Thursday, August 30, 2012

Dad Assassination Hijacked: TRUTH UNCOVERED

How BAD have things gotten?

The following BLATANT ATTEMPT to simply trash a dad's name; a man who worked his butt off to earn a great income to share with his family, has failed even before it really began. The following article was posted and nearly immediately shot down by knowledgeable readers WHO ARE TOTALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE SCAM, which is of course, give a sob story of some woman who is without her husband (without mentioning whom divorced whom or why), and then cry for her and HER poor children because she's not getting HIS EVERY LAST CENT. After this man's wife divorced him, he agreed to give her a huge chunk of HIS money because he loved his children. Only when she decided to GO FOR EVERY NICKEL did he decide NOT TO BE HER PERSONAL SLAVE. Men don't decide to leave from greed. They see that they will not be LEFT ENOUGH OF THEIR OWN MONEY TO LIVE ON and VOILA, the decision is made for them. "Oh Hey You, you can stay in this country, but we're taking all but $1,000 dollars of your money every month." Well then, I'm going, because I simply can't afford to stay, no matter how hard I want to!



Is Canadian Man World's Worst Father? Abandons Son, 10, With Cancer

Tue, July 3, 2012 3:03pm EDT by Hollywood Life Staff 32 Comments
Is Canadian Man World's Worst Father? Abandons Son, 10, With Cancer

After being ordered to pay child support that he couldn’t afford, a Canadian man moved to the Philippines and abandoned his four children, including a son with cancer and a daughter with Down syndrome — is he the world’s worst father?

Hans Mills, 53, was ordered to pay $4,000 in child support to his ex-wife to help support their four children. Claiming he was unable to pay the high amount, Hans sent his ex-wife an email informing her that he had left the country!

On November 2, 2011, he wrote, “The result of the legal instrument you recently designed and implemented is there’s no possibility of a comfortable life or (secure) retirement for me in Canada at all. Therefore I have left the country to seek greener pastures elsewhere, and will never return. Well done, Einstein. Good luck and goodbye.”
Hans left behind four children who desperately needed his support: a 19-year-old son who is a drug addict, a 17-year-old daughter who suffers from depression, a 14-year-old daughter with Down syndrome, and a 10-year-old son suffering from cancer.
The father of four is now remorseful for so quickly abandoning his children. In an interview with, Hans confessed, “I did a terrible, awful thing, because I had no reasonable option. I miss my children terribly. I abandoned Canada, but not my children.”
Although he says he regrets his decision, he still claims he will “never, ever, ever, ever” pay his child support or return home to his children.
Hans has a history of financial problems and claims that as his reason for abandoning his children. We think there is absolutely no excuse for abandoning your children EVER. What do you think? Sound off below!
HollyMoms, do you think Hans Mills is the worst father ever?
– Jenny Pickard

Reader comment:

The question you should be asking is if Donna Mills is the worst
mother ever. You are not including all the facts of the story to
make it seem like Hans Mills is at fault, even though he clearly
isn’t if you read the original story in the Toronto Star.

So here are some of those facts:
1. Hans Mills was earning $100,000 / year (a top 10% income level in Canada), which is $60,000 after Canadian taxes. The support payments would have left him with $1000 / month on which to live. Rent for a crappy apartment in Toronto would have consumed all of that, leaving him no money for anything else. [JB: LIKE FOOD!]
2. The crazy family court system in Ontario awarded Donna $4000/month with no consideration at all for Hans’ ability to pay. They also ordered Hans to pay retroactively as well as pay for Donna’s court costs. [JB: WTF!?!?!?]
3. Donna Mills, on the other hand, has a university degree and is
qualified as a teacher, but refuses to get a job.

4. Donna was getting $2500 / month from the government for her kids, $2000 / month from the rent on a separate apartment in her house, plus the original child support payments that Hans was making for over 3 years before Donna decided she wanted more and used the court system to get spousal support payments.
5. The reason she was not getting spousal support payments before (this is distinct from child support payments) is because as part of the divorce settlement, she got to keep the house in lieu of Hans paying spousal support (although he agreed to pay child support). That house is worth $1.2 million and has $600K in equity on it.
6. On top of all that Donna had full custody of the children and has used it to poison her children against their father (teaching her 10-year old son the word “deadbeat”, for example).
So who is the worse parent? The man who had to make a very difficult choice to escape a life of poverty and economic slavery?.Or a woman who could make $600K from selling her house and who could also get a job, but who would rather reduce her ex-husband to the poorhouse so she doesn’t have to? Then she enlists a newspaper to track him down and try to make him into a monster. But this backfired because the commentary on the Toronto Star website is 99% against her.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012


I'm a libertarian. You can keep your goddamn laws meant to "protect me" from this and that and shove them right up your ass. This country was a relatively safe, rich and prosperous nation for many many years without all the big-brother laws we have today AND without all the goddamn taxes.

That said, people simply don't understand this issue. This is not about rights or right and wrong. The brains responds to images in certain ways. Violence affects the brain; but it takes massive quantities of it to really pose a risk and then mainly only to very young viewers; my PERONSAL belief is that the individual and parents should monitor that. That said, even violence is dangerously close to requiring a little throttling back as random acts of violence by young people is becoming bizarrely common. Again; where are mom and dad? Mom's at work, making sure her compensation doesn't fall behind the man she married for his ability to make more money than she.

Pornography is enjoyed by too many young people, plain and simple, especially boys; and it is warping their minds. It affects their minds in ways science is only beginning to unravel and the ways are ALL HORRIBLE. Its permeated society at every level; women are CONSTANTLY sexualized day and night, especially for entertainment purposes and it must stop. You want to watch porn? Fine; granted you're at least 18, go purchase some. And I think that ought to be 21. Why? Because hard core porn is all that's left that is a mystery and even that's not hard to find. As for non-hard core or "soft core" porn - that is what's consumed mostly by the mainstream citizen and that is now everywhere, including the movies, magazines (PlayBoy is losing market share to Maxim), and even regular cable television.


Western women's lives are becoming one long panic attack over their appearance and men have become COMPLETELY desensitized by excessive exposure to sexual imagery. This is tearing society apart. Romance is dead, marriage is dead, sex is trite and common, and love is on an operating table with people in the background yelling "CLEAR."


Republican Leaders Push for a National Ban on Most Porn
Jason Mick (Blog) - August 29, 2012 1:59 PM

The web says GTFO!

"The internet is for porn!" you say?

Well apparently the Republican Party's national leadership didn't get the memo.

I. Gotta Ban 'em All

As part of its national platform, the Republican party is pushing for strict enforcement of existing anti-obscenity laws, which would effectively prohibit many kinds of pornography.


Cliff's Notes Explanation:
U.S. federal laws banning most types of porn already exist, but are not enforced. The Republican National Party is not calling for new laws on pornography. They are calling for existing laws to be strictly and vigorously enforced. The position is non-binding, though those who defy it may lose funding for their candidacy.


The new stand is rather unique in that it represents the first major effort in a long time to crack down on pornographic recordings of consenting adults. Most efforts in recent decades have focused on cracking down on child pornography, due to its non-consensual nature and vast prevailing public opposition.

So what exactly is this proposed "porn ban"?

Porn hurts
Republicans hope to ban pornography to preserve "Christian values".
[Image Source: Kelly Manning Photography]

The Republican Party's new platform, which will be set to a vote on Tuesday states:

Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced.

Federal politicians are by no means legally obligated to follow their party's national platform, but if they defy it they risk losing funding support from the "party bosses".

II. What Kinds of Porn Would be Banned?

The next natural question is what are "obscenity laws"?

Obscenity laws, which generally are not currently enforced, include state and federal laws (see 18 U.S.C. 1461-68, 47 U.S.C. 223). The laws prohibit sending obscene communications, selling and buying of obscene material, and accessing obscene material on the internet.

