Wednesday, October 29, 2008

The ABC Connection

What do I mean by the ABC connection? The Abortion - Breast Cancer Connection.

Isn't it funny how the 'pro-choice' feminists want all women to have the freedom to "choose," but they don't really care about women making a truly informed choice!

They only want the choice to be made based on their own promotion of a de-population agenda and to remove any short-term consequences for irresponsible sexual behavior.

But they have been deliberately quashing any and all references in the mainstream media to the undeniable connections between women who have abortions and breast cancer.

It is in fact a biological phenomenon that is perfectly explainable without invoking any kind of "pro-life" or "religous fundamentalist" type of argument. And these revelations are nothing new...


Scientists first observed in the 17th century that women’s reproductive histories impacted their risk for breast cancer when it was noticed that nuns were at high risk for the disease. Scientists surmised that childbearing provides women with increased protection.

Today’s medical experts agree that the best way women can reduce their lifetime risk for breast cancer is by: 1) Having an early first full term pregnancy (FFTP) starting before age 24; 2) Bearing more children; and 3) Breastfeeding for a longer lifetime duration. It’s undeniable that abortion causes women to change their childbearing patterns. It leads them to forego the protective effects of early FFTP, increased childbearing and breastfeeding. Consequently, scientists do not debate that it increases breast cancer risk in this first of two ways.

Despite these truths, there is not one cancer fundraising business that uses the phrase, "Abortion raises breast cancer risk." Not one of them has ever denounced Planned Parenthood for depriving women of the protective effect of childbearing or acknowledged that abortion contributes to the nation’s breast cancer rates at least in this way.

If childbearing reduces breast cancer risk, then choosing not to have that child means a greater breast cancer risk for the woman. Therefore, there is no debate among scientists that the woman who aborts has a greater breast cancer risk than does the woman who has a baby (assuming that her pregnancy lasts at least 32 weeks).

Fascinating stuff...

However, it's not just the fact that a woman that has an abortion never realizes the protection she gets from carrying a pregnancy to full term when she is young, there is another effect that occurs when a female becomes pregnant and has an abortion...

Abortion has been implicated with breast cancer in yet another way, however, and estrogen overexposure is the explanation for it. There is staggering evidence of an independent link between abortion and breast cancer. What this means is that a woman who has an abortion is left with more cancer-vulnerable cells than she had before she ever became pregnant. Biological evidence and more than two dozen studies worldwide support a cause and effect relationship. Fifteen studies were conducted on American women, and 13 of them reported risk elevations. Seven found a more than a twofold elevation in risk. Seventeen are statistically significant, 16 of which demonstrated a positive association. The term “statistical significance” means that scientists are at least 95% certain that their findings are not due to chance or error.

The evidence of a causal relationship between abortion and breast cancer isn’t only based on a statistical relationship either. Scientists also require biological evidence and a reasonable biological explanation before concluding that there’s a causal relationship. These requirements have been met.

In summary, when a woman becomes pregnant, her body chemistry changes dramatically. Her body produces massive amounts of estrogen in the beginning stages of a pregnancy, and part of that is to prepare the breast tissue to begin producing milk.

These biological facts are the basis for making the abortion/breast cancer connection:

The explanation for the independent link makes good biological sense. It remains un-refuted and unchallenged by scientists because it is physiologically correct.

A never-pregnant woman has a network of primitive, immature and cancer-vulnerable breast cells which make up her milk glands. It is only in the third trimester of pregnancy - after 32 weeks gestation - that her cells start to mature and are fashioned into milk producing tissue whose cells are cancer resistant.

When a woman becomes pregnant, her breasts enlarge. This occurs because a hormone called estradiol, a type of estrogen, causes both the normal and pre-cancerous cells in the breast to multiply terrifically. This process is called “proliferation.” By 7 to 8 weeks gestation, the estradiol level has increased by 500% over what it was at the time of conception.

If the pregnancy is carried to term, a second process called “differentiation” takes place. Differentiation is the shaping of cells into milk producing tissue. It shuts off the cell multiplication process. This takes place at approximately 32 weeks gestation.

If the pregnancy is aborted, the woman is left with more undifferentiated -- and therefore cancer-vulnerable cells -- than she had before she was pregnant. On the other hand, a full term pregnancy leaves a woman with more milk producing differentiated cells, which means that she has fewer cancer-vulnerable cells in her breasts than she did before the pregnancy.

In contrast, research has shown that most miscarriages do not raise breast cancer risk. This is due to a lack of estrogen overexposure. Miscarriages are frequently precipitated by a decline in the production of progesterone which is needed to maintain a pregnancy. Estrogen is made from progesterone, so the levels of each hormone rise and fall together during pregnancy.

For a thorough biological explanation of the abortion-breast cancer link, see this second website for the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, and click on its online booklet, “Breast Cancer Risks and Prevention.”

The fact that such scientific research is not widely known...despite having a "Breast Cancer Awareness Month" and the million and one charities and foundations supposedly dedicated to eradicating breast cancer only goes to show what the mainstream establishment and the feminist movement value more - there sacred sacrament of infanticide over the lives of the very women they supposedly care so much about.

