Thursday, May 31, 2007

When the sex offender is a woman

Anna Joy Walker

'Party Mom' Sentenced To 300 Days In Jail

(CBS13) MODESTO The so-called Grayson 'party mom' who had been accused of having sex with two teenagers and providing beer to several teens has been sentenced to 300-days in jail.

Anna Walker plead guilty to two charges of having sexual relations with minors in March. Under the plea agreement, Walker avoided prison.

Today a Stanislaus County judge ordered Walker to be immediately taken into custody. The judge also ordered her to four years of probation, counseling and to pay restitution.

Many parents were angry saying the sentence was much too light. "She is a molester. She is a child predator." one angry father told CBS13, "I said before, if this was a man do you think she would have got this leniency?" Under the charges Walker faced, she could have been sentenced to a maximum of seven years, eight months in prison.

And under the plea agreement because the victims were not under 14 years of age, Walker will not have to register herself as a sex offender. Another point that upset parents. "She's a sex offender in our eyes." said Tessa Garcia who child was one of the victims, "She did it once. She did it twice. She'd do it again."

Walker was arrested in January on allegations she bought alcohol for a group of teens during a party at her home.

Walker came to the attention of authorities after allegedly serving alcohol to a group of teens and forcing 13 of them to leave in a single SUV before her husband, an Atwater police officer, came home from work.

The driver, 18, crashed the SUV, injuring all its passengers.

Source: here


Wednesday, May 30, 2007

The matriarchy eats its own

DA: Woman accuses police chief of rape
Police chief denies rape accusations
staff reports Monday, April 23, 2007

Police Chief Bryan Smith denied allegations that he sexually assaulted a woman Saturday, saying the report was "false, vindictive and retaliatory."

"I have been falsely accused of sexual assault by a woman I formerly dated," Smith said during a press conference at his lawyer'>Smith said he learned about the accusations Saturday and is cooperating with the Texas Rangers' investigation into the matter.

"I have been falsely accused of sexual assault by a woman I formerly dated," Smith said during a press conference at his lawyer'>"I am confident that the investigation will exonerate me of the malicious accusation made against me," Smith said.

District Attorney Carlos Valdez said Monday his office is assisting with the investigation.

Valdez said a woman in her 30s said she was raped Saturday and went to an area hospital early that afternoon seeking medical care. He would not identify the woman or hospital but said standard procedures were performed to evaluate the woman's condition after she reported the incident to medical authorities.

Smith's lawyer, Tony Canales, said he believes the allegations stemmed from Smith's public proposal last Sunday to his girlfriend of five months, Patricia Zavodsky, at a Corpus Christi Hooks game.

Smith said he was taking a voluntary leave of absence until the matter is resolved and plans to use vacation days he has accrued.

City Manager Skip Noe said it is the city's normal procedure to wait until the results of an initial investigation before deciding if a city employee should be placed on paid or unpaid leave.
Noe said he learned of the accusation from Smith on Saturday afternoon after the police officer who took the report at the hospital called his supervisor who notified the chief.

Smith, 46, who has worked with Corpus Christi Police Department since 1981, was sworn in as chief in July after a nationwide search for a new chief.

Source: here

(Update: the grand jury has refused indict the chief for rape. I wonder how many regular Joe's get the same consideration from the matriarchy's grand jury?)


Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Just say no to the man tax

NCFM Opposes Harvard Economist's Sexist Man Tax

For Immediate Release

LOS ANGELES/EWORLDWIRE/May 16, 2007 --- The National Coalition of Free Men (NCFM), the oldest and largest men’s rights organization in the United States, vehemently opposes Harvard Professor Alberto Alesina’s recently-proposed man tax.(1)

"A man tax is as wrong as a Jew tax," says NCFM's Marc Angelucci. "They both violate the fundamental Constitutional right to equal protection by unfairly targeting a birth group for discriminatory treatment. "Even aside from equal protection, there is no justification for a man tax." Says Angelucci, men already pay more taxes than women, work more overtime, drive longer commutes, die younger and make 92 percent (2) of occupational deaths in order to provide for their families as they're expected to do.

"Men collect Alesina's garbage, clean his sewers and fix his streets so he can go to his ivory tower job and propose taxing men more." Alesina attempts to justify his "man tax" by citing the "pay gap," a mythical half-truth(3) that does not reflect male privilege but the female privilege of having more options than men. In his book, "Why Men Earn More," bestselling author Warren Farrell, Ph.D. demonstrates that: . At least 25 work-life choices lead to men earning more and women living more balanced lives . Women in surveys prioritized flexibility, fewer hours and shorter drives; men prioritized money . Never-married, childless women earn 17 percent more than their male counterparts . Women outearn men in at least 39 occupations, including science fields like aerospace engineering In what the New York Times called the "opt-out revolution," women are retaining and exercising their option to be primary parents and even seeking primary breadwinner men who allow them that choice. "Alesina's man tax is a hypocritical double-standard that promotes sexism, misandry and gender politics."

SOURCES 1. Alesina's proposal to tax males higher:
2. Men make 92 percent of occupational deaths:
3. Prof. June O'Neill, Ph.D., former director of Congressional Budget Office, refutes the significance of the "pay gap" in "The Gender Gap in Wages, circa 2000" (5/03), American Economic Review


CONTACT:Marc Angelucci

National Coalition of Free Men
P.O. Box 41291 Los Angeles, CA 90041
(818) 907-9383


KEYWORDS: National Coalition of Free Men, men's rights

SOURCE: National Coalition of Free Men

Source: here


Thursday, May 24, 2007

Female organized crime

Woman Convicted In Scam To Bilk AG Of Bogus Child Support Paymentsby Bob Dunn, May 23, 2007, 09 26 am

One of 13 women – arrested in a scheme through which the Texas Attorney General’s Office allegedly was bilked of $40,000 in fraudulent child support payments – has been convicted of engaging in organized crime.

Debra Hodge, 42, of Richmond, was convicted of participating in a scheme through which the women are accused of forging their ex-husbands’ names to stolen checks, then sending the checks to the attorney general’s office.

