Wednesday, June 19, 2013

What Girls Are Thinking

girls are angry at being called slut, being told to STOP SLEEPING AROUND, being told they encourage bad behavior with the TOO-tiny outfits they wear. 

They are all sleeping around so much, the men NOW EXPECT SEX, BECAUSE THEY HAVE BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO IT. The girls have OVERFED the men, so to speak. 

#1 - girls think they MUST do this because men and women are THE SAME

#2 - girls look to men for what they expect and how to please them and men's response is predictable: sex. What else? Why would they not? Men are programmed to have sex!

#3 - girls watch women having sex and they emulate women. Women in movies, in magazines, on t.v., in commercials, on the internet, everywhere. We are a culture of constant and total sex.

people, you don't get it. Trust me. We are not a culture of sex when compared to Saudi Arabia. WE ARE A CULTURE OF SEX COMPARED TO SWITZERLAND. We are so far past the "center" of what might be "reasonable" that people don't even notice anymore. 


The "envelope" of acceptable sexual imagery in public has been pushed to the point where a FASHION SHOW OF SEXY WOMEN IS CONSIDERED "ENTERTAINMENT." Folks, what's next? Soft-core porn? This is PAST RIDICULOUS.  

Men's sexual lust and drive is on OVERDRIVE/RED-LINE. 

People, men didn't DEMAND THIS. There was no national MARCH or PROTEST by men demanding these things or redress in the form of these things. 


Men are programmed for sex - they don't need a push. 

Women? Women are FREAKING DOOMED. Folks think men like me hate women. 


I'm the only one who seems to be aware of the UTTER DESTRUCTION this has on them.

Girls want male attention. And they'll COMPETE for it. So instead of a smile or a fitting top, THEY HAVE TO SCREW THE GUY. Why? BECAUSE THE BAR HAS BEEN RAISED THAT HIGH. 

With sex SO WIDESPREAD and SO PREVALENT, girls who genuinely do not want to sleep with a man FEEL COMPELLED TO DO SO OR ELSE LOSE ACCESS TO HIM; lose his attention, lose his interest and lose out on him as a potential mate. 

GIRLS do not do what they must do in this case - stick their middle finger up and say fuck you, I won't do it. They are TOO AFRAID of being seen as an outsider, a prude, as different, as a girl that boys SHOULD AVOID. 

Women will read this and fire back that men should not sleep around or ask girls to. 




The status quo is JUST DREADFUL. And while the men are oversexed and have developed a false expectation for sex, YOUNG GIRLS ARE REELING: they are depressed, anxious, angry, confused, AND NOW BITTER.

Feminism is the New Quack Religion

Today I was told "I understand the love of children. But to make the leap to feminism is unnecessary is stupid."

There was a time when feminism didn't exist. SO DID WOMEN LIVE IN CHAINS AND DARK CAVES!?!?!?

Oh wait, that's right, the divorce rate back then was practically nil, everyone spoke and preached responsibility and accountability.


Today I'm told we "need" feminism. The person who said this made NOT ONE statement, assertion of fact, link, reason, article, or support of his statement.

He merely mentioned this as though IT WAS OBVIOUS AND CLEAR AND WIDELY AGREED UPON by everyone. Like saying "swearing is bad, don't do it." A blanket statement that simply cannot be argued with on MORAL grounds.

I mean, OF COURSE we NEED feminism! I mean..... shhhh..... CAN YOU IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT IT!?!??!!


This individual tried quickly and bitterly to dismiss me or even engage in any point/counterpoint argument as he was well aware HE HAD NO POINTS TO OFFER.

Like a robot or monkey he's merely REPEATING WHAT HE'S BEEN PROGRAMMED TO SAY.


Be honest with yourself. If you're answer is, well, it....its obviously something that's required given the type of things that happen today..... you see.....


You cannot believe - IT BOGGLES THE MIND - to know how many GROWN, COLLEGE-EDUCATED ADULTS have made those same statements to me without being able to describe EXACTLY WHAT THEIR POINT IS, or just WHAT. EXACTLY. THEIR. ARGUMENT. IN. SUPPORT. OF. THIS. IDEA. IS.

