicate any potential conflict of interest, whether in complaint handling or in compensation arrangements. I am attracted by the prospect of radical change and the establishment of an independent complaints handling body. But, as welcome as this paper is in addressing the genuine experiences of individuals who have been badly treated by solicitors, of greater significance will be the final decisions taken in ushering in reform. John Swinney

Federal incentives exist to make children fatherless 11 May 2005

Why has Congress appropriated taxpayer money to give perverse incentives that break up families and deprive children of their fathers? The built-in financial incentives in the current child-support system have expanded the tragedy of fatherless children from the welfare class to millions of non-welfare divorced couples. Americans have finally realized that providing generous welfare through Aid to Families with Dependent Children was counterproductive because the father had to disappear in order for the mother to receive taxpayer-paid benefits. Fathers left home, illegitimacy rose in alarming numbers and children were worse off. AFDC provided a taxpayer-paid financial incentive to reward girls with their own monthly check, food stamps, health care and housing if they had illegitimate babies. "She doesn't need me, she's got welfare" became the mantra.

Congress tried to reform the out-of-control welfare system by a series of child-support laws passed in 1975, 1984, 1988, 1996 (the famous Republican welfare reform), and 1999. Unfortunately, these laws morphed the welfare system into a massive middle-class child-support system that deprives millions of children of fathers who never abandoned them. As former President Ronald Reagan often said, "The most terrifying words in the English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." People think that child-support enforcement benefits children, but it doesn't. When welfare agencies collect child support, the money actually goes to the government to reimburse it for welfare payments already given to mothers, supposedly to reduce the federal budget (which, of course, is never reduced). In 1984, Congress passed the Child Support Enforcement Amendment. It required states to adopt voluntary guidelines for child-support payments.

In 1988, Congress passed the Family Support Act, which made the guidelines mandatory - along with criminal enforcement - and gave states less than one year to comply. The majority of states quickly adopted the model guidelines conveniently already written by a Department of Health and Human Services consultant who was president of what was shortly to become one of the nation's largest private collection companies, which makes its profits on the onerous guidelines that create arrearages. The 1988 law extended the guidelines to ALL child-support orders, even though the big majority of those families never had to interact with government in order to pay or receive child support. This massive expansion of federal control over private lives uses a Federal Case Registry to exercise surveillance over 19 million citizens whether or not they are behind in child-support payments. The states collect the child-support money and deposit it in a state fund, but the federal government pays most of the administrative costs and, therefore, dictates the way the system operates through mandates and financial incentives. The federal government pays 66 percent of the states' administrative overhead costs, 80 percent of computer and technology-enhancement costs, and 90 percent of DNA testing for paternity. In addition, the states share in a nearly $500 million incentive reward pool based on whatever the state collects. The states can get a waiver to spend this bonus money anyway they choose.

However, most of the child support owed by welfare-class fathers is uncollectable. Most of them are either unemployed or have annual incomes less than $10,000. So, in order to cash in on federal bonus money, build their bureaucracies and brag about successful child-support enforcement, the states began bringing into the government system middle-class fathers with jobs who were never (and probably would never be) on welfare. These non-welfare families have grown to represent 83 percent of child-support cases and 92 percent of the money collected, creating a windfall of federal money flowing to the states. The federal incentives drive the system. The more divorces, and the higher the child-support guidelines are set and enforced (no matter how unreasonable), the more money state bureaucracies collect from the federal government.

Follow the money. The less time that noncustodial parents (usually fathers) are permitted to be with their children, the more child support they are required pay into the state fund, and the higher the federal bonus to the states for collecting the money. States have powerful incentives to separate fathers from their children, to give near-total custody to mothers, to maintain the fathers' high-level support obligations even if their income is drastically reduced and to hang onto the father's payments as long as possible before paying them out to the mothers. The General Accounting Office reported that in 2002 that states were holding $657 million in undistributed child support. Fatherless boys are 63 percent more likely to run away and 37 percent more likely to abuse drugs. Fatherless girls are twice as likely to get pregnant and 53 percent more likely to commit suicide. Fatherless boys and girls are twice as likely to drop out of high school and twice as likely to end up in jail. We can no longer ignore how taxpayer money is providing incentive for divorce and creating fatherless children. Nor can we ignore the government's complicity in the predictable social costs that result from more than 17 million children growing up without fathers.

Paul Denounces National ID Card  11 May 2005

Washington, DC- Congressman Ron Paul today denounced the national ID card provisions contained in the intelligence bill being voted on in the U.S. House of Representatives, while urging his colleagues to reject the bill and its new layers of needless bureaucracy. “National ID cards are not proper in a free society,” Paul stated.  “This is America, not Soviet Russia.  The federal government should never be allowed to demand papers from American citizens, and it certainly has no constitutional authority to do so.”

“A national identification card, in whatever form it may take, will allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every American,” Paul continued.  “History shows that governments inevitably use such power in harmful ways.  The 9-11 commission, whose recommendations underlie this bill, has called for internal screening points where identification will be demanded.  Domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free nations.  It is just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane.” “Nationalizing standards for drivers licenses and birth certificates, and linking them together via a national database, creates a national ID system pure and simple.  Proponents of the national ID understand that the public remains wary of the scheme, so they attempt to claim they’re merely creating new standards for existing state IDs.  Nonsense!  This legislation imposes federal standards in a federal bill, and it creates a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your state.”