Shouldn't every woman contemplating an abortion be educated on the biological truth that having one can increase the likelihood of developing breast cancer later on in her life?

Why wouldn't a pro-choice advocacy want women to know about the dangers of an elective procedure?

Answer: because the real agenda is global depopulation. Just as millions of babies are murdered in their wombs, so to are millions of women who are exposed to much higher risks of dying from cancer. It's a win-win situation for the global elite that want to reduce the number of that they can achieve there primary goal of environmental "sustainability."

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Sick of Complaining?

An anonymous commenter wrote the following in my last post. She wrote a lot, so I will respond to each point in the "Fisk" style.

A woman who is sick of you complaining said...

I'm sorry but I feel the need to comment on this whole "regulated sex" shit. I've been reading the MRA blogs for the past few weeks, while most of the men post very valuable commentary, and make great points about feminism and how women act today, I can't understand why men don't understand where feminism came from.

If you've been reading MRA blogs for a few weeks, may I suggest you do even more reading? Perhaps you may actually educate yourself as to where feminism REALLY came from.

It is NOT some reaction to historical oppression of one gender by another as the revisionist feminists and Women's Study professors have brainwashed society into believing.

Feminism is the purposeful and deliberate indoctrination of an entire generation of females intended to break up the very foundation of society - the nuclear family.

Feminism has put forth the LIE that the Patriarchal model for ordering families as the building blocks of society is nothing more than men selfishly "oppressing" females for their own benefit.

In short, feminism was started by communist/marxist agent provacateurs that infiltrated the institutions of academia and the mass media to further a globalist, de-population agenda that involves evicting Father's from the homes to create as many single mother households as possible that are dependent on the State for subsistence.

Here are some quotations from prominent feminists, courtesy of the MRA blog, No Ma'am:

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

"The Women's Caucus [endorses] Marxist-Leninist thought." -- Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, p. 597

Heretical Sex also offers excellent insight into the Feminist motivation to destroy the nuclear family: Why Did Feminists Attack the Family?

Are you all idiots. Have you ever wondered why women began to feel oppressed? Probably not, because you are men and you think to methodically and with no emotion at all. The idea that men should regulate the sexual activities of a woman is as stupid as women regulating male sexuality. No one is ever the property of anyone else, and as soon as men come to terms with this notion, the sooner the sexes will stop being at war. Women are just trying to break free from being owned as property. Just like a piece of land, men feel they can dispose of us at anytime, or trade up.

You poor, pitiful, brainwashed fool. The "Oppression" of the Patriarchal system was not that men OWNED women. It is the agreement between Men and Women for the benefit of the CHILDREN that are the product of their union. Here's some more reading for you if you are truly interested in understanding how feminism has tricked women such as you into believing that traditional marriage was "oppression."

Marriage is Fraud

Not to mention, before Feminism, men had no problem keeping a wife and having numorous affair. Women saw this made a consious decision to act against this, which is competely understandable. For every action there is a reaction, and the male population is totally ingoring this!
Don't you understand that women were just reacting to the way they were being property. As a survior of sexual abuse by numorous males, the notion that any one owns my body and should have access to it and any time he pleases is rupulsive and is probably why I have yet to be married at the age of 29. I am no man's property. I have a mind of my own. I think for myself and don't need a man to do it for me. Men are unable to get past the sex, because that's all they are programed to want. It has been stated by many MRA bloggers.

All of these things that you write, are answered in that last link I posted. But if you don't bother to read it, at least read this much from Rob Fedder's post at No Ma'am:

So, feminists are somewhat truthful when they claim that women were “owned” as chattel. A wife’s sexuality (NOT her person), was very much “owned” by her husband and it was in fact used as a means of production: The production of the husband’s own children.

But, as always, feminists are only capable of speaking in half-truths.

The part of the “women were owned as chattel” song leaves out the second verse, which is “and men were owned as beasts of burden.”

Marriage was a contract in which a woman traded her sexual reproductive ability for a man's economic labor ability. Marriage was NEVER a man "owning" a woman, lock. stock and barrel. He did NOT have carte blanche to do as he pleased or treat her as a slave.

Before the 1860’s, if a woman decided to leave her husband, she had to leave the children behind, which were a product of the marriage, because property rights dictated that he had “paid” for them, and thus they were his property, and not hers. He did not “own” her person, but in marriage he did “own” her reproductive ability and the products thereof.

The transferring of these “property rights” back to the woman, when in fact they were the basis of the economic contract of marriage, diminished the validity of marriage enormously. It is interesting to note that the divorce rate has risen steadily from this point onward.

Keep in mind, women have always had the ability and natural right to have their own children. No-one ever stopped a woman from shagging some knave in the bushes after he had been swilling mead in a medieval tavern. It may have been frowned upon by society, but illegitimate children have been born since the beginning of civilization. It was a social stigma that women should not do this because it was widely known that the woman would be bringing a child into the world under an enormous disadvantage if she and the child were not coupled to the labour (and discipline) of a father. But, she owned her sexuality and if she wanted to have children with it, she most certainly could.