It is literally revealed to themselves RIGHT BEFORE THEIR OWN EYES THAT THEY HAVE. NO. ARGUMENT. 



What to Even Say to This?

Basically, this is nothing more than women assigning every bad event, every Hollywood-backed commercial designed to get them to buy things based on anxiety, every bad feeling or bad thing said to them to some vague, single, external force. 

And the antidote to that force is Feminism.

What do you even say to that?

Ladies, ITS NOT.

When women were all married and the divorce rate was practically zero, MEN WERE MEN, and ladies acted like ladies. You are all individual people. Simply state out loud, you want respect for yourself and you will not accept anything disrespectful. Some men, some people will DISAGREE with you or do things you don't like.

These girls also fail to see a man's side of.... just about everything. Minimizing men as we are, and ELIMINATING their role in the family as caretaker and breadwinner, THEY ARE ANGRY and LASHING OUT.

Men in 1950 DID NOT DO THIS. They had a job, a role, they felt important, THEY. FELT. NEEDED.

What happens when someone has no role in society or the family?

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO WOMEN, how would they behave, IF THEY DID NOT BEAR OR RAISE CHILDREN? Why then, THEY WOULD BE TOTALLY DISCARDABLE, superfluous, temporary people to men, wouldn't they?

They THINK that's what they are now, but in reality THAT is what feminists have made MEN!


Who is this group? They define themselves below. They have banded together to defend the word 'feminism.'


They do not declare defending THE CONCEPT, IDEAS, IDEALS, OR PURPOSE of Feminism.


They do not even consider WHY people are lashing out at feminism. ITS NOT EVEN ADDRESSED. They only know feminism must. be. good. They don't say WHY it must be good. Or why its needed. They simply aim to make something many people HATE, seem better.


"Identify yourself as a feminist today and many people will immediately assume you are man-hating, bra-burning, whiny liberal. Perhaps a certain charming radio talk show host will label you as a “Feminazi” or “slut.” Even among more moderate crowds, feminism is still seen as too radical, too uncomfortable, or simply unnecessary. Feminism is both misunderstood and denigrated regularly on a broad societal scale.
We, the 16 women of Professor Rachel Seidman’s Women in the Public Sphere course at Duke University, have decided to fight back against these popular misconceptions surrounding the feminist movement. Our class was disturbed by what we perceive to be an overwhelmingly widespread belief that today’s society no longer needs feminism. In order to change this perception, we have launched a PR campaign for feminism. We aim to challenge existing stereotypes surrounding feminists and assert the importance of feminism today. We feel that until the denigration surrounding feminism and women's issues is alleviated, it will be hard to achieve total gender equality, both statistically and socially.
 has decided not to release a single, “official” definition of feminism. The goal of our project is to decrease negative associations with the word that would keep anyone from identifying with the movement. However, we encourage you all to keep defining it yourselves… you have given better answers than we could have ever imagined!"

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

India Imports US Model of Criminalizing Men in Divorce

And it blows up in their face.

There is now a skyrocketing number of guess what? Male suicides (as a man has no money to offer in remarriage, he has no value), and divorces in general. As many women who were forced to marry in order to leave the home decide to get out from their marriage (in some cases from a bad marriage, in some cases from a good marriage, and in some cases, the marriage was fine and they just wanted the money). 

Now women are being given the incentive to blowout their husband WITH NO REASON NEEDED, and walk away. Hopefully no one EVEN CONSIDERS marrying these women in the future....

Remember INDIA IS STILL A VERY POOR COUNTRY. People do things just to survive. If you REALLY want to go from poor to rich or even middle class, YOU PROBABLY NEED TO GET YOUR HANDS DIRTY. 

It used to be women married IN ORDER TO move up in lifestyle or class. This had its downsides BUT IT ENCOURAGED MARRIAGE AND FAMILIES!!!  Is that SO AWFUL?