“Those who are willing to allow the government to establish a Soviet-style internal passport system because they think it will make us safer are terribly mistaken,” Paul concluded.  “Subjecting every citizen to surveillance and screening points actually will make us less safe, not in the least because it will divert resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists and deploy them against innocent Americans!  Every conservative who believes in constitutional restraints on government should reject the authoritarian national ID card and the nonsensical intelligence bill itself.”

A Rash of Feminist Hate Speech 11 May 2005

By Carey Roberts(

A woman named Mary took the open microphone. "Hello, my name is Mary Man-Hating-is-Fun," she explained. "Ever since I learned to embrace my feminist nature, I found great joy in threatening men's lives, flicking off frat brothers and plotting the patriarchy’s death. I hate men because they are men." The 40 women in the audience, many wearing scissors around their necks, laughed and clapped, then broke into a light-hearted song about castration.

This event, advertised as the Patriarchy Slam, took place at the University of New Hampshire on March 10. Some might be tempted to explain away this event as an aberration, perhaps some strange Wiccan initiation ritual performed at the end of a long New England winter. For years, disdain for men has been nurtured in Women's Studies programs around the country. Required reading for these courses typically includes the works of Andrea Dworkin, and such books as The SCUM Manifesto. SCUM is an acronym for "Society for Cutting Up Men."

How's this for warm-hearted commentary on gender reconciliation: Every man is "the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman" and "Hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right." Those insights earned Dworkin the status of a feminist cult-hero. But on April 9 Andrea Dworkin unexpectedly left this earthly existence. Five days later arch-feminist Catherine MacKinnon, grief-stricken over the passing of bosom-buddy Andrea, showed up on the Stanford University campus. There MacKinnon launched into a paranoid rant about the ever-lurking patriarchy: "Just like terrorist attacks, acts of violence against women are carefully planned, targeted at civilians, and driven by ideology." Under normal circumstances, anyone making such irrational claims would be quietly led away to a padded cell.

But Stanford Law School dean Kathleen Sullivan only saw fit to add to the loonier-than-thou atmosphere: "There are many other prominent feminist theorists in our times, but none of their philosophy is as sweeping and profound as MacKinnon's." Then on April 16 MacKinnon published an article in the New York Times in which she extolled the mentally-deranged Dworkin as "an inspiration to so many women." Seeking to turn her into a feminist martyr, MacKinnon argued, "How she was treated is how women are treated who tell the truth about male power."

But Boston Globe columnist Cathy Young took sharp exception to MacKinnon's fig-leaf eulogy. "To put it plainly: Dworkin was a preacher of hate," Young countered, and "if she deserves 'credit' for anything, it’s helping infect feminist activism…with anti-male bigotry and paranoia." Anti-male bigotry and paranoia can have harmful consequences for women, as well. Last November 17 Desiree Nall, a student at Rollins College in Winter Park, FL was cornered in a campus bathroom and raped. The police placed the campus on "high alert," warning female students to stay indoors. Women were in a panic. An investigation ensued, eventually costing $50,000.

But the case began to unravel when Nall, a local women's rights activist, gave inconsistent details about the incident and refused to assist with the composite sketches. Two days later, Nall called the police and admitted the whole thing was a hoax. Police officers later speculated that Nall was trying to "make a statement" about sexual violence. Equally worrisome is how some persons dismiss feminists' malicious antics as harmless fun.

A few days ago Jeffrey Zaslow wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal about girls who wear T-shirts with the slogan, "Boys are Stupid, Throw Rocks at Them." Festooned with the light-hearted title, "Girl Power as Boy Bashing," the article implies that hate speech is somehow a legitimate expression of female empowerment. Sometimes I feel a little silly stating the obvious, but girls wearing clothes that preach violence and hate is not normal. It's no coincidence that feminist hate speech revolves around the issue of domestic violence. That's because years ago the rad-fems highjacked the federal Violence Against Women Act, and have relentlessly milked the issue to inflame the fears of women. This, despite the fact that women are just as likely as men to commit domestic violence.

The Violence Against Women Act, which underwrites the radical feminist cause to the tune of $1 billion a year, is set to expire on September 30. As of this writing, no renewal legislation has been introduced, and time is running short.

Is it possible that the end of feminist hate speech is at hand?

Legal complaints handling set for reform ban 11 May 2005

New proposals from Scottish Ministers to improve arrangements for handling complaints against lawyers in Scotland have been published for consultation today. At present, those making a complaint against a solicitor are encouraged to resolve this directly with the solicitor or law firm - failing this, the Law Society of Scotland can investigate. Complaints against advocates are dealt with by the Faculty of Advocates. The Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman (SLSO) considers any complaints about the way in which these two bodies have handled a complaint.

