Thursday, April 30, 2009

He's Dead, She Walks - DV's Double Standard‏

Action alert here.

Excerpt:

'This past week in Canada a young man, Adam Cunningham, lost his life as a result of domestic violence apparently perpetrated by his wife. At the time of the initial incident she was charged with assault. Now that Adam is dead the Crown prosecutor declines to charge her further with manslaughter or homicide, and has told the family the assualt charges may be dropped as well, since the victim - who was also the only witness - has died.

Note in the obituary the comment that the wife will miss him. We can only imagine what that might mean.'

Monday, April 27, 2009

Being Gay is a sexual disorder

There is no finer metaphor for “pretzel logic” than the issue of “gay rights”. The contemporary addiction to “gay” liberation is no less dangerous or mind-altering than being addicted to heroin.

Being gay is a sexual disorder the American Psychological Association does not recognize because it drove out Division leaders and members who recognized sexual addiction for what it is. Gay men have eight times more sexual partners than heterosexual men do, and are the prevalent reason why 3% of individuals living in Washington D.C. are infected with H.I.V – on par with AIDS crisis countries such as Kenya — and three times the threshold for declaration of an epidemic (and emergency containment policy) by the C.D.C.

In spite of the fact there is very little empirical research to see if homosexuality might be a sexual disorder, and despite convincing sexual behavior statistical community evidence that homosexuality is probably a sexual disorder (and definitely a significant public health risk), the APA pretends it is not a disorder. Welcome back to the Dark Ages of societal decline caused by politically-correct Frankfurt school knowledge censors.

Speaking frankly, I know what goes on in the gay community having been invited to a few gay parties. The real party is in the bathroom. The parade goes both ways all night with any number of people in there at one time. It’s a crack house for sex addicts.

I once got a contract doing a large stage show in Reno, Nevada because the existing show had to close. Its cast consisted of gay men, who gave each other AIDS and were too sick to work.

I know another young man in his late 20’s who was preened into the gay lifestyle by activists in high school. Many high school boys don’t know what to do with girls, and find the safety of the “gay equivalent of the Boy Scouts” an attractive proposition. He is now dying of AIDS – unable to afford treatment — and about to file for bankruptcy due to past-due medical expenses.

We know that crack, heroine, and other mood-altering addictive substances are dangerous to individuals and inflict great costs and health risks on larger society. We do not think twice about dealing with drug and alcohol addiction at face value. That is why “crack studies” and “smoker’s rights” are not taught in schools. Accordingly, drugs are illegal. We tax the daylights out of tobacco, and some cities have even made smoking illegal in many locations.

If “drug rights” promoters filed lawsuits asking the courts to mandate the establishment of “Friends of Drug Lovers” support groups in the public schools, they would be laughed out of town.

No matter how one cuts it, schools and universities promoting queerness as an attractive lifestyle may one day find themselves being sued by those who become ill after being conscripted into this dangerous lifestyle.

The shrill defiance of same-sex rights activists has gone too far. Same-sex marriage is now out of the question. As an “economic right” advocates now demand, same-sex marriage would not build chastity into open marriages.

Same-sex marriage is a viciously sexist proposition: the stated intent of feminist strategists is to secure the right for any two women to marry each other, turning marriage into a feminist political institution having chattel control of family, children, and the levers of political power. We are not far from this day. Upon creation of Obama’s White House Council on Women and Girls, N.O.W’s president (and Alpha-lesbian) Kim Gandy proudly proclaimed “We Got the Entire Cabinet”. Obama is set to inject gay lifestyle into the military, and sign a non-binding U.N. gay rights treaty that G.W. Bush refused to sign. N.O.W. does not give a damn about gay men – many of whom will die supporting N.O.W.’s feminist-supremacist agenda.

The men’s movement is presently bifurcated on gay rights. Very strong disagreement exists behind the scenes among leaders of the men’s movement.

Most colleges and universities actively sponsor “Men’s Rights” as a subset of women’s studies programs – limited to gay rights activism. A good chunk of the larger men’s rights movement has been thus compromised – men’s rights activists are often brainwashed pro-gay college graduates or have been browbeaten along with the rest of the quaking masses into believing that opposing this aspect of the feminist agenda is somehow bigoted.