As the women all were owed child support, the attorney general is alleged to have forwarded more than $40,000 in payments to them before realizing it was a scam. Law enforcement sources said in June 2006 that attorney general staff learned their office had been duped about close to $50,000 in checks bounced.

Assistant Fort Bend County District Attorney Mike Elliott, who prosecuted the Hodge case along with Assistant DA Kristen Moore, said Hodge opened a personal bank account and gave blank checks to another co-defendant, who then forged the signatures of fathers owing child support to members of the group of women.

The checks were then sent to the AG’s office, and payments were sent back to the co-defendants, Elliott said

According to Michael Elliott, Chief of the Economic Crimes Division, Hodge and eleven co-defendants participated in an illegal scheme to defraud the Texas Attorney General’s Office out of thousands of dollars from September 2005 through March 2006. Hodge opened at least one personal bank account and gave blank checks to another co-defendant who would then forge signatures as persons owing child support.

These checks were fraudulently written for the benefit of other co-defendants and submitted to the Attorney General’s Office, who would then forward the payments to those co-defendants — who were all actually owed child support.

When they received the payments from the attorney general’s office, the co-defendants gave a percentage of their payments back to Hodge and other defendants who had supplied the blank checks, according to information from the district attorney’s office

Hodge testified in her trial that the checks were stolen and forged without her knowledge, Elliott said. However, further testimony revealed that she had never reported the checks as stolen.
The jury, in visiting Judge Neil Caldwell’s 268th District Court, convicted her late last week.
“The citizens of Fort Bend County were clear that they would not tolerate criminals stealing money which is designated to support our children,” Elliott said, “ and even minor involvement in a scheme of this nature will not go unpunished.”

All 13 women involved in the alleged scam are from the Richmond or Rosenberg areas. Law enforcement sources said they believe scheme was hatched in September of 2005 by Tonya Jackson, 32, of the Rosenberg area, whose case still is pending.

A grand jury indicted the women in June 2006, and the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Department began arresting them a short time later.

Once Jackson forged a check and found she would receive a payment from the AG’s office, “Tonya then went on to represent herself to other custodial parents as a worker for the Child Support Division and offered to help them in receiving child support payments,” according to sheriff’s report. “Once they received payment they would give Tonya half.”

According to sheriff’s reports, Jackson and others involved in the scheme opened bank accounts “for the sole purpose of issuing child support payments. The temporary checks issued from accounts with minimum deposits were later closed due to issuance of bad checks. Payments were also issued from accounts that were closed and/or had insufficient funds in the account.”
One law enforcement source said it’s possible to buy blank checks and software at a Wal-Mart store that will allow someone to print sequential checks with a routing number and account number of the buyer’s choice.

Source: here


Monday, May 21, 2007

This is happening in the U.K. but it could happen anywhere

Dehra Dowden;would you trust the look on this mug?

Barry Stack;financially raped

Warning to unmarried couples over home rights

Last updated at 23:43pm on 25th April 2007

Unmarried couples were warned yesterday of the financial pitfalls of buying property together after a landmark ruling by the House of Lords.

They were urged to draw up legal agreements to avoid costly legal battles if they break up - as joint ownership is not enough to ensure a simple 50/50 split of the property.

This is the same Law Lords that declared pre-nups void,well I guess only for protecting men and I'm sure they will find a way to fuck men on this too.

The warnings came as five Law Lords ruled that Barry Stack, a 51-year-old father-of-four, was not entitled to an equal share of the family home he had shared with Dehra Dowden, his partner of more than 20 years and mother of his children.

The Lords concluded that Miss Dowden, 49 - who earns twice as much as Mr Stack as an electrical engineer - deserved a larger slice because she had contributed more money to the purchase.

I'm sure if he made more money than her she would still get the larger size because of "all that she did for his career" and "the sacrifices she made" or some other rubbish.

Mr Stack now faces a crippling bill of up to £100,000 after losing his challenge against an earlier ruling that gave Miss Dowden a 65 per cent share of their £750,000 home.

The case could have consequences for millions of others as increasing numbers of couples buy homes and bring up families without getting married.

Partners who stay at home to look after the children, and therefore do not contribute as much financially, could also be forced into legal disputes over their property rights.

The case will serve as a further warning to the growing numbers of friends and relatives who buy property together.

According to the last census in 2001, one in six couples who live together are unmarried - a rise of 67 per cent in ten years. This figure is expected to rise to one in four by 2031.

But there are no clear laws setting out how assets should be split between such couples if their relationships break down as divorce laws do not apply.

In yesterday's judgement, Baroness Hale urged unmarried couples to sign 'declarations of trust' - making their shares in the property clear - in order to avoid expensive legal wrangles.

This is probably the cunt who ruining everything for men in the U.K.

She said: 'In family disputes, strong feelings are aroused when couples split up.

'These often lead the parties, honestly but mistakenly, to reinterpret the past in self-exculpatory or vengeful terms.

'They also lead people to spend far more on the legal battle than is warranted by the sums actually at stake.'

Baroness Hale also expressed concern that too many couples believed the myth of common law marriage, which wrongly assumes that co-habiting couples enjoy the same rights as married couples if they stay together long enough.

Lord Hope added that determining property rights in such cases had 'become an increasingly pressing social problem.'

William Selby-Lowndes, an expert on co-habitation family law, said: 'This is a warning for co-habiting couples that if they do not work out how they own any property together, it can be a very expensive and disappointing exercise when they separate.'

Mr Stack and Miss Dowden's relationship began in 1975 when they were both in their late teens.

They moved in together in 1983 when Miss Dowden bought a house in her name in Kensal Green, North London, for £30,000. She put down a deposit of £8,000 and secured a mortgage for £22,000.

Mr Stack claims that he made a contribution to the deposit which Miss Dowden disputes.

She also claims that he did not want his name on the deeds because 'he did not want the responsibility of the mortgage or household debts and running costs.'

Their four children were born between 1987 and 1991, during which time Mr Stack took a £24,000-a-year building job with a local council, where he is still employed. Miss Bowden earns £42,000 a year as an electrical engineer.

They used childminders and nannies to look after the children.