But, the contract of marriage is, in every sense, the contract of a woman selling children to a man. The right of a man to “own” what he paid for was dealt a mortal blow in the 1860’s when he lost the previously unchallenged right to “own” what he had paid for in marriage, that being his children.

Now, all through up until the 1970’s, marriage was still viewed as a legal contract. It was a given that both parties had an obligation to uphold such a contract just as within any other economic or legal contract.

If you wanted to leave you still could. No-one was stopping you. But, as with any contract, if you breeched your contract you would be the one that was penalized for it.

If you wanted to leave and receive the benefits from the marriage, or rather, be compensated for the breech of contract of the other party, you had to prove they were at fault in order to sue for compensation. This makes sense, doesn’t it?

Therefore, there were many things which constituted “fault.” Adultery, alcoholism, mental insanity, cruelty, physical abusiveness amongst a host of others all constituted “fault.” If you were at fault, you could expect to lose your rights as set forth in the contract. But even so, if there was no fault and you still wanted to leave, no-one was stopping you. You were not put in jail for leaving, but you were found to be at fault for “abandonment,” and therefore lost all of your rights as set forward in the contract – and you would be liable for any “damages” caused by your “fault.”


But, in the 1970’s, the ever wise feminists declared that it was far too difficult to find fault in people’s complex personal relationships, and therefore “No Fault Divorce” was implemented, again with the aid of the heavy hand of the courts. (Odd, isn’t it? They have no troubles at all finding “fault” in cases of domestic violence.)

So what have we got left here?


What was originally based on a woman “selling” a man the ability to have his own children and taking his surplus labour as “payment,” has become a woman having children of HER own and still taking a man’s surplus labour as “payment” for that which she is NOT selling. THAT IS FRAUD!

Perhaps now you can understand exactly what the institution of marriage was all about, and how the feminists have purposely subverted it by negating women's responsibilities to abide by the terms of it, while still holding men to it.

See, in today's divorce culture, Men are STILL held to the terms of exchange - they still have to provide economic labor in the forms of alimony and child support, while women can freely violate the marriage contract without losing that economic labor...yet the courts regularly take away what the man was SUPPOSED to gain in the economic contract of marriage - his children.

Men don't give a shit about what women think or do, just the pussy, and how to get it. And you males wonder why women have abandoned marriage and other conventional "wisdoms".

Actually, women by and large have not abandoned marriage the institution. They abandon "marriages" to specific males (to the tune of 70% of all divorces instigated by women...many times through no specific fault of the man's...only under the claim that she is "bored" or "not in love" or "unfulfilled" and she needs to "find herself.")

But you women all STILL want to get married. It is men going their own way and pursuing the eternal bachelor lifestyle who are abandoning the institution of marriage. That is because feminist-minded women such as yourself have decided that marriage is "oppression," and that you should all be free to use your sexuality in anyway you please, without penalty.

If that is what you believe is your ultimate definition of "freedom," than what is in it for a man to get married? If the marriage does not guarantee that a woman does not have to "oppress" her sexuality and sleep around at her will, than what's in it for us men to bind our economic productivity to a contract that you females won't keep, but we are forced to by the law?

Let me ask you males a question. What if someone owned you as property, and made all your choices for you, what if you were alienated and isolated because of children, husband and had no social interaction. Can you imagine a life like this? If you can, you are probably a woman. If you can't you're a man. So don't blame the feminist. They are only reacting to the confinment of the male establishment of the last hundred or so years. Come on guys, how long did you think women would be ok with being treated like shit? And don't give me that crap about women were treated well and already had power. Lies, lies, lies! I'm so sick of men complaining, now you finally know what it is like to be a woman and you hate it. You hate it because you know it's how women have been treated. Because to let yourself feel the emotion that women feel would be emasculating and lord know that you men can't have that, heaven forbid you have emotions. It would also force you to recognize that patriarchy is just as bad as matriarchy and you would fall from from your golden thrown and and land your ass on your pointy crown. What a sight that would be!

Look at all your bitterness and is all misdirected towards men and the institution of Patriarchy. Your indoctrination has been thorough.

Keep reading MRA blogs, and then perhaps you can de-program yourself and realize that the gender war you are so invested in has been the deliberate manipulations of people that do NOT want men and women to happily raise the next generation of children in happy homes...but only want to have control of the minds of society so they can consolidate and expand their power into the most personal sphere of anyone's life, the family.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Women's Watch Inc., Director is SHOCKED at sexism in US Politics

As ye sow, so shall ye reap, oh foolish feminists.

Helen McCaffery, the Director for Woman's Watch Inc., a Women's Advocacy Group, has written an article for the Philadelphia Inquirer in which she further promotes the mindless tropes of propaganda that are part and parcel to the shibboleth's of feminism.

The irony of her blind naivete is rather delicious...

From Palin Deserves Our Respect

I cannot predict who will win the presidential campaign, but I already know who will lose big: all women.

