Category Archives: women

One Brave Judge Resists Feminist Agenda

August 8, 2008by Phyllis Schlafly
A New Jersey judge recently confronted an issue that courts have been avoiding for years: are restraining orders constitutional? Accused criminals have “due process” and many other constitutional rights, but the feminists have persuaded many judges to issue orders that restrain actions of non-criminals and punish them based on flimsy, unproved accusations.
These restraining orders are issued without the due process required for criminal prosecutions, yet they carry the threat of a prison sentence for anyone who violates them.
Mr. and Mrs. Crespo were divorced and rearing their children in the same household when they had a fight, and Mrs. Crespo asked for a restraining order. Mr. Crespo was not charged with any crime, but the judge issued the restraining order, which banned him from his own house and thereby separated him from his kids.
Mr. Crespo made several good arguments that the New Jersey Prevention of Domestic Violence Act is unconstitutional. Judge Francis B. Schultz rejected most of those arguments, but he cited a long line of cases holding that “clear and convincing evidence” is required in order to take away fundamental rights (such as a parent’s right over the care and custody of his children).
The feminists are in an uproar about Judge Schultz’s decision and would like the New Jersey Supreme Court to reverse it. The feminists want courts to uphold a woman’s right to kick a man out of his home based on a woman’s unverified accusations.
Family courts are notorious for issuing restraining orders based on one woman’s unsupported request. The New Jersey Law Journal reported that an instructor taught judges to be merciless to husbands and fathers, saying, “Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him ‘See ya’ around.’ ”
People have a better chance to prove their innocence in traffic court than when subjected to a restraining order. Too often, the order serves no legitimate purpose, but is just an easy way for one spouse to get revenge or the upper hand in a divorce or child custody dispute.
Once a restraining order is issued, it becomes nearly impossible for a father to retain custody or even get to see his own children. That is the result even though the alleged domestic violence (which doesn’t have to be physical or proven) did not involve the children at all.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear another case, U.S. v. Hayes, to decide whether an old misdemeanor domestic violence conviction can bar a man from ever owning a gun. Everyone agrees that convicted felons should not have guns, but misdemeanors are minor offenses that usually carry no jail time.
Under feminist pressure, most courts have interpreted federal law broadly to deprive millions of men of their gun rights. However, in the Hayes case, a 2-1 majority on the Fourth Circuit had the courage to stand up to the feminists and rule that Hayes had no fair warning that prosecutors would stretch the definition of domestic violence to include his minor offense.
Randy Edward Hayes had a dispute with his wife in 1994, pled guilty to misdemeanor battery, and served one year of probation. Ten years later, he was prosecuted for having a Winchester rifle in his West Virginia home.
Why are men with clean histories except for one domestic dispute punished like hardened criminals who mug strangers on the street? The answer is that the feminist agenda calls for domestic-violence laws to punish husbands and fathers above and beyond what can be proven in court under due-process procedures.
When Senator Dianne Feinstein voted for the federal law prohibiting a man from owning a gun if he has a domestic violence conviction, she stated, “It is an unfortunate fact that many domestic violence offenders are never convicted of a felony. Outdated or ineffective laws often treat domestic violence as a lesser offense…. Plea bargains often result in misdemeanor convictions for what are really felony crimes.”
In other words, Senator Feinstein wants to pretend a man is a felon even if he is not. That’s the feminist anti-male agenda.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled this year in District of Columbia v. Heller that we all have a fundamental constitutional right to own and use a gun. We will soon see how serious the Court is in defending our Second Amendment right.
It’s time to restore basic constitutional rights to husbands and fathers by repudiating the feminist agenda that considers men guilty unless proven innocent.

Beer Turns Men Into Women and Women Are the Root of All Evil (link)

Beer contains female hormones –

By Bighead Betteridge 6th June 2008.

Last month, Intellectual scientists released the results of a recent analysis that revealed the presence of female hormones in beer.

Men should take a concerned look at their beer consumption.

The theory is that beer contains female hormones (hops contain

phytoestrogens) and that by drinking enough beer, men turn into women .

To test the theory, 100 men drank 8 pints of beer each within a 1 hour period.

It was then observed that 100% of the test subjects :

1) Argued over nothing.

2) Refused to apologize when obviously wrong.

3) Gained weight.