So what is obscene?

The case that legal experts say defines that is Miller v. California, a 1973 case involving Marv Miller, head of the West Coast's largest mail-order pornography business at the time. In its ruling, the Supreme Court defined the criteria for obscenity as:

2. The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 354 U. S. 489, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary. Pp. 413 U. S. 24-25.

Common sexual acts that would likely be deemed "obscene" under those guidelines are hardcore heterosexual sex, depictions of group sex, homosexual sex, fetish sex acts, and bondage. Some forms of softcore or short-length sex are widely considered to be acceptable under the laws.

Fifty Shades of GrayBackdoor
The porn ban would include outlawing depictions of bondage and anal sex.
[Image Source: Google Images]

“Distribution of obscene or hardcore pornography on the Internet is a violation of current federal law,” says Patrick Trueman, president of Morality In Media, in a statement. "We are most grateful to Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who led the effort to get the tough new language into the platform. Without enforcement of federal obscenity laws, pornographers have had a green light to target our children and families."

By banning those multitude of sexual material, the Republican party would choke off a major chunk of internet pornography, which a recent study estimates makes up over 30 percent of the total internet data traffic.

For the record, British conservative leaders floated a similar anti-porn proposal, but it proved flaccid. In the unlikelihood of a true U.S. ban on porn, it would join only a handful of nations, such as Iran, that have outlawed porn for religious reasons.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Jaded, Bitter, and Selfish: JUST LIKE YOU!

From the Whacko Left Huffington Post, which has entire sections and subsections devoted to "Divorce" and "Life After Divorce."

Articles like "50 Signs You Need to Breakup," coupled with below photo:

How idiotic can they be? MARRIED COUPLES CAN COME UP WITH "SIGNS THEY NEED TO BREAKUP." The point is, they chose not to identify those signs, write them down, or act on them! They think about what they can do to remain together! Hello? The article above should've been named "Don't Try, Just Give Up!"

I love how high and mighty we in the Western World act when our newspapers have entire sections on what to do ONCE YOU BECOME divorced, while eastern and middle eastern countries have columns, advice, and family members all talking about THE THINGS YOU CAN DO (AND PROBABLY SHOULD) TO ENSURE YOU REMAIN MARRIED.


Judging by this woman's pathetic rant below, I'm not surprised she's divorced. Further, WHO THE HELL ARE HER FRIENDS? Their advice and comments are worse than hers, and according to Ms. Berryman they are all divorced as well - what they should've been good for was helping you REMAIN MARRIED, madame. Did you ask for their advice BEFORE getting divorced, or better yet, ASK SOMEONE WHO'S STILL MARRIED!?!?!?

Furthermore, here's the only piece of advice you need sweetie, and this goes for just about every divorced person who has ever lived. Unless your former spouse was a real asshole, YOU ARE DIVORCED BECAUSE YOU ARE OR WERE JUST TOO DAMN SELFISH. And if you think I'm labeling her without knowing all the details, read her article and then tell me I'm crazy.


Penney Berryman

Shut Your Pie Hole: What Not To Say To A Divorcee 

Posted: 08/22/2012 2:00 am

When I found myself divorced before thirty, I assumed that my family and friends -- many of whom are, shall we say, experienced divorcees -- would offer wisdom and insight into managing this life-altering event. I was wrong. Their hearts may have been in the right place, but what came out of their mouths left me reeling on occasion. Do yourself and your newly divorced friend a favor -- swallow your tongue and resist the urge to spout off any of these placating phrases:

"At least you don't have children." Gosh, Pollyanna, that does make me feel better, thanks! You see, since I don't have any, this doesn't actually mean anything. It's pulled from your list of "what to tell your divorcing friend" before you stop to think. Is the pain for me supposed to be any less because I don't have kids?

"That is just like what (insert name of your ex here) did to me!" Empathizing is a great strength -- and a weakness. Folks, reign it in when I start talking about my divorce. This is not a chance for you to tell your story; it's a chance for me to talk about myself, to process out loud, for you to nod and offer uh-huhs and mmms and the occasional interjection of a female power phrase perhaps. But I do not want to hear and I do not care one iota about your divorce story, unless I've asked you to tell me something specific. In which case I've only asked so I can further talk about me.

"You're young and pretty; you won't have any trouble finding someone."
Hot damn! Well I best go find me a man right now then! That will fix everything.

"Everything happens for a reason." So does going to the bathroom but no one seems to think about the meaning of that too deeply. I am not going to be the cancer patient who says, "I am so grateful I got cancer since it really changed my life." Really? You think I should be accepting this with peace and grace? Get over your new age fake Zen and feel the hurt with me. I will choose to learn from this rather than be conquered by it, but it's not because the Almighty is teaching me a lesson. P.S. I don't have to be chipper.

"Good riddance to that (insert derogatory adjective of choice)." That description may be true, but psst... I married him. I chose him. I loved him. You may be able to shake him off like a piece of lint, but I have the wedding albums and the rings, the photos and the china. He will not disappear with the insertion of your insult, and neither will my heartache.

"Take him for all he's got!" or "Don't get mad, get everything!" This plot line is best reserved for movies. I don't need his money, and I don't want to beg him or communicate with him any longer than necessary. Why would I want to be tied to someone who clearly wants to be far, far away from me? This doesn't make me less of a feminist or more of a doormat. I'm capable on my own.

"You're better off without him" or "You don't want to be with someone like that." In time I will feel this way too. But right now you have the luxury of being on that side of the chasm and seeing me in a rose-tinted glow of future empowerment. On this side where I live, however, I feel lost and rejected and dumped. Don't add to my misery by making me feel bad about missing my ex-husband.

"Good thing you didn't buy a house yet." Because that was really my first concern. Why was it yours? Honestly, I'd love to have a house right about now, so no, it is not necessarily a good thing.

"Was the sex good? I mean, you weren't having any problems in that area were you?" WTF?! I wish I could say this didn't happen. As if the embarrassment isn't enough, you're insinuating that somehow our sex life is part of our marriage dissolution. So you're saying that a man' s sexual dissatisfaction is justifiable reason for breaking a lifetime promise? Ugh. This is an archaic and patriarchal comment intended to fault women and excuse men's bad behavior. (For the record, everything was peachy -- not that it's any of your business.)

"He'll regret this someday." Maybe. Maybe not. He should, but he probably won't. I wouldn't know about it if he does anyway, so this entire statement is obsolete.

"What do you think would have happened if ... (insert alternate life choice here)?" If I knew that, I'd be god. I have no crystal ball, no telepathy, no time machine, just me and my ability to act on what I know. Nothing useful comes of asking this question. Ponder privately if you must, but since neither of us can change the past, we're just going to have to look forward. I need you to look forward with me.

"It's such a shame; just when your life was getting started, it all crumbles."
It's not a shame, it's a shitfest. And my life was well underway before this mess, thankyouverymuch. I am still a functioning adult with friends and a job and car, and a (sort of) sweet cat and pretty apartment. My life is not over. By the way, the phrase "It's a shame" applies to flat cakes, overdone turkeys, a smudged manicure, or a run in your pantyhose. "It's a shame" does not apply to my divorce.

"Have you heard from him? What happens next?" My divorce may be a delectable rumor morsel, but this question is like asking an unemployed friend if she's found a job yet. If she has a new job, you'll know -- because she'll tell you. If she hasn't found a job, she doesn't want to talk about it. Your probing questions are salt in a wound we never expected to have nor know how to heal.

"What's (ex's name) up to these days?" This is breaking the rules. I am allowed to talk about him. You are not. I can ask questions aloud about his whereabouts and lovers, tell you the same sob story multiple times and psychoanalyze his family. You do not get that right, because asking about his status means that you care or are interested, both of which I'm working quite hard not be. Go Facebook stalk him yourself.