Which is worse? Providing incentives to marry or WHAT THEY HAVE TURNED TO: PROVIDING INCENTIVES FOR DIVORCE?

Why supreme court calls 498a as "Legal Terrorism"?

25 reasons “Why IPC 498A is Anti-Social?”
1 It is handled under the Criminal law for marriage related matters and not under Civil Laws.

2 Non-bailable warrant does not require proof before arrest. No investigation necessary. This exposes the vulnerability of the accused taking away their basic human rights.

3 Even those who were not part of the 'day-to-day' family life could be named and arrested on one complaint, which can also include pregnant women and children.

4 Accused is presumed guilty until proven innocent. No where in the world it is so.

5 Gifts are sometimes misunderstood as dowry. Who decides that the gift exchanged were 'gifts or dowry'?

6 It is non-compoundable which means that the complaint can’t be taken back that hinders any scope of reconciliation between the couple.

7 After a man is accused of 498A, he will not take his wife back later.

8 Old parents who lived with dignity and respect have to live with the stigma of harassing their daughter-in-law for the rest of their lives.

9 Groom’s relatives don’t find a suitable bride after they are accused under 498A

10 Most of the cases are filed because the husband refuses to throw his parents out of the house at the wife’s demands.

11 Husband’s job is at risk when he is accused under 498A who could even be the only breadwinner of the family.

12 The health of the old parents dangerously deteriorates after they are arrested in a 498A case.

13 Some even commit suicide for not able to withstand the depression and frustration of been falsely accused.

14 Old parents after 498a case become very apprehensive and advice their son not to marry again.

15 The family ends up paying a very high price to settle the case, the money that was saved for the parent’s health.

16 Most often the lawyers tend to take the family for a ride to extract as much money as possible.

17 The possibility of a woman over-reacting on a trivial matter in the family is never considered as a reason of complaint.

18 A woman tries to get divorce proceedings faster by filing a 498a case even if no dowry was demanded.

19 The witnesses (neighbors) tend to support the woman for not getting into a police case. They even fear of been accused by the woman if they don’t support the woman.

20 Some women marries an NRI and slaps a 498A case only to extort large sum of money

21 Even after knowing that the complaint can be false, police tend to support the woman and asks the man to settle the case with a financial compensation.

22 The case can easily linger in the court for years and only the groom’s family has to pay the price.

23 498A case can be filed even after the divorce, which only means that the accuser wants to demand money legally apart from maintenance.

24 There is no prohibition clause in the 498A law that would stop women to misuse it.

25 It is nearly impossible to file a case of defamation on the accuser because the police will not register the case and it would be hard to prove it.
Note :The existence of dowry deaths in the rural areas is not the reason for lenient laws as understood by women organizations. The law is already unfair, biased and inapplicable. The true reason for dowry deaths in rural areas is poverty and under-developed civilization. Dowry deaths still flourishing in the rural areas and misuse of 498a law is flourishing in the urban areas. Unwillingness of the women’s organization to alter the law so that misuse of law can be stopped is evident. On the contrary, women organizations are planning to strengthen and increase the severity of the 498a law to curb dowry death, which is absolutely preposterous. One must not forget that the chunk of the GDP comes from the urban cities where these laws are prevalently misused. If the misuse of laws still continues then the social infrastructure will collapse which will have a direct unfavorable impact on the country’s economy. If the law can’t curb dowry deaths, can’t even stop misuse, then what is the use of such a law that causes millions of people to suffer ? 

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Wait, You Think She Should be Held.....ACCOUNTABLE!?!?!?! WHAT?

Tiger Woods: Domestic Abuse Double-Standard?