4) Talked excessively without making sense.

5) Became overly emotional.

6) Couldn’t drive.

7) Failed to think rationally.

8) Had to sit down while urinating.

No further testing was considered necessary.

Women are the root of all evil.

http://www.heaven.org.au/blogs/heretics/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/proof_that_girls_are_evil.jpg

Virginia Abortion Ban Struck Down

Note:

The ‘peace’ activists want to run away from armed men and turn on helpless infants. These people (leftist antiwar protesters supporting abortion) are nothing but dastards.

 

Article:

 

A federal appeals court panel in Richmond, Va., on Tuesday struck down a Virginia law that made it a crime for doctors to perform what the law called “partial birth infanticide.”

In a 2-to-1 decision, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the law was more restrictive than the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which the United States Supreme Court upheld last year in Gonzales v. Carhart.

Both laws prohibited the procedure known medically as intact dilation and extraction. It involves removing an intact fetus and, typically, piercing or crushing its skull. The more common second-trimester abortion procedure, dilation and evacuation, involves dismembering the fetus in the uterus.

The key difference between the two laws, Judge M. Blane Michael wrote for the majority, was that the federal law imposes criminal charges only when doctors intend at the outset to perform the procedure, while Virginia law also made it a crime for doctors to perform the prohibited procedure by mistake.

“Unlike the federal act,” Judge Michael wrote, “the Virginia act subjects all doctors who perform” the more common procedure “to potential criminal liability, thereby imposing an unconstitutional burden on a woman’s right to choose.”

The Virginia law, Judge Michael wrote, imposes criminal liability on doctors who set out to perform the more common procedure “but who nonetheless accidentally deliver the fetus to an anatomical landmark and who must perform a deliberate act that causes fetal demise in order to complete removal.” The landmarks in question are passed, in the law’s words, when “the infant’s entire head” or “trunk past the navel” is “outside the body of the mother.”

Judge Michael was joined by Judge Diana Gribbon Motz. Both were appointed by President Bill Clinton.

Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, who was appointed by the first President Bush, issued a fierce dissent. “With a troubling opinion,” he wrote, “the majority now seeks to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart.”

“The majority’s selective use of statutory language and its rationalizations,” Judge Niemeyer wrote, “represent nothing less than a strong judicial will to overturn what the Virginia Legislature has enacted for the benefit of Virginia’s citizens and what, in materially undistinguishable terms, the Supreme Court has upheld as constitutional.”

Tuesday’s decision was the appeals court’s second encounter with the law, which it struck down on different grounds in 2005. The Supreme Court ordered the appeals court to reconsider its decision in light of Gonzales v. Carhart.

A spokesman for the state attorney general, Bob McDonnell, issued a statement suggesting that the state may seek a review of the decision from the full appeals court, which is generally conservative, or from the Supreme Court.

“We are extremely disappointed with the divided decision,” said the spokesman, J. Tucker Martin. “We are reviewing the panel opinion at this time and considering all possible courses of action.”

Stephanie Toti, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented the plaintiffs in the case, a doctor and a medical center, said in a statement that the Virginia ban was extreme.

“The only way for doctors to obey this law would be to stop performing the most common second-trimester abortion methods,” Ms. Toti said.

 

Obama’s Black Ambition

If Barack Obama is running on the platform of being black, then he should lose unless the electorate cows in fear meanwhile justifying their own capitulation by hypocritical accusations (e.g., against conservatives for resisting miscegenation). An economist article suggested that American whites are less racist than they used to be (like in the fifties) because whites have had a seven-fold increase in the proportion of interracial children. This argument infers that whites are racist if they don’t intermarry and that whites are therefore racist by virtue of their skin color. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a racist argument, it leads unambiguously to the conclusion that whites are criminal (because it is a crime to be racist).  Don’t you like how the devil turns things upside down? Very nice logic indeed.

A leftist on tv says that she thinks it’s mean that people won’t vote for a candidate because of his race. On the contrary, it’s mean to vote for a candidate because of his/her identity.

 

 

Cultural Nuances – Young White Women

Young white women/girls are taught not to respect white men and they antagonize us while the nonwhites ghettoize them and groom them for sex. But I’m not bitter.