"So how are you, really?" (Accompanied by a probing gaze and furrowed brow) This question catches me off guard, usually because it's asked at inappropriate moments like in the office hallway, during a quiet moment in book club, or when I bump into you riding the Metro. Yes, I know what you're asking but I do not know why you expect me to suddenly open up -- right here, right now. I cannot wear my emotions on my sleeve and blabber every time I'm asked, or I would never survive. Let me keep my defenses up in public, please. If you really want to know, ask me out to dinner or coffee; show me you care about me.

I shared this list with friends and family as my divorce proceeded, thinking I could educate them. I answered the phone one day and heard, "I just read your email. Oh goodness, I am so sorry. I said a lot of those things. I didn't realize. I promise I won't say that again. I didn't even think about it." My chosen and given family felt ashamed and insufficient, horrified by their insensitivity. In truth, they were doing their best, muddling through just like me. We're all doing our best. Just remember the old adage and think before you speak.

No Honey, You're Not a Liberal

You can't believe how many female friends, friends of friends and wives of buddies tell me they consider themselves "liberal."

I don't think they understand what that word means these days.

Understand something, dear, dear reader.

WE ARE ALREADY LIVING IN THE MOST LIBERAL TIMES THE WORLD HAS EVER SEEN. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world, the wealthiest the world has EVER known. Wealth has consequences. Unless you skipped that portion of history called the ROMAN EMPIRE, you will know that.

Wealth has consequences.

It makes it much easier to live life with liberal excesses.

This ultimately has disastrous consequences on society. The United States has only a loose society, at all, to begin with. 

From Wikipedia: A society, or a human society, is a group of people related to each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or virtual territory, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations.

You are not related to your neighbor. Nor is he related to you. We are not a collection of families who have intermarried. People can move freely in this country and communities are not always made up of families. 

And our "persistent relations" are not very persistent. Constant and excessive exposure to digital media, t.v., entertainment, mobile devices, games, sports, and pornography make satisfying primal human needs easier WITHOUT THE COOPERATION OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

Secondly, the easy and quick satisfaction of animal needs and impulses make people less willing to work very hard to earn what they want, especially when it comes to human companionship and sex. 

All of this has had disastrous consequences on females. Women are naturally drawn to the inclusionary nature of family, communities, and society. The village of hunter-gatherer societies is where women's instincts were honed for millions of years. The same goes for men. A family and a community provide women with a lot of protection and safety. Physically, they are family members and are considered important. Emotionally, they have even greater protections; they have lots of acquaintances. They have access to information about everyone. Every one is a known entity. Women don't 'gossip' for pleasure. They NEED it. It provides them with a context for their environment. If you're a regular person in a regular town but you don't talk to anyone and they don't talk to, you might be confused to see everyone buying lobster every day and driving fancy cars; but if you later learned that the town was full of lots of oil money and retired stock brokers, you would be less surprised; further, you would view people differently. And if you charged them money for services you provide, you might be apt to charge them more, knowing their circumstances. 

Women rely on this type of information even MORE SO. They are choosing men to breed with. They are driven by THE NATURAL INSTINCT to choose a dominant male. They need to know the social strata of those around them. Who is the smartest man? The strongest? Not all men are created equal. And women don't want to waste their prime on men who are not fit for them. Perhaps they, as women, are not the cream of the crop - in which case they are looking for a beta male, that is, a male more akin to them in social strata. Not as fast or as strong as the best males, but not a weakling either. 

Women have lost the village. We are no longer in villages and much is not known about potential mates. This has women REELING. They have no known constants; they are awash in variables they must figure out. 

In the absence of the villages and all the stability it provides women, women have clung to alternatives. Their instincts are ADRIFT without the known constants their instincts are searching for. Like only being given the hint to the question you are asking and never receiving the answer. This drives most women to the Democratic party of CONgress. 

The Dems promise a warm blanket of security. Money for you when you are old, health care to pay for the baby you plan to have, abortions for when you don't want the baby, and lots and lots of police and bureaucracy - all aimed towards keeping you safe and providing you with information. Money for college, loans, grants, etc.. All aimed at supporting the family that women plan to have.

Freedom is not on any woman's agenda, its not on any woman's mind. Women don't complain about corruption. They're not worried about new laws eliminating your rights. 

WOMEN WANT GUARANTEES, EVEN IF CLOAKED IN LIES, DECEIT, OR GRAFT. Democrats give guarantees to women. Republicans have difficulty making the same lies quite as well, but they're absolutely no better.

Now, PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS - unlike, normal, stupid people - know they don't have to DELIVER ANYTHING. They over-promise, they under-deliver, or never deliver. Year after year, term after term. Different presidents come and go, different politicians come and go. Progress is earned with hard work and discipline. And that's all there is to it. Politicians don't provide that. 


Women hate the idea of wealth not being redistributed or "controlled." They hate the idea of a lack of control over anything, period. They want their families and their men chained to them. Its a natural instinct but as the anxiety of women in the West has spiked (and anti-depressant use with it), their demand for guarantees has increased as well. Social insurance. 

Do ALL women demand these things. 

Absolutely not. Many are loving, trusting wives. 

However, let's be clear. Marriage is a CONTRACT. Its no guarantee. MORE AND MORE women simply cannot muster the faith for long-term marriage. They are jaded; they've foolishly been told it is not simply socially acceptable, but DESIREABLE to sleep around from the time they are barely 14 or 15, they're bombarded with advertising that makes them feel inadequate, and they may be surrounded by co-workers or friends who suggest to them mistrust, doubt, and betrayal. They are misled, misraised and then lead right over a cliff. Its a setup. Marriages don't fail by accident. A confluence of factors is tearing them apart. Women: typically considered the center of any marriage, are the primary target. Society is failing women and mothers and fathers are failing their daughters. 

And after all the liberal excesses which have ruined their life (or at least gave it a good start down the drain) have been thoroughly washed over them, these grown women look you right in the eye and declare: "I'm a liberal."


So you want to sleep around, swear, have the child of a man you will never marry, have your children call you by your first name, party like a sloppy teenager, drink to excess, blame others for your problems and your mistakes, live in debt, and generally live a life of no responsibility and no consequences?

No the truth is, women are liberal ONLY WHEN IT COMES TO DIVORCE OR GETTING THEIR OWN SELFISH WAYS, such as having a child out of wedlock, buying a house or car (or clothes or shoes or handbags) they cannot afford. (and yes, men can also insist on being selfish, but in different ways). 

But when it comes to dating and courting and romance, and well, the rest of life in general women are CONSERVATIVE AS HELL.

These people who demand to live self-indulgently otherwise suddenly expect their boyfriend-to-be to forget he ever had a selfish thought in his life. They want building doors opened, chairs pulled out, car doors opened, ALL BILLS PAID, flowers, gifts, dinners, trips and all the things that would be appropriate for the courting of a royal princess. Yes, some women are quite understanding and will offer to help out with these things, but HELPING OUT is as close as it gets for a guy; and truth be told, most women would rather HE PAY FOR EVERYTHING, NO QUESTIONS ASKED. 

It is a fact that women who are the breadwinners in their families wind up resenting their husbands for not being more dominant and ambitious. Its is also a fact that women whose husbands are dominant breadwinners report themselves as being happier and more satisfied. DUH.

Yes, when it comes to romance, and basically anything else, women want an alpha male. Women are instantly ULTRA conservative. 

And should divorce come up (as it does 60% of the time) women REMAIN as conservative as they were born. Despite earning the predominant share today of college and post-graduate degrees (yes, a a fact), women demand alimony (really!?!?) and 'child support,' but child support is a two word term with no relation to provide "basic needs" to a child, which a college educated woman can easily provide herself. Child support is COMPLETELY about bankrupting a man so that he cannot have a second family of his own. After all, most men do establish a second family and while they may have only ONE child by their first wife (or even short-term girlfriend - p.s. How did they get on this gravy train!?!?!), the LIONS SHARE of his income - some 40% of his take home pay, $1,000/month AND MORE goes to his ex-whatever. 