The main options for reforming the present structure are:

increasing the investigatory and enforcement powers of the SLSO ;
making the office of the SLSO a 'single gateway' to receive and sift all complaints where local resolution has not been possible, with wider powers to monitor the complaints handling processes of the professional bodies;
turning the office of the SLSO into a single gateway which would itself investigate most complaints; creating a new independent complaints handling body, with a board led by a lay chair and with a lay majority.These build on recommendations made by the Justice 1 Committee in the first session of the Scottish Parliament - they favoured retaining the current system of self-regulation of complaints handling by the professional bodies, but recommended a number of measures to make the system more accountable and subject to a greater degree of independent oversight.
Launching the consultation, Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson said:

"Efficient and effective justice services founded on the basic principles of fairness and equality are central to delivering the peaceful, prosperous Scotland we all want to live in. Legal services in the private sector - and those supported through publicly-funded legal assistance - are important to our society and to our economy. "This paper sets out ways in which we can build greater public confidence in how complaints about legal services are handled. A range of possible reforms built around the central principle that users of legal services must be at the heart of the regulation of those services. "We are inviting views on introducing more independence and oversight into the complaints handling system to ensure that it is more representative of the public interest. "Lawyers - like politicians - often get a bad press. The reality is that most people receive an excellent professional service from their lawyer. But when things go wrong, the road to a satisfactory resolution of a complaint can sometimes be a long and difficult one. Consumers have become much more aware of their rights in recent years, and clients with a justified complaint expect it to be well handled and speedily resolved.

"An efficient, transparent and accountable complaints handling system is essential. Substantial progress has undoubtedly been made since the Justice 1 committee report, but more needs to be done. I look forward to hearing from those who use legal services, and those who provide them, on how best to take this forward." Justice Ministers' commitment to improve redress for aggrieved consumers was demonstrated in recent steps taken to increase the level of compensation which may be paid to clients whose solicitors are responsible for providing inadequate professional services. The maximum compensation payable to a client increased from £1,000 to £5,000 with effect from 1 April 2005. Following an inquiry into Regulation of the Legal Profession, the Justice 1 committee's report was published on 27 November 2002. Both legal professional bodies have introduced reforms to their complaints procedures since this report (see details in Appendix A of consultation paper). The consultation paper acknowledges developments in England and Wales, particularly the Clementi Review of the regulatory framework for legal services which was published on 15 December 2004. This includes a recommendation to set up an independent complaints body for England and Wales, the Office for Legal Complaints.

Clergyman sees no need for Freemason ban 11 May 2005

A PETITION has been lodged with the Scottish Parliament calling for MSPs to urge the Executive to introduce legislation requiring the Scottish Episcopal Church to bar all its clergy from membership of the Freemasons or any other society having a secret oath-bound membership. Dundee Episcopalian minister and city councillor Joe Morrow (pictured) is singled out in the petition, following his election last year as 108th Most Worshipful Grand Master Mason of the Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons of Scotland.

The petitioner Hugh Sinclair, on behalf of the Movement for a Register of Freemasons, cites reservations about Freemasonry and the Church expressed by Anglican clergy.As the Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican Communion, he notes it has no official position on the question of Freemasonry and finds it "extraordinary" that it has never been discussed within its General Synod. The petition states, "Scottish Episcopal clergy are by nature of their pastoral and community work, involved from time to time in decision making processes in the realm of education, social work and housing. It is of vital importance that recommendations/interventions/referrals by clergymen should not be open to question on grounds of bias or favouritism."

Last night Mr Morrow said he was aware of the petition and did not wish to become involved in an argument about its merits. "As a Freemason and Grand Master and a minister, I have always been completely open about both positions and had no difficulty in announcing it publicly. As an individual I have no difficulty about a public declaration and will continue with that policy. As the leader of Scottish Freemasonry, I have encouraged members and lodges to be open and public. Many are honoured to belong and proud to support their lodges. "As an individual I have found there are no conflicts between membership of this organisation and my professional life in any way whatsoever."

Petition Number 848
Petition by Hugh Sinclair, on behalf of the Movement for a Register of Freemasons, calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to introduce legislation requiring the Scottish Episcopal Church to bar all its clergy from membership of the Freemasons or any other society having a secret oath-bound membership.

Petitioner: Hugh Sinclair
On behalf of: Movement for a Register of Freemasons
Number of signatures: 1
Date lodged: 26 April 2005

Holocaust Day And Child Custody Laws In Israel 6 May 2005

By Joel Leyden
Israel News Agency

Jerusalem----May 5....It is Holocaust Memorial Day in Israel. We reflect on the tragedies that Jewish families suffered throughout Europe 60 years ago in the European Holocaust. How Jewish families were torn apart systematically by a Nazi totalitarian government. How children were separated from their parents. Nazi persecution, arrests, and deportations were directed against all members of Jewish families, as well as many Gypsy families, without concern for age. Inevitably the children were among the prisoners at highest risk. Homeless, often orphaned, they had frequently witnessed the murder of parents, siblings, and relatives. They faced starvation, illness, brutal labor, and other indignities until they were consigned to the gas chambers. In relationship to adult prisoners, their chances for survival were usually smaller although their flexibility and adaptability to radically changed circumstances could sometimes increase the odds in their favor. That these Jewish children survived at all and also created diaries, poems, and drawings in virtually all ghettos and concentration camps is truly remarkable. Full statistics for the tragic fate of children who died during the Holocaust will never be known. Some estimates range as high as 1.5 million murdered children. This figure includes more than 1.2 million Jewish children, tens of thousands of Gypsy children and thousands of institutionalized handicapped children who were murdered under Nazi rule in Germany and occupied Europe.