This problem is dividing and conquering this movement right at the starting gate. There is a strange belief held by left-leaning men’s rights activists, who believe that supporting this aspect of the feminist agenda will somehow translate into Democrat support for other men’s rights agenda such as VAWA and parental rights reforms. This is rather like asking Hitler to make full citizens of Jews who supported the Third Reich.

Men’s rights activists should not be fooled by this aspect of the feminist agenda. Feminists still utilize the thinking of Margaret Sanger, but directed towards men as the class of defective individuals for termination. Feminists are not stupid enough to directly call for the termination of men. We should not be so stupid as to fall for the baited feminist trap set to entice men into terminating themselves.

Supporting the feminist same-sex rights movement will continue to divide and conquer the larger men’s movement and lead it right into a feminist swamp of self-imposed inequality. Frankly speaking, men cannot secure equal marital and parental rights supporting an agenda expressly designed destroy or subvert those rights – an agenda feminists know will kill many men — leaving feminists owning the institutions of marriage and family.

That sexual preference or liberated randiness might have genetic roots is an immaterial claim. We do not promote other animalian behaviors (such as murder or rape) to protected status for good reason.

Restoring strong social rules leading to stable society is now necessary to lift America out of the socioeconomic collapse it is now suffering — a collapse palpably driven by feminist destruction of marriage and taxation of responsible individuals to the point of offshoring business, banking, and even themselves.

Indeed, work is uniformly offshored to countries with strong marriage values because they have low tax rates. Tax havens are uniformly feminist countries, such as Sweden, which are now being prised open by other feminist countries seeking cash to support the problems caused by their own feminist states. World feminism has run out of sources of cash. A return to politics based on sane marriage and social policy is inevitable at some point in the future.

I submit this to the larger men’s movement: We must oppose all feminist agenda that destroys men’s natural rights to life, marriage, and parenting — even where such opposition might be unsettling or misunderstood by gay-feminist men. We must present a united front in all regards to prevent the co-option of our movement by feminists.

We have an AIDS epidemic in America caused by feminist-gay activists practicing and proselytizing their sexual addiction. The epidemic is spreading into the heterosexual community at an alarming pace, perhaps enhanced by swinging lesbians.

The sexual liberation movement now controls the White House. We can expect a downpour of mandates coming from Washington in the coming years. States must act to protect themselves.

Matters of public health and states’ interest are paramount. States should enact health laws making homosexuality a civil offense and sending those who insist on practicing it into sexual addiction recovery programs until they get well.

The alternative is to end up with yet another victim group needing ongoing federal and state bailouts this country cannot afford, and a weak men’s movement unable to develop the winning pro-marriage, women friendly political agenda that neither party has yet been able to discover.

David R. Usher is President of the ACFC Missouri Coalition

Excellent comments follow:

Homosexuality is deviant sex, pure and simple. Without proper non biased study the truth about homosexuals and their effects on society will have to be tolerantly hidden away so as not to offend.

If I am a bigot for my position on homosexuals i must also be a bigot against all sexual deviants, rapists and child pornographers.

As a straight male hairdresser in a predominantly gay environment, I have a great affection for many of the faygeleh I work with however, i would never and i mean never leave any of them alone with a child, period. They are just to strongly motivated towards sexual deviancy.



Homosexuality is WRONG if you apply logic to all situations you will find out what in life is right and wrong if all of society was all good then human race can go on if society was bad then the human will die out so good is right bad is wrong

the same can be applied to gay and straight if all society was gay then the human race is doomed so it must be wrong


t's absolutely true that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end. In many cases I think homosexuality is a symptomatic outcome of some trauma or event in someone's life. It could also be a program of behavior that is genetically coded, or it could be congenital, or both.. (As I understand it, incidence of homosexuality increases with stress. And since individual stress is associated with the increasing challenges of urbanization, homosexuality has increased as an overall percentage of the population.)