Liberal is liberal from single life to death, ladies. The same goes for being conservative. You do not get to switch whenever it suits you. 

That's called being FICKLE. THAT, most Western women can claim, at ALL times.

Am Sick of 1-dimesional Stories

Like this one.

This is bullshit. Plain and simple.

My ex leverages this kind of crap constantly. As do the courts. It boils down to this: the man has to kiss his ex-wife or ex-gf's ass because "its all about the kids."

You may have noticed from that statement, ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER. But we live in a country where chaotic, psycho women make the rules.

I'm dead serious.

Besides the random and bizarre crazy, psycho ex-boyfriends who you see on the nightly news that have come off their meds and murder their ex-girlfriends, just about every other guy out there wants to just move on with his life and forget about his ex. Would YOU want to dwell on an ex-girlfriend or boyfriend for 10 or 20 YEARS? NO FUCKING WAY!

Men are not nearly as sensitive as women and I've found by and large, whether they blame their ex or not, MEN just want to move on; many normal, HEALTHY women do too, but if she's so healthy she probably wouldn't have divorced her husband in the first place. It doesn't mean men aren't wounded or untouched. It simply means they not nearly as hung up on old issues or events. They're still pissed about them sure; but they let it go. Men distract themselves with other things and they deal with pain more slowly, over time. Or at least it would seem that way to me. I've never had a friend pound on my door in the middle of the night and demand we scheme over how to "get back" at his ex-girlfiend. Never. Not once.

As for the women!?!?! HOLY SHIT. No such luck. Open your eyes and look around. You will not believe the MYRIAD of women who are BOUND AND DETERMINED not to let their ex move on. They're bitter, obsessed, twisted, and badly in need of therapy. In fact, you'll hear many stories FROM THE MAN'S 2ND WIFE. Go to sites like And WOMEN will tell you HORROR stories about wifey #1 or some crazy ex.

And the women telling the stories are just as horrified and shocked as I am.

These stories always boil down to the same thing. The crazy ex DOES NOT, CAN NOT allow their children's father to move on with his life. These crazy ex's simply act LIKE CHILDREN OR WORSE. They make up excuses for contacting the man, invent reasons to bother him, blame him, falsely accuse him of every thing you could imagine, and generally just interfere with his life. Of course, since the man wants nothing to do with his ex, he avoids most of this if at all possible. This drives his ex-gf or whomever, EVEN MORE INSANE. So she uses the one thing left to her to drive her ex-bf or husband crazy, the one thing she knows he must pay attention to: their innocent children.

And then assholes like the author below write this drivel demanding that the man either 1) not retaliate or 2) put up with all the crap from his ex, absorb it all (called "enabling" in psychology terms), and suffer as much as she wants him to, DO whatever SHE wants him to, so that the children won't be denied from seeing their father. The ENTIRE FAMILY COURT SYSTEM insists on the same thing. They're out of their fucking minds. The author below goes further and suggests the conflict HE KNOWS IS BEING CAUSED BY THE EX-WIFE OR GIRLFRIEND is "ok," as if its expected and normal.

No sir. The kind of shit I and other men deal with is not normal or ok and it sure as shit isn't ok for junior to think his mom's emotional problems are something "everyone must deal with" because mom is more important than even her innocent children. If the kids ACTUALLY WERE the ones important here, a woman using her own children just to interfere with her ex-husband on a regular basis would be STRIPPED OF CUSTODY and the children placed with THE MORE STABLE PARENT.

Basically they advise you to place your head on the chopping block and hand your VILE EX-GIRLFRIEND an axe.




The men are NOT THE ONES USING INNOCENT CHILDREN TO GET AT A GROWN ADULT. That would be the psycho mother. Further the very courts that gave this psycho custody are the people that are supposed to recognize her verifiable OFF THE CHARTS behavior and transfer custody to the more reasonable, calm, and less-unstable parent.

And make no mistake, THEY DO. NOT. DO THAT. Why? Cuz the National Organization of Women and Jane Doe and other Man hating psychos keep the money flowing to the politicians and the politicians control the court's purse strings. The legislatures say "Don't do what we tell you to? Then we'll cut your budget and your pay, then we'll make sure you get reprimanded, demoted, or fired."


Step Parent Conflict – Put Your Kids First!

Thirty seven percent of families in the United States are blended families. Sixty percent of second marriages end in divorce. A biological parent has his hands full, but as most step-parents will tell you, their job is even more complicated.
Following a divorce, it is not uncommon for a new step-parent to become the target of unprovoked spite or anger. In many cases, the previous-spouse harbors unfounded fears that their child will look to a new step-parent as a mother or father replacement figure. This can engender resentment to what may already be an uncomfortable situation between parties. Regretfully, these issues often escalate very quickly. Such resentments place the children squarely in the middle of a bitter fight between the people they love the most and are not healthy for anyone involved. The pain of conflicting loyalties to each parent and a child’s feeling of being “caught in the middle” of such disputes exacts an enormous emotional toll on a child. When a parent is in a rage, it is not uncommon for a child to withdraw. The child’s behavior towards the non-primary parent may abruptly change. This change in behavior may have more to do with keeping the primary parent happy than it does with how they really feel about the non-primary parent or step-parent. It is essential that you make it clear to your child that you love them and will always be there for them, regardless of the emotional or less than rosy current circumstances.
It is crucial to a child’s self-esteem and emotional growth that parents avoid putting children in the middle of such disputes. This can be incredibly difficult, however, when a selfish or manipulative parent does not think twice about wrongfully placing his or her child in the middle of conflict. Children are very perceptive and as they grow older they will ultimately realize when a parent has lied to them and used them for their own emotional or financial gain. Though they may temporarily identify with the aggressors, in time they will deeply resent the parent who has manipulated them.
Regardless of the circumstances, it is critical that biological parents avoid arguments or conflicts in the presence of the children. Such conduct is conducive to parental alienation goals of the misguided previous spouse. If the child sees that you maintain a calm and collected demeanor, it gives them reason to pause and feel safe.
If a previous spouse is making statements to the child regarding issues that should only be discussed between adults, tell the child that such discussions are inappropriate and you will take them up with the other parent at another time.
It is ok to tell your child “I am sorry,” if they are upset, even if you are not the parent upsetting them. This validates that they are hurting and relieves any false guilt they may have over things that are being said and done when you are not present. It is sometimes helpful to use everyday situations to explain conflict to your child. As an example, when dealing with conflict explain that “brothers and sisters fight, but they still love each other. Families have to work through conflict in order to stay together. I would not leave you if you made a mistake, I would not want you to leave me.” Such statements reinforces that reasonable conflict is ok and assures the child that you will remain a constant force in their life regardless of the situation.
If you feel that the conflict has escalated to a point of becoming emotionally abusive and/or destructive to the child, consult a Family Law / divorce attorney. It may be in the best interest of the child that he or she be removed from the primary parent and placed with the non-primary parent so that he or she is allowed to love all parental figures, parents and step-parents alike, unconditionally.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Women Going Back to the Stoneage, Because of One Man!

Fear! Fear! Quick, run for YOUR LIVES, LADIES! Paul Ryan is out to GET YOU! He's evil! He suggests women have no fair pay problem! (Ignore those pesky statistics from the government's own OMB that says he's right), He thinks putting the choice of having children ONLY AND ENTIRELY in the hands of one gender (women) may be bad for kids, dads, and families! OH MY GOD, NO! And he might think exploding single motherhood is a crisis that has been proven time and again to be bad for innocent children. HOW AWFUL!