No one can compare the atrocities exercised by the Nazis to the lack of due process and blatant gender bias discrimination by Israel family courts and Israel child welfare departments in Israel. The real culprit being the cold, twisted and disturbed mother who goes to the Israel family court and separates child from father. But the deep emotional pain and suffering of planned, governmental systematic separation during the Nazi regime and today in Israel between child and parent - is the pain any different? Why is it that if a divorced dad in Israel wishes to visit his children on Holocaust Memorial Day, he can and will be arrested and thrown into prison? Rather, the father, who serves in the IDF reserves, stands alone as the air raid sirens marking Holocaust Day resonate throughout the country, unable to explain to his children how and why their relatives were murdered in the Holocaust.

It used to be that the family was a sovereign institution. That was when we still thought that the family was the foundation of society in every nation on Earth, and as long as governments were considered to be the servants, not the masters of society. Liberalists don't like that very much, because as long as the family and the rights of the family are supreme and protect every individual, man, woman and child, the power of governments, of anti-family ideologists and of the proponents of sexual freedom is very limited. The only thing that stands between the power of totalitarian governments and the condition of slavery for individuals is the protection of the family. If we want them, families are forever, but governments come and go. Throughout modern history it was the intention of people who wanted to usurp absolute power to limit, erode and abrogate the rights of the family. With the advent of the migration of individuals from rural areas to urban centres, families themselves lost the protection of their extended families and of their close communities. Governments recognized that and established a number of schemes to alleviate the resulting hardships: social service agencies, health-care plans, pension plans and related institutions. All of these efforts at promoting and securing the safety of individuals within their families were not totally successful. The industrial revolution brought about the exploitation of individuals and families who had to rely on working for wages as their sole source of income. Out of that rose the labour movement and liberalism. Those prepared the ground for the rise of socialism and its more extreme variations: communism and feminism.

The Jewish family did not do well in the political and ideological upheavals, except to some extent in those countries where the family was considered nothing much more than a production facility for soldiers and workers. As many social problems occurred within families and always with individuals who were products of families, it was thought by some that more government control over families would alleviate some of the problems, whereas others saw the family as the source of many social ills and wanted to eliminate it altogether. In a world in which women are necessary to ensure the production of children, where the growth of nations is measured in terms of their population, it is common to promote and encourage the production of children. Many nations did that to such an extent that in some countries it was possible for many families to make a living by having large numbers of children. Of course, that also made the husband and father unnecessary as a provider for his family. It even made it unnecessary for any family to have just a single father. The first step in the destruction of the traditional nuclear family had been taken. Napoleon is reported to have said: "Who has the youths controls the future." It makes perfect sense for anyone who depends for his power on nationalism and hero worship to say that, but it also means that when he gets control of the youths the families raising them lose their influence and control over them. Nevertheless, it was a slogan that was eagerly picked up by many political and ideological interests in many nations. Every political faction and ideological orientation in Germany began in the late 19th century to create their own youth organizations. The German youth movement became an enormously popular and powerful force, far more popular and perhaps far more powerful than the student radicals of the 1960s. The youth organizations had generally one thing in mind, the elimination of the stuffiness of the establishment. At the very least, none of them had very much respect for the establishment. Lenin produced his own version of the slogan coined by Napoleon. It is said that he stated: "Give me your four-year-olds, and in one generation I'll construct a socialist State." Stalin continued Lenin's legacy and established a system for the indoctrination of youths that was virtually indistinguishable from that used by Hitler. Mao Tse Tung followed the same prescription for controlling and indoctrinating his people. One of the more remarkable results of that was the Chinese Cultural Revolution, which almost entirely eliminated a whole generation of intellectuals, a circumstance from which the Chinese economy is suffering to this day.

Hitler is often credited with the creation of the German youth movement. That is a false assumption. Hitler did not create the German youth movement; he consolidated it for his own aims under the concept of the Hitler Youth and put Baldur von Schirach, a homosexual, in charge of it. That a homosexual became the Reich Leader of the Hitler Youth shouldn't surprise anyone. The youth organizations were segregated by the sexes, and early peer sex was being advocated by many leaders of the youth movement before Hitler — who was a homosexual, too, and never even had sexual relations with his ostensible mistress and later wife, Eva Braun — came on the scene. The result of that was that many youths were introduced to homosexuality and that the most popular and likable homosexuals became political leaders. As things evolved, the more radical of those were communists and fascists. The Nazis were merely the more powerful ones and won the struggle for political domination. After 1933, virtually every German youth was a member of the Hitler Youth. It was largely peer pressure that made younger children join at first. Ultimately, membership in the Hitler Youth became compulsory for every student organization. Virtually all children aged ten years and older joined, and students spent almost all of their spare time in activities within the control of the Hitler Youth. Aside from mostly sleeping and eating at home, although they often didn't even do that, they had effectively been removed from the control of their parents and placed under the total control of the State. Thus all of the totalitarian leaders achieved the second major step in the destruction of families, control of the children. The attempts to achieve state control of the minds of our children by no means ended with the lives of the great totalitarian leaders. The principle first recognized in antiquity and implemented by Napoleon is still very true today. The war against the family continues. Although liberalists are still very much in the process of gaining control over our youth organizations and attempt by all sorts of subterfuge to subvert them to their will, youth organizations aren't all that important any longer. There are now far more effective tools to gather a captive audience and to indoctrinate it.