Of course, because in identity/gender politics, there is always a need to identify the victim class, so that they can be held up in the highest esteem. Truth doesn't matter, as we all know that in fact regardless of who will win the presidential campaign, the misandry of our family courts, divorce and child support system and the continuation of "affirmative action" policies that legislate preferential treatment for women will remain in full of course, all women will lose big, dontchya know?

I realized this when I saw a 20-something male student who attends a class in the community college where I teach, wearing a T-shirt that read, "Sarah Palin is a C-." He wore it in public, in broad daylight, and without shame or even consciousness of what he was doing.

I took the time to advise him of the "error of his ways" and informed him of the consequences if he wore it to my class.

Shame? Consciousness of degrading a woman based on her physical appearance? Typical of the clueless feminist, who cannot even begin to understand that it was her precious movement's work to "free" women from the stigma of unregulated sexual behavior -- i.e "Patriarchal Oppression" that has resulted in our current society for which women are objectified and reduced to nothing more than the value of their physical appearance!

Also note her authoritarian prederliction to censor the misguided man's right to free speech, because it ran up agaisnt her own politicially correct sensibilities.

This encounter shook me right down to my socks.

So typical of a feminist, over-dramatizing and emoting in the extreme over such an inconsequential issue such as the subject matter of a T-Shirt a student is wearing.

Most of my adult life has been spent working for civil rights for all Americans, as a lawyer defending constitutional rights and now as a college teacher and director of a nonprofit advocating for the rights of women.

As a lawyer defending constitutional rights, shouldn't you be aware that we are all supposedly equal under the law regardless of gender? I guess it really is a stretch to expect feminists to possess even a miniscule iota of intellectual honesty.

It was the encounter with the young man that woke me up, but there were signs all along the campaign trail. First, with the candidacy of Sen. Hillary Clinton, who won 18 million popular votes from the people of the United States and was ridiculed, marginalized, and put in her place when she wasn't even offered the vice presidency slot.

Oh I see. Hillary was entitled to the VP slot, because of the 18 million popular votes...but because Barak Hussein Obama didn't offer it to her, it was a blow to the entire female gender! Women were ridiculed, marginalized and put in their place!

It's a good thing all you perfect little feminists are such useful idiots for the Democrat party...because they can screw you right in front of your faces and still count on knowing that come election day, you will all pull the appropriate lever and vote for the Donkey candidates, no matter how much they ridicule, marginalize and put you dumb feminists in your place!

But the really big attack on women occurred when John McCain selected only the second woman in history to be on a major-party ticket.


I thought Americans would be proud of her nomination, whether we agreed or disagreed with her on the issues. Was I in for a shock.

The sexism that I believed had been eradicated was lurking, like some creature from the black lagoon, just below the surface. Suddenly it erupted and in some unexpected places.

Only to a deluded, feminist useful idiot like yourself could have been surprised by the so-called "unexpected places" for which this sexism erupted.

Instead of engaging Palin on the issues, critics attacked attributes that are specifically female. It is Hillary's pantsuit drama to the power of 10. Palin's hair, her voice, her motherhood, and her personal hygiene were substituted for substance. That's when it was nice.

The hatred escalated to performers advocating Palin be "gang raped," to suggestions that her husband had had sex with their young daughters, and reports that her Down syndrome child really was that of her teenage daughter. One columnist even called for her to submit to DNA testing to prove her virtue. Smells a little like Salem to me. I was present at an Obama rally at which the mention of Palin's name drew shouts of "stone her."

"Stone her"? How biblical.

Notice she fails to even coming close to mentioning the source of these sexist and misogynistic attacks. It's the VERY leftist-liberal-progressive-Democrat contingent that is supposedly the champions of her precious feminist movement!

Didn't you idiots learn NOTHING from the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky affair? That as long as a liberal democrat votes for the right party and supports the appropriate feminist policies of unrestricted infanticide, they can get away with any kind of racist, sexist, bigoted behavior...especially if the target for such attacks is a right-winger-fundie-Republican-conservative?

Don't you know...the end justifies the means...

....sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette?

Ahhh...feminist useful idiocy is so entertaining to behold.

All this is at a time when women are regularly being raped as they try to cross the border into the United States; bloody, broken women haunt the emergency rooms of hospitals; and abuse and disrespect for women and girls is rising faster than bank bailouts. That is the atmosphere in which people, including women, choose to attempt to destroy a woman who is a legitimate political leader.

Agreement on issues is not required, but Palin merits respect.

Oh the irony. First, this TOOL invokes the spectre of dastardly, evil men everywhere who are brutalizing women wherever and whenever possible - but she fails to realize that it is the promotion of such mindless, baseless generalizations that have created the very atmosphere that empowers her fellow liberal-democrat-progressives to carry out this proverbial witch-hunt with regards to Mrs. Palin.

It is dismaying that misogyny and sexism are so excessively marbleized into our daily interactions that some of us cannot even recognize their existence when confronted with it or when staring at it directly in the mirror.
{Laughing my ass off}

You dumb broad. You cannot even bring yourself to mention the political party or ideology that is behind the very sexist and misogynist attacks you are decrying! Try and confront that first!