In 1993 the couple bought a home in both their names in nearby Willesden Green for £190,000. They used £66,000 profits from the sale of their previous home, a £65,000 mortgage and £59,000 of savings.

Miss Dowden repaid £38,000 of the loan while Mr Stack repaid the remaining £27,000.

When they split in 2002, a county court ruled that Mr Stack should get a 50 per cent share of the property. Miss Dowden took the case to the Appeal Court and won a 65 per cent share - £112,000 more than she was previously awarded.

Mr Stack went on to appeal to the House of Lords. During a four-day hearing in February, Miss Dowden said: 'Barry says £30,000 came from our joint savings. This is not true. We did not have a joint bank account.

'All the money was mine. I earned it from working hard at my job.'



Another false accuser

Sharon Owers

Woman 'cried rape to justify lover's attack on ex-boyfriend'Last updated at 00:51am on 12th May 2007

A woman falsely accused an ex-boyfriend of rape after her current partner beat him up, a court heard yesterday.

Sharon Owers told police that keen yachtsman Chris Sullivan had raped her on her birthday on a pontoon at Swanwick Marina, near Southampton.

However, she made the allegation only when she and boyfriend Craig Abernethy were being interviewed over a frenzied attack on Mr Sullivan.

A jury heard that CCTV footage and evidence did not back up the claim of rape and Mr Sullivan had a watertight alibi for the night in question.

Nevertheless, three days after that date Abernethy stormed aboard Mr Sullivan's boat and attacked him with a piece wood, Portsmouth Crown Court heard.

Mr Sullivan was initially held for a day in police cells after the 45-year- old Owers made the false rape allegations.

However, after police investigated further, Owers was charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice.

Stuart Ellacott, prosecuting, said that Owers may have invented the rape to get back at Mr Sullivan.

He said: "On the evidence gathered, and more crucially on CCTV, apart from a lady enjoying a party and having too much to drink, all that happened was Owers circuited around the boatyard, sat down and lay on the pontoon - nothing more than that.

"For whatever reason - a grievance going back a year or two, I know not - she made up an allegation of rape against this man."

The court heard that on June 21 last year, Mr Sullivan was on his boat in Woolston, Southampton, when Abernethy attacked him with a plank.

When Mr Sullivan reported the attack to the police, officers interviewed Abernethy and Owers, and the allegation of rape was made.

Owers claimed she left a pub in Swanwick at about 12.30am on June 18 and was raped by Mr Sullivan on a pontoon at the nearby marina.

In a video interview with police, Owers said: "I did not feel anything, I did not want to see anything, but I know he had sex with me."

But on the night in question several witnesses said Mr Sullivan was at the boatyard until the time Owers said the rape occurred.

The court heard Mr Sullivan told police that his 'volatile' two-year relationship with Owers had ended in 2004.

In a statement read to the jury, he said she was a heavy drinker and a 'free spirit' who would strip naked when she became drunk.

He said he broke all contact with her in 2005 when he realised she was seeing Abernethy and he had erased her mobile number from his phone.

Mr Sullivan said he felt 'sick' when he was arrested on suspicion of rape.

Owers, of Swanwick, denies one charge of intending to pervert the course of justice.

The case continues.

Source: here


Sunday, May 20, 2007


You guys are really helping out Angry Harry and that is great. However we must mount an offense to win as well that is why we are going to put Feministring and NYMOM as "worst blog of all time" and "most obnoxious blogger",respectively. So lets go after them.


Help out Angry Harry

As most of you know Angry Harry has been a very vocal MRA protesting the misandry in western society and taking feminism to task for the damage it has caused. Now Angry Harry's site is up for award consideration and he needs your votes to help him make it to number 1. A feminist site is currently number 1 and I'll bet you want to knock that one off the first place spot as soon as possible.

Blogger's Choice Awards


Friday, May 18, 2007

This guy doesn't like MRA's

Apparently this asshole doesn't like us because he deleted my posts from his comment section. Apparently he wants only those who subscribe to some santized view where men's rights are not allowed. Give him a piece of your mind on this.


Thursday, May 17, 2007

The feminist octopus

Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.

Duke Case Demonstrates Feminist "Justice"

April 30, 2007 at 6:46 am · Filed under Vox Populi, Feminism, Feminist Justice

The gravity of the Duke university “rape” case has been seriously underestimated, even by many of its staunchest critics. The corruption of the criminal justice system by political ideology is far more advanced than has been brought out by most commentators.

The central point to be made about this case is precisely the one even most critics have not raised: It is far from unique. If such a blatant injustice can be perpetrated against men whose case attracts vast media attention – the supposed “disinfectant of sunlight” – what befalls those who languish in obscurity, victims of rigged justice that is less palpable? “If police officers and a district attorney can systematically railroad us with absolutely no evidence whatsoever,” said one defendant, “I can’t imagine what they’d do to people who do not have the resources to defend themselves.” Not what they “would do”; what they are doing.

Conservatives who rightly decry judicial “activism” in constitutional law have trouble understanding the equally serious corruption of the criminal justice system. Long before the Duke case, Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton described this legal underworld in their brilliant but neglected book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice.

Michael Nifong fits precisely the profile of prosecutor presented by Roberts and Stratton. They show how prosecutors and the media collude to ensure their victims are convicted by public opinion before their case ever goes to trial. “News of a forthcoming indictment is leaked to the press to put pressure on the accused by tarring him in the eyes of his friends, family, employer, coworkers, and the general public,” they write. “The charges may be largely made out of thin air, but the prosecutor benefits from the public’s presumption that the prosecution has a case.” This describes exactly what Nifong did. The fact that other prosecutors initially defended him is an open admission that they do it too.

The single-minded hype of the racial dimension had made this case appear exceptional. But the far more powerful ideological force driving this and other miscarriages of justice is not race hatred but institutionalized feminism. Race demagogues like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are easy targets for conservatives, but they do not command the institutional clout to politicize criminal justice proceedings on a large scale. There is little indication that white people are being systematically incarcerated on trumped-up accusations of non-existent crimes against blacks. This is precisely what is happening to men (and even some women), both white and black, accused of the kind of family and “gender” crimes that feminists have turned into a political agenda.