Television is currently the most influential of those, and the feminist-dominated and -controlled education curriculum is a close second. If the State had the least bit of interest in preserving and protecting the power of the family, we would not see the daily diet of filth, violence and moral corruption — most of all not the constant vilification of men and the father figure — that far too many of our children are being subjected to for many hours each day of the week. However, the State is no longer our servant, not since "the tyranny by the majority" (formerly called democracy) was replaced by the tyranny by the minorities. The systematic destruction of our families continues, actively promoted by radical extremist minorities that are in virtually total control of the State. What was called "liberty and equality" during the French revolution is now called equal rights for women and for homosexuals. What was called "free love"* by the communists is now called sexual freedom. [See Communist Manifesto] The easy dissolution of marriages for a minimal fee of a few Kopecks under the early communists in Russia (they soon changed their minds about that on account of the Pandora's Box that opened) has been replaced by no-fault divorce and false allegations of sexual abuse or domestic violence. After all, if you were to make divorces available for a minimal fee, then that would make it impossible for the divorce industry to derive its enormous profits from the process of the systematic destruction of our families. The destruction of Jewish families continues on many fronts. Just to mention a few: On November 19, 1999, Canada held a vote by its children as to which items of a set of ten articles (to be taken from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child) Canadian children wish to have introduced as legislation to be promoted and established as changes to family law in Canada. The children's vote was being promoted by UNICEF and Elections Canada, neither one of which is an elected body, but both of which are very much manifestations of family-hostile forces. The UNICEF proposal for the children's vote hadn't even been discussed in Canadian Parliament. However, it had been funded out of tax revenues.

In Germany a proposal is being pushed through the Bundesrat (the German Federal Senate) to provide by law a five percent pocket money allowance to wives, to be paid by the wives' husbands. In October 1999, the British Minister for Women announced plans to compel employers to pay men's wages into their wives' bank accounts. Baroness Jay said that the new rules, which were to come into force in April 2000, will reduce poverty in the family by ensuring that family income is not wasted. She said that wives will have sole discretion over whether or not they receive their husband's wages directly. This is in line with the current regulations which allow wives to decide which partner is paid Child Benefit. Given that the feminist social engineers who drive the international agenda for the planned systematic destruction of our families network very intensely, it is quite likely that Canada's feminist bureaucrats provided the motivation for the U.K. for the exploitation of working men and fathers and the sowing of consequential dissent in families. Except that Canada did not go quite so far as to penalize all married or cohabiting men. In 1997, Canada implemented changes to the Income Tax Act that deprived men obligated to pay child support of their right to deduct the child support amounts they pay from their taxable income. Ostensibly, the revenues gathered through that — which even Canada's socialist totalitarian government estimated to be in the order of about $500 million a year — was intended to pay all single mothers in the lowest 20-percentile of the income distribution a total of $250 million a year in child tax credits — leaving a cool extra $250 million per year in the government's revenue coffers to be applied in the uncontrolled and escalating spending spree of the Liberals.

Some sources a bit more reputable and credible than the purveyors of the government propaganda estimated that the extra tax revenues collected through that exploitative scheme are more likely in the order of $750 million per year. Of course, the extra tax revenue thus collected is money that is for all intents and purposes taken out of the mouths of Canada's children of divorced and single-parent families. Although divorced and child-support-paying fathers objected to the scam, the Liberal Government got re-elected with an even larger majority than in the previous election — a direct outcome of the promise in their election platform to help single mothers in poverty. Moreover, since the scam got cooked up in virtual secrecy and was eventually passed in record time as the very last act concluded by Parliament prior to the election, it got virtually no attention in the media, while the election promise to help poor mothers was the corner stone of the Liberal Party's platform. In India property rights for women are being given preferential treatment, with government-assisted loans being made available to women to purchase real estate or to establish business ventures (to which their husbands have no rights, but, I suppose, to which they are nevertheless expected to contribute the fruits of their labour). The reasoning there is identical to that in the proposed legislation in the U.K.: men, and only men, are wasteful; women are not. In addition, the reasoning in India is that women and children form permanent units and that by giving them financial advantages, women can do what men are said to have been incapable of doing, lift their families out of poverty. No nit-picking now. It's feminist logic, therefore infallible. We need basic and immediate reforms in Israel's outdated Family Custodian Act of 1962. Gender bias discrimination must be outlawed, fathers provided with equal access and children should be assured that they will receive love and care from both parents.

In Israel, the Rabbinical law of Shalom Biet or "Peace in the Home" is nothing more than a cruel joke. Except that it produces revenue for the local Beit Dein. Shalom Biet, which is supposed to be one of the most sacred and essential pillars of Judaism - taken from the quiet and respect which surrounded the First Temple in Jerusalem - is not encouraged and is not enforced. Where have our most basic values of Jewish family life gone? Why is the cherished Jewish family perishing under both Israeli and Rabbinical law? Well, it's neither logical nor infallible, but it is most certainly feminist doctrine, and that doesn't need any justification at all, because it is based on "women's way of knowing." Karin Jaeckel, a German author of children's books and of books about families and about love within the family, says about the pocket-money-for-wives charter, in Pocket Money for Mom, that a family of four with an average income can ill afford 175 DM per month (350 DM if the husband will be granted the same right) just for fun money. She states that families barely scrape by as is and that to create this law will achieve nothing other than to elevate the already high levels of stress in many families.