In terms of marital fidelity, Tiger Woods is apparently a two-timing cheating douchebag; which must be stated explicitly off-the-bat.
Notwithstanding his gigantic marital ’shank-o-potamus’ infidelity woes, the one majorly-overlooked legal aspect of the recent Tiger Woods salacious saga is the legal debate on the potential ‘domestic abuse’ implications of this case.
With more and more women coming forward about their alleged trysts with Tiger- including an $8-an-hour diner waitress at a local Perkin’s restaurant in Florida- it is becoming more and more clear that Tiger is not the ‘golden boy’ that his PR team has spent diligently trying to create and protect.
Because not only has he cheated on his wife, but he has also cheated on his two young children: Daughter Sam Alexis (2 years old) and his even younger 10-month-old son Charlie Axel.
You cheat on your wife; you cheat on your babies.
Simply put; marital infidelity of any kind against your spouse (and your children) is completely inexcusable; but ‘domestic violence’ of any kind is also equally inexcusable in our American legal system, regardless of the gender of the abuser.
For those of us in the universe who have seen this HILARIOUS animated ‘re-creation’ of the Tiger Woods saga below by Taiwanese television, there are two possible ‘animated’ scenarios about what transpired that one infamous evening in question:
(HINT: You do NOT have to speak a word of Chinese to love and appreciate the absurdity of this YouTube video)
Now, moving on to the law in Florida relating to ‘domestic abuse’ and spousal violence…
Notwithstanding the fact that millions of people may (rightfully) believe that Tiger had deserved ‘to get his ass whooped’ for his many marital transgressions; let’s flip the script for one moment and imagine that it was his wife Elin who had been hypothetically cheating on Tiger and that her hypothetical facial lacerations/injuries were caused when Tiger had beaten the crap out of her with a golf club after finding out about her extra-marital affairs and cheating.
In that hypothetical flipping-of-the-script, would any of us be talking about the steamy details about her lovers?
Would we be talking about dumb-ass text messages and voicemails that she may have sent to her lovers in this hypothetical scenario?
Let’s be honest; we would ONLY be talking about domestic abuse and how the police should throw Tiger’s ass in jail for ‘domestic violence” for beating his wife with a golf club and causing those injuries.
This is where our American ‘domestic abuse’ double-standard may come into play.
You see; because of Florida’s very strict domestic-violence laws, admitting to the police “that [his wife Elin] Nordegren in any way harmed him would virtually guarantee that the glamorous Elin would be led out of their mansion in handcuffs, even if he protested it…”
In 1991, Florida became one of many states to set up a pro-arrest policy in domestic-violence cases. For years, women’s rights advocates had complained that police treated domestic-violence cases as “private family matters” and assumed the abused spouse (usually women) would never follow through and press charges against their abusers.
Let us also remember; there have been scores of men who have also been victims of domestic abuse from their crazy-ass violent abusive wives and girlfriends.tiger1
Although the overwhelming majority of domestic abusers are certainly men, let us also not forget the much-smaller (but equally-reprehensible) pantheon of celebrity female abusers:
Tawny Kitaen, the chick from the Whitesnake videos charged in 2002 with committing domestic violenceagainst her then-husband major league baseball pitcher Chuck Finley of the California (now Anaheim) Angels; the infamous Tonya Harding, the ex-Olympic ice skater who allegedly threw a hubcap at her former boyfriend; Ms. Kim Mathers (the slightly-demented true love of Eminem); and Mrs. Brynn Hartman, the wife of legendary Saturday Night Live comedian Phil Hartman, who murdered him in their marital bed and then killed herself in May 1998.
And of course, Mrs. Lorena Bobbitt; who became famous in the annals of human history for cutting off the ‘Tiger Wood’ of her husband and then subsequently tossing it out of her car window during a leisurely drive.
So again; let’s hypothetically flip the script for a moment.
If Elin had hypothetically cheated on Tiger instead and it was found out that he had beaten the crap out of her with a golf club, would we as a society be obsessed with her fictitious extra-marital lovers and saying that she probably ‘deserved’ the beating?
Again…Hell no.
We would rightfully be throwing Tiger’s ass in jail for ‘domestic abuse’ and seeing his mug-shot within our global cyberspace with the magical (and seemingly ubiquitous) watermark circulating through our viral airwaves.
Yes; anyone who cheats on their spouse (and their own children) is a douchebag; you will never see any debate here.
But, if it is officially found out that his wife beat the crap out of him; then why the domestic abuse ‘double-standard’?
If women and men are truly equal, then shouldn’t potential ‘domestic abusers’ of both genders be treated equally under the law as well?
Or do we as Americans only consider it ‘domestic abuse’ when a man beats the living crap out of his wife?
And not vice versa.