For every Duke lacrosse player, there are literally thousands of innocent men forced to stare down the wrong of police gun barrels, hauled off in handcuffs, and incarcerated without trial – all for “crimes,” not only that they did not commit, but that everyone knows did not take place.

Rape accusations have long been out of control. Almost daily, as David Usher has pointed out, men are released from prison after decades of incarceration because DNA tests prove they were wrongly convicted. And they are the lucky ones. While DNA has righted some wrongs, the corruption is so systemic that, as the Duke case shows, hard evidence of innocence is no barrier to conviction. Even the Washington Post has documented how feminist crime lab technicians fabricate and doctor evidence to frame men they know to be innocent. Yet the Post and others invariably blame law enforcement itself. Few point the finger at the very pressure groups that create the hysteria over rape and push for more convictions, as if they are a virtue in themselves.

William Anderson of Frostburg State University and Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal have both pointed out the parallel between the Duke case and the child abuse hysteria of the 1980s and 1990s, where feminist prosecutors like Nancy Lamb in Edenton, North Carolina, similarly whipped up public invective against parents they had jailed yet knew to be innocent. “The press was transfixed” by Lamb, Anderson writes, “with her flashing eyes and bobbed hair. Lamb was speaking ‘for the children,’ you see, and the press adored her. That she was making preposterous claims and attempting to destroy the lives of seven people despite all good evidence to the contrary was not even discussed.”

Like rape, child abuse has been not simply blown out of proportion but politicized by feminism. This reached its apogee in the Clinton administration Justice Department. “From Janet Reno’s infamous prosecutions of Grant Snowden in Florida…to the McMartin case in Los Angeles, to Wenatchee, Washington in the 1990s,” writes Anderson, “the Edenton case was part of a line of what only can be called witch hunts in which state social workers badgered very young children until they came up with lurid tales – after having denied that those things occurred.” These social workers are, in effect, plainclothes feminist police.

The witch hunts were carried into adulthood through “recovered memory therapy,” another fraud perpetrated largely by feminist perversion of the psychotherapy industry, where wild, preposterous tales of childhood sex crimes were manufactured from a psychological theory. In Victims of Memory, Mark Pendergrast shows how the recovered memory hoax destroyed families, ruined lives, and sent innocent parents to prison.

But these are only the tip of the iceberg; at least they required convictions, however unjust. They are dwarfed by “crimes” in which men are removed from their homes and incarcerated without even a trial.

These are “domestic violence” accusations, where no evidence, formal charge, or trial are necessary for the plainly innocent to be hauled away in handcuffs. Defendants are passed by the thousands through mass processing centers that bear little resemblance to a court of law or receive summary punishment without the benefit of media scrutiny. Patently false accusations are not only permitted but rewarded in divorce courts, largely because they are effective weapons in lucrative custody battles that are the bread and butter for venal judges and lawyers, who do all they can to encourage more.

This is now so blatant that even the legal establishment has been forced to recognize it. “Michigan courts do not provide a fair, or impartial, tribunal for any domestic relations litigant,” according to Michigan Lawyers Weekly. “Instead, they customarily and regularly deprive litigants of due process of law.” It is now common knowledge that obviously trumped-up abuse accusations are frequently used, and virtually never punished, in divorce and custody proceedings. Thomas Kasper describes in the Illinois Bar Journal how knowingly false accusations readily "become part of the gamesmanship of divorce.” “Whenever a woman claims to be a victim, she is automatically believed,” says Washington state attorney Lisa Scott. “No proof of abuse is required.” Writing in the Rutgers Law Review, David Heleniak describes domestic abuse as “an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice.” Heleniak identifies six separate denials of due process in one state statute, which he terms “a due process fiasco”: lack of notice, denial of indigent defendants to free counsel, denial of the right to take depositions, lack of evidentiary hearings, improper standard of proof, and denial of trial by jury. One family court judge was caught instructing his colleague to violate the constitutional rights of male defendants. “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order,” New Jersey municipal court judge Richard Russell stated at a government training seminar recorded by the New Jersey Law Journal: “Throw him out on the street... They have declared domestic violence to be an evil in our society. So we don’t have to worry about the rights.”

Let's remember that when it's this asshole's neck in the noose.

Also similar to the Duke case, the open politicization of scholarship by domestic violence advocates with an ideological agenda is also simply accepted. Domestic violence has become “a backwater of tautological pseudo-theory and failed intervention programs,” write Donald Dutton and Kenneth Corvo in the scholarly journal Aggression and Violent Behavior. “No other area of established social welfare, criminal justice, public health, or behavioral intervention has such weak evidence in support of mandated practice.”

These are not the excesses most people associate with feminism, which is precisely why they receive little scrutiny or opposition and why the feminists have been able to wreak such damage.

Many were appalled that the Duke faculty should publicly demand that the lacrosse players confess – as if professors are prosecutors, judges, and jurors. Yet precisely this modus operandi has long characterized “women’s studies” programs, hotbeds of trumped-up accusations that have polluted the curricula of thousands of higher education institutions with political ideology masquerading as scholarship, turned students and faculty into police informers, and incited young women into believing that every personal hurt is a crime of “violence.” “If a woman did falsely accuse a man of rape,” opines one graduate of such programs, “she may have had reasons to. Maybe she wasn’t raped, but he clearly violated her in some way.” A Vassar College assistant dean thinks false accusations contribute to a man’s education: “I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women? If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’” Such views have long been dismissed as belonging to the extremist margins, but we see the fruits of them at Duke.

This is mob justice at its most incendiary, because it is perpetrated by the educated. It vindicates James Madison’s observation that “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”

Conservatives cannot afford to be smug, for many have colluded in this degeneracy of the criminal justice system. When it comes to anything labeled as “crime,” conservative skepticism crumbles. The demand for conviction becomes unanimous and unchecked by any voice of restraint or reason.