But don't worry, I mean N.O.W. owns Barak Obama, his wife and most of the CONgress, so ladies - hehe, I mean, immature 18-35 year old girls - can go back to doing WHATEVER they want, WHENEVER they want (but we'll make sure men don't, because that might make women nervous and unsettled. I mean, women aren't RESPONSIBLE for their actions! Come on! That's not nice! I mean equality isn't really equality and fairness is whatever N.O.W. defines it to be. tee hee.)

p.s. I'm no Paul Ryan fan.

UltraViolet is another feminazi organization that claims to not be. They are for "equality at a higher frequency." WTF is that? This is America, you morons. We, the people, are guaranteed equality by the U.S. Constitution. No more, no less. Women and men don't enjoy equality. ACTUAL FACTS support this. Women are now outpacing men in nearly EVERY single economic statistic there is for literally decades, and men have been falling so far behind, even feminists professors are talking about a "boy gap." If we're equal than why are colleges being forced to WEIGHT male applicants in a desperate attempt to keep incoming classes at 50% of men and women? Because women are so far behind? Yeah right. This people need to take their head out of their ass and digest ACTUAL FACTS.

This group supports the Violence Against Women act. That alone ought to turn you against them. HEY UV! TELL ME, IF VIOLENCE IS ILLEGAL FOR EVERYONE, WHY DO YOU NEED A SPECIAL LAW TO OUTLAW IT AGAINST WOMEN!?!?!?! VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS ALREADY ILLEGAL!!!!


The Lions Share of these people are, of course, black men

A class of society with such abysmal social health and welfare statistics that politicians and "liberals" don't even bother to mention them out of fear the public will scream and recoil in horror and millions of intelligent, earning African Americans will flee to Canada....

Monday, August 13, 2012

Behold: The POWER of THE STATE

And you think OUR Federal or State governments will suddenly "wake up" to the injustice doled out to non-custodial fathers?!?!?!?

Violent overthrow will be the only solution. Mark my words now.

This is what a state will do TO AN INNOCENT MAN.




(See comments section below for more information about the ongoing Cacndle Remembrance Campaign. Also see comments section below for a link with more info on the awful Kahrizak detention facility.)

Pourandarjani was responsible for the medical care of several prisoners believed to have been tortured. One of his patients was Mohsen Ruholamini, a government scientist's son, arrested following his participation in the post-election protests. Ruholamini, who was 25 years old, died in prison in July 2009. The death certificate originally identified Ruholamini's cause of death as multiple blows to the head. A report given to judicial authorities stated that Ruholamini had died of "physical stress, the effects of being held in bad conditions, multiple blows and severe injuries to the body."

Pourandarjani testified before a parliamentary committee investigating misconduct at the Kahrizak jail. This jail was subsequently closed by order of Ayatollah Khamenei, because of the poor conditions there. An investigation was conducted by Iranian judicial authorities on misconduct in this prison. In August, former presidential candidate and cleric Mehdi Karroubi publicly accused Iranian police of having tortured and raped detainees in this prison. Subsequently, police raided Karroubi's office, confiscating names, addresses, and testimonies of witnesses. In October, the deputy chief of the national police, Brig. Gen. Ahmad-Reza Radan announced that ten persons were under investigation for misconduct at the Kahrizak facility, characterizing the issue as "minor."

Following his testimony, Pourandarjani was arrested by the police. During his imprisonment, Pourandarjani was interrogated several times by the police force's investigative unit, the martial court, and the Physician General's regulatory council. He was released on bail, warned to say nothing about what he had seen at Kahrizak, and threatened with further imprisonment and with losing his medical licence. Following his release, the physician also received threats from unknown persons warning him to keep silent about what he had witnessed at the Kahrizak jail. Shortly prior to his death, Pourandarjani had told his friends that he feared for his safety.
IRI authorities prohibited Pourandarjani's family from performing an autopsy. His father Reza Qoli Pourandarjani said, “First they claimed my son had a heart attack and later they said it was suicide, and after that they said it was an overdose. They have not given us a clear answer to date.”

Pourandarjani was buried in the northern city of Tabriz, and unusual security measures were in place for his funeral. Iran's judiciary is reluctant to investigate Pourandarjani's death.

Pourandarjani was born on June 9, 1983 in Tabriz, Iran. When he was eleven years old, he was admitted to a school for gifted students, and at the age of 13 he was the winner of a national poetry competition. In 2001, he began his medical studies in Ardabil. He later transferred to the medical school at the University of Tabriz, and graduated with distinction in 2008. Pourandarjani was fluent in English and French as well as Persian.

Pourandarjani was a co-author on a paper entitled "Finasteride induced depression: a prospective study," published in BMC Clinical Pharmacology in October, 2006. This paper concluded that finasteride, which is used to treat benign prostatic enlargement and male pattern baldness, might induce depressive symptoms in patients. At the time, Pourandarjani was doing research at the Drug Applied Research Center at the Tabriz University of Medical Sciences in Tabriz, Iran.

Pourandarjani also volunteered on a medical advice web page, where he answered questions relating to HIV/AIDS."

Thursday, August 09, 2012

Women Deserve Zero


Men? Men have an equal and SELF-EVIDENT RIGHT to their own children. PERIOD.

That's why we're pissed, Mr. Poynter - a man whose article below contains hundreds of words regarding law-abiding men who are clearly enraged by discriminating courts and STILL manages to miss ALL reasonable conclusions.

How do you NOT mention sir, that the law - supposedly designed BY the people FOR the people - provides mothers with MASSIVE FINANCIAL INCENTIVE to PREVENT shared custody with fit and deserving fathers and the courts ALL TOO HAPPILY COMPLY!?!?!?

Courts that contain social workers who OPENLY STATE THEIR JOB IS TO TAKE AS MUCH MONEY FROM DIVORCED MEN ON BEHALF OF THEIR EX, AS POSSIBLE. This is done to the detriment of innocent children and emotionally, financially and in all other ways ANNIHILATES MEN - innocent (what crime did they commit!?!?!) tax-paying citizens, WHOSE RIGHTS ARE TRAMPLED in the name of..... what!?!?!? NOT JUSTICE!

Oh, and Mr. Poynter is SO outraged by the violence that has taken place.


So, ARE YOU STUPID, SIR? What do you expect? What would you do if your spouse divorced you, ran off with another man, took your kids and your house and then demanded half your income!?!??  The courts, with the complicit help of the state, ARE SIMPLY STEALING PEOPLE'S MONEY - PREDOMINATELY MEN'S MONEY. And giving it to women who have NO RIGHT TO IT. Women who LEFT THEIR HUSBANDS! (65% of the time, say legitimate studies). Many of these women even go so far as to demand sole custody of the couple's children OUT OF SPITE. Women who REMARRY. These women are grown adults who WORK FULL-TIME or have, for decades. Many of these women find themselves flush with so much of their ex-husband's (or boyfriend's!) money, they QUIT THEIR JOB, plead poverty to the courts to get MORE money from their ex, and simply sit at home with their feet up all day!!!!!!!!!!!!!


For the love of Christ, WHAT WOULD YOU DO in these situations, MR. POYNTER!?!?!?

You sir, are not a man. And the act of calling yourself an "investigative" ANYTHING is a laughing sin.

Fathers on the edge

A tragic custody case draws the attention of groups convinced family courts are biased

Defending fathers' rights: Benoît Leroux, dressed as Batman's sidekick Robin, staged a protest on the Jacques Cartier Bridge in 2005.

Defending fathers' rights: Benoît Leroux, dressed as Batman's sidekick Robin, staged a protest on the Jacques Cartier Bridge in 2005.