Whatever the explanation, I think homosexuality is nature's way of taking the person out of the gene/meme pool because something is indeed wrong.





Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Abortion; Legal if women want it = Illegal if men want it.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Jail for man who slipped abortion drugs into wife’s sandwiches in bid to kill his unborn baby

Found via AntiMisandry.

In summary, the woman was 11 weeks pregnant. He didn’t want it, he tried to get it aborted with pills he was feeding her. She did want it.

A husband hid abortion pills in a sandwich and gave it to his wife in a desperate bid to kill their unborn child, a court heard yesterday.

Yesterday, the businessman was jailed for three years and nine months at the Old Bailey after admitting the rare offence of administering a poison with intent to cause miscarriage.

Isn’t that what happens when women willingly take pills to induce a chemical abortion?

“He tried to terminate our baby, end his child’s life before it had even begun and that’s the cruellest thing imaginable.

Yesterday, the businessman was jailed for three years and nine months at the Old Bailey after admitting the rare offence of administering a poison with intent to cause miscarriage.

I’m not a fan of abortion myself, so her having a baby is obviously good.But my opinion is irrelevant. The question I have regards the application of the law.

He was jailed for poisoning with the intent to cause miscarriage. Now, if the roles were reversed and he did want the baby, and she didn’t, as we all know not only is it legal, she could get the taxpayer to pay for it.

Now the usual justification is that ‘it’s the woman’s body, it’s her Right To Choose and only hers.’ That would mean the man has no say and no rights to the child (this means the responsibility of the child rests totally with the woman). This is saying that women are the gatekeepers to family.

But that man contributed half of the child’s DNA, right? Not only that, but if she does decide she wants it, he is then liable to help bring the child up, or pay substantial amounts of money to the woman. So now he was responsibilities to the child. Whether he wanted to or not. He has no choice.

Remember, this isn’t about individuals, this is about the law. The law essentially states that women have the Right To Choose, whereas men only have the Right To Pay.

I’m open to hearing any other justifications for this strange interpretation of ‘equality’.

Feminism: The State Ideology whereby women have rights, men have responsibilities, and children have their lives ruined - Peter Zohrab

International Woman’s Propaganda Day

See article here

Excerpt:

Amazing. A day where women all over the world try and do their best to make men feel guilty for existing. It is also a day where feminists recycle the same old crap about women being paid less, domestic violence, rape, how great abortion is, women’s health problems, equal opportunities and other statistics regarding how hard women have it in our society.

As usual, the feminists wrap their lies up in emotions and ally themselves to proper causes like oppression under Islamic regimes, dictatorships, attacks on free speech and the like in order to try and give their lies more credibility by association.

It’s a bad thing in my opinion, this International Woman’s Day. Why? Because it is a day with no relative day for men, and puts forth the idea that women’s issues deserve an international day, whereas men’s issues do not (that is, women are more important than men).

It also serves to perpetuate this myth in the West of women being oppressed. Women in the West have never had it so good. Indeed, they seem to be having it a lot better than men, especially in the eyes of the law and media.

This Day tends to cater to women’s desires for attention and power. Both which are provided by considering themselves perpetual victims of society and ergo, entitled to use and abuse all and sundry as they see fit, which would explain so many false rape claims, physical abuses of men and other crimes against men and each other, for instance.

Women do receive lower custodial sentences than men for the same crimes, and granted perpetual legal protection in the event of a rape claim, regardless of whether she is lying or not and what effect her lies have on a man’s life.

Doesn’t sound like the ‘equality’ feminists speak of at all, but considering feminism is just a thinly veiled regurgitation of communism anyway, it shouldn’t be surprising.

So, when you are being swamped with bad statistics, the colour pink and women talking about how evil men are, think of all the men working hard in jobs women don’t want to do, children suffering at their hands, committing suicide, being silenced when they voice their concerns (shut up and take it like a man), and other injustices against just under half of the population.

I mean, it’s what fair and equal treatment is all about.

Betrayed by a Restraining Order

Voices from the Grave, Betrayed by a Restraining Order

Article here. Excerpt:

'Debi Olson had three restraining orders taken out against her. But that didn’t stop the woman from ambushing ex-husband Mauricio Droguett in an Iowa shopping mall last July, fatally stabbing him in front of shocked mall-goers.