However, what all proposals like that have in common is further intrusion by world states and the State of Israel into the lives of Jewish families, resulting in an escalation of the systematic destruction of our families. More children will be removed under the pretense of the law from the control and guidance by their parents, making them more "autonomous", and more men will become less inclined to become married. Before men even enter marriage they are being told that it is not they who'll have the power, but that it is the State who holds the power in families and calls all of the shots. Existing marriages will experience the additional stress described by Karin Jaeckel and therefore be more likely to break apart. If the proposed pocket-money-charter for wives becomes law, it will no doubt eventually result in a five percent tax being deducted right off the husband's pay cheque, thereby giving the government not only more power but an improved cash flow. And that is what it is all about. When it comes to bringing about the systematic destruction of our families and to increase the power of the State, anything will do, even if it is just a "little" thing such as legislated pocket money for wives. You don't dare for a second to ever call an Israeli a Nazi. Unless you work for Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or the International Solidarity Movement which is responsible for the PR and spin of the Palestinians.

But please tell me what is different in being systematically separated by a government from your children? Why is it that if a divorced dad wishes to visit his children on Holocaust Memorial Day, he can and will be arrested and thrown into prison? Rather, the father stands alone as the air raid sirens marking Holocaust Day resonate throughout the country, unable to explain to his children how his relatives died in the Holocaust. We need basic and immediate reforms in Israel's outdated Family Custodian Act of 1962. We are not Nazis. Israel is supposed to be a "light onto other nations." Israel is supposed to be an enlightened democracy. But there is no democracy for both divorced fathers and their children in Israel today. Only suffering and forced separation.

Woman arrested after two more babies found in attic 3 May 2005

Two more babies found in attic The latest discoveries were made at this house in Merthyr Tydfil

Police looking into the discovery of a baby's body in a house in Merthyr Tydfil believe they have found the remains of another two infants. The first body was found in March hidden in a suitcase in the attic of a house on the Gurnos housing estate. Detectives discovered the two further remains in the attic of a different property in the same area. A 64-year-old woman has been arrested and is helping police with their inquiries.

The post-mortem examination on the first set of remains found in Penyfan View failed to establish a cause of death, although pathologists believe that the baby was full-term. At the time, officers said the baby had been dead for years rather than months.

The first baby's body was found at a house in Penyfan View Following the latest development, a police spokesman confirmed: "South Wales Police have arrested a 64-year-old woman in connection with the death of a baby, whose remains were discovered enclosed in a bag in the attic of a property in the Gurnos area of Merthyr, back on March 20th, 2005. "Following the arrest at her home in the Gurnos earlier today, and a subsequent search of the property, officers discovered what they believed to be the remains of two further infants, which were enclosed in bags in the attic."

Mother loses baby murder appeal 3 May 2005

A mother-of-three from Birmingham serving life for murdering her baby son has lost her appeal against conviction. Chah'Oh-Niyol Kai-Whitewind, from Northfield, was jailed at the city's crown court in 2003 for killing 12-week-old Bidziil by asphyxiation. Three judges in London ruled on Tuesday that the conviction was safe. Although the appeal was dismissed, Lord Justice Judge described the law relating to infanticide as "unsatisfactory and outdated".

Became 'frustrated'

He went on: "The appeal in this sad case demonstrates the need for a thorough re-examination." Kai-Whitewind, who changed her name after adopting a native American Indian culture, pleaded not guilty at her trial. The prosecution's case had been that she killed the baby after becoming frustrated with his refusal to breastfeed. Kai-Whitewind's lawyers argued during the appeal that her conviction was unsafe because it was based on the jury's assessment of the evidence of experts who gave conflicting opinions as to whether natural causes of death could be excluded.

They contended that "in cases such as this, where there is no independent evidence safe to put before a jury, an assessment by a jury based on the relative performance of disputing experts will make any conviction unreliable". The Crown, which contested the appeal, does not accept it was a case of unexplained or sudden infant death syndrome or cot death. It submitted that there was plain evidence, outside the medical evidence, which enabled the jury to convict. Kai-Whitewind was present in court on Tuesday when Lord Justice Judge, Mrs Justice Hallett and Mr Justice Leveson gave their judgement.

Woman admits car park row killing 3 May 2005

Ann Whittle, who died in hospital about 50 minutes after the incident A woman has admitted killing a 58-year-old grandmother following a row over a parking space in Glasgow. Carol McMillan, 34, of Spey Walk, Holytown, Lanarkshire, admitted the culpable homicide of Ann Whittle on 15 August last year. The pair clashed over a space at a car boot sale at Blochairn Road, Glasgow. McMillan repeatedly kicked Mrs Whittle, who later died in hospital. Judge Lady Dorian deferred sentence on McMillan for background reports. The High Court in Glasgow heard that Mrs McMillan grabbed Mrs Whittle by the hair and kicked her three times on the head. Her victim suffered a heart attack and collapsed.

She put her hands on the bonnet and attempted to stop him entering the space Brian McConnachie Prosecuting

Her husband, Norman, 68, shouted: "You've killed my wife." McMillan's partner, Charles Freeburn, 34, admitted assaulting Mr Whittle by punching him twice on the head. Brian McConnachie, prosecuting, said the Whittles found it difficult to get a parking space when they arrived at the car boot sale. He said: "They arrived at 10.20am and had difficulty parking. "Mr Whittle eventually stopped beside a no parking sign, but his wife said he shouldn't park there." The court heard Mrs Whittle got out of the car and spoke to a driver who was about to drive off. She stood in the parking space in order to keep the place while her husband drove across the road.