Mockery and vilification of women such as Palin should become just as taboo as race-based slams. Until then, women are the real losers.

In your distorted world view, there is no "Until then." Women will always be the real losers. How else can you maintain the current misandry codified in our system to advantage women everywhere, unless you continue to promote the lie that all women are victims?

Don't you know? Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia!

Friday, October 24, 2008

At least she's being honest...

However, to be 100% straightforward, she should also include the phrase...

"...and 18 years of child support, garnished from your paycheck to finance my lifestyle!"

Hat tip: The Elusive Wapiti

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Jennifer Aniston: Another Feminist Poster-Girl

I must admit it...I often visit this website called: The Superficial - Because You're Ugly to indulge in a bit of celeb-u-tard schaudenfraude.

This latest bit comes from the recent announcement that the former Mrs. Brad Pitt, "Friends" sitcom star Jennifer Aniston, has re-united with a former boyfriend, John Mayer...but under the condition that they get married and start popping out children.

This is hilarious.

For those that don't keep up with the ongoing lives of Hollywood Babylon, this is the basic timeline on the drama of Ms. Aniston's life. (oh and by the way, this is based PURELY on my recollections of the story coming from the tabloid headlines I read every time I'm in line at the grocery store, as well as the occasional tidbits from the Superficial - lest any of you think I would actually make a concerted effort to follow the lives of celebrities like a typical American female...).

- In the early 90's, Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt were married for 5 years and were Hollywood's most attractive couple. Millions of American females envy Jennifer, as Pitt was widely considered the most attractive man in America for a number of years.

- Brad wanted to start having children, but Jennifer was in the midst of climbing her career ladder, as her sitcom show "Friends" was becoming a huge ratings success. Her and all her co-stars had re-negotiated their contracts making them all very well paid millionaires. Jen did not want to have children because it would inhibit her career track.

- Brad Pitt leaves her for Angelina Jolie. They subsequently start having children in addition to adopting orphaned third world kids from all over the world, creating a pretty big family...especially for modern Hollywood standards.

- Jennifer suffers emotional breakdowns and issues public denials and regrets about Brad leaving her for a younger, hotter, more fertile woman...saying she always wanted to have kids with him, etc.

- Jennifer goes through a string of high profile romances with various celebrities, including the aforementioned John Mayer.

- After a number of flings, and now reaching the age of 39...NOW she's ready to settle down and 'start' a family. John Mayer expresses interest in re-uniting with her, but she will only do so under the conditions that they get married and start having kids.

Can you say BABY RABIES?

It's a good thing she's wealthy TV and movie star, because fertility clinic treatments are quite expensive...

Friday, October 17, 2008

"Bi-Partisanship" Means Only One Thing

As one who has done extensive reading about the current sham of our political system here in the US, I am thoroughly convinced that the true agenda of the folks behind the social engineering that have infected society with such atrocities as the feminist assault on the nuclear family, a Federalized public school system designed to deliberately dumb down the masses, and the continued loss of our liberty and rights in the name of "security," is to keep the masses distracted with the "Right vs. Left" political theater while the true agenda of a one-world, socialist government continues it's long march towards global domination.

While many conservatives have been excited about the Sarah Palin nomination, I believe she is either being duped into thinking she can effect conservative changes in the government should she succeed...or she's just like McCain and Obama, and is nothing more than a pawn, bought, sold and controlled by the true powers that be.

In either case, the proof is in the pudding. Look no further than the latest call for "Bi-partisanship" by Obama and McCain...

"Now is a time to come together - Democrats and Republicans - in a spirit of cooperation for the sake of the American people," Democratic nominee Barack Obama and Republican nominee John McCain said. "The plan that has been submitted to Congress by the Bush administration is flawed, but the effort to protect the American economy must not fail."

If Palin were a true "conservative republican" how could she continue to run as McCain's partner in this blatant socialization of the financial markets? On principle, she should resign in the face of this blatant push for a government takeover of a private market.

If Obama were a true "working-class democrat" how could he be for giving millions of tax payers dollars to the filthy rich, corrupt corporations?

Answer: because right/left, democan and republicrat are really two sides to the same thing.

Glenn Sacks also recently wrote a blog post that demonstrates exactly what I'm saying:

No Friend to Fathers Among the Presidential & Vice-Presidential Candidates

All four of the candidates for president and vice-president this year have displayed hostility to fathers in one way or another.

That's because both parties will talk about marriage and family values, yet the true issues that are detrimental to the state of marriage and family values is the divorce industry and misandrist legislation like VAWA. Instead, We the Sheeple are deliberately brainwashed and distracted into arguing about Same Sex Marriage and other garbage that truly only effects a very small percentage of a very small special interest group, while the true agenda of destroying nuclear families and enriching the divorce industry, and replacing Fathers with an extensive welfare state and child support peonage system continues to be the huge elephant in the room nobody ever talks about in mainstream political discussions and media coverage.