Conservatives are correct that criminals often go free. What many fail to understand is that this happens because of a politicized judiciary that also sends the innocent to prison. The acquittal of Andrea Yates, convicted of capital murder in 2002 after admitting to drowning her five children, is the other side of the ideological justice coin. Yates was defended by feminists like Rosie O’Donnell, who expressed "overwhelming empathy” with her, and by the National Organization for Women. "One of our feminist beliefs is to be there for other women,” said Deborah Bell, president of Texas NOW. "We want to be there with her in her time of need.”

More than a decade ago, Michael Weiss and Cathy Young warned of this trend in their Cato Institute paper, Feminist Jurisprudence. Seen in the larger context of feminist justice, the Duke case demonstrates that the corruption of the criminal justice system by political ideology is now the greatest danger to American freedom, surpassing both Islamic radicalism and government measures against it. Judicial corruption – where avenues of legal redress are not only blocked but turned into instruments of injustice – is the most debilitating corruption, because it cripples the means to redress injustice elsewhere.

But what is most alarming is the complacence. At one time, the incarceration of the knowingly innocent would have incited outrage from Americans, who were known, even among Western societies, as staunch defenders of civil liberties. Today there is little outcry. Few have been concerned to know if this case is typical of many more or why the criminal justice system of what was once the freest society on earth is so compromised that law-breaking officials sit in judgement on law-abiding citizens.

This is where “social” justice has led us. Decades of pursuing this illusory, subjective, and politically defined “justice” have left Americans so incapable of distinguishing guilt from innocence that we are now inured to the most open injustice.

Stephen Baskerville, PhD, is president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. His book, Taken Into Custody: The War against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, will be published in the summer by Cumberland House Publishing. The views expressed are his own.

Here are some of the comments I found interesting:

amfortas said,

The rot is so deep, the complicity so broad, the people involved so many, the length of time so long, the institutions infected from top to bottom so comprehensive and essential, that 'reform' will never happen. Far too many people have made their living from this systematic societal misery. They will justify and lie and claim to be 'obeying orders'. They are so guilty that they will never admit to their wrongdoing. So they will fight to preserve the rotteness.

Dr Baskerville and others who are ramping the arguements up to new levels, will not be given credence by those in power. Things will not change through arguement and showing the Truth.

I am a great believer in Truth. To believe that Truth matters is also to believe what happens when Truth is systematically corrupted. Society rots like an apple with worms. The apple cannot be rescued. It cannot be made whole again. It has to be thrown out.

The mendacious, the liars, the running dog lackies of the feminsts will never willingly give up. The worms. They are at all levels. They are everywhere. They control one another is an unholy informal alliance. They will continue their evil because there is no other way for them.
They will need to be overthrown. Burnt.

The apple sorter cometh.

April 30, 2007 at 8:25 am

It looks like what I said about revolution may be coming true. I talked about it here

mruffolo said,

Duke Case: Unusual Only Because The Prosecutor Got Caught

Since most of those falsely accused of rape lack the resources to defend themselves, the system convicts many innocent men. Even when the accuser later owns up, the system resists correcting the injustice. Consider Illinois' notorious prosecution of Gary Dotson. Dotson's accuser spent half a decade guilt-ridden over having put an innocent man in prison. When she finally confessed, prosecutors didn't want to hear it. They had reason to stonewall. State police forensic scientist Timothy Dixon had given perjured testimony.[1]

Wrongdoing by the city of Marlborough, Mass. resulted in a $13.6 million judgment against them for causing the imprisonment of an innocent man. Eric Sarsfield, who spent nearly a decade in prison for a rape he did not commit, says he and the rape victim were "manipulated, cheated, and betrayed by law enforcement officers more interested in closing a case and getting a conviction than in playing by the rules."[2]

Nifong is no "rogue prosecutor". In too many places in the country, Nifong's behavior is standard operating procedure.

Our system has become so disinterested in protecting the rights of the falsely accused that some people now think making false accusations is a good business plan. In Sacramento, Calif., Jessica Langshaw falsely accused three men of rape and five others of sexual assault in order to extort $500,000 from them.[3]

Objective research indicates that about half of reported forcible rape accusations are false.[4],[5] That also means that about half are true. A blanket policy of treating all accusations as true causes just as much harm to innocent people as would be caused if the policy were to treat all such accusations as false.

In a democracy, we get the government we deserve. Make your voice heard!

Last week we asked you to contact your Congressperson to ask if he or she has issued a statement about the Duke case. This week we'd like you to ask your two Senators the same question:

You can find both your Senators' phone numbers by going to and entering your state, or by calling the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.If your Senator has issued a statement, have them send you that statement, and then forward it and the Senator's name to not, politely request that your Senator issue a statement regarding the case.




4 McDowell CP. False allegations. Forensic Science Digest, Vol. 11, No. 4, December 1985

5 Kanin EJ. An alarming national trend: False rape allegations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994

April 30, 2007 at 9:41 am

Denis said,


Rule of Law, or Feminist Jurisprudence?

In 1780, John Adams of Massachusetts advanced the notion that the fledgling American democracy should be a “government of laws and not of men.” Indeed, rule of law is considered to be a prerequisite to democracy because it promotes fairness and justice. Rule of law rests on the notion that legal offenses should be defined by concrete actions and verifiable harms, and are amenable to subsequent legal verification or refutation.Beginning in the 1980s, feminist lawyers set out to reverse centuries of legal tradition.11

Attorney Martha Chamallas advocated that equal protection under the law should be phased out in favor of “an asymmetrical approach that adopts the perspective of the less powerful group with the specific goal of equitable power sharing among diverse groups.”12

April 30, 2007 at 10:08 am

scottkirk said,

the police in my town in effect, are arms of the women helping battered womens shelter...These women like mother figures come in and tell these boys that if there arresting more than 5% of women in domestic violence calls..that they must be doing something wrong...who put these women above the damn law...