'Grabbed by the hair'

However, as he manoeuvred his car, McMillan got out of her vehicle and stood in the parking space. Mr McConnachie added: "She put her hands on the bonnet and attempted to stop him entering the space. "Mrs Whittle made a comment to the effect that she and her husband were there first. Carol McMillan turned and grabbed her by the hair and then kicked her on the face three times." The court heard that McMillan told police she had been hit by Mr Whittle's car, but this claim was not supported by eyewitness accounts.

Angina sufferer

Mrs Whittle was pronounced dead at Glasgow's Royal Infirmary about 50 minutes after the incident. The court was told she suffered from shortness of breath, heart problems and ngina. A post-mortem examination revealed Mrs Whittle suffered from a narrowing of three main arteries. Throughout the court hearing, McMillan sat sobbing in the dock. Paul McBride QC, defending, said his client had been in a permanent state of tears since the incident.

Rejection of the Feminine is Rooted in the Occult 3 May 2005

By Henry Makow, Ph.D.

Some day our educators and politicians will be held accountable for turning impressionable girls into lesbians and ruining their lives. They teach them a hate-filled Feminist dogma that heterosexuality is a "social construct," males are violent predators, and sex with a man is rape. Millions of gullible girls are falling into a diabolical trap intended to make them pursue careers instead of families. As I have said, the purpose is to depopulate and destabilize society by destroying its fundamental building block, the family. I am not a fan of Dennis Prager , a Zionist propagandist, but I credit him for a perceptive interview with a young women Anna Montrose who described how university and the media made her bisexual. It is based on an article in the McGill Daily in which she declared:

"It's hard to go through four years of a Humanities B.A. reading Foucault and Butler and watching 'The L Word' and keep your rigid heterosexuality intact. I don't know when it happened exactly, but it seems I no longer have the easy certainty of pinning my sexual desire to one gender and never the other." (Michel Foucault is a major French "post-modern" philosopher; Judith Butler is a prominent "gender theorist" at UC Berkeley; and "The L-Word" is a popular TV drama about "glamorous" lesbians.) Read her interview and you will see she thinks men and women are interchangeable and marriage is mostly a tax deduction. She is unfit for marriage and motherhood. Unfortunately, she is becoming the rule rather than the exception. Paradoxically, when females reject the male, they usurp the masculine role and abandon the feminine one.


Innocents like Anna Montrose are the victims of Feminism, which has roots in the occult Kabalistic and Gnostic tradition that displaces God and rejects marriage and family as impediments to free sex and occult control of society. (Kabala and Gnosticism are the basis of Freemasonry, in turn the basis of modern Liberalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Zionism and Feminism.) According to this occult tradition, Lilith was Adam's first wife, the archetype feminist that every man marries and then divorces. Lilith and Adam argued constantly because Lilith refused to be under him in the act of love. saying they were "equal." This is from "The Story of Lilith" which dates from the between the 8th and 10th Centuries A.D: God "created a woman for Adam, from the earth, as He had created Adam himself, and called her Lilith. Adam and Lilith began to fight. She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be in the superior one.' Lilith responded, 'We are equal to each other inasmuch as we were both created from the earth.' But they would not listen to one another. When Lilith saw this, she pronounced the Ineffable Name and flew away into the air. Adam stood in prayer before his Creator: 'Sovereign of the universe!' he said, 'the woman you gave me has run away.'

Lilith's refusal to lie beneath Adam is tantamount to the earth refusing to receive a seed. There is nothing inferior or "unequal" about this, no matter what this text has Adam say. It is part of the yin-yang, the active-passive, masculine-feminine dance that is at the heart of nature. Man serves God. Woman serves family. In this way both are useful and their lives have meaning. But the Gnostic/Kabalistic tradition wishes to overthrow God and nature and substitute the rule of (some) men. The New World Order is the culmination of this satanic tradition. That is why the Ten Commandments are carted out of courthouses and replaced with "human rights" which are not God given, but are defined and applied selectively. That is why our young women are raised to be dysfunctional and useless; why young men are not taught to serve God (Truth, Love) and give women a noble purpose.


The occult roots of modern culture also explain the confusing mystical haze that surrounds romantic love. The notion that men get their meaning from love and marriage is very confusing and wrong. It is also feminine. Men get their confidence from their work. The notion that we are divine and can love the "God within" our mate is a form of idolatry. Most of us are closer to insects than to God. I would replace the word "love"with two words: "trust and respect." This concept is more realistic and understandable. True love develops over a period of years and is based on trust and respect. Naturally, we must begin by "earning" our own respect by living up to personal ideals and achieving our goals. This is the source of self-confidence and attraction. Then a man must "earn" a woman's trust and respect through slow and patient courtship. For a woman, love is an act of self-surrender, which renders her vulnerable. Her happiness depends on her careful choice of husband. I have a hunch that the most satisfying aspect of sex is not physical but emotional: total possession for the man, and total surrender for the woman. This depends on earning trust so a woman can let down her defences. See my "The Power of Sexual Surrender." The popular misconception that we are entitled to love is another aspect of our occulture, and is partly responsible for our arrested development. Instead of becoming more worthy, more useful, we seek the magical "someone" who will love us just as we are.