Whenever I hear the term "bi-paritsan," I remember what Thomas Sowell once wrote years ago in one of his columns (I'm paraphrasing from memory):

"Whenever I hear the term 'bi-partisan' the only thing I think of is BOHICA: Bend Over, Here It Comes Again."

Divorcing a Material Girl in a Material World...Part 2

According to the latest on the material whore's pending divorce to Guy Ritchie, their marriage began to fall apart after a horse riding accident Madonna suffered back in 2005.

According to the Sun:

“If you can pinpoint an exact event or incident which spelled the death knell for them as a couple, Madonna’s horse-riding accident was it. Every other row the couple had following that boiled down to what happened that summer.”

The family friend said: “Madonna was in a huge amount of pain and expected Guy to drop everything to be at her bedside. In her mind that is what every husband should do to support his wife when she has been through a traumatic, possibly life-threatening, experience. But Guy approached the whole thing in what she now calls, ‘A very British way’."

...Pals say Madge .... now blames her man’s “no-nonsense” approach to their marriage on his British public school upbringing.

She says he was “typical of emotionally-stunted British men” and refuses to ever date another Brit.

Hah, I was right! As I said in the comments on the last post, Madonna is divorcing her husband and kicking their children's father out of their lives, because in her mind, he failed to emote enough like one of her gay dancer pals!

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Divorcing a Material Girl in a Material World...

Madonna and her husband of 7 and 1/2 years are reportedly going to divorce after Madonna finishes her latest tour.

There is reportedly no pre-nuptial agreement, and Madonna is certainly the far richer partner in their the tune of 300 million pounds.

I believe they are both British citizens (Maddonna has a dual citizenship, if I recall correctly)...and they were both married in the U.K., so we now will see just how gender biased the U.K. divorce courts really are.

It will be highly interesting to see the alimony and child custody rulings...especially if you compare how this one turns out versus how the last U.K. high profile, rich pop-music star divorce of Paul McCartney and Heather Mills turned out.

As for this picture of Madonna as a hitchhiking's merely a bit of tasteless reminiscing on my part, as I remember seeing this photo of her when I was a teenager, when she was in her physical prime. All my guy friends and I thought she was one of the hottest stars at that time.

Compare and contrast to her recent photos in which she looks like an emaciated zombie assembled by the finest plastic surgeons money can buy....I think it serves as the perfect example of how aging females in this age of Matriarchal narcissism believe that they can always maintain their sexual appeal indefinitely if they have the money to pay for plastic surgery.

Guy Ritchie is definitely cashing out according to the custom and traditions of modern day British divorce culture at the right time. In 5 more years, she is going to be looking pretty hideous. Being in great physical shape and having the best surgeons money can buy still cannot hide the fact that female beauty is intrinsically tied to fertility...and at 50, her days as a sex idol are over.

However, I hope Madonna actually wins her divorce case and gets sole custody of the kids, and forces Guy Ritchie to pay her alimony.

Than this high profile divorce will demonstrate just how gender biased the whole divorce industry really is.

Having Guy "win" in the same fashion as Heather Mills will only lend an aura of credibility to the current injustices of the present day system.

Friday, October 10, 2008

The Notable Quotables of Ron Paul

The following quotes were taken from various speeches **RINO Congressman Ron Paul has delivered on the floor of the House throughout his career:

On The Welfare State & Marriage:

I certainly recognize how the welfare state has contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage. As an ob-gyn with over 30 years of private practice. I know better than most the importance of stable, two parent families to a healthy society. However, I am skeptical, to say the least, of claims that government education programs can fix the deep-rooted cultural problems responsible for the decline of the American family.

On the Welfare State and Dependency:

Voluntary charities also promote self-reliance, but government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is in the self-interest of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.

On Corruption in the Federal Government:

The only effective way to address corruption is to change the system itself, by radically downsizing the power of the federal government in the first place. Take away the politicians' power and you take away the very currency of corruption.

On Abortion:

Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

On Government "Solutions":

Since the use of power to achieve political ends is accepted, pervasive, and ever expanding, popular support for various programs is achieved by creating fear. Sometimes the fear is concocted out of thin air, but usually it’s created by wildly exaggerating a problem or incident that does not warrant the proposed government “solution.” Often government caused the problem in the first place. The irony, of course, is that government action rarely solves any problem, but rather worsens existing problems or creates altogether new ones.

On the Proper Role of the U.S. Military:

Defending the country against aggression is a very limited and proper function of government. Our military involvement in the world over the past 60 years has not met this test, and we’re paying the price for it.

On Judicial Activism:

For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than on upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by judges they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

On "Tax Cuts for the Rich":

...all we hear is that tax cuts for the rich are the source of every economic ill in the country. Anyone truly concerned about the middle class suffering from falling real wages, under-employment, a rising cost of living, and a decreasing standard of living should pay a lot more attention to monetary policy. Federal spending, deficits, and Federal Reserve mischief hurt the poor while transferring wealth to the already rich. This is the real problem, and raising taxes on those who produce wealth will only make conditions worse.