April 30, 2007 at 6:45 pm

conservativation said,

It is the same dynamic at work be it gender or government philosophy or whatever. Assume for example that one is a conservative in the U.S. I've made a cursory study of publically available voting data and demographics, and the conclusion is this. Only about 12% of the American population is both informed and on the side I consider to be the right side...that being the conservative side. That speaks to overall government, entitlements, war, etc. Break away even further those who are aware of the MRA and it's issues and you are in low low single digits.Whatever your persuasion, the ignorant and apathetic constituencies are massive. It is deserving to blame ourselves as men for allowing this creep to occur, however now, it is so much more then a matter of combating wrong with right, or left with right, or whatever.Half our voting age populace doesnt vote....apathy and ignoranceThe other half is split left and right....On the left the portion of the vote that is utterly and hopelessly ignorant is truly frightening, they know it, and they use it.Our half, if I may say, has its share of uninformed voters as well, those being single issue voters, and the demographic that votes for purely stupid reasons, like the soccer Moms who liked Al Gore because he kissed his wife a certain way on stage at the convention. Those silly gals exist on the left and the right. In fact our local gal Joyanna is a diamond among this rough crowd, both well informed and well considered....if only more of her voted.

Now look to whats left, starting with 25% of the voting age population on the conservative side and eliminate the ignorant (not so many apathetic right leaning voters) and there is scant little remaining.

We are looking to expand the right to vote to felons etc. not contract it. No basic civil service test, no land ownership, no tax paying requirement, mainly no horse in the race EXCEPT what one can get FROM the government. These people are scary and dangerous, very. In my home town most people collect some kind of entitlement, welfare, disability SS (made up) etc. If asked they would say the govt has its own money, they can discuss this with me, a rare escapee, and not have a clue its my money they speak of...they havent a clue.The stupidity of the "undecided" voters is trotted out every four years, it makes my ears bleed to listen to them.

So as to the govt we deserve, thats a hard call. There are a few that deserve better then what we have, but most not only deserve what we have, they prefer it, because their nest is feathered another year.

Then come MRM guys, a loud and pasionate bunch, but like Custer, facing a sheer face behind us and an overwhelming army of those in opposition and their useful idiots charging at us.
There will be no convincing a man to give up his check, no way to pry the cold 40 ouncer from the fingers of the crowd at the c store parking lot, and no way to interupt their ex wife or girlfriend at home from what see needs and way.

We've read it in Theodore Dalrymples examples in the UK, which actually served to make me feek better about certain of our lower class problems here in the US. It is documentable, predictable, and unstoppable in the morass of a system that has manifested as a result of essentially ignorant people being given some sway over their lot at the expense of others.
Shame really, that the MRM issues are exactly driven by the same values that drive the conservative believers but we divide again by those who know and understand, and those who dont.

I used to think tere was a certain peace to the ignorant, but Ive seen the pollution and pain it brings, not just my life but my society.

We go round and round about men leading. There are so few of us who would even half way understand the issues that we are indeed completely swallowed up in the feminist socialist anarchist whateverist rest of the world as to need each of us to be Ultra Uber Mega Super Duper Leaders.

Almost tempting to sit and wait...isnt it.

May 1, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Source: here

Labels: ,

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Is feminism a legitimate movement?

No,no it isn't and I'll explain why it isn't. Women have never been oppressed so therefore a feminist or women's movement is not only unneccessary but stupid and reactionary.

But one may say: But Masc,wasn't feminism about equal rights and the same pay for the same work?

No,not it the U.S. anyway. You see the 2nd wave feminists marched in 1968 however women were granted equal pay by the Pay Equity Act of 1963 so to say that feminists marched in 1968 for equal pay is assinine because women were already paid the same as men for the same work and a law guaranteeing women that has already existed for 5 years in 1968.

Okay,Masc,why did the feminists march in 1968?


Abortion was the main theme for marching and it was the one thing feminists did not already have. The Supreme Court,piecing together constitutional rights that have nothing to do with abortion and unhampered by the fact that abortion flies in the face of the Constitution's right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness,especially life's,legitimatized abortion.

I don't want to talk about the morality of abortion as I will leave that up to you if you wish to respond to it and I will let the pro-life and pro-choice crowds argue that point. The one thing I wish to elaborate on is the sexist manner in which abortion,along with other reproductive rights,is denied to men. Now I'm not talking about putting a condom on it or taking other birth control measures short of vasectomy because in some jurisdictions a man cannot be granted a vasectomy without his wife's permission yet she can terminate a child against the father's wishes even though that is half his child and there is not a damn thing he can do about it and there lies the rub. Imagine that,a wife can determine if a husband receives a vasectomy or not,even though his reproductive equipment belongs to him alone but a potential father has no say,even though the kid is half his,in whether his kid is born or not and how he feels about it,whether he is distraught because the child he wanted is dead or he is forced to finance a burden he didn't want in the first place.

Then we come across the most hideous yet most honest form of feminism in the '90's called "gender feminism" but I believe it is just feminism being honest in being the female supremacist system that it alway tried to hide being. It is during this time the most misandry started that still haunts us to this day.

But Masc,how did this start?


Rewind back to 1848 when the first feminist conference met in Seneca Falls,New York that tried to sell everyone on the fact that women were oppressed.

Was this true?


In fact women enjoyed legal immunities that men never enjoyed,in that time or this one and none of the women in at this feminist conference could be said to be oppressed nor could they be said to be working women. No,they were women of lesuire that were the wives of successful businessmen who provided the means for these women to gather in one place and show off their lesuirely wealthy lifestyles while they bitched about how oppressed they were and they demanded the right to vote and they didn't care about legalities or what threats they had to use to carry out their objectives.

Now around WWI women were flexing political muscle even though they had not yet gained the right to vote in the U.S. The Women's Temperence Christian Union,which caused not only alcohol prohibition but outlawed prostituion as well making them 0-2 in a realist's eyes. This was done under the banner of "morality" but it in truth was more about preserving a monopoly. A monopoly on controlling pussy and free access to sex thus controlling men and the government helped them and this is before they had the legal right to vote. Don't try peddling that "women are helpless" line on me.

Then in 1919 they get the right to vote and that is when things change. Politicians catering to women and with men dying in wars,on the job and other ways mean that there are fewer men to cater to and now politicians don't even bother catering to us anymore.