German men told they can no longer stand and deliver (Telegraph, UK)

Notes:

Women, the root of all social corruption, if left to their own devices and not forced to submit, seek invariably to eviscerate the masculine Spirit of God – i.e., to kill God and to kill men. Today’s feminists are simply following the path of Eve in the Garden, rebelling against God and seducing men in tow. Accordingly, man does himself a great disservice by acceding to the siren song of the woman, for he betrays not only God’s will, but the manly spirit which animates him. Outside of Christ, there is no man, only a vessel.

Barring obedience to God, hence wisdom regarding all things of the earth, Satan intimidates an apostate generation into ignorance and cowardice in perpetuity.

The war for independence is being fought in the realm of ideas. America and its allies wage proxy battles against thug immigrants and international terrorist gangsters, among other pests who won’t obey Anglo-European law. However, there is no enforcer of norms like that of good old-fashioned persuasion.

God seeks to persuade his subjects scientifically.

Satan, by contrast, cows his would-be opponents via innuendo (e.g., if one should dare stand up to the Devil, one should prepare oneself to be beleaguered by all manner of evil) in order to maintain dominion over his lost souls. Sure, the Devil tells them, “You may wander far and wide – do what you like – as long as you don’t challenge my methods.”

So you see, both God and Satan have immutable control over their respective realms. Accordingly, these masters require subservience. God, on the one hand, requires subservience from those who should love him and be convinced by his methods. Satan, on the other hand, requires subservience from those who fear him and are convinced, not by method or logic, but by emotion (e.g., deterrence or disincentive).

The foregoing is why Christians are [indoctrinated] into the notion that emotions, (collectively [personified]), are a wondrous servant, yet a terrible master. 

 

 

Article:

By Kate Connolly

Last Updated: 7:25pm BST 17/08/2004

German men are being shamed into urinating while sitting down by a gadget which is saving millions of women from cleaning up in the bathroom after them.

The WC ghost, a £6 voice-alarm, reprimands men for standing at the lavatory pan. It is triggered when the seat is lifted. The battery-operated devices are attached to the seats and deliver stern warnings to those who attempt to stand and urinate (known as “Stehpinkeln”).

“Hey, stand-peeing is not allowed here and will be punished with fines, so if you don’t want any trouble, you’d best sit down,” one of the devices orders in a voice impersonating the German leader, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder. Another has a voice similar to that of his predecessor, Helmut Kohl.

The manufacturers of the WC ghost, Patentwert, say they are ready to direct their gadgets at the British market.

Their prototype English-speaking WC ghost says in an American drawl: “Don’t you go wetting this floor cowboy, you never know who’s behind you. So sit down, get your water pistol in the bowl where it belongs. Ha, ha, ha.”

They also plan to copy the voices of Tony Blair and the Queen.

So far 1.8 million WC ghosts have been sold in German supermarkets.

But Klaus Schwerma, author of Standing Urinators: The Last Bastion of Masculinity? doubts whether it will ever be possible to convert all men.

“Many insist on standing, even though it leads to much marital strife,” he said.

In German, the phrase for someone who sits and urinates, a “Sitzpinkler”, is equivalent to “wimp”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The curse of multiculturalism





Lebanese youth pack-rape young Australian girls in racially motivated attacks


August 26, 2001


Over the past 12 months gangs of ethnic men and youths have pack-raped at least 50 victims in Sydney’s south-western suburbs. The perpetrators have been described as Muslim youths who are either Lebanese-born, or Lebanese Australians. The victims have all been young Caucasian girls, one as young as thirteen.


The pattern is similar in all attacks. A girl is enticed by one or two men, whose cohorts joined then and then brutally raped her. The victim is often subjected to racial taunts. One was told: “You deserve it because you’re an Australian”. 


Last August, an 18-year-old woman was allegedly raped 15 times by 14 youths who passed her from one group of mates to another after she was lured from a train at Bankstown station. Assaulted by four of the pack in a toilet, the woman was driven to further locations, raped repeatedly and, as final act of humiliation, sprayed down with a hose.


According to NSW Police Commissioner Peter Ryan, the series of attacks is a new and shocking phenomenon probably without precedent in Australian criminology. Mr Ryan said the tension in the city’s west was to some extent a by-product of Sydney’s huge recent immigration. “This is the largest immigrant population of mixed races in the world. It’s going to be extraordinarily difficult to settle that melting pot down”, he said.