On The "FED":

The Fed is solely responsible for inflation by creating money out of thin air. It does so either to monetize federal debt, or in the process of economic planning through interest rate manipulation. This Fed intervention in our economy, though rarely even acknowledged by Congress, is more destructive than Members can imagine.

Not only is the Fed directly responsible for inflation and economic downturns, it causes artificially low interest rates that serve the interests of big borrowers, speculators, and banks. This unfairly steals income from frugal retirees who chose to save and place their funds in interest bearing instruments like CDs.

The Fed’s great power over the money supply, interest rates, the business cycle, unemployment, and inflation is wielded with essentially no Congressional oversight or understanding. The process of inflating our currency to pay for government debt indeed imposes a tax without legislative authority.

On Government Spending:

The moral of the story is that spending is always a tax. The inflation tax, though hidden, only makes things worse. Taxing, borrowing, and inflating to satisfy wealth transfers from the middle class to the rich in an effort to pay for profligate government spending, can never make a nation wealthier. But it certainly can make it poorer.

On Democracy versus A Representative Republic:

These strongly held views regarding the evils of democracy and the benefits of a Constitutional Republic were shared by all the Founders. For them, a democracy meant centralized power, controlled by majority opinion, which was up for grabs and therefore completely arbitrary.

In contrast, a Republic was decentralized and representative in nature, with the government’s purpose strictly limited by the Constitution to the protection of liberty and private property ownership. They believed the majority should never be able to undermine this principle and that the government must be tightly held in check by constitutional restraints. The difference between a democracy and a republic was simple. Would we live under the age-old concept of the rule of man or the enlightened rule of law?

After reading all these quotes, it's quite obvious to see why he never stood a chance to win the nomination for President.

He knows EXACTLY what is going on with the social engineering, power elite that truly run the country.

The fact that there is but ONE LONE VOICE in Congress, willing to speak these truths, and the fact that the mainstream conventional wisdom ESPECIALLY from so-called "conservative" Republicans that Ron Paul is a "crackpot" or "loony" does not bode well for the future of our country or Western Civilization.

**I call Ron Paul a RINO, or "Republican In Name Only," because we all know Ron Paul is NOT the party-line, "compassionate conservative," neo-con Republican typical of today's GOP. In fact, he's the only true Conservative/Classic Liberal elected to national office in the "Grand" Old Party today.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

The True Third Rail of American Politics

Many pundits and political commentators have called Social(ist) Security the "Third Rail of American Politics." For those that do not know what that means, it's an analogy to the third or middle rail of a train/subway track that conducts the electricity that powers the rail cars. The voltage it conducts is lethal, therefore "Untouchable."

It was once the conventional wisdom that trying to privatize or eliminate the Social(ist) Security entitlement program was the death knell to any politician's career...although it is now common knowledge that the program is in dire demographic straights, and it is perhaps not quite the untouchable program as it once was in the American political scene.

No, the real third rail is what No-Nonsense Man, Mark Rudov refer's to as "Invented Women's Rights."

From his review of the VP Palin - Biden Debate last Friday:

Among other accomplishments, Biden bragged to Palin that he had authored the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). No response from Palin. No response from moderator Gwen Ifill. But, that’s not surprising. Have you ever heard — just once — any law professor, politician, or talkshow host publicly challenge Joe Biden on this pernicious, misandrist, unlawful legislation-turned-industry? Never: invented rights for women are off the table.

This is EXACTLY how you know that RepuliCons and DemonRats are two sides of the same coin. As I wrote in my previous blog entry, The Politics of Marriage, some issues are NEVER discussed publicly in either RepubliCon or DemonRat forums.

While they argue ad naseum over issues like Same Sex Marriage (which affects what, 2% of the population?), the REAL problems with marriage - i.e. no-Fault Divorce, gender biased divorce courts, the unconstitutional actions of the family court system, the biased way in which child support and visitation violations are enforced all tells us just what is the true third rail of American politics.

No one dare touch the feminist entitlements that have become codified into American jurisprudence, which is why we owe an eternal debt of gratitude to the likes of Phyllis Schalfly for spearheading the effort to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment in the 70's...because, like VAWA, once an invented female right becomes law, it's nearly impossible to get it rescinded.

Thursday, October 2, 2008

VP Debates - Rooting for Palin!

I've now posted 3 or 4 blog entries critical of Sarah Palin and John they are simply the Republican arm of the Big Government/Big Media/Power Elite complex.

But I must say...I'm hoping that Sarah Palin cleans Joe Biden's clock in tonights VP Debate.

As I wrote about in my last post, Palin and McCain are not REAL defenders of the institution of marriage ...we all know that Joe Biden and his VAWA and IMBRA sponsorship is one of the biggest mangina, feminazi douche bags in the entire US Government.

Nothing would make me happier than to see Sarah Palin make him squirm and squash this feminist lapdog underneath her Moose-hunting boots!

You go GIRL!

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

The Politics of Marriage

I'm constantly amused whenever I get into debates, disagreements and arguments with people both in real life and on the internet, when it comes to politics.

To whit, there is plenty I have in common with "both" sides of the debate - and more for which I disagree.