What we call love is usually sexual infatuation. Young women behave as if sex appeal is all they need, and young men tend to confirm this error. The movies show men going gaga over women who have very little to offer, other than being pretty and quirky. That's good for ten minutes, what about the rest of life? In the past, women had practical skills as wives and mothers. They learned to cook and sew and make the home beautiful and inviting. They became cultured and mastered a musical instrument. They knew about child rearing. But more important, they developed a mental attitude. They were going to join their lives with a man and be "on his team" for better or for worse. They were going to bear his children and project his spirit into the future. That's what a woman's love really means. That's what binds a man to a woman. My wife who is Mexican still has something of the Old World. We met five years ago over the Internet. She sent me a link which she said was a gift. When I opened it, I saw she had designed a great new web site for my book, A Long Way to go for Date .

Love at first web site, her gesture told me that she was prepared to be useful, to help me. A woman helping a man! What a strange concept these days when an ancient satanic conspiracy nears culmination.

Should we respect judges?  3 May 2005

It is a common phenomenon throughout human history for tyrants and oligarchs to attempt to gain the respect of the subjects they oppress through the practice of terror.  Fear can gain a petty tyrant a great deal of respect.  Not only have 20th century dictators managed to hold on to power for decades until they died of old age by creating deathly fear among their subjects by state terror, many famous rulers from the dawn of history have used the same strategy.  In the past, it was possible to burn a few people at the stake to gain the cooperation of the rest.  To be a successful dictator today, however, it is often necessary to kill millions.  Chairman Mao is still honored by many Americans for his “achievements,” but it is seldom mentioned in public that his accomplishments were bought with the lives of about 65,000,000 people, who were killed in order to win him the respect of the survivors through fear.

   Countries like America, where the citizens are accustomed to require leaders to earn respect, are exceptions to the general rule.  We also know that all people have to fight against tyranny in order to maintain their freedom from state terror.  As soon as people become complacent, the kind of people we are seeing on the benches of our courts today begin to bully the poor and seek favors from the rich.  Unfortunately, I think that many Americans today are ready to turn over their freedoms to tyrants in exchange for promises of security or a chance to profit from the corruption that tyrants invariably create.

   When we see judges acting completely contrary to the law, jailing people indiscriminantly for “contempt,” disbarring lawyers who call attention to corruption, and selling their verdicts to the highest bidder, we begin to see how easily freedom can be lost.  What we see now is judges trying to gain back, through bullying and intimidation, the “respect” that their actions have cost them.  They will continue to do this until they run into real resistance.  Fortunately, our legislators seem to be finally waking up to the problem, but only time will tell whether they take effective action or simply pack the courts with their own creatures, who will break the laws in ways that benefits the campaign contributors of the legislators.

   The petty tyranny of our judges will surely morph into a totalitarian form of government if it is not brought under control.

Charles Heckman

Father goes on hunger strike again 3 May 2005

FOR the third consecutive week, Limerick man, Bill Kelly, will deny himself food and drink from Wednesday evening until 9pm on Friday in his ongoing protest to highlight the lack of rights for unmarried fathers. Mr Kelly has pledged to continue with the series of fastings outside City Hall until he succeeds in securing access to his 10-month-old son on a 50-50 basis with his former partner. He condemns as "detrimental to our father/son relationship” the twice weekly access of a total of five and a half hours he has to his son.

Speaking to the Limerick Post the day before he commenced his third hunger-strike, Mr Kelly conceded that the fastings are "quite harrowing” but he insisted that he can willingly endure them for the sake of his son. "I feel compelled to do this. I have to, or I would be going up the walls at what I consider is a terrible injustice - I’m here for the long haul or until there is some resolution in the best interests of my child.” Mr Kelly who says he is very glad of the "huge local and national support” he is receiving added: "This is not just a dads’ issue it is a parents’ issue.” "There are almost 80,000 women in receipt of lone parents’ allowance in this country - you can imagine how many lone dads there are. Almost 30 per cent of kids are born out of wedlock and while there are some very amicable arrangements, there are lots of dads who are being turfed out of the house and denied access to their children.”

The number of separated fathers’ support groups setting up is growing all the time - there’s now one in Shannon as well as in Limerick and one in Ennis is about to open. "Why can’t parents be entitled to equal time with their children as is the starting point in Denmark? Mr Kelly asks. Encouraging for Mr Kelly however is the fact that on Thursday, April 28, separated fathers will make a presentation to the Oireachtas Committee on Family Law and it is anticipated that the broadcaster Vincent Brown will take up the issue on his radio show.

Fully in support of the Limerick father’s campaign is the group - Men In Limerick Experiencing Separation (MILES), which meets each week and to-date has 65 members. MILES says that the decision made on the amount of time a father can have custody of his child is often purely arbitrary and is made by the parent with the child, which is usually the mother. They are calling for a new system of independent arbitration to make quicker decisions on custody issues. Meanwhile Mr Kelly is driven to continue to fight for greater access to his child. In his own words, that campaign is driven by a commitment to right an injustice that increasing numbers of fathers in this country are suffering. How is he managing to hold down his job while taking time off to go on hunger strike? "Well there will be no holidays in the south of France this year but I’m using up my holiday entitlement to mount my protests,” he said.