Photograph by: John Kenney , Gazette files

NOTE: A correction is appended to this story.
MONTREAL - The comments made by the fathers and other men that populate the chat rooms of are angry. Misandry is the hatred of men by women and there are dozens of websites like this one in what sometimes gets called the "manosphere," dedicated to the idea that men's civil rights - often fathers' rights - are under attack by feminists and the courts.
The topics of discussion on these sites vary; anything from the latest news reports of women killing or abusing their children, to women who complain about sexual harassment in the workplace (such as the recent class-action lawsuit filed by former and current female RCMP members) and how false rape accusations are an "industry." One recent message thread discusses how the Elizabeth Fry Society, an organization that offers services to female offenders in the correctional system, receives funding from the federal government; the writer wrongly assumes that the male equivalent John Howard Society does not. Feminists and ex-spouses are referred to as "bitches," and the men who support them are routinely disparaged.
Lately, some of these chat rooms have turned their attention to the deaths of Jocelyn Marcoux, 47 - who had been locked in a bitter custody battle with his partner - and his two children, Lindsey, 13, and Karen, 11. The three bodies were found in the burnt-out shell of a garage behind the family home in Warwick, 150 kilometres from Montreal, on July 10, in what police suspect was a double homicide and suicide. Autopsy results have not been released and officials are waiting on the coroner's final report.
Since the deaths, angry reaction on the message boards has not been directed at Marcoux for the most part, but at the family courts.
"Funny, how the system constantly backs men into a corner. And then acts shocked when one loses his grip on reality and good judgment," writes Raven01 in one message thread. "Had this man felt he had even a reasonable chance of being dealt with honestly and fairly in a family court what are the chances he would have even considered this irrational act?"
"This guy was smart enough to see that his status as a sperm donor and financier to his ex to be was to be terminated with extreme prejudice in the feminit (sic) Family Court," writes Shaazam elsewhere in the thread.
There are posts that point out that what happened in Warwick was a tragedy, but the consensus seems to be that the blame here lies with the "corrupt" family court judges.
The long-held complaint of fathers' rights groups is that the family courts are weighted against fathers in favour of mothers, but family law in Canada encourages [WOW - encourages!?!?!?] shared custody arrangements between parents wherever possible [who determines what is possible?], according to Susan Boyd, a law professor at University of British Columbia. Boyd acknowledges that the majority of sole custody awards do tend to go to mothers, but says the courts also seem to be awarding shared custody more often than in the past. [HAHAHAHA. Is this a joke. USE SOME FUCKING NUMBERS, YOU FUCKING IMBECILES. If the majority "seems to be?" - meaning, IS, STILL AWARDED to mom's, I'm guessing that means 60, 70% or more. In reality, I think its like 90+%. So if the number goes from 90% to 88%, more men are getting shared custody, but fuck, WOULD YOU CALL THAT IMPROVEMENT!?!?!?]

Still, fathers' rights groups should be taken seriously. "People will view these groups as fringe groups that don't require serious attention, when in fact they're using the abusive and intimidating behaviours they used in their relationships - [WHOA, HOLY FUCK. TIME OUT RIGHT THERE, CRAZY LADY. WHAT FACTUAL BASIS DO YOU HAVE FOR MAKING THAT STATEMENT!?!?!?]. This should be a concern that this person is capable of certainly intimidation, harassment and threats, if not actual acts of violence," says Molly Dragiewicz, a criminologist at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology who studies the father's rights movement.

[First off, who the BLEEP is this RANDOM Criminologist at some school? What makes her an expert? Further, DOES SHE BOTHER TO STUDY WHAT IS MAKING THESE MEN SO ANGRY AND VIOLENT!?!?!? Further, ALL MEN AND WOMEN ARE CAPABLE OF VIOLENCE! Who funds these PRO-WOMEN-ONLY Academics!?!?!?

Guess what, Jews in WWII in Nazi Germany were rounded up, had their homes stolen, were shipped away and were killed, AND WHILE THEY DID COMPLAIN, THEIR BIGGEST MISTAKE WAS NOT FORMING AN ARMED REBELLION! COMPLAINTS GOT THEM NOTHING. What's the difference between them and divorced dad's today!!?!?  Ex-married and never-married Dad's today have their property stripped from them, half their income stripped from them, THEIR RIGHTS IGNORED, AND DENIED, THE LAST THING REMAINING IS CONCENTRATION CAMPS AND MURDER.]

The comments about the Warwick tragedy on other men's rights sites are angry, too. "R.I.P. to this once beautiful loving family. I am sure some feminazis are chuckling how this is a victory to them, how this man was pushed to the limits to do something like this," reads a post from Admin1 on the forum.

"This didn't need to happen," adds Admin1 a little later on, "we are starting to see more and more of this from fathers." The discussion then turns to how women still kill their children more than men do; though the discussion participants admit to each other that the statistics to prove this just aren't there, there's certainty this information is being suppressed.

A study done by researchers at the Royal Ottawa Hospital of 11 years of data into paternal filicide - fathers who kill their children - found that between 1990 and 2001, 77 children in Quebec were killed by their fathers. Forty-six (60 per cent) of the homicides were followed by the suicide or attempted suicide of the father. The researchers also conclude that more fathers than mothers commit filicide in Quebec.

[This is absurd. Who kills children more often IS NOT THE ISSUE as it seldom happens. IN 11 years of data they found 77 cases of child murder?!?  Meaning it happens VERY seldom and that most of those people were most likely seriously mentally disturbed. Furthermore, IF YOU WANT TO REALLY DEBATE FACTS, AIRHEAD, the kids most likely to be killed are those in STEP-FAMILIES. THE KIND OF FAMILIES YOUR GOVERNMENT IS SO HAPPY TO CREATE.]

The response to the Marcoux case by men's rights advocates isn't limited to online message boards. "A desperate father will chose to die with his children than live without his children," writes Earl Silverman in an email to The Gazette. Silverman runs an Alberta-based website for abused men. "Admittedly it is a dark decision but when you look into male psychology it becomes understandable."

In an e-mail to Quebec Health and Social Services Minister Yves Bolduc, forwarded to The Gazette, Silverman likens the deaths of Marcoux and his children to several unnamed cases in Alberta, "I discovered that indeed there was the common experience of a biased judicial system against fathers but what was remarkable was the need of the father to be with his children even in death; these fathers would rather die with their children than live life without them! "

While there is no evidence to link Marcoux directly to fathers' rights groups in Quebec, there is little doubt as to why he acted the way he did: "For fathers, it's official: If you don't take justice into your own hands, you'll never have justice," he ominously wrote in a statement posted on his Facebook page the night before the fire. Marcoux goes on to blame the Quebec Superior Court for what he felt was the imminent loss of custody of his children at a hearing scheduled the following day (Marcoux had primary custody).

It was the idea that he would lose custody of his children that seemed to lay at the heart of Marcoux's sense of outrage, as is the case for many of the activist dads. Possibly adding to this is the fact that up-to-date and accurate numbers in custody cases are hard to come by, say academics who track trends in family law. Joint custody was awarded in 47 per cent of the 31,754 cases that went before a judge in Canada in 2004, according to Statistics Canada. Mothers were awarded custody in 45 per cent of the cases, dads in 8 per cent.