So from 1919 to 1968,a span of 49 years,women's voices were heard and added to the political process just as men's were and yet being coddled they still screamed oppression,even though they were not drafted for Viet Nam the way men were,they were not labelled "cowards" if they didn't go and they were spared a lot of hardships men weren't. But I think the one thing that is annoying is "the white feather" women who would hand a white feather to men who could not or would not fight in a war even though these same women were exempt from going.

In 1976 the feminists pushed the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) which would have gotten women to serve on the front lines of a war along with men. Yep,you guessed it. This legislation was abandoned by the feminist's constituents so fast I don't believe the ink had time to dry on the proposed legislation and it died. So much for equal responsibility.

Now we come to '90's feminism,perhaps the most rotten apple of the bunch and the most contagious in the disease of "misandry" as misandry is now everywhere and running amok. It was about this time that various western governments enacted "safe haven" laws that allowed a new mother to abandon her baby in a hospital,police station or fire station or some other designated location without legal problems. On the other hand nothing short of death would excuse a father from his and the courts and society made sure of that.

Masc,why were the "safe haven" laws enacted?

In response to women abandoning their newborns in dumpsters and prosecutors were getting scared to try these women out of fear of angering the feminist hordes so the legislators came to their rescue to enact these laws to give women a "choice". Choice,now where have we heard that before?

Masc,did these new laws do anything to save newborns from being thrown in a dumpster by allowing women a choice?

No. No,they did nothing to allievate the problem since the problem was not being properly prosecuted in the first place.

Masc,how did '90's feminism really kick off?

Like anybody introducing a product or service you need good marketting to find a demographic to sell your product or service to and the feminist are no different in this regard. For feminists they are going to have to find the right victim to sell to the right demographic thus pushing their agenda.

Now all they need is the right person.

Enter Anita Hill.

Anita Hill alledged (lied actually and was caught lying by the Senate) that then Supreme Court hopeful Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her while he was her supervisor when both worked in the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) and that he made comparisons to himself and a black male porn star around her. Nevermind that Hill had truely sexually harassed one of her male students when she was a professor of law at Oklahoma University or that her character is in question. Nevermind all that. The feminist got what they wanted: sexual harassment became a household phrase and it became poltically viable as proposed legislation,which it did from state to state and on the federal level. Nevermind that "sexual harassment" because a source for women to blackmail men with. Nevermind all that,feminsts got what they wanted and that is all they cared about. Not only did they get their "product" (sexual harassment) passed by they also provide "services" (misandric services to brainwash women into believing they are victims) and have gotten the taxpayer (mostly men) to foot the bill.

Now,nearly 160 years later feminism,the female supremacist movement it truly is,had damaged not only the genders interactions with each other but has bankrupt society as a whole.

Feminism truly is the big lie.


Did you hear the one about the pay gap? Did you hear the one about the tooth fairy? It appears they are both just as accurate.

The Truth About the Pay GapFeminist politics and bad economics

Steve Chapman April 30, 2007

New Year's Day is called that because it begins a new year, and Thanksgiving has that name because it's an occasion for expressing gratitude. But Equal Pay Day, observed this year on April 24, is named for something that, we are told, doesn't exist -- equal pay for men and women.

The National Committee on Pay Equity used the occasion to announce that among full-time workers, women make only 77 cents for every dollar paid to men. The three leading Democratic presidential candidates have all endorsed legislation to fix the problem.

And the effort got new fuel from a report by the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation, which says women are paid less starting with their first jobs out of college, and that the deficit only grows with time. Pay discrimination, says AAUW, is still "a serious problem for women in the work force."

In reality, that's not clear at all. What we know from an array of evidence, including this report, is that most if not all of the discrepancy can be traced to factors other than sexism. When it comes to pay equity, we really have come a long way.

On its face, the evidence in the AAUW study looks damning. "One year out of college," it says, "women working full-time earn only 80 percent as much as their male colleagues earn.

Ten years after graduation, women fall farther behind, earning only 69 percent as much as men earn."

But read more, and you learn things that don't get much notice on Equal Pay Day. As the report acknowledges, women with college degrees tend to go into fields like education,psychology and the humanities, which typically pay less than the sectors preferred by men,such as engineering, math and business. They are also more likely than men to work for nonprofit groups and local governments, which do not offer salaries that Alex Rodriguez would envy.

As they get older, many women elect to work less so they can spend time with their children. A decade after graduation, 39 percent of women are out of the work force or working part time -- compared with only 3 percent of men. When these mothers return to full-time jobs,they naturally earn less than they would have if they had never left.

Even before they have kids, men and women often do different things that may affect
earnings. A year out of college, notes AAUW, women in full-time jobs work an average of 42 hours a week, compared to 45 for men. Men are also far more likely to work more than 50 hours a week.

Buried in the report is a startling admission: "After accounting for all factors known to affect wages, about one-quarter of the gap remains unexplained and may be attributed to discrimination" (my emphasis). Another way to put it is that three-quarters of the gap clearly has innocent causes -- and that we actually don't know whether discrimination accounts for the rest.

I asked Harvard economist Claudia Goldin if there is sufficient evidence to conclude that women experience systematic pay discrimination. "No," she replied. There are certainly instances of discrimination, she says, but most of the gap is the result of different choices. Other hard-to-measure factors, Goldin thinks, largely account for the remaining gap -- "probably not all, but most of it."

The divergent career paths of men and women may reflect a basic unfairness in what's
expected of them. It could be that a lot of mothers, if they had their way, would rather pursue careers but have to stay home with the kids because their husbands insist. Or it may be that for one reason or another, many mothers prefer to take on the lion's share of child-rearing. In any case, the pay disparity caused by these choices can't be blamed on piggish employers.

June O'Neill, an economist at Baruch College and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, has uncovered something that debunks the discrimination thesis. Take out the effects of marriage and child-rearing, and the difference between the genders suddenly vanishes. "For men and women who never marry and never have children, there is no earnings gap," she said in an interview.

That's a fact you won't hear from AAUW or the Democratic presidential candidates. The
prevailing impulse on Equal Pay Day was to lament how far we are from the goal. The true revelation, though, is how close.