Toni Brown of Washington, DC was shot by former girlfriend Raina Johnson on August 12, 2008, leaving the woman paralyzed from her neck down. Johnson is currently serving a 28-year sentence for a crime the judge termed “extraordinarily brutal.” A restraining order had been previously issued against the assailant.

Karen Allende of New York City was walking to work on a September day in 2006 when she was attacked suddenly by her husband. She died that morning on the sidewalk, a restraining order folded neatly in her purse.
...
Judge Milton Raphaelson of Massachusetts once opined, “Few lives, if any, have been saved, but much harm, and possibly loss of lives, has come from the issuance of restraining orders and the arrests and conflicts ensuring therefrom.”

Each year, the Violence Against Women Act spends up to $75 million to promote restraining orders. That’s the kind of wasteful federal program that leaves a bad taste in taxpayers’ mouths.'

Feminists demand equality, but women and children come first

Article here. Excerpt:

'If there is a coherent moral order to the present thoughts of the National Women's Council, it is that words no longer mean what they used to. In the Council's prospectus for the year 2009, the word "equality" is used 38 times. Yet clearly, in the sisters' deviant vocabulary, "equality" does not mean equality of pain, or hardship or suffering or poverty. No: it means the opposite of equality. It means a protection from these conditions, regardless of what men are enduring. In other words, lifeboat-feminism, surely the most ignoble and unprincipled of all the many liberal political creeds which dominate our ethos today.'

Thursday, April 2, 2009

GoGirl - So girls can ... go

GoGirl Pee FunnelWhat is this obsession with women being able to pee standing up? Other than the ability to write my name in the snow, I have not really felt like I'm missing out on anything. I have yet to catch any communicable diseases from a toilet seat. And I do actually sit on the toilet seat. There, I said it.

If you're a hoverer, by the way, check out this story on ABC News and sit your bum down, please. The messes you people leave should be classified as terrorism.

Onto the product: This is the GoGirl. It's a somewhat updated version of the "pee funnel" we showed you back in 2004. For example, rather than "pee funnel," they call this a "female urination device" (or an FUD).

The GoGirl is disposable, and comes with tissue and a biodegradable baggie all in the neat little cylinder that fits in your purse or pocket. You can buy one here for $4.99 (you can also buy a t-shirt, cap, or shorts, in case you want the world to know you like to pee standing up).

GoGirl recommends their product for SkiGirl, OutdoorsyGirl, GlobalGirl, MommyGirl, CityGirl, and RoadGirl for varying reasons, but however many of those I may be? I don't want one.

Largely because it would require me to essentially piddle into my hand. Ew. Warm. Ew.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Woman, 37, beats 69-year-old man over alleged affair

UMATILLA - A 37-year-old Umatilla woman accused of punching her 69-year-old live-in boyfriend in the head while he was taking a shower was charged with battery on a person over 65, according to a Marion County Sheriff’s Office report.


Sandy Jo Tracy
MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

The woman, Sandy Jo Tracy, claimed he had been cheating on her.

The victim, William Webb, told Deputy Danny Garrels Jr. that on Monday around 8:30 p.m. he was taking a shower at their Umatilla home when Tracy ripped the shower curtain off the rod and began screaming at him, accusing him of having an affair with another woman.

Webb told the deputy she kept hitting him in the head with her fist. The man said he tried deflecting the blows with his left arm. He also said Tracy continued to hit him while he was getting dressed.

He managed to escape the home. But Webb said he did not report the abuse until Tuesday because his girlfriend refused to let him retrieve his clothing and was verbally abusive.

The deputy took a picture of Webb's left arm, which had a large bruise reportedly consistent with his statement.

The deputy went to the home and talked with Tracy, who told him she did hit Webb because she was angry after she discovered he had an affair. On her way to the jail, Tracy reportedly told Garrels she should've hit Webb harder and was going to get even with him for cheating and having her arrested.

- Austin L. Miller