The numbers don't reflect all separating parents, just the ones that end up in court, notes Boyd. "So it's hard to generalize about what happens in contested cases."
Fathers' rights made the headlines in Quebec in 2005 when members of the Fathers 4 Justice group scaled the Jacques Cartier Bridge, snarling traffic for several hours. Fathers 4 Justice is perhaps best known for its members' penchant for donning superhero costumes, and carrying placards bearing emotional messages to their children, in protests around the globe.
"It kind of tugs at people's heartstrings, in part because mothers continue to do most of the child-caring, even though things have changed quite a bit over the past 20 years - so when you see fathers talk about wanting to parent their children, it's a little bit exceptional," says Dragiewicz.
According to Dragiewicz, groups like Fathers 4 Justice tend to gain momentum at times when family law issues are in the news, but tend to lose steam as individual members have their personal family issues and custody cases inevitably resolved through the courts, leaving only the most diehard members to carry on the crusade against ex-spouses and family court judges.
The themes in Marcoux's statement seem to parrot the language of fathers' rights militants, so it doesn't surprise Dragiewicz that Marcoux's tragic case would garner attention from the men's rights websites.
"The fathers' rights groups do have some websites where they valorize men who kill family members - their exwives, or current wives - and they treat them as martyrs," says Dragiewicz.
Those include fathers like Tom Ball, 58, who lit himself on fire outside a courthouse in New Hampshire in 2011 as horrified onlookers stood by. Ball was a leader of the Fatherhood Coalition, and had been embroiled for years in a bitter custody dispute with his exwife that included a domestic abuse complaint against Ball for hitting his daughter. At the time of his death, Ball was facing imprisonment for nonpayment of child support. After his horrific suicide, Ball's final statement was published in the Keene Sentinel newspaper and in eulogies on fathers' rights websites dedicated to his memory. "He died for your children," reads the headline on one site that includes pictures of the scorch marks on the sidewalk where Ball died.
Darren Mack is another father whose extreme acts have been lionized in some darker corners of the manosphere. In 2006, Mack, an active member of a fathers' rights group in Nevada, stabbed his ex-wife to death then attempted to shoot the judge in his family court case. He was sentenced to 40 years for his crimes. Speaking about the loss of custodial rights in the Mack case, a writer on the anti-feminist AngryHarry website would comment, "Surely men are entitled to protect themselves from a crime that is - according to most people - far worse than rape?"
"Most people dismiss these groups as a handful of crackpots," says Dragiewicz.
But "Carol" is one person who takes fathers' rights groups seriously.
A successful lawyer in southern Ontario who does not want her real name used, Carol remembers when her ex-husband got involved with a local Fathers for Justice group after she sought sole custody of their then young children in 1995, "and months of hell ensued."
"I would be followed. One time I had all four of my children - who were all under nine - in a van at the grocery store and I opened the door to my van to find camera bulbs flashing. There were two men in a car on either side of us taking photographs, screaming, 'The children weren't buckled in!' " says Carol.
"They would park behind me in parking garages and tell me I was being followed, and what long hours I was working. They would tell the kids I was an unfit mother."
According to Carol, local fathers' rights activists stated they were making an example of her because she was a professional. They would write letters to the local paper and show up at her family court hearings and supervised visits with her children. "It was terrifying," says Carol.
Carol's ex-husband would plead guilty to criminal harassment and break-and-enter charges stemming from the custody battle. He would leave the province shortly after. Carol says she believes the local group dissolved a few years after that.
"Our group categorically refutes any violence of any kind," writes Andy Srougi in an emailed reply to The Gazette, when asked about the Marcoux case. Srougi is a high-profile member of Fathers 4 Justice in Quebec, and was part of the Jacques Cartier Bridge protest back in 2005.
In 2007, Srougi was declared a "vexatious litigant" - defined as someone who is not acting in good faith in bringing forward legal actions - by Quebec Superior Court due to the high volume of complaints he brought against members of the Quebec Bar Association. The father's rights activist now has to seek the court's permission before he can file complaints against members of the bar.
Srougi claims that Fathers 4 Justice Quebec members have discussed the Marcoux tragedy. "Without our group, there would be many more such tragedies. We are the only group that calms these fathers down. We have had to intervene many times to prevent tragedies," writes Srougi.
Which tragedies are those? Srougi doesn't say.
There are a handful of father's rights groups in Canada. Here are five:
FATHERS 4 JUSTICE QUEBEC: F4J Quebec is one of the only groups left under the F4J banner in Canada. F4J is a loose affiliation of father's rights activist groups in North America and Europe and the name has sometimes been used as a catch-all for all activist father's rights organizations. F4J Quebec says in its mission statement: To "defend and promote the traditional family remains at the heart of our commitment. Humanity still relies heavily on this axis of the family "father, mother, children" certainly the most universal tradition of the planet." F4J is best known in Quebec for its "superhero" protest atop the Jacques Cartier Bridge in 2005. Members of the group were found guilty of public mischief.
CANLAW: A long-running website run by Kirby Inwood in London, Ont., CanLaw purports to provide legal resources and lawyer referrals on a number of topics, but is associated with the men's movement. Both the Law Society of Upper Canada and of British Columbia posted warnings in 2008 about the site after receiving complaints from women who sought legal referrals from CanLaw. One woman seeking a referral in a custody hearing received this reply from CanLaw, according to the Law Society of B.C.: "You are a deadbeat. You are also a lunatic. I hope you and your family die. Now go to hell." Another reply read: "Women like you are monsters who take and take and take."
NODADS: The NODADS (or Not All Dads Are Deadbeats) website claims the group is currently setting up chapters across Canada. Their goals include: "Advocating for and supporting those individuals harmed/mistreated by our Family Court System" and "True gender equality." Children's Aid cases and child support issues feature prominently in their material.
CANADA COURT WATCH: CCW - which also goes by Family Justice Review Committee and the National Association for Public and Private Accountability - is an Ontario-based group that purports to put an end to the "needless injustices being perpetrated against many innocent children and families by institutions such as our family court system and branches of the Children's Aid Society." CCW's main organizer is Vernon Beck, a long-time father's rights activist who describes himself as an investigative journalist and children's advocate, and has intervened in various family court proceedings and Children's Aid cases. A judge in a custody case in 2006 ordered the personal details of the parties not be published because of the attentions of the group, pointing out comments on the CCW site called for the judge to be "tarred and feathered." The organization has championed the causes of some women, mostly involved in situations with Children's Aid.
FATHERS ARE CAPABLE TOO: F.A.C.T. was founded by Greg Kershaw and regularly meets in the Toronto area. F.A.C.T. claims to be the largest "non-custodial parents' and children's rights organizations in Canada dealing with custody and access" and states its mission is to "provide education and support programs in parenting for children, their families and the total community." Many of the posts are concerned with father's rights and the role of fathers specifically.
Bilbo Poynter is the co-founder and executive director of the Canadian Centre for Investigative Reporting. His reports have been aired on CBC National Radio News,, As It Happens, and have appeared in The Gazette, the Global Post, and the Guardian.
CORRECTION: Due to reporting errors, an earlier version of this article gave incorrect information on the founder of the group Fathers Are Capable Too. Public records list Greg Kershaw as a founder of the group, which has existed since 1992. Also, the father’s rights group that an ex-wife, “Carol,” accused of harassment was wrongly identified. It should have read Fathers for Justice.The Gazette regrets the errors.

Monday, August 06, 2012




A brief look into the author, a Ms. "Jennifer Wolf" reveals she's a single parent with 2 kids who enjoys spending lots of time reading. I assume she has plenty of time not to work with all the child support she collects.

Remarriage and Child Support

Does a Parent's Decision to Remarry Affect Child Support?

By , Guide
See More About:

Whether a parent is paying child support or receiving child support, remarriage brings up a lot of unanswered questions. For example:

  • Cheryl is a single mom who has been raising her children on her own for nine years [really? She had the children asexually? And she doesn't let her ex-husband raise his own kids, at all!??!?]. Her ex-husband pays child support for their three children, as well as some incidental expenses like extra-curricular activities and orthodontics. Cheryl recently became engaged and wants to know how her upcoming nuptials will affect the child support her children receive. [NO BITCH. CHILDREN'S NAMES ARE NOT ON THE CHECK WE MEN, WHO EARNED THE FUCKING MONEY, WRITE. THE EX-WIFE'S NAME IS ON IT. THEY CAN FLY TO FUCKING FRANCE ON THE CONCORD WITH THEIR SO-CALLED 'CHILD SUPPORT.' AND DON'T TELL ME 1 KID REQUIRES NEARLY 2 GRAND A MONTH IN "SUPPORT."]