Source: here

Labels: ,

Tuesday, May 1, 2007

Another false rape accusation

Tamara Anne Moonier

Great Dick, BabeGang rape or orgy? Let’s go to the video
By R. Scott Moxley
Thursday, February 9, 2006 - 12:00 am

You’ll never convince six lucky Orange County guys that porn is bad: a single raunchy sex
video is keeping them out of prison. Of course, these 20-year-olds couldn’t have foreseen
this fate when they filmed their wild gangbang after a night of drinking at a Fullerton bar.

This tale begins in the wee hours of June 6, 2004, when a distraught Tamara Anne Moonier
entered a Fullerton police station. She said she’d been kidnapped a few hours earlier from a
parking lot at Heroes Bar & Grill, hooded and driven to an unknown residence. Moonier, then
28, told police that a group of men brutally raped her at gunpoint for more than an hour,
forced her to perform numerous degrading sex acts on film, demanded her silence and then
released her.

“She said she feared for her safety,” a law-enforcement officer told the Weekly. With money from a victims’ assistance program, Moonier immediately moved from her Fullerton apartment to Dana Point. Meanwhile, alarmed police detectives used her descriptions to launch a manhunt. Within about a week of the alleged crime, Moonier had picked one of the suspects out of a photographic lineup. Eventually all of the men were identified.

But Fullerton police refused to file charges. The suspects had voluntarily turned over the sex video Moonier had described. It showed no gun, no threats of violence and no force. In fact, the woman not only directed action at times but complimented penis sizes,complained about the lighting, nonchalantly took a cell phone call during the gangbang,yelled, “Get it up!” when some of the men lost their erections, called herself a slut and demanded ejaculations—in her mouth.

She also laughed at least 27 times during the sex, moaned intensely when she wasn’t laughing
and cheered the men to sexual heroics with, “Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!” “I just like sex,” Moonier said at one point on the tape. “I can’t help it.” Deputy District Attorney Paul J. Chrisopoulos will use the homemade video as Exhibit 1 in his case against Moonier. Last summer, the Orange County grand jury, mostly retired folks,had the thrill (if you want to call it that) of watching the exploits of this petite mother of two children, then toddlers. They indicted her for filing false police reports,committing perjury and stealing funds from a taxpayer-funded victims’ program.

If Moonier and her public defender don’t gain their senses and seek a plea deal, a judge and
jury will soon view the tape. They’ll hear more than the following excerpts:

Male: I took your fucking pants down and started fucking you.
Moonier: You sure did!
Male: You liked it, didn’t you?
Moonier: Of course! [Laughs.] Did you?
Male: Fuck, yeah!
Moonier: All right then.

Male: You give good head.
Moonier: Thank you. I told you I’ve watched lots of movies.

To one guy unable to get an erection, Moonier said, “You’re fucking pathetic. You can’t get
it up. Forget it.”
Males: She loves this shit [sex].
Moonier: Yeah, I do. Uhhhhh. Very nice!

When one guy complained that Moonier’s teeth hurt his penis during a blowjob, somebody
slapped her butt. She responded, “Ouch! Fuck! That’s gonna leave a mark. You’re gonna kill
my game. Now I’m not going to be able to have sex tomorrow night. Damn you.” [Laughs.]

Male: How’s my dick feeling?
Moonier: Your dick goes great, babe!

During the gangbang, a cell phone rang, and one of the guys answered it and calmly talked to
a buddy. While Moonier had sex in the doggie-style position, the guy handed her the phone.
She didn’t scream for help. She said, “Hello? This is Tammy. Yes. He’s fucking me from behind!” The guy took the phone back and gave directions to the residence. Moonier simultaneously complimented one man’s penis: “Big and nice!” Later, she said, “How many people are we calling?”

Male: You know I’m a slut?
Moonier: Among other things.
Male: Right.
Moonier: Well, you obviously knew I was!
Male: Fuck, yeah!
Moonier: How could you tell?

During intercourse, Moonier said, “I have some work to do. Shut the fuck up. Shhhhhhh. Are
you the only one who can perform in front of an audience? The rest of them can’t fucking perform. [Moans.] Nice! Much better. Goes in deeper from this angle. [Moans again.]”

A male observer said to the guy having sex, “We can’t hear your balls slapping, come on!”
[The guy increased the speed of his penetration and Moonier moaned more.] The men cheered
their pal on: “Hit harder!” Moonier said, “Shut the fuck up so he can finish. At least somebody will get off tonight.”

While performing in the reverse cowgirl position (use your imagination), Moonier turned to
the camera and said, “This better not fucking end up on the Internet unless you’re gonna
give me some of the money!” Minutes later, she yelled at the guys, “Get it up!” And, “That
guy can’t ejaculate. . . . Yeah, you fucking gave up on me. . . . And this one can’t even finish either. I’m getting kind of pissed. I just want somebody to finish.”

Male: I want to slap your ass.
Moonier: I don’t need any more marks. You know what’s gonna happen the next time I hook up
with the fucking cops? They’re gonna want to know who the fuck I was with. . . . I’m fucking
three cops!”

Moonier: You gonna finish this time?
Male: I really believe she really wants to swallow [the semen].
Moonier: I always swallow. What’s the point? You’re gonna get some of it in your mouth
anyway. You might as well swallow. I’d be really pissed if somebody was going down on me and
fucking turned around to spit. That’s just not right. You have to swallow. That’s just how it is!”

You might be asking yourself: Why would a woman claim rape if she knew a video existed that
so thoroughly contradicts her story? If you can figure that out, please let us know. Even after police detectives told her they’d viewed the video, Moonier still refused to recant.

She continued to demand that the men be prosecuted. Next month an Orange County jury will hear the case against Moonier (now Kerr following her marriage). Interesting footnote: without the videotape, the men could have spent the rest of their lives in state prison if they were convicted of kidnapping and aggravated rape with a handgun. But the woman’s false accusation is a misdemeanor punishable by no more than six months in county jail. It’s only because she took several thousand dollars from a taxpayer-funded victims’ assistance program that she was charged with two felonies. If jurors aren’t impressed with her tale, Kerr faces a maximum sentence of 44 months.

Source: here

Labels: ,