Monday, June 10, 2013

Feminism Too Radical for Educated Women of the Middle East

"Parsipur: I am not a feminist. Society is made of men, women and children, so we cannot separate them."

Her country beat her, jailed her, and outlawed her books, and even she can tell Western Feminism IS COMPLETELY WHACKO.

Tuesday, June 04, 2013

PURELY EMBARRASSING: Supreme Court is Now a Joke

Remember, the Courts, as envisioned by the founders, were put in place to ensure FIRST AND FOREMOST, IF NOT ONLY, THAT YOU'RE RIGHTS WERE NEVER VIOLATED. PERIOD.

Criminals sometimes walk the streets because authorities simply cannot detain ANYONE without evidence of a crime.

From Karl Denninger:

The Judiciary Is Dead
There is no longer any doubt at all; the American Experiment is now dead and what remains is the question of whether the people will rise and put a stop to the crapfest that we are experiencing or whether our nation will be overtaken by the likes of a Pol Pot, Hitler or Mao.

I recently wrote on a case in Panama City, FL -- quite near here -- where a drug dealer had the charges against him tossed out.  He was pretty-clearly guilty of the crime he was accused of, but the Bay County Sheriff's office unlawfully attached a GPS tracking device to his vehicle -- they failed to get a warrant before doing so and trespassed to replace its batteries.

That was bad enough but then they lied during discovery.  The operating theory on "why" is that the Sheriff knew damn well that had they disclosed the GPS during discovery and depositions the evidence was subject to exclusion because it was improperly obtained.  Since the Sheriff's Office had no other way to discoverwhere the marijuana was without the illegal tracking device their case would have collapsed but for their illegal conduct. 

The Judge was having none of that crap and tossed the charges -- properly so.

Contrast this with the Zimmerman case where Team Skittles has repeatedly tried to muddy the waters and hide behind various ruses.  One of the many prosecution games in this case deals with "Witness 8", the infamous "Dee Dee", who it appears may not in fact be one person but is two or more who have been conveniently substituted as the "prosecution" and their advocates wish.  Without "Dee Dee" the gist of the case is that a man was attacked, mounted and while having his head smashed against a concrete sidewalk and he defended himself by shooting the attacker.  This is hardly the stuff of a Murder 2 charge but that's what the defending party, George Zimmerman, is facing.  For those who believe that being mounted and punched repeatedly, having your head bashed upon concrete, is not justification for shooting the attacker in self defenseplease read about the soccer refereee who was killed by a single punch thrown by a*****ed-off player.

The prosecutor and "family lawyer" (Crump) have repeatedly tried to obfuscate and hide evidence, including the contents of the deceased's cell phone and the judge has been, up until now, complicit in that crap.  The 5th District Court of Appeal, however, yesterday reversed said Judge unanimously and is going to allow Crump to be deposed as to the "interview" he conducted with said witness.
Is justice beginning to appear in the Zimmerman case?  We don't yet know.

But what we do know is that yesterday another case came down from the US Supreme Court, Marlyland .v. King.  King was arrested and charged with assault.  Incidental to that arrest his DNA was taken and ultimately matched against a "cold case" file implicating him in a******for which he was tried and convicted.
The question before the court was whether the forcible taking of DNA evidence from an arrestee, who remains entitled to the presumption of innocence until tried and convicted, was a search subject to 4th Amendment protections -- and if so whether that search in this case was unlawful and therefore excluded.
The hoops the Court jumped through in order to justify what they admitted was a search, including outright fabrication, reach the levels found when the PPACA ("Obamacare") was ruled Constitutional.