Republicans, Democrats, the Bush Administration, McCain-Palin, Obama-Biden...too many people simply cannot comprehend the truth of American politics in 2008.

And the truth is this: Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin.

As I posted earlier about social engineering through the Dialectical Process, the so-called "two-party system" is the perfect means for which the power elite promote their agenda while the masses are distracted by the political theater of Democrat vs. Republican ~ Conservative vs. Liberal.

Case in point, the politics of marriage.

What is the primary problems facing the institution of marriage today?

Divorce, the welfare system and the family courts.

But what is all of the modern day political debate focused on?

Same sex marriage.

In this way, the truly devastating results of the decades-long war on marriage that has been carried out by BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS continues ever forward, while both sides for which the majority of Americans identify with continue the meaningless and insignificant battle over the issue of "Same-Sex Marriage."

While Bush and the Republicans pander to the right wing, religious evangelical conservative base with their "defense of marriage" by proposing the constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman...

...the liberal Democrats pander to their left-wing, feminist, secular and sexually libertine base to "fight for equal rights" for an "oppressed minority."

While both sides fight over this "IMPORTANT DEBATE ON THE STATE OF MARRIAGE" the REAL agenda continues to move ever onward.

And what is that agenda?

* The continued dissolution of the Patriarchal Modeled Family.

* The continued creation of single mother households dependent on either welfare or a child support system that is based on the enslavement, emasculation and parental alienation of hundreds of thousands of Fathers.

* The continued codification of laws like VAWA and IMBRA that blatantly violate men's constitutional rights and furthers the proliferation of unilateral divorces.

And what ties all this together? The very real goal of the social engineers responsible for creating this state of affairs: to empower the Government's scope and reach into the most personal of all places - the family.

As Stephen Baskerville writes in his News with Views column, How to Turn a Free People Into Slaves:

Divorce sends many harmful messages to children and future citizens: that we can break vows we make to God and others; that family members may be discarded at will. But among the most destructive are about the role of government: that government is their de facto parent that may exercise unlimited power (including remove and criminalize their real parent) merely by claiming to act for their greater good.

Take away dependence from a Father and transfer that onto the State...

Remember that it was one of the express goals of the Communist Manifesto to destroy the nuclear family.

So while Republicans and Democrats continue the charade of debating the "politics of marriage" in terms of Same Sex Marriage...the REAL THREAT TO MARRIAGE in the divorce industry designed for lawyers and government employees to profit from the demise of families continues to operate unabated, creating the next entire generation of children that readily accept the role of the government as the primary arbiter and control agent for every facet of their personal lives.

Finally, as we all know, many right-wing, conservative, religious folks that were contemplating staying home rather than vote for McCain, have all become energized and excited by his selection of Sarah Palin...

...folks, she is the PERFECT example of another "so-called" conservative "family values" Republican that actually has used the powers of the State and her position as Governor to commit the very same injustices perpetrated by unscrupulous divorcing wives and their lawyers in utilizing the legal system to destroy Fathers.

From Men's News Daily, 2008 Elections: Marriage-Absence, America’s Most Urgent Problem, Goes Ignored:

Unfortunately, Palin is not a pro-marriage social conservative. She is an alpha power-feminist who, in a divorce-related personal family vendetta, grossly abused her powers to influence a family law case and get her former brother-in-law fired from his job state trooper. We already have hundreds of alpha feminists tampering with marriage in Washington. We do not need one in the White House.

Party loyalists pretend this is a minor issue – which it most certainly is not. Tampering with court proceedings, litigants, witnesses, and evidence is a felony in most states.

Palin hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on her sister’s ex-husband because they were involved in a bitter custody dispute. Family law cases are classically won by hurling child abuse allegations and damaging the husband economically so he cannot afford to pursue the case. The PI came up with numerous allegations, including a serious child abuse allegation that Wooten used a taser on his child.

An internal police investigation found no wrongdoing on Wooten’s part, so the police commissioner refused to fire him. Upon election as Governor, Palin then pressured her newly-appointed Public Safety Director Walter Monegan to fire Wooten. Monegan refused, so Palin fired him.

The Chronology of the case suggests that Palin interfered heavily in the divorce case, injected very serious allegations against Wooten which were not found valid, with intent to influence the decision of the court.

False child abuse and domestic violence allegations are ruining marriage in America. Wooten was never tried or found guilty of child abuse or domestic violence. He was fired on allegations of improprieties.

Palin publicly pretends to be supportive of the father of her pregnant daughter, but quietly moved her daughter to another school to keep them apart. These are not behaviors consistent with one who believes in marriage or encouraging marital responsibility. Few teen girls get pregnant out of wedlock parents provide enough love, supervision, and guidance.

Tampering with family law court proceedings goes on every day in courts across the land. Horrendous feminist abuses of marriage will end only by firmly demanding that our elected representatives do not do it themselves. We should only support candidates who openly support “Responsible Marriage” reforms of federal laws.

Is Palin REALLY the "pro-marriage" anti-feminist many conservatives HOPE she is?

Somehow, I doubt it.