  • Clark is a non-custodial parent who is also remarrying. He’s concerned about how his marriage will impact the amount of child support he owes, and whether he will be able to continue to pay child support in the event that he and his new wife have children of their own.

  • Monica is a non-custodial parent who’s frustrated that she’s forced to pay child support, even though her ex has remarried and now enjoys a much higher standard of living.
All of these parents have legitimate questions about how remarriage affects child support. Any time that two people are considering getting married, they should discuss finances at length - and that is even more true when there are children involved.
The following questions and answers can help you plan ahead as you consider the idea of remarrying and how it might impact your current financial situation:

Custodial Parents’ Questions About Child Support and Remarriage

If I choose to remarry, will my children receive less child support?
Providing child support is the responsibility of a child’s birth parents. Therefore, in most states, the courts will not reduce an obligor’s child support payments due to a custodial parent’s decision to remarry.

My new spouse wants to legally adopt my children. If the adoption goes through, will my children continue to receive child support from my ex?
Most states will not approve step-parent adoptions unless the non-custodial parent has relinquished his or her parental rights - which rarely happens in cases where non-custodial parents are actively involved in their kids’ lives and are paying child support.

After I remarry, can I informally opt not to receive child support on behalf of my children, since our collective incomes will be sufficient?
This is not advisable, for you or for your ex. Instead, you should consider saving the money in a Section 529 Plan for your children's education if you do not need it for day-to-day expenses. In addition, your ex should continue to keep clear, accurate records of each child support payment made in the event that there is ever any question as to whether he or she has remained current on those payments.

Non-Custodial Parents’ Questions About Child Support and Remarriage

My ex recently remarried, and she and her spouse have more than enough money. Why should I continue to pay child support, when they enjoy a much higher standard of living than I do?
You should continue to pay child support on time and in full because doing so is your legal obligation. If you fall behind on child support, the state can charge interest on the unpaid amount and can choose to garnish your pay, refuse to issue you a passport, intercept unemployment compensation and tax refunds, and even enforce jail time.

[How do you like that answer!?!?!?!?  His ex lives like a queen but he should continue to make her EXTRA RICH because IT IS HIS LEGAL OBLIGATION. Notice she doesn't say consult a lawyer, or ask for a modification, or HOLY FUCK, IS THAT UNFAIR! Instead she gives him a list of POSSIBLE PUNISHMENTS for maybe, gee, I dunno, WANTING TO KEEP A LITTLE OF HIS OWN MONEY!!!!!!  WOW. GOOD JOB, BITCH. BETTER INTIMIDATE PEOPLE WITH AU-THOR-I-TY SO THEY DON'T EXPECT TO KEEP THEIR OWN FUCKING MONEY!

I currently pay child support. If I choose to remarry, will the courts expect me to pay more child support since our collective incomes will be greater than the income I was making when child support was established?
No. The courts do no consider providing financial support for pre-existing children to be the legal responsibility of a new spouse. [WRONG. MASSACHUSETTS HAS A "TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES" GUIDELINE; YOU CAN PAY MORE BECAUSE OF A SPOUSE.]

If I remarry and we have children together, can I request a modification of the child support that I currently pay?
Grounds for child support modification, as well as the impact of subsequent children on existing child support payments, varies by state. For more information, refer to your state’s specific Child Support Guidelines.

Generally speaking, though, the courts are reluctant to reduce child support for existing children due to the birth of subsequent children. If a parent can show that overall household expenses have increased significantly, however, or that the obligor’s income has significantly decreased, the courts may consider a modification of child support. [HEY BITCH, TELL ME HOW THE FUCK YOU CAN HAVE MORE KIDS WITHOUT YOUR EXPENSES "INCREASING SIGNIFICANTLY"!?!?!?!?!]
Following a parent’s remarriage, child custody orders do not typically change. Parents who are considering remarriage should consult with a lawyer about the legal and financial ramifications of creating a blended family, especially when there are current child support orders in place.




Oh, and the hyperlinks at the end of this article - WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!?!


Election Doesn't Matter; Reps Bought and Paid For


Private relationships are none. of. the. state's. business.


  I'll be damned -- from Tom Rhodes of the Citrus County Libertarian Party of Florida:
Gary Johnsons announced support of gay marriage, again shows the vast majority of Americans that the LP is not suitable to lead the USA. The LP can't even get its leadership to support its candidate. Wayne Allen Root, LNC member, endorsed Romney. When put to a vote Gay Marriage loses by huge margins, over 60% here in Florida.
Look at Chick-Fil-A, record sales and egg all over the face of militant gays. Gary Johnson loudly proclaiming he doesn’t go to church and that gays shold be allowed to marry, pretty much killed his election chances. Why do we Libertarians continue to choose totally unelectable people to run for office. As a Libertarian, I’ve committed to voting for Johnson, mostly because there is no other real choice, and I couldn't live with myself if I voted for Obama or Romney. But Johnson's words have effectively killed any chance he has of winning the election.
Exactly.  And it's not just on this issue either.

This issue -- gay marriage -- is simple: The Constitution does not contain anything about marriage in the Federal sphere -- at all.

So where does Gary Johnson -- or anyone else -- get a "right to marry" that requires Federal protection?  Why is the Federal Government involved in this at all.
Smaller government does not occur by making government bigger!  Yet that's exactly what's happening and being advocated here -- extending the jackboot of government to gay couples just like straight ones!
I said this in March of this year:
More-recently another focus has become the press for "marriage equality", a buzzphrase for gay marriage.  This particular "issue" is one that I find particularly troubling as it is entirely anti-Libertarian for the government to be involved in marriage at all.  Indeed, the history strongly supports my view that marriage laws in America were first instituted as a means of enforcing racism and abrogation of religious freedom.  The essential purpose of these laws was to prevent miscegenation -- that is, the intermarriage of white and black people -- along with targeting the religious practices of Mormonism.  Prior to their original introduction one posted their Banns of Marriage on the door of the church, and everything governing marriage was an issue to be raised within the Church of your choice.
The only defensible Libertarian position on marriage is quite simple: If you want to get married, go see a Priest of your choice.
There should be no preference for or against marriage in the law, nor any act in furtherance (or avoidance) thereupon in the Federal Government.
Many argue that due to tax preferences federal involvement in marriage is "unavoidable."  This is an odd position given that Libertarians also oppose the Income Tax on general principle and look toward a consumption tax, imposts, tariffs or some combination thereof to fund the essential functions of government.
My party, the Libertarian Party, must face reality.  Running a campaign on the primary premise of "smaller government" sounds great, right up until you make a cornerstone of your political philosophy drug legalization and gay marriage.  The instant you do that you are consigned to receive 0.5% of the vote, or fewer than one million votes for President.
I also wrote on the issue here in May and said:
Why is the government involved in any way, shape or form regarding your personal, private and adult living relationships?
Where can you find in the Constitution the authority of the Federal Government to "make legal" (or illegal) any such arrangement?  The 10th Amendment says if it's not explicitly in The Constitution it's none of the government's damn business.
More to the point, how can you possibly square any such position for or against any particular combination of family in the context of a word that is inherently religious in origin and meaning with The Establishment Clause?
You can't.  But you sure can pander, and boy oh boy do we do a lot of that in politics.  Obama now joins Gary Johnson who has also been trumpeting this as "an issue", and both are doing so in a means that simply applies more statism and more unconstitutional intrusion into your life and, in this case, bedroom than there is any justification for.

There is no justification for any such law -- for or against.  I remind everyone that the original intent of "marriage laws" was institutional racism -- bigotry.

That's right -- the original laws were passed, right around 1700 in America, to prevent miscegenation -- the intermarriage of white people with other races, in this case blacks and Indians (Native Americans if you prefer.)