If you remember the central point of Obamacare was that Congress, supported by a lengthy Congressional record, crafted the language of the statute to result in the imposition of a penalty for refusing to buy the allegedly-required health insurance.  Congress did so because the imposition of a direct tax is only legal by Apportionment in Article 1, Section 2.  The income tax required a separate Constitutional Amendment for this reason, as it was not an excise and previous attempts to levy such a tax were struck as explicitly unconstitutional.

When the law was challenged the Roberts Court could not find a means by which imposing a penalty onrefusal to commit an act was Constitutional.  Therefore, they simply re-wrote the law and claimed that in fact the law imposed a tax, ignoring the fact that direct taxes can only be levied by apportionment and thus the result they reached was explicitly unlawful standing alone!

Yesterday's ruling is no less outrageous nor any less of an utter fabrication.  That the suspect appears to in fact have committed the******in question is not the issue.  The issue is whether or not law enforcement can engaged in unbridled intrusions into one's person, say much less property.

If you make me dictator I can stop virtually all gang-related shootings and drugs, for example.  Youmerely have to let me search anyone and anything at any time I'd like, and I'll find most of the drugs and guns before anyone can use them.  Yet this is, and should be, blatantly unlawful exactly as was the search by the Bay County Sheriff's office.

Rather than judge the facts what happened here, as with Obamacare, was that the Court tortured the English language, the facts and the Constitution to reach a pre-ordained result.

To reach that result in this case the court ruled that the statute authorizing the collection of DNA fromsuspects was reasonable because:

The Act serves a well-established, legitimate government interest: the need of law enforcement officers in a safe and accurate way to process and identify persons and possessions taken into custody.
That would sound appropriate on first blush until one examines the time-line on which the sample in question was analyzed.  Specifically, it sat un-processed for months after the arrest and in fact the defendant was out on bail for an extended period of time before analysis was commenced!

There was no need to collect the sample to identify the defendant; they knew damn well who he was and no processing of his DNA was going to change that.  The US Supreme Court invented from whole cloth justification for their ruling through a pure fabrication that was not and could not be reached from the evidence placed before them.

Scalia wrote a blistering dissent on this opinion, essentially calling out the court's opinion as fabrication founded on fantasy, and with good cause.

But this is not the first such opinion of note recently, it is the second.

A founding principle of justice is that when one is wronged you have recourse to the courts which exist to provide a check and balance on the improper behavior both of private individuals and the government.  Without that check and balance alleged society is reduced to tit-for-tat recourse, or worse, preemptive and often violent action taken by those who believe they have been wronged. 

It is for this reason that drug dealers shoot one another on street corners rather than sue over contractual disputes or lay charges for theft when one rips off the other; barred from the use of the civil and criminal systems of justice due to our idiotic insistence on prohibiting their trade in the first place they turn to the only means of justice available to them.

Our civil society depends on a clean and mature arbitration procedure by which results flow from acts and principles, not the other way around.  To eviscerate that ability is to invite and promote preemptive and retributive violence both against private parties and against the government as the civilized alternative and superior means of settling disputes has been corrupted.

Abuse by the US Supreme Court is nothing new; Wickard .v. Filburn is one other such "shining" example in which the Court ruled that a man growing wheat on his own land for his own personal consumption nonetheless "influenced commerce" and thus was subject to regulation because the farmer would, absent that growing of wheat, be inclined to buy it from an out-of-state supplier.  The mental gymnastics and outright invention of facts not in evidence required to reach that conclusion stood as testament to judgment by desired result rather than judgement through examination of the facts.

Now we have seen not one but two repeat performances that eclipse even the outrage of Wickard in just the last couple of years.

No nation's civil order can or deserves to stand when the people lose recourse to the law.

Kennedy, along with Roberts and the rest who joined in this opinion, have a special place in the 9th Circle of Hell waiting for them, and when, not if, our civil society dissolves they should be, and will be, charged with their large part of the destruction of our justice system which led to the inevitable loss of both civil